Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Marquette: Gay Rights, Academic Freedom, Free Speech

What is happening at Marquette?

As the end of the year approaches and it's time to get out the checkbook for that annual donation, we have good reason to pause.

Political Science Professor John McAdams has documented some very troubling recent happenings that began in a Marquette University classroom.

Read: Marquette Philosophy Instructor: “Gay Rights” Can’t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students.

Cherly Abbate is a "doctoral student in the philosophy department at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin" and serves as the instructor for a philosophy class, "Theory of Ethics."

The problem: Abbate flat-out shut down discussion on gay rights, refusing to acknowledge a conservative student's perspective.

John McAdams writes:

A student we know was in a philosophy class (“Theory of Ethics”), and the instructor (one Cheryl Abbate) was attempting to apply a philosophical text to modern political controversies. So far so good.

She listed some issues on the board, and came to “gay rights.” She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”

The student, a conservative who disagrees with some of the gay lobby’s notions of “gay rights” (such as gay marriage) approached her after class and told her he thought the issue deserved to be discussed. Indeed, he told Abbate that if she dismisses an entire argument because of her personal views, that sets a terrible precedent for the class.

...Abbate explained that “some opinions are not appropriate, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions” and then went on to ask “do you know if anyone in your class is homosexual?” And further “don’t you think it would be offensive to them” if some student raised his hand and challenged gay marriage? The point being, apparently that any gay classmates should not be subjected to hearing any disagreement with their presumed policy views.

Then things deteriorated further as the student said that it was his right as an American citizen to make arguments against gay marriage. Abbate replied that “you don’t have a right in this class to make homophobic comments.”
Not surprisingly, the story went national.

I'm glad it did. Such an affront to free speech should receive attention.

Abbate's assumption that "everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it" is absurd.

Taking the topic off the table completely smacks of a reeducation camp in Mao's China.

Isn't Marquette a CATHOLIC university? I remember it used to be. I guess the Catholic identity is a little inconvenient. (Maybe if the Leftist faculty and authorities at Marquette ignore it long enough, it will just fade away. )

Abbate's argument that discussion can't occur because gay classmates shouldn't be subjected to hearing someone express any objection to gay marriage sets a standard that would stifle all discussion. The potential of someone taking offense to a topic is always there. It would be impossible to use that measure to determine what's off limits.

...The student first complained to the office of the Dean of Arts & Sciences, and talked to an Associate Dean, one Suzanne Foster. Foster sent the student to the Chair of the Philosophy Department, saying that department chairs usually handle such cases. The chair, Nancy Show, pretty much blew off the issue.

...So how is a student to get vindication from University officials who hold the same intolerant views as Abbate?
McAdams concludes:
Thus the student is dropping the class, and will have to take another Philosophy class in the future.

But this student is rather outspoken and assertive about his beliefs. That puts him among a small minority of Marquette students. How many students, especially in politically correct departments like Philosophy, simply stifle their disagreement, or worse yet get indoctrinated into the views of the instructor, since those are the only ideas allowed, and no alternative views are aired?

Like the rest of academia, Marquette is less and less a real university. And when gay marriage cannot be discussed, certainly not a Catholic university.

I have great respect for the student, fighting the good fight, not accepting being muzzled.

The notion that differing viewpoints will not be tolerated in some Marquette classes is extremely disturbing. 

It's also disturbing that McAdams is being attacked for exposing the truth.


Cheryl Abbate to Marquette: Silence Marquette Warrior

Politically Correct Marquette Faculty Attack Marquette Warrior

OK. Frankly, I'm tired.

I'm tired of fighting battles. I'm tired of hearing about battles being fought. I'm just really tired. Really, really tired.

But, such a glaring injustice as this needs to be addressed.

Shutting up students is not right. Shackling them intellectually is wrong.  Setting up politically correct barriers to oppress them is no way to enrich their minds.

McAdams points out:

All we did was to report, accurately, the inappropriate actions of Abbate in demeaning a student, and claiming that gay students should not be exposed to any arguments against gay marriage. It is true that, when the story went national, she was subjected to some nasty e-mails and blog comments (although nothing required her to read the blog with the nastiest comments).

But then we got nasty comments too. When one does something that gets national publicity, some jerks are going to say nasty things. Neither we nor anybody at Marquette can help that.

...If accurate reporting harms someone’s reputation, that is fair enough. And if accurate reporting harms Marquette’s reputation, that is also fair enough. The argument here seems to be that certain information needs to be concealed to protect reputations. No journalist would accept that. The rule should be “tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may.”
What should we do? Deny reality?


If the truth harms the reputation of an individual or a group of people or a university, then it does. That's the way the truth works.

Actions have consequences.

We're judged by what we do. We are what we do.

Deal with it, Marquette Leftists.

This Thought Police mentality at Marquette really ticks me off. It is so out of line. It's sad that Marquette has come to this, but it has.

Bottom line: The intolerance of the Leftists is maddening. Using their authority to attempt to silence students possessing views that run counter to the Leftist political agenda is disgraceful.

Why would I support an institution that operates this way, opposing free speech?

Write a check to the Marquette Fund? Really?

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Obama Ferguson Split Screen

This is an enduring image - Obama delivering his lame remarks after the Ferguson grand jury decision, urging peace, while the city erupts in violence thanks to agitators stoked by Obama and his ilk.

The split screen of the impotent Obama sharing many of the agitators' talking points as they carry out the plans they made long ago - to riot and destroy - was utilized on CNN and MSNBC and FOX. Americans of all political stripes were treated to the split screen.

MSNBC and CNN must be regretting that decision. It did not help Obama.

Only hours earlier, the Washington Post felt obliged to defend Obama in a Saturday Night Live skit.

Now, the same publication has to acknowledge that Obama's split screen moment was kind of awkward. Ouch!

Read: Why Obama struggled in Ferguson split-screen moment

Underlying any criticism of a split-screen moment is an incontrovertible fact: Commanders-in-chief are not the ones directing news broadcasts. They can control what they say — they can’t control the optics.
I think another fact-check is in order.

An incontrovertible fact: More than any other president in American history, Obama has managed to control the ones directing news broadcasts.

Obama and Ferguson: Issue For America

Obama says that being angry with the grand jury's decision in Ferguson is an understandable reaction.

OBAMA: There are Americans who agree with it, and there are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. It’s an understandable reaction. But I join Michael’s parents in asking anyone who protests this decision to do so peacefully.

What a powerful statement! Protest peacefully. What a leader!

Instead of leading from behind, Obama should have clearly stated that gunshots and arson and looting are totally unacceptable and illegal responses to a grand jury decision. He should have said that anyone engaging in such thuggery will be arrested for their crimes.

Obama is spitting in the faces of the members of the grand jury. He's saying they arrived at the wrong decision. He's saying our judicial system failed. Obama is stoking the violence, not quelling it. Anger at the grand jury and the American system is understandable in this case. Yeah, that will help to keep the peace.

It's not surprising that Obama's suggestion that people behave was disregarded.

Rather than heeding his call, they're telling him to shut the f--- up.

Obama's call for police to behave was particularly offensive.

OBAMA: I also appeal to the law enforcement officials in Ferguson and the region to show care and restraint in managing peaceful protests that may occur. Understand, our police officers put their lives on the line for us every single day. They’ve got a tough job to do to maintain public safety and hold accountable those who break the law. As they do their jobs in the coming days, they need to work with the community, not against the community, to distinguish the handful of people who may use the grand jury’s decision as an excuse for violence -- distinguish them from the vast majority who just want their voices heard around legitimate issues in terms of how communities and law enforcement interact.
Do most police officers in America work "against the community"? Is it really necessary for Obama to tell police to behave?

Not good.

I agree. It is an issue for America.

I guess the culture of victimhood and the promotion of dependence and helplessness doesn't work out so well, not in Ferguson and not in America.

Here's an idea: OBEY THE LAW. Act responsibly. Work WITH police to improve neighborhoods. Support and elect public officials interested in growing the economy and creating jobs rather than supporting politicians interested in creating dependence on government handouts.

Personal responsibility: What a concept!


The New York Daily News revealed some big time bias in its original headline of the grand jury decision in Ferguson.

KLLER COP NOT CHARGED: Missouri grand jury decides Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson WILL NOT be indicted on charges from fatal shooting of unarmed teen Michael Brown

That was changed to this:

FIERY RAGE IN FERGUSON: Missouri town erupts with arson, gunshots and looting following grand jury decision officer Darren Wilson will not be indicted on charges from fatal shooting

That headline presents a much different slant.

The focus is no longer on the "KILLER COP" shooting "unarmed teen Michael Brown," but on the violence being perpetrated by thugs.


The Packers really needed to beat the Vikings on Sunday.

We did!

I wouldn't say we crushed them, but we defeated them.

("We," like I was part of it. Well, emotionally, I was invested.)

Anyway, family members noticed the post-game Grape Crush that Aaron was chugging.

Was that a sort of subtle message?

Others noticed as well.

Apparently, Aaron just likes grape soda. It's his post-game thing.

I find "Grape Crush-gate" pretty funny.

Not that Aaron was guzzling a Grape Crush after defeating the "Purple People Eaters."

(I always thought that was a stupid name.)

It's funny the way sports fans get so weird about stuff.

I laugh at the way male friends and family members analyze and gossip about these goofy, little things.

Monday, November 24, 2014

SNL: I'm Just a Bill Cold Open

A rare thing: Saturday Night Live's cold open actually skewered Obama.

Everyone is familiar with Schoolhouse Rock and "I'm Just a Bill."

SNL looked at Obama's immigration executive order and criticized it, questioning the appropriateness of bypassing Congress and questioning the constitutionality of the order. It was actually amusing.

Here's video:

What's really hilarious is the fact that the Washington Post dissected the comedy bit to defend Obama.

This is no joke.

Zachary A. Goldfarb, Washington Post, writes:
Last night, Saturday Night Live's "cold open" mocked President Obama's new executive action shielding 4 million illegal immigrants from the threat of immediate deportation. To the tune of a "Schoolhouse Rock!" song, Kenan Thompson dresses up as a "Bill" and explains how Congress passes one. Until Jay Pharoah, playing Obama, pushes Thompson down the Capitol steps.

"There's actually an even easier way to get things done around here, and it's called an executive order," Obama (Pharoah) says. Bobby Moynihan shows up dressed as an Executive Order and sings, "I'm an executive order, and I pretty much just happen."

The Bill (Thompson) climbs back up the stairs and declares, "Look at the midterm elections. People clearly don't want this."

Obama is asked whether this is constitutional. "Of course," he says. "Presidents issue executive orders all the time." Then the Executive Order (Moynihan) starts singing, "I'll create a new national park ... or a new highway," and, keeping with the rhythm, the president adds, "or bring legal status to 5 million undocument[ed] immigrants."

The Executive Order then looks at himself and shouts, "Oh my God! I didn't have time to read myself. Woah!"

This skit got a couple of things right, and a couple of things wrong. For starters, Obama didn't sign an executive order. He is taking executive action, in particular by directing the Department of Homeland Security to expand programs that defer deportation for classes of undocumented immigrants — parents of U.S. citizens or permanent-resident children, as well as undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children.

...The cold open got the basic explanation of what the difference is between a law and executive order right. And SNL also is correct that more Americans, even if they support comprehensive immigration reform, don't believe Obama should do it by fiat.

As to whether the executive action is unconstitutional? That's a matter of debate, of course. Some House Republicans think so and may add a complaint to a suit they are planning to file challenging Obama's executive actions on his health-care law.
Isn't this insane?

This White House has hacks in the Leftist media "correcting" SNL.

"It's not 5 million. It's 4 million." It's an "executive action," not an "executive order."

The Post didn't point out that executive orders don't smoke cigarettes. Hey, you missed that one!

Thanks for the laughs, Washington Post!

Sunday, November 23, 2014

Jimmy Fallon: Obama Speech Spanish Translation

Spanish portions of Obama's speech, translations:

OBAMA: Even though we lost the midterms, I've still got the balls to do whatever I want.

OBAMA: But they've still got better security down there (on the U.S./Mexican border) than I've got in my front yard.

OBAMA: (So I'm taking action even though some people will say I don't have the authority to do that.) Haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.

OBAMA: I want to meet J-Lo. Her butt broke the Internet before there was an Internet.

OBAMA: These old white dudes (Republicans) are being total dicks.

OBAMA: In two years, I'm immigrating to a beach in the Virgin Islands, wearing a banana hammock and sipping pina coladas.

Saturday, November 22, 2014

John Kennedy Assassination - 51 Years Ago

It was 51 years ago today that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.

John Earnest - Obama Amnesty Doublespeak