Savant Satire

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James Robertson on April 30, 2012 at 11:59am

The Old Rubber Cross
By Mike Adams
4/30/2012 - Townhall

Dear President Ransdell:

As a supporter of Hilltoppers for Life, I am deeply concerned at the way its pro-life display was vandalized on April 20, 2012. I am perhaps more concerned with the way Western Kentucky University (WKU) officials have responded to this criminal action. As this story continues to unfold, the facts suggest that at least one WKU official knew in advance this vandalism would occur. Later, several officials did nothing to stop it. This is simply inexcusable in a climate of higher learning.

As you already know, Hilltoppers for Life erected approximately 3,700 crosses in order to commemorate the number of babies aborted every day in the United States. On the morning of April 20th, Elaina Smith, an art student at your university, began placing condoms on each of the crosses. Members of Hilltoppers for Life confronted her peacefully and asked her to stop. She simply refused to do so. This young feminist did not seem to understand that no really means no.

When campus security officers arrived, they did nothing. That bears repeating: The police simply sat there and watched her break the law. That kind of laziness is appalling. It makes me wonder whether your police have tenure. Unbelievably, Ms. Smith told them she was completing an approved art assignment by desecrating the crosses. And the cops actually bought her “my professor made me do it” defense!

Your April 24th statement claims that Ms. Smith’s professor, Kristina Arnold, did not really intend to target the pro-life display. Unfortunately, Dr. Arnold contradicted that when she told WBKO that she did not disapprove of Ms. Smith’s proposed vandalism. She admitted that she knew of it in advance and did nothing whatsoever to stop it. So who is lying? Is it you or Dr. Arnold?

Other comments indicate that Arnold actually condoned Ms. Smith’s acts. For example, she smugly stated, “Learning and debating are not always pretty or polite processes. Critical engagement with ideas can get messy.” But nowhere in her statements did she indicate that “critical engagement” also involves respecting the free speech rights of fellow students. Professors should also know that no means no.

While it is encouraging to hear you say that you and your fellow administrators value free speech, so far WKU’s actions have not demonstrated that it really understands the First Amendment. When student freedoms have been criminally violated, issuing private assurances and holding secret meetings falls short of the mark. You preside over a public university, not a secret society.

I have already seen some of the internal emails in connection with this unfortunate event. The most notable comes from Ms. Smith and contains the following admission: “During the week of April 16th, the Hilltoppers for Life’s pro-life display remained un-interrupted. The student body tolerated this intrusion without major incident. The voice of the pro-life community was heard. On the last day of this event, I attempted to add to the visual dialogue with my own voice and was met with strong resistance.”

The very idea that one of your university students deems others’ speech as an “intrusion” and the desecration of other people’s property as an attempt “to add to the visual dialogue” is simply dumbfounding. This makes perfectly clear the need for immediate action in order to correct her fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between vandalism and free speech.

Accordingly, I suggest that Dr. Arnold’s art students be sent on a series of assignments – for full academic credit – that will help them better appreciate the difference between protected speech and unprotected violations of the Kentucky criminal code. The following assignments should teach them that their actions are not always protected – even when they are in possession of 3700 condoms:

*Go find Elaina Smith’s Prius in the WKU parking lot. Adorn it with 3700 “Abortion is Murder” bumper stickers. Then ask whether she thinks the stickers “add to the visual dialogue” on the abortion debate.

*Go find Dr. Arnold’s office on the campus of WKU. Adorn her door with 3700 pictures of aborted babies. Then ask whether she thinks the pictures “add to the visual dialogue” on the abortion debate.

*Photo-shop a picture of Jessie Jackson holding a condom saying “Don’t be like me. Suit up and avoid an unexpected love child.” Tape the picture on the door of the African American Center. See whether this visual creates a better dialogue.

*Next, photo shop a picture of the prophet Mohammad with a condom over his head. Tape the picture on the door of the Muslim Student Association office. See whether you can get the NEA to defer your costs.

*Next, go to the campus Gay and Lesbian Center. Burn a rainbow flag just like the hippies who burn the American flag. And make sure it’s their rainbow flag. Remember to tell them you are just trying to expand the visual dialogue – even after the room is filled with smoke!

I can imagine no better way to promote equality and learn about the First Amendment all at once. Just have your students insult everyone while trespassing on their personal property. If people get angry, that’s their problem. Learning is not always pretty and polite. And critical engagement can sometimes get messy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Robertson on Saturday

The Education Game ("Dum & Dummer")
RantRave.com ^ | May 24, 2012 | Bruce Deitrick Price

Instructions: Dum & Dummer is an exciting board game for multiple players. You start the game as a curious, moderately intelligent student about six. The object of the game is to be dumbed down. Don't worry, you will win. Congratulations! Winning is good for your self-esteem.

To maximize your chances, simply follow these simple strategies:

Don't learn any basic knowledge. (Who needs it?)

Don't learn to do arithmetic. (Boring!)

Don't read. (Why bother?)

Don't learn geography. (What's that got to do with you?)

Don't learn any history. (That's so lame.)

Don't learn any science. (It's way too hard.)

Don't learn spelling, grammar, or cursive handwriting. (Really, really boring.)

Don't memorize any new facts. (Waste of time.)

Don't study a foreign language. (Duh!)

Don't learn to work alone and think for yourself. (Remember, freedom is a burden you don't want. You're better off being part of a group. That's the winning strategy.)

--

Are these strategies difficult to follow? After all, learning facts might seem to be fun. Mastering new skills could appear enjoyable. Careful. You may be tempted to pursue a losing strategy.

Not to worry! There may be tight situations and close calls. That's part of the fun. But here's a little secret. The game has been designed to make sure you win, no matter how many years it takes. That's good to know, isn't it? Just relax, take it easy, let victory come to you. All the experts agree: dumb is the most fun of all.

Welcome to America's #1 Game.

----------------------------------------

Project Notes / Confidential / FOR YOUR EYES ONLY

Some observers think the game's smooth play is an accident or a lucky break. Almost every player ends up dumber than most professionals once dared to hope.....

ARTICLE CONCLUDES BELOW

(Excerpt) Read more at rantrave.com ...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Robertson on Monday

Amarillo By Morning (Smith and Wesson on My Mind)

Mike Adams - May 28, 2012 - Townhall

I never travel without a loaded gun. I usually carry a Smith and Wesson Model 640 in a bucket in the trunk of my car. Sometimes I carry a Glock Model 23 instead. I was really happy I was carrying the former when I arrived at my hotel room in Amarillo last week shortly after midnight. As I was unpacking my trunk, a man came walking across the parking lot from an adjacent hotel. His largely incoherent introduction began something like this:

“Hey, I’m a big scary black man and I need some help. Won’t nobody help me ‘cause I’m a big scary black man. I ain’t gonna hurt ya (pulls out wallet). See? Here’s my ID. I’m a preacher and I got kicked outa my room. I ain’t no beggar. I just need $12 or I’m gonna have to sleep in the parking lot. I’m stayin’ right over there (points to adjacent hotel). Theys a woman and a child that’s gonna have to sleep in a car if don’t get $12.”

I detected a slight stumble as the man was walking toward me talking. It took very little insight to detect that he was no preacher and that the money was not needed to pay off a $12 balance in order to get re-admitted to his hotel room. So I turned back toward my trunk and continued unpacking.

The final part of my unpacking ritual involves securing my firearm, which I always take with me into the hotel room. I always reach into the bucket, take the gun out of the holster, and slip it in my pocket on my left hand side (I ‘m a southpaw). It just so happened that the stumbling “preacher” was approaching from my left hand side and could see my hands clearly as I was unpacking.

Shortly after I secured all of the items from my trunk, the stumbling “preacher” shouted, “Oh, mercy! Can’t a black man get a break?” He threw his hands in the air and then turned around and walked hurriedly towards the adjacent parking lot. I had substantially more than $12 worth of cash on me that evening (actually it was early morning). I made it to the hotel room before I had to pull either the wallet or the gun out of my pocket.

The man who approached me in the parking lot that evening did three things that I consider to be morally reprehensible. Although he did not split a single infinitive, his actions are worthy of condemnation for the following reasons:

1. He invoked race where it was irrelevant.

2. He falsely claimed to be a member of a noble profession.

3. He pretended to be acting on others’ behalf while he was acting in his own selfish interests.

Fortunately, I have been a handgun owner since 1993. I also obtained my concealed weapon permit in 1997. At no time since then have I been robbed or assaulted. Nor have I even had to fire a shot, point a gun, or verbally threaten a person to secure my safety.

My experiences as a handgun owner have been no aberration. States passing concealed carry laws have seen significant decreases in predatory crime. Academic studies have also demonstrated that these decreases are statistically significant even after controlling for variables that might otherwise explain the reductions in crime.

To date, there have been 16 refereed studies that have concluded that violent crime goes down as a result of concealed carry laws. About 10 refereed studies have shown the results of concealed carry laws to be inconclusive with regard to violent crime. No refereed studies – I repeat, zero refereed studies – have shown that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons increases the rate of violent crime.

Sadly, most of these refereed studies have been conducted by economists interested in cost/benefit analysis on matters of public policy. I used the word “sadly” because the question of the effects of gun laws on crime is a matter that falls squarely within the discipline of criminology, which is a branch of the larger discipline of sociology. Yet criminologists and sociologists generally shy away from the issue. Their inactions are worthy of condemnation for the following reasons:

1. They invoke race where it is irrelevant. Too many “social scientists” ignore citizens’ legitimate concerns over their safety and well-being. Those who would like to carry a gun lawfully are often dismissed as having an irrational fear of people or color.

2. They falsely claim to be members of a noble profession. In addition to avoiding doing research on gun ownership, most “social scientists” are not familiar with the results of studies on the topic. To ignore science and hold oneself out as a scientist is simply wrong.

3. They pretend to be acting on others’ behalf while acting in their own selfish interests. Sociologists are opposed to rape. But they are overwhelmingly opposed to concealed carry laws that reduce rape. Clearly, they have decided that they are more interested in preventing an assault on their worldview than in preventing assaults on innocent women.

Put simply, the time has come for these “social scientists” to stop acting like bums and become productive members of society. It may be true that they have families to feed and nowhere else to go. But we can’t keep giving them handouts forever.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Robertson 10 hours ago

Mike Adams - May 30, 2012 - Townhall
Sometimes You Feel Like a Nut (Sometimes You Are)

Author’s Note: The following column contains language that is likely to be offensive to some. It also contains content that is guaranteed to be offensive to everyone with common sense.

Any guy who calls himself “Jennifer” is likely to be high-maintenance. Jennifer Braly, a student who has male genitalia, complained to the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith (UAFS) about his inability to partake in a "pom squad tryout." As a result, UAFS changed its policy to accommodate males who want to try out for the pom squad – simply because they think they are females. The University of Arkansas system hasn’t gone to such lengths to accommodate a sex pervert since they agreed let Bill Clinton teach constitutional law at the Fayetteville campus.

Of course, we all know how the university’s capitulation has played out: it has resulted in the 38-year old Jennifer Braly demanding to be allowed to use all the women’s restrooms on campus. This is problematic because Jennifer has had a name change but not a sex change. Generally speaking, college girls don’t expect to see someone pull out a penis in the women’s restroom – unless of course it’s the women’s restroom at a frat house on a Saturday night.

After initially being denied access to the women’s restroom, Braly turned to Attorney General Holder for help. And he responded to the deranged damsel in distress. A letter from the Department of Justice (DOJ) has now caused UAFS to reverse policy and allow Braly permanent use of women's bathrooms on campus. This is despite fervent and understandable opposition from female students. It is also despite the fact that Braly is the only one to have filed such a complaint at UAFS.

It is worth noting that Braly not only calls himself "transgender" but also admits that he is afflicted with a "gender identity disorder." The fact that he is currently raising money online for sex re-assignment surgery makes it indisputable that he is mentally ill. What is curious is the DOJ decision to side with an obviously mentally ill student against the backdrop of numerous complaints from normal – and not imagined – women who would prefer not to see Braly’s penis the next time they use the women’s restroom. Braly belongs in a mental institution. But I guess an American university is a suitable substitute.

This whole situation is all the more ridiculous given that the university has several gender-neutral bathrooms Braly could use instead of invading the women's restrooms. Of course, that option wasn’t good enough for Braly who complained online that “(T)here are not unisex bathrooms in every building. Especially the two main buildings where most of my classes are, so I have to go to a completely different building to use the restroom." The university offered to convert more current bathrooms into gender-neutral restrooms. But the 38-year old Braly was still unsatisfied. And he decided to sue.

The decision of the DOJ to make this a federal civil rights issue is disturbing. And, naturally, many of us who are aware of the case are also interested in seeing the letter DOJ sent to UAFS. But neither the DOJ nor UAFS are releasing that letter. My friends at Campus Reform have tried but to no avail. So I have decided to intervene.

My approach to dealing with the DOJ will simply be to pull rank on them. Although I never finished law school, I’ll pretend to be a lawyer. Although I’m not a lawyer, I’ll pretend to be a judge. In fact, I’ll pretend to be the most powerful judge in the land – the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Next, I’ll write a letter to Attorney General Holder explaining that he must reverse himself on the Jennifer Braly bathroom mandate (or is it a woman-date?).

It really makes sense to shoot high when you’re pretending to be something you are not. I just hope that when Jennifer Braly has his penis removed it isn’t reattached to his forehead. I’d hate to see a unicorn using the unisex bathroom.

Another Author’s note: Check www.CampusReform.org for updates on this developing story. And, ladies, check the lock on the stall the next time you use the ladies restroom on a college campus. The next civil rights sit-in might not be one you want to witness firsthand.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page