Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Coo-Coo On Campus

America’s universities have gone crazy. Decades of dubious African-American Studies, Queer Theory Studies, Womens’ Studies, Gender Studies, and the like have produced a nearly uniform dippiness in students, faculty, and administration. That students and their parents would spend upwards of $50,000 per year to study such things is bad enough, but that’s their business. That government spends our tax money on them in the form of grants and subsidized loans is far worse.
Those applying for admission to the University of California are asked to identify themselves as either “male; female; trans male/trans man; trans female/trans woman; gender queer/gender non-conforming; and different identity.” They’re asked their sexual “orientation,” which assumes they were born either homosexual or heterosexual, but it also asks: “what sex were you assigned at birth, such as on an original birth certificate?” This is reflective of the assumption among progressives that homosexuals are born that way, but men and women are not.
According to the progressive mantra, sex has nothing to do with genitalia, chromosomes, anything physical or scientific, and has little to do with reproduction either. Rather, it has everything to do with feelings. Feelings trump logic, history, biology, evolution, and creation. 
Speaking of feelings, students attending at least twelve campuses experienced panic attacks recently, triggered by seeing “Trump 2016” and “Build The Wall” drawn in chalk on a sidewalk. According to campusreform.org, the “victims” who read these messages have been offered counseling. Administrators have banned political chalking entirely. Students complained about how much water is wasted to hose off the chalk.
He's talking about seeing "Trump 2016"in chalk on his campus

There was some craziness when I attended what is now UMass Lowell in the 1970s. A professor recruited me to attend a class called “Sociology of Women and Sex Roles” because no men signed up and she wanted some male perspective in discussions. I didn’t have to do the reading and I only had to show up twice a week though the class met three times. I had a full-time job on the second shift and couldn’t make the third class. One of the books we discussed was “The Bitch Manifesto” which was still being studied in 2007 according to a quick net search. I wouldn’t be allowed in today without first renouncing my heterosexual-white-male-privilege.
It got crazier in the 1990s when my wife finished her undergraduate degree in Social Work at the University of Southern Maine. I accompanied her to a graduation party in Scarborough where several lesbian graduates lived, one of whom was her friend. Upon arrival, attendees were assigned badges declaring whether we were gay, straight, or bisexual.
In 2010, I wrote what I considered a tame review of Eve Ensler’s play The Vagina Monologues but I it got me fired from one of the papers carrying this column. The publisher received so many complaints about my use of the word “vagina,” he said he couldn’t defend me anymore. It didn’t seem to help when I explained that those readers’ taxes subsidized the play when it was produced annually on multiple campuses of the University of Maine, not to mention hundreds if not thousands of other campuses across the country. I was hired back a few weeks later when the controversy died down.
Science departments used to be anchors of sanity at universities. They’re infected now too by millions in government grants for dubious research on alleged human-caused climate-change. I hope I live long enough to see the day when it’s finally exposed for the power-grabbing hoax it is. I also look forward to Mark Steyn’s day in court, the legal preliminaries for which have dragged on for almost five years. Penn State University climatologist Michael Mann, author of the infamous hockey-stick graph purporting to demonstrate anthropogenic global warming, has sued Steyn for defamation after he accused Mann of fraud. Steyn refused to apologize and wants a trial to further expose Mann’s specious research. Given Steyn’s brilliant mind and biting wit, that promises to be the best legal theater since the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Mark Steyn

I wanted to get this out before Maine Attorney General Janet Mills comes after us climate-change “deniers.” Together with sixteen other Democrat AGs around the country, Mills is on a witch hunt to criminalize research into what they all insist is “settled science,” as if there were any such thing.
Political correctness on campus has gone way beyond ludicrous. One longtime friend who is very loyal to his alma mater was pushed over the edge when its administration dictated which Halloween costumes were allowed and which were not. He’s a thoughtful guy and has been left-of-center for the many decades I’ve known him. Now, however, he’s supporting Donald Trump in hopes that he would counteract it. I was shocked.
Around, around, and around it goes. Where it stops, nobody knows.

Addendum: Response by Michael Mann in Conway Sun, one of the papers carrying this column:


21 comments:

Yahweh said...

Logic would dictate we look at who controls the information released via the media, i.e. the entertainment industry ( including pornograpgphy) and the network "news" which isn't and hasn't been the "news" in decades, just a propaganda machine pushing this transgender bs. So, who is it that owns the media Tom? Who is responsible for making "transgenderism" a topic of discussion at all?

bc64a9f8-765e-11e3-8683-000bcdcb2996 said...

I never see any annual, mandatory attendance, productions of "Oleana", by recovering (what are we calling such folk THIS week?)progressive activist David Mamet.
But...you know..."diversity" no longer means diversity of ideas,and "critical" has evolved into oppressive, threatening, racist, misogynist, incendiary.
Oh well, as long as those sweet sweet student loan, "out of state", out of country, dollars flow in, from folks who don't know any better, by definition ("students" are still learning...right?)...then all is good.
Sadly, you've used some dog whistle words in your thesis. I suspect the dogs will respond by barking in the manger.(Pavlov? Dunning-Kruger?) You might as well said "NO! I WONT give you a free pony!".
I'll just cue up "Indian Love Call" (Whitman)for NOW.
CaptDMO

Tom McLaughlin said...

Oh the homo harpies will be along all right. They'll again suggest I'm a latent homosexual because I included a pic of one who they insist was born that way. It's their duty to their cause. As loyal foot soldiers, they cannot allow an article like the above to exist uncontested.

Anonymous said...

Tom Said: "I hope I live long enough to see the day when it’s finally exposed for the power-grabbing hoax it is. "

Well if you don't, Tom, your granddaughters certainly will. And just imagine their disgust when they realize that their very own grandfather ignored science and instead sided with the power and money grabbing Oil Industries who didn't want their profits to go down at the expense of the planet and people's health. I'm sure the grandchildren will be befuddled that people like you did not learn from the earlier example of Big Tobacco lying and denying science at the expense of people's health. Fool me once...

Peter said...

It is very puzzling to me why some people act like there is no possibility whatsoever that people might be born gay. What facts and science is this being based on? If you want to dismiss scientific evidence that suggests people are born gay, and dismiss what gays have to say about the matter, and the struggles they have to endure because they are gay, then fine. But what is the compulsion to constantly be harping on, and taunting, these people? What is your fascination all about?

I feel strongly about this issue because I had a family member, who after years of self-hatred and shame, and constant struggles to rid himself of his homosexuality, committed suicide in the 1970's. He was brought up in a religious household and could not not handle the guilt.

Snarky comments, based on nothing but pure opinion, do nothing to help anybody. But they can really hurt tremendously.

I just don't see the point.

Peter said...

http://www.livescience.com/50058-being-gay-not-a-choice.html

Tom McLaughlin said...

I read the article and I'm unpersuaded.

One point here is to counteract the overwhelming pressure the homosexual lobby puts on organizations like the American Psychiatric Association. Militant homosexuals flooded its 1973 convention in Washington to shout down speakers saying things they didn't like and strong-armed the APA to drop homosexuality from the DSM as a mental illness. Recently they've pressured legislatures for reparative therapy to be outlawed in California and New Jersey. it's not about science for them. It's all about intimidation.

Now that the American College of Pediatricians has come out against hormonal and surgical alterations of children confused about their sex, they're being targeted. The homosexual lobby is not about science. It's about power. It's about instilling fear.

They've forced people with traditional viewpoints on homosexuality out of graduate programs in social work and other professions. With their enormous influence on universities, they strongly discourage studies about victims of child sexual abuse and their propensity to become homosexual as adults. It's never mentioned though it's likely the biggest single factor. It doesn't fit the narrative. It goes against their "Me too!" piggy-backing onto the Black Civil Rights Movement which has been so successful.

With their growing influence on public schools at all levels, kids are encouraged to explore homosexuality. Many of my former students of both sexes have declared themselves to be "gay" thinking it was cool to do so, and later married opposite sex partners and had families.

Mostly, it's the lying and bullying I see from the homosexual lobby. It's that so few dare to defy it. That's why I return to the issue -- because it's alway in my face. They're constantly pushing it. I just respond. They more they, and you, try to shut me up, the more I'll write about it. Haven't you figured that out by now?

I could go on, but those are just a few of the "points."

Tom McLaughlin said...

However, I do believe it's possible that some people might be born homosexual. The evidence so far is weak.

Peter said...

Tom, I can accept that you are not "persuaded" by the article, but can you point me in the opposite direction. That is, what persuaded you to whole-heartedly, and without any doubt or reservations whatsoever, to believe that it is a choice? It must be very solid evidence to make you so darn sure of yourself.

As for homosexuals flooding conventions and shouting down speakers, and pressing for legislation (how dare they!) what is wrong with that if it was not a choice for them? In that case it would be similar to sit-ins and other protests for civil rights in the 60's. And I agree that it is not about "scientific evidence" to them, it is about what they truly and deeply feel, what is real to them. Yes it is about "power" to them. The power to be treated fairly, and nonjudgementaly. About "fear"? How about the fear drilled deep inside of homosexuals from a young age that they are freaks, sinners, faggots who can be bashed and laughed at, and perhaps dragged behind a pick-up. That is real fear.

They have forced social workers out of jobs? I bet there were those that complained that the Emancipation Proclamation forced whip makers out of jobs.

Can you give me more detail on how kids are "encouraged" to explore homosexuality?

And yes, Tom, there are many kids who may flirt with the taboo of "being gay". But they aren't the ones who have felt it since early childhood, ones who have always identified with being the opposite sex. And Tom, I hate to break it to you, but many, many gays get married to the opposite sex and have a family, due to social pressures or the desire to have kids. But getting married does not change their gayness.

One more question. I live, more or less, in the same neck of the woods as you. How is this issue always "in your face"? I never encounter it anywhere around (Unless I read your column). Where are you going, and how are you encountering this exactly?

I am not trying to "shut you up", I am just trying for civil discourse. Since you admit that, at least for some, gays may be getting a raw deal, and unfairly getting mocked and demeaned, why wouldn't you act accordingly and be more empathetic to their struggles? Why just assume the worst about them all?

bc64a9f8-765e-11e3-8683-000bcdcb2996 said...

I'm just not seeing the part where our host is assuming the worst of "them all".
I AM seeing the part where he seems to have criticism for those folks so desperate to
ruin other folks pursuit of happiness, and civil public discourse, with never ending
DEMANDS for MORE "special" attention.
SEE: The Fisherman's Wife-Aesop.
Rather than feign ignorance concerning "born homosexual" with requests for labor intensive "further citations", I understand that Google/ Wiki/AOL/Firefox/etc./ad nauseam, have a service where popping in a keyword or two will produce ESSAYS worthy of College Thesis worthy citation notes/hyperlinks to plagiarized "evidence", or even simple opposing "scientific" (as scientific as psychology can pretend to be) viewpoints.
If you STILL "don't see the point", there are MANY safe space sites on the web.
Which brings me full circle to "Oleanna"-David Mamet.
EXTRA CREDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_Bull
CaptDMO

Peter said...

What I am just NOT seeing is the host answering questions, such as:


What persuaded you to whole-heartedly, and without any doubt or reservations whatsoever, to believe that it is a choice...what evidence are you using that is so strong?

If there are some being discriminated against, for services being refused or what have you, for something they were born with, shouldn't they be fighting for their rights?

How are kids "encouraged" to explore homosexuality?

How exactly are you getting gay issues pushed in your face in your daily life?


Peter said...

I'm not even sure what it means to be "Politically Correct". People throwing the phrase out sure aren't taking the meaning literally, because the definition of those words together would be something like :

"relating to the government or the public affairs of a country properly and in accordance with fact or truth."

Who would be complaining about having to do that?

So I assume people are taking it to mean going overboard to protect the feelings of others. So then why not just call it what it is - "politeness. "

I get it. People hate to be reprimanded on their manners. And I agree that the government should not be making laws trying to force people to be polite. There will always be rude and uncaring people, the law won't change that. People need to develop tougher skin and just take the perceived offensive behavior and comments from whence they come.

Cobblepot said...

I like that you added Michaels Mann's column in which he totally takes you apart fact by fact! It reinforces the notion that you have a little bit of Trump in you, in that both of you crave attention in any form. For some, there is no such thing as bad publicity, as long as people are paying attention to you. "Look, look, someone wrote about me!"

And what a great point Mann had. Stop pretending that there is a debate about climate change. Who are you trying to kid? At best you are preaching to the misinformed choir, and what is the point of that? If you took a step back from your little war against liberals, and viewed this subjectively, you would see how foolish you appear. Like the proverbial child with cookie crumbs on his face, hand in the cookie jar, claiming he did not get into the cookies. I guess to some playing the fool is a small price to pay for attention. Rile up those liberals with your nonsense and bathe in their negative attention. You might try therapy. Either that or just let it rip and join a masochist group.

bc64a9f8-765e-11e3-8683-000bcdcb2996 said...

I wonder if the lawsuits Mr.Mann is entwined in are proceeding apace, once he discovered what "discovery" entailed from his legal advisors?
I wonder if any of the subsequent "science" Mr. Mann relies on has been redacted?
I wonder if Mr. Mann has ANY critics, exposing "irregular" manipulation of "data"
to fit his theory, doubling down after initial peer review questioned his "genius", and threatened his position in "science" hall of fame.
Who IS Lord Monckton, and what is the Science and Public Policy Institute, anyway?
I'm simply astonished that "other" science, like the inventor of the internet, hasn't
weighed in to the local paper on the value of Mr. Mann's "hockey stick graph" in
cementing their credibility and "fame" (where IS Al Gore these days?)
CaptDMO


Anonymous said...

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/06/22/mark-steyns-newest-attack-on-michael-mann-and-the-hockey-stick/

Erik said...

Well, it seems that once again, as usual, Tom is unable to answer questions posed to him.
This speaks volumes to the emptiness of his positions. A man with pride and a sense of shame would be embarrassed to cling to positions which they are unable to defend, but not our attention seeking Tom! I almost feel sorry for him and all the beatings he takes, but then I remember he enjoys it.

Mal Adapted said...

Concerning the Mann lawsuit:

It’s astonishing how many of Steyn’s defenders still think his accusation of fraud isn’t libel because it’s true, or at least isn’t malicious because it’s reasonable to think it’s true.

Since Mann has been exonerated eight times by duly constituted authorities, and the hockey-stick shape of the temperature curve has been repeatedly verified by peer-reviewed research using multiple independent temperature proxies, the only way Steyn’s partisans can sustain their confidence is by supposing that Mann has enlisted the mainstream of climate science, the academic establishment and the government of the US in a vast conspiracy to perpetrate fraud.

Adherence to such an elaborate fantasy is plainly “conspiratorial ideation”, and is surely “denial” in the specialized vocabulary of Psychology. If they think a judge will decide in Steyn’s favor on that basis, or allow a jury to do so, they’re truly living in a counter-factual world.

If you believe that there are still anything incriminating that could possibly be found about the 1998/99 Hockey Stick, then you are seriously deluded. And I´d hazard a guess that Mann is quite happy indeed by having Steyn exhaust his funds.

Gregor said...

So when it's is revealed that the Mossad, the CIA, and the Saudis were complicit in 9/11 ( common knowledge in the military intelligence branches) when the "28" pages are revealed--- what then?
Oh, and if you truly want to get to the bottom of this transgender bs, along with the gay agenda that is being pushed, look at who owns the media. The obvious and logical place to look. Golly, what do the folks who own the major media outlets all have in common?

Heck, who needs logic, reason and the truth anyway. The Muslims did it! The Muslims did it! Terror! Terror! Muslims are evil!!

Anonymous said...

Because he answered your questions before you even asked them above.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous

Cobblepot said...
"I like that you added Michaels Mann's column in which he totally takes you apart fact by fact!"

No, Mann included no facts at all, he merely tried to lean on biased authorities.

MikeR said...

"Since Mann has been exonerated eight times by duly constituted authorities, and the hockey-stick shape of the temperature curve has been repeatedly verified by peer-reviewed research using multiple independent temperature proxies"
But neither of these claims is true. See climateaudit.org and search for "inquiries" and/or "hockey stick" for carefully documented debunking.