On this page:
Feminism Earned Female Celebrities Their Careers? Really?
If Superheroes Were Real, How Would They Live?
South By Southwest: America on Display
Venezuelan Socialism Sinks Its Teeth Into the Young
Thank You, Angry Social Media People, for Making Miley a Record-Breaking Success
The Real Che Guevara
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
(in Theaters in November)
SOPA: A Wakeup Call for This Generation
Liberalism 101
Missing the Point: The Case Against Federal Student Loans
A Tea-Party Student View: Bureaucracy Inside and Out of the Classroom
by Dan Nicholson
U Missouri "Labor Studies"
Feminism Earned Female Celebrities Their Careers? Really?
If Superheroes Were Real, How Would They Live?
South By Southwest: America on Display
Venezuelan Socialism Sinks Its Teeth Into the Young
Thank You, Angry Social Media People, for Making Miley a Record-Breaking Success
The Real Che Guevara
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
(in Theaters in November)
SOPA: A Wakeup Call for This Generation
Liberalism 101
Missing the Point: The Case Against Federal Student Loans
A Tea-Party Student View: Bureaucracy Inside and Out of the Classroom
by Dan Nicholson
U Missouri "Labor Studies"
Feminism Earned Female Celebrities Their Careers? Really?
Source: http://lejacquelope.tumblr.com/post/53527942852/mra-mra-related-or-anti-feminist-memes-that-i-do-not
News Flash - The War On Women Is Over and Women Won
Flavorwire.com's Editorial Assistant, Alison Herman, did a story called, “Non-Feminist” Celebrities Who Owe Their Careers to...Feminism. This is a sign of just how far the feminist movement has tried to go since it stopped being relevant decades ago.
Claiming these women "owe their careers to feminism" is not only generalizing and exaggerating, and takes the credit away from the fact that these women worked hard and earned their careers, it counters feminism at the core. If these women owe their careers to a philosophy, they aren't strong, capable women who worked hard and built successful careers on their own. Apparently, feminism earned their careers for them.
Feminism is Hollywood’s latest bandwagon and celebrities are hopping right on it in droves as they sip the kool-aid cocktail. When a public figure puts popularity before actually standing up for something that is truly meaningful to them and society, feminism is an easy tool to use. The feminist label is spreading like STDs in Hollywood, but only 23 percent of American women on Main Street would even call themselves feminists. The movement has turned into something totally unrepresentative of what women really want in America. Amanda Hess with Slate.com says, "the feminist label is no longer particularly radical, or even necessarily political. It’s just good branding."
Feminism has evolved to the point that feminists are no longer satisfied with gender equality alone. They won the right to vote, work, get an education, and even become soldiers. So, why is this still an issue? John Hawkins brilliantly explained it in an article on Townhall.com:
Flavorwire.com's Editorial Assistant, Alison Herman, did a story called, “Non-Feminist” Celebrities Who Owe Their Careers to...Feminism. This is a sign of just how far the feminist movement has tried to go since it stopped being relevant decades ago.
Claiming these women "owe their careers to feminism" is not only generalizing and exaggerating, and takes the credit away from the fact that these women worked hard and earned their careers, it counters feminism at the core. If these women owe their careers to a philosophy, they aren't strong, capable women who worked hard and built successful careers on their own. Apparently, feminism earned their careers for them.
Feminism is Hollywood’s latest bandwagon and celebrities are hopping right on it in droves as they sip the kool-aid cocktail. When a public figure puts popularity before actually standing up for something that is truly meaningful to them and society, feminism is an easy tool to use. The feminist label is spreading like STDs in Hollywood, but only 23 percent of American women on Main Street would even call themselves feminists. The movement has turned into something totally unrepresentative of what women really want in America. Amanda Hess with Slate.com says, "the feminist label is no longer particularly radical, or even necessarily political. It’s just good branding."
Feminism has evolved to the point that feminists are no longer satisfied with gender equality alone. They won the right to vote, work, get an education, and even become soldiers. So, why is this still an issue? John Hawkins brilliantly explained it in an article on Townhall.com:
"Feminism has accomplished its goals. Of course, as long as there's a buck to be made or an ego to be stroked, no movement in America ever really goes away. So feminists have moved on from noble pursuits (like giving women the right to vote and fighting blatant discrimination in the workplace), to working overtime to keep successful conservative women from becoming seen as role models. How is this tolerant, or even pro-woman?"
Source: http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/2007/10/effect-of-feminism-on-society-and.html
A new book called What Women Really Want, by Ann Marie Murrell, Morgan Brittany, and Dr. Gina Loudon has been topping the bestseller lists lately, and powerfully combats the feminist lies that have been plaguing American culture. This book smashes feminist stereotypes, and contends that what women really want does not line up with the feminist agenda. Feminists have tried to convince today's women that the issues they should care about are employer- and government-provided birth control, abortion, amnesty, and equal pay. According to What Women Really Want, the top three issues that concern women today are:
- National Security
- Economic Security, and
- Freedom
Most feminist organizations and PACs completely disregard all the above to stand up for other issues, often prioritizing issues that undermine what really matters to women. Amnesty for example, undermines all three of the above priorities. National security takes the hardest hit from amnesty because terrorists cross our borders every day. New and critical illnesses are plaguing America in record numbers (Ebola, of course, but also drug-resistant tuberculosis, enterovirus D68, and a slew of other severe diseases recently carried across our borders that are now infecting our citizens), and American sovereignty is threatened. Amnesty threatens economic security, especially for Millennials because, unfortunately, illegals tend to take the entry-level jobs Millennials need to launch careers. All the above threaten freedom as a result.
Forbes Magazine reported that more than 90 percent of working women wish they could make ends meet on one income - that they would have the luxury of staying home at some point in their lives. Politically correct or not, most women are biologically programmed to be inclined to mother. While some women, like myself, prefer the career world to the domestic world, most women, at some point, may want to put their careers aside to raise a family. Feminists have decided that the fact that there are more male CEOs means that this cruel world is programmed against all females moving ahead in life. It might be time to consider that a lot of women eventually choose to raise a family and put their careers on the back burner. You don't catch many men choosing to leave their jobs and take up motherhood these days. Therefore, it makes sense that men, overall, and with many exceptions, hold more CEO titles and bring in more money. A lot of men have to provide for families and have wives who prefer to stay at home, so the men have to earn a living for more people. The math adds up, and the numbers just do not point to any "war on women”.
All things considered, this day and age in America is actually empowering to women. I feel incredibly enabled as an American female professional. I know I can excel in most industries I wish to. If I choose to hold a career and be a mother, I could do that as well. The system is not rigged against me. The system, for the most part, is set up so that I can do what I want, and that is what makes America so exceptional.
Not to state the super-obvious, but the world is riddled with massive, overwhelming problems. Women's rights in America are no longer the crisis they used to be. Sex trafficking is the new drug trafficking, and the cartels are making billions annually, selling sex with kidnapping victims, often minors as young as ten years old. Many women in other countries are not allowed to get educated, learn to read, work a job, drive a car, socialize with other people, or other things American women consider basic freedoms. Islam enslaves women to men. Young girls (some as young as nine years old) are mutilated, forced into marriages, and sold into slavery. If they are not compliant, they are stoned to death or beheaded. Then American women complain because they want government to provide their $15/month in free birth control? America, this is your "war on women"? There is a war on women, but that is not it, and average American women are not the victims of it. Today, as an American woman, you can go as far as your Louboutins will take you. Fifty-eight percent of women have college degrees, while only 43 percent of men do. America is full of strong, professionally successful women, and strong, successful women who would rather raise a family than keep working. American women are lucky enough to get to choose their paths in life with gender no longer a limitation.
So no, new feminists, these female celebrities do not owe their careers to your hard work of tweeting recycled and overused feminist slogans and sharing feminist memes on Tumblr. The past feminists won the war on women in America before these modern feminists even saw their first Michael Moore documentaries. Instead of celebrating that victory, or fighting in the real war on women taking place every day in brothels and Islamic countries, today's feminists stand up for the rights they already have, pretending to fight a war that was won decades ago by true activists.
Modern feminism, in some ways, actually contradicts the original purpose of feminism. The feminist movement was started in the belief that women are as capable as men and do not need them to rely on, or tell them what they can or cannot do. Modern feminism is about entitlement: Women are entitled to more money than they are receiving. Women need extra government help to get equality in the workplace. Why? Because feminists believe women are not capable of climbing the ladders on their own merit? Feminists marched for birth control paid for by the taxpayers, why? Is it because now, instead of being independent and capable, women are not even capable of handling their own contraceptive needs in the eyes of feminists? Does this not counter the original basis of feminism?
Reality-check for all feminists: Feminism is no longer the happy, sweet little estrogen-infused love-fest movement you hear about every time you log into Twitter. Feminism is the new publicity-seeking, agenda-laden movement, (and not to mention, money machine) that is not really accomplishing what its founders (who were wonderful, true activists in their time) intended. It is time to move along and get a cause. There is real tragedy in the world to fight against that is being ignored because people are distracted by bogus, candied "movements" that aren't actually moving anything but their leader's credit card balances.
By Lyda Loudon
DISCLOSURE: Lyda Loudon is the daughter of Dr. Gina Loudon, book co-author mentioned in this article.
If Superheroes Were Real, How Would They Live?
Take a page from the comics and be inspired
We have seen how athletes train to earn and hold their titles, but imagine if your athletic activity - as opposed to football, baseball, swimming, or what have you - was saving lives. Imagine how hard one would have to train for that job. Imagine if a live-or-die situation depended on how well you did or did not handle your job and life. If you did your job well, lives were saved. If you did your job poorly, lives were lost. "Off days" would not be an option. So, how would you live if your ability to do your job meant life or death?
You would probably do some things that are far outside the comfort zone of the average person. You cannot acquire a physique like Superman by sitting on the couch all day with a bag of Doritos and a Big Gulp full of Mountain Dew. No, a real life Superman, when he's not fighting crime, would likely be blending up kale protein smoothies and practicing an intense workout regimen. Flying around skyscrapers to rescue people all day is not child’s play. Perfection would be the standard. If you gain weight, you have to buy a bigger cape to support you, which is hard because a bigger Superman cape simply does not exist. So becoming a fat or even just a slightly curvy Superman is not an option. Superman does not get to make excuses.
Similarly, you would not see Spider-Man grabbing a Big Mac after work before plopping down in his La-Z-Boy and letting the remote do the rest. Spider-Man also known as Peter Parker, while maintaining an entire secret alternate identity and life, has to swing from what is essentially thick spiderweb material, which he shoots from his hands to rescue those in danger. Expending such a powerful, secure material as man-size spiderweb likely requires a very nutrient-dense diet. If you were Spider-Man, skimping on the protein, calcium and magnesium would not be an option. If you skimp on your vitamins, the long list of horrible consequences that could result from only the slightest error are endless. Imagine the spiderweb shooting failing while you're midair. If that web fails, gravity takes its miserable course and violently throws you down onto the cold, dark, dirty pavement of a New York City street. You would not ever do things like loading up with toxins that could interfere with your body's natural chemistry or ability to process and utilize nutrients to fuel your physically strenuous job. Lives depend on it.
Captain America was trained for combat as a soldier. He was not just born outstanding, he became it through hard work and some strange occurrences later in life, like getting frozen into a block of ice, preserved, thawed out and revived. If you're Captain America, instead of doing some desk job, a typical work day for you is to keep some secret corrupt faction of the government from taking out a bunch of people who might potentially get in the way of a mass takeover. You would not get to spend your days lazily wasting time or running around bragging about how you were frozen for decades then thawed and lived through it. Every second counts when your job is defending the people and their freedoms. First rate physical and mental health is essential. Look at how Navy SEALs live.
There is also the issue of alcohol, the mind and body inhibitor. Say you're Iron Man and in your circle of successful, athletic, attractive men, there are a lot of people who want to go out to drink and party on the weekends. What happens if, in your normal persona, you're at a bar with a group of people, a few drinks into the night, then suddenly, you're pinged, somebody's trying to take over the universe again and you have to fix it. You don't have the option of drunkenly texting back "will deal with that tomorrow, man." Even if that does not happen and no one tries to take over the universe while you're out popping bottles with your buddies, the next morning, you are likely going to be a little off your game. Off your game means you miss your alarm or you're just hungover and someone ends up dominating the universe. That is on you.
There is a lot to be learned from superheroes. The reality is, every person has the opportunity to be someone's hero in one way or another. As you make decisions about how to run your life, act as though your ability to exist in the best way possible could mean life or death for someone. Your own life does depend on the choices you make about how to live it. Moreover, there could come a time when your abilities mean life or death for someone else. It is not all that uncommon that we are given the opportunity to save another's life even if not in the literal sense. If we all lived like superheroes, selflessly working and fighting to save each other from threats of all kinds, we would truly be saving ourselves from a life barely lived, because living lazily and without purpose, effort and care for others, is hardly a life at all.
By Lyda Loudon
South By Southwest: America on Display
On March 7, 2014, South By Southwest, America's largest film, music, and interactive festival kicked off in Austin, Texas. At a time when the issue of cultural decline is at the forefront of America’s troubles, this year's South By Southwest was, in my opinion, a sign that hope for the solidity of America's culture is not lost.
Every year, SXSW attracts thousands of aspiring and accomplished musicians, innovators, filmmakers, and partiers from across America to Austin to celebrate art, film, music, technology, and culture in the heart of the South. As the launching pad for the first SXSW music festival, Austin creates an unparalleled atmosphere for such a festival. Students from the many nearby colleges, as well as people of all ages, walks of life, demographics, and cultures from across America and the world congregate to take part in the action.
This year’s SXSW featured a wide variety of acts, bands, films, documentaries, and more. Many new films were screened, including Joe, Chef, Before I Disappear and Veronica Mars, as well a large list of independent films, documentaries, shorts, and music videos. The music lineup was outstanding, featuring the likes of Charli XCX, Coldplay, Foster the People, and Jay Z.
As a California resident, I know the cultural decay taking place in America can be strikingly evident. Los Angeles and Southern California as a whole are often considered "the heart of the culture war," as this is where a lot of the entertainment industry is based. California culture can be very tainted with corruption, drugs, sexualization, wild living, and conformism. What stood out about SXSW is that it was not just a gathering of young, wild kids partying to get high and wasted; SXSW was a beautiful display of what it means to be American.
People from all walks of life came together, not just to party, but to celebrate, connect, work, and create. There was a vibe of acceptance that radiated in the streets. People were not there to cast judgment, be divided or gossip, they were not there to get wasted and wild, they were there to build each other up and have a great time with everyone. It was more than a bunch of Millennials in short dresses and rave apparel getting dirty, it was every kind of person you can imagine--every age, race, lifestyle, background, and career--all celebrating what they love in the same place, together.
SXSW represented capitalism at its best. It is a gathering of entrepreneurs and artists trying to make a living doing what they love. No one was asking for a handout; they were too busy handing out their mixtapes, selling their products, promoting their projects, and working hard to reach their goals. It was a giant party, yes, but so much more.
Additionally, Austin’s economy benefits tremendously from SXSW and its activities. In 2013, SXSW was responsible for $218.2 million injected into the local economy. Part of Austin’s growth and success in recent years can be attributed to the fact that it is the home of SXSW.
The rest of the country could take a lesson or two from SXSW. It is easier to have more fun in a freer state like Texas than it is in a state bogged down with laws restricting or criminalizing everything we do, namely California. California's laws are often restrictive of things that other states may consider basic liberties, such as walking around with an exposed can of beer (illegal in California) or smoking an e-cig while walking down a sidewalk (illegal in a growing number of cities). Of course, at this point, every state has somewhat strict laws, but Texas is one of the few states left that tends to stick--to some degree--to more traditional politics, and still has some respect for freedom. Freedom makes having fun much easier. Texas, while still considered a traditional state, was an absolutely refreshing dose of patriotism and freedom.
SXSW is a huge cultural event. If it represents American culture as a whole, then I believe all hope is not lost for America’s future. Of course you see some cultural decay there too, but overall, it felt like stepping back into a time when the world was a freer, cleaner, more accepting, exciting place, with all the good vibes and energy you need in a city to have a great time.
By Lyda Loudon
Every year, SXSW attracts thousands of aspiring and accomplished musicians, innovators, filmmakers, and partiers from across America to Austin to celebrate art, film, music, technology, and culture in the heart of the South. As the launching pad for the first SXSW music festival, Austin creates an unparalleled atmosphere for such a festival. Students from the many nearby colleges, as well as people of all ages, walks of life, demographics, and cultures from across America and the world congregate to take part in the action.
This year’s SXSW featured a wide variety of acts, bands, films, documentaries, and more. Many new films were screened, including Joe, Chef, Before I Disappear and Veronica Mars, as well a large list of independent films, documentaries, shorts, and music videos. The music lineup was outstanding, featuring the likes of Charli XCX, Coldplay, Foster the People, and Jay Z.
As a California resident, I know the cultural decay taking place in America can be strikingly evident. Los Angeles and Southern California as a whole are often considered "the heart of the culture war," as this is where a lot of the entertainment industry is based. California culture can be very tainted with corruption, drugs, sexualization, wild living, and conformism. What stood out about SXSW is that it was not just a gathering of young, wild kids partying to get high and wasted; SXSW was a beautiful display of what it means to be American.
People from all walks of life came together, not just to party, but to celebrate, connect, work, and create. There was a vibe of acceptance that radiated in the streets. People were not there to cast judgment, be divided or gossip, they were not there to get wasted and wild, they were there to build each other up and have a great time with everyone. It was more than a bunch of Millennials in short dresses and rave apparel getting dirty, it was every kind of person you can imagine--every age, race, lifestyle, background, and career--all celebrating what they love in the same place, together.
SXSW represented capitalism at its best. It is a gathering of entrepreneurs and artists trying to make a living doing what they love. No one was asking for a handout; they were too busy handing out their mixtapes, selling their products, promoting their projects, and working hard to reach their goals. It was a giant party, yes, but so much more.
Additionally, Austin’s economy benefits tremendously from SXSW and its activities. In 2013, SXSW was responsible for $218.2 million injected into the local economy. Part of Austin’s growth and success in recent years can be attributed to the fact that it is the home of SXSW.
The rest of the country could take a lesson or two from SXSW. It is easier to have more fun in a freer state like Texas than it is in a state bogged down with laws restricting or criminalizing everything we do, namely California. California's laws are often restrictive of things that other states may consider basic liberties, such as walking around with an exposed can of beer (illegal in California) or smoking an e-cig while walking down a sidewalk (illegal in a growing number of cities). Of course, at this point, every state has somewhat strict laws, but Texas is one of the few states left that tends to stick--to some degree--to more traditional politics, and still has some respect for freedom. Freedom makes having fun much easier. Texas, while still considered a traditional state, was an absolutely refreshing dose of patriotism and freedom.
SXSW is a huge cultural event. If it represents American culture as a whole, then I believe all hope is not lost for America’s future. Of course you see some cultural decay there too, but overall, it felt like stepping back into a time when the world was a freer, cleaner, more accepting, exciting place, with all the good vibes and energy you need in a city to have a great time.
By Lyda Loudon
Venezuelan Socialism Sinks Its Teeth Into the Young
February 12, 2014, was Venezuela’s National Youth Day. Demonstrators of all ages and demographics mobilized to protest a variety of injustices. Many of these outraged protesters are young people - some as young as middle-school - upset that their government is allowing their country to fall to ruins under what many are calling a dictatorship.
President Nicolas Maduro took office in April 2013 with 50.6 percent of the vote. Throughout his presidency, Venezuela’s already poor conditions have grown progressively worse. Now Venezuela’s young are risking and losing their lives to raise their voices against injustice.
Inflation rates in Venezuela have soared to a startling 56.2 percent. Venezuelans suffer some of the world’s highest crime rates, and their economy is continuing to weaken. The starving nation is crying for change. Despite vast oil wealth, many in Venezuela have to wait in long lines just for a little food to feed their families, and must forego the most basic necessities, including toilet paper.
One opposition leader is Leopoldo Lopez who was detained on numerous violence-related charges, despite his repeated pleas for nothing more than nonviolent, peaceful change. On February 18th, he tweeted, “I'm innocent. I have nothing to fear... My family and you are my strength to fight!”
Lopez voluntarily turned himself in to authorities, despite repeated harassment from the government.
This is not his first time staring down the Venezuelan regime. In 2008, Hugo Chávez banned him from holding office. Some believe this is because he posed too much of a threat to Chávez’ popularity. Lopez has a long, brave history of leading the resistance non-violently, in hopes that the protests can lead to a freer Venezuela.
The protesters claim that violence has only occurred in response to the use of force by government troops. The government is using various methods of force to counter the protests, ranging from tear gas, to firearms and water cannons. The media is controlled by the government, which makes discerning fact from propaganda without bias difficult, so the exact number of fatalities is unclear. While there are conflicting reports on exact fatality numbers, it has been confirmed that protesters as young as 17 have lost their lives in these protests, and many more severely injured.
The outcome is unclear at this writing, but it’s a safe bet that violent repression will continue.
President Nicolas Maduro took office in April 2013 with 50.6 percent of the vote. Throughout his presidency, Venezuela’s already poor conditions have grown progressively worse. Now Venezuela’s young are risking and losing their lives to raise their voices against injustice.
Inflation rates in Venezuela have soared to a startling 56.2 percent. Venezuelans suffer some of the world’s highest crime rates, and their economy is continuing to weaken. The starving nation is crying for change. Despite vast oil wealth, many in Venezuela have to wait in long lines just for a little food to feed their families, and must forego the most basic necessities, including toilet paper.
One opposition leader is Leopoldo Lopez who was detained on numerous violence-related charges, despite his repeated pleas for nothing more than nonviolent, peaceful change. On February 18th, he tweeted, “I'm innocent. I have nothing to fear... My family and you are my strength to fight!”
Lopez voluntarily turned himself in to authorities, despite repeated harassment from the government.
This is not his first time staring down the Venezuelan regime. In 2008, Hugo Chávez banned him from holding office. Some believe this is because he posed too much of a threat to Chávez’ popularity. Lopez has a long, brave history of leading the resistance non-violently, in hopes that the protests can lead to a freer Venezuela.
The protesters claim that violence has only occurred in response to the use of force by government troops. The government is using various methods of force to counter the protests, ranging from tear gas, to firearms and water cannons. The media is controlled by the government, which makes discerning fact from propaganda without bias difficult, so the exact number of fatalities is unclear. While there are conflicting reports on exact fatality numbers, it has been confirmed that protesters as young as 17 have lost their lives in these protests, and many more severely injured.
The outcome is unclear at this writing, but it’s a safe bet that violent repression will continue.
Source: Maduradas.com
Thank You, Angry Social Media People, for Making Miley a Record-Breaking Success
A new generation of destructive stardom is rising and seemingly, the more destructive these young celebrities are, the more fame they acquire. Our generation is handing the crown of stardom and success to the celebrities most willing to be publicly promiscuous, rebellious, unruly, intoxicated and vile. Look at Amanda Bynes, a B list actress, until her recent outbreak of unruly behavior--excessive plastic surgery, neon wigs, throwing a bong out a window--now everyone knows her. As she sits in rehab, her name recognition is growing exponentially. Her generation mocks and makes her the subject of all kinds of humor, all while having a sick fascination with her lifestyle and drawing attention to what some are calling her "psychotic break." Other current stars like Ke$ha and Lady Gaga--both cornerstones of this generation’s pop music scene--know very well how to get attention and sell albums: you make a scene.
After Miley Cyrus' recent performance at the Video Music Awards, of her now-hit song "We Can't Stop," aside Robin Thicke's also now-hit song, "Blurred Lines," there was an internet upheaval of people proclaiming what a disgraceful disaster it was. People, especially those who hold generally modest, conservative, or legalistic views, jumped on this topic, posting condemning comments on Facebook and Twitter in an uproar. People who may had never heard of her otherwise were suddenly outraged that this formerly innocent child star had abruptly grown into another Madonna. Some of the younger people in the Twittersphere and Facebook world responded with encouraging comments about Miley finding her new image and being herself, but the general tone of the media and population was condemning of her promiscuous behavior. The question is, what did all this outrage accomplish? Did it diminish her image and bring her down as they hoped?
The music video for her recent song, “We Can’t Stop,” which she sang in that infamous VMA performance, broke the record for most views on Vevo in 24 hours, 10.7 million. That same video then went on to break the record for the fastest Vevo music video to reach 100 million views. This extremely low quality video of her VMA performance got upward of two million hits, and it is just one of numerous fan-posted videos of the same performance that reached or surpassed a million. Shortly after that VMA performance, Miley released the music video for her song “Wrecking Ball,” which broke yet another record, hitting 12.3 million views in just 24 hours, and now stands at 234 million views.
This is how Hollywood works. Did America really think Miley Cyrus’s VMA performance was designed to appease the audience? Stunts like that are done to make money, sell albums, get views, and make bank at the box office. It’s all a money game, and people like Miley Cyrus are winning with methods like these. Sadly, some of that success can be attributed to people who think that by bringing attention to this wild, adolescent behavior via their social media, they are making an impact. The sad reality is, the only impact we’re making by bringing attention to these acts of rebellion, is increasing the number of video hits, and album and tickets sales. Many, if not most of the Millennials who make up the targeted demographic for those album and concert ticket sales, are not likely to withdraw their fandom of Miley Cyrus for that behavior. Look at the brand American Apparel. Most of their design concepts are not all that unique or original, but the advertising is borderline-pornographic, and yet the brand keeps growing, even in the midst of the outrage over their usually scantily-clad models. The majority of Millennials who buy those clothes just don't care that American Apparel uses a lot of nudity in their ads. Their parents do, but American Apparel isn't trying to appeal to the Brooks Brothers and Ann Taylor crowd.
If we want to make impact to put this glamorization of promiscuity to rest, this is not the way to do it. We have to instead bring attention to the artists with real talent, the ability to pick up traction with the Millennials, and morals. Take recording artist Katharine McPhee, for example. She is a recording artist with exceptional beauty and outstanding skill, who was on American Idol and has done well in her career. Yet, while pop stars like Miley Cyrus and Ke$ha are getting record-breaking publicity by drugging, drinking and stripping, Katharine, despite having limitless talent, doesn’t get that publicity because she holds an upstanding, respectable public life. If we want those talented, high-quality role models to be what this generation of young girls looks to, posting that blast piece or angry status about Miley Cyrus is not going to get it. Rather, we should bring attention to artists of a higher caliber.
Culture is controlled by what and who is on our televisions and iPods. The way Millennials see the world, perceive things, form opinions (or don't) and behave is strongly influenced, if not controlled, by the media to which they are exposed. Look at what America's youth looked like when the shows we watched were shows like I Love Lucy, Dick Van Dyke and Andy Griffith. Those kids had positive, humorous, talented images influencing their young, malleable minds, that built them into what they became. A few years down the road, what is this Miley Cyrus/Ke$ha/Nicki Minaj generation going to look like? There may be hope that we can someday reach a point in our culture where those concepts our parents and grandparents grew up on are influencing America’s youth, but that will not happen if we continue to bring attention to bad behavior instead of giving support and publicity to the real artists of our generation, where it is due.
By Lyda Loudon
After Miley Cyrus' recent performance at the Video Music Awards, of her now-hit song "We Can't Stop," aside Robin Thicke's also now-hit song, "Blurred Lines," there was an internet upheaval of people proclaiming what a disgraceful disaster it was. People, especially those who hold generally modest, conservative, or legalistic views, jumped on this topic, posting condemning comments on Facebook and Twitter in an uproar. People who may had never heard of her otherwise were suddenly outraged that this formerly innocent child star had abruptly grown into another Madonna. Some of the younger people in the Twittersphere and Facebook world responded with encouraging comments about Miley finding her new image and being herself, but the general tone of the media and population was condemning of her promiscuous behavior. The question is, what did all this outrage accomplish? Did it diminish her image and bring her down as they hoped?
The music video for her recent song, “We Can’t Stop,” which she sang in that infamous VMA performance, broke the record for most views on Vevo in 24 hours, 10.7 million. That same video then went on to break the record for the fastest Vevo music video to reach 100 million views. This extremely low quality video of her VMA performance got upward of two million hits, and it is just one of numerous fan-posted videos of the same performance that reached or surpassed a million. Shortly after that VMA performance, Miley released the music video for her song “Wrecking Ball,” which broke yet another record, hitting 12.3 million views in just 24 hours, and now stands at 234 million views.
This is how Hollywood works. Did America really think Miley Cyrus’s VMA performance was designed to appease the audience? Stunts like that are done to make money, sell albums, get views, and make bank at the box office. It’s all a money game, and people like Miley Cyrus are winning with methods like these. Sadly, some of that success can be attributed to people who think that by bringing attention to this wild, adolescent behavior via their social media, they are making an impact. The sad reality is, the only impact we’re making by bringing attention to these acts of rebellion, is increasing the number of video hits, and album and tickets sales. Many, if not most of the Millennials who make up the targeted demographic for those album and concert ticket sales, are not likely to withdraw their fandom of Miley Cyrus for that behavior. Look at the brand American Apparel. Most of their design concepts are not all that unique or original, but the advertising is borderline-pornographic, and yet the brand keeps growing, even in the midst of the outrage over their usually scantily-clad models. The majority of Millennials who buy those clothes just don't care that American Apparel uses a lot of nudity in their ads. Their parents do, but American Apparel isn't trying to appeal to the Brooks Brothers and Ann Taylor crowd.
If we want to make impact to put this glamorization of promiscuity to rest, this is not the way to do it. We have to instead bring attention to the artists with real talent, the ability to pick up traction with the Millennials, and morals. Take recording artist Katharine McPhee, for example. She is a recording artist with exceptional beauty and outstanding skill, who was on American Idol and has done well in her career. Yet, while pop stars like Miley Cyrus and Ke$ha are getting record-breaking publicity by drugging, drinking and stripping, Katharine, despite having limitless talent, doesn’t get that publicity because she holds an upstanding, respectable public life. If we want those talented, high-quality role models to be what this generation of young girls looks to, posting that blast piece or angry status about Miley Cyrus is not going to get it. Rather, we should bring attention to artists of a higher caliber.
Culture is controlled by what and who is on our televisions and iPods. The way Millennials see the world, perceive things, form opinions (or don't) and behave is strongly influenced, if not controlled, by the media to which they are exposed. Look at what America's youth looked like when the shows we watched were shows like I Love Lucy, Dick Van Dyke and Andy Griffith. Those kids had positive, humorous, talented images influencing their young, malleable minds, that built them into what they became. A few years down the road, what is this Miley Cyrus/Ke$ha/Nicki Minaj generation going to look like? There may be hope that we can someday reach a point in our culture where those concepts our parents and grandparents grew up on are influencing America’s youth, but that will not happen if we continue to bring attention to bad behavior instead of giving support and publicity to the real artists of our generation, where it is due.
By Lyda Loudon
The Real Che Guevara: Bloodthirsty Cult Figure Exposed
by Caleb Yee
Who was Che Guevara? I’m sure many of us have seen his face on t-shirts worn mostly by young teens. The mysterious and confident bearded face looking off into the horizon. However, who was the real Che and why is he revered or even worshiped by some today?
Some will tell you that he was a freedom fighter, a revolutionary, a leader, a legendary hero, and a champion of liberty. However, do they know the real Che?
Che Guevara, an Argentine guerilla leader and a major figure of the Cuban Revolution, has a lot more blood on his hands than many realize. How can a ruthless executioner who opposed a free economy, killed countless numbers of innocent civilians, viewed blacks as the “inferior race”, and set up the Cuban labor camp system for homosexuals and dissidents be considered a leader of freedom and compassion? [Editor’s Note: Castro’s treatment of homosexuals eventually turned many in the American Left against the Cuban revolution.]
It was interesting to hear what Che fans had to say about the “Great Leader”. I talked to a friend at my school who had idolized the dictator ever since she had watched “Motorcycle Diaries”, a biased documentary about Che throughout his life. Along with my friend, a few other classmates I talked to believed that he represented freedom, revolution, and had a concern for the poor. They simply knew him as the hero who helped the Cubans overthrow the previous Cuban dictator Batista and, therefore, restored peace and liberty in Cuba. However, once Castro came into power, Che helped consolidate the new government in part by getting rid of all political dissidents. Free speech was banned and Che personally presided over multiple executions of people who were against Castro’s policies. Che was in charge of La Cabaña prison where dozens of executions took place. Altogether, in less than two years, Castro’s government executed several hundred people without a fair trial. Che personally supervised many of these executions while running La Cabaña prison.
During a speech in New York in front of the United Nations December 9, 1964, Che proudly stated that his government executed and would continue to execute dissidents. It’s ironic how a dictator who opposed free speech and humanitarian ideals became so popular in America, a country founded on liberty and morality. Not to mention that these anti-capitalist t-shirts became a hot commodity in stores across the nation. Urban Outfitters, a well-known clothing store chain was criticized after offering Che shirts for sale. Besides being on clothing, the Che symbol has been reprinted onto flags, banners, and bumper stickers.
It’s unfortunate that a cult following has formed in America for a mass murderer who helped oppress a nation in much the same way the previous dictator had. It is a paradox that signals the vital need for education and information among the American population, especially the young who are being led astray about Che and communism. Thankfully, organizations like Young America’s Foundation and various humanitarian groups have worked to counter the cult by exposing the real Che Guevara, mass murderer and tyrant.
So remember the real Che and the blood on his hands if you’re ever tempted to wear a t-shirt in his honor. The only thing you will really be displaying is your ignorance.
Who was Che Guevara? I’m sure many of us have seen his face on t-shirts worn mostly by young teens. The mysterious and confident bearded face looking off into the horizon. However, who was the real Che and why is he revered or even worshiped by some today?
Some will tell you that he was a freedom fighter, a revolutionary, a leader, a legendary hero, and a champion of liberty. However, do they know the real Che?
Che Guevara, an Argentine guerilla leader and a major figure of the Cuban Revolution, has a lot more blood on his hands than many realize. How can a ruthless executioner who opposed a free economy, killed countless numbers of innocent civilians, viewed blacks as the “inferior race”, and set up the Cuban labor camp system for homosexuals and dissidents be considered a leader of freedom and compassion? [Editor’s Note: Castro’s treatment of homosexuals eventually turned many in the American Left against the Cuban revolution.]
It was interesting to hear what Che fans had to say about the “Great Leader”. I talked to a friend at my school who had idolized the dictator ever since she had watched “Motorcycle Diaries”, a biased documentary about Che throughout his life. Along with my friend, a few other classmates I talked to believed that he represented freedom, revolution, and had a concern for the poor. They simply knew him as the hero who helped the Cubans overthrow the previous Cuban dictator Batista and, therefore, restored peace and liberty in Cuba. However, once Castro came into power, Che helped consolidate the new government in part by getting rid of all political dissidents. Free speech was banned and Che personally presided over multiple executions of people who were against Castro’s policies. Che was in charge of La Cabaña prison where dozens of executions took place. Altogether, in less than two years, Castro’s government executed several hundred people without a fair trial. Che personally supervised many of these executions while running La Cabaña prison.
During a speech in New York in front of the United Nations December 9, 1964, Che proudly stated that his government executed and would continue to execute dissidents. It’s ironic how a dictator who opposed free speech and humanitarian ideals became so popular in America, a country founded on liberty and morality. Not to mention that these anti-capitalist t-shirts became a hot commodity in stores across the nation. Urban Outfitters, a well-known clothing store chain was criticized after offering Che shirts for sale. Besides being on clothing, the Che symbol has been reprinted onto flags, banners, and bumper stickers.
It’s unfortunate that a cult following has formed in America for a mass murderer who helped oppress a nation in much the same way the previous dictator had. It is a paradox that signals the vital need for education and information among the American population, especially the young who are being led astray about Che and communism. Thankfully, organizations like Young America’s Foundation and various humanitarian groups have worked to counter the cult by exposing the real Che Guevara, mass murderer and tyrant.
So remember the real Che and the blood on his hands if you’re ever tempted to wear a t-shirt in his honor. The only thing you will really be displaying is your ignorance.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
(in Theaters in November)
Last Spring, the first part of the popular trilogy by author Suzanne Collins became a box office hit. Widely popular among the youth, the Hunger Games franchise has become a source, not only of entertainment, but of discussion.
The story takes place in a dystopian society composed of different districts where, every year, the government holds the “Hunger Games” - a deadly competition where two members from each district kill off other district representatives to stay alive.
This is not the first time this brutal practice has appeared in literature. The Japanese novel Battle Royale (also turned into a film) had a similar plot where the Japanese government forced school children to kill each other off in order to survive. Children also faced such violent deaths in the Maze Runner by James Dashner.
With young fans eagerly anticipating the release of Catching Fire this November, many wonder why dystopian literature is so popular among the youth.
Some dystopian books have clear themes, such as living under totalitarian government, i.e., “Big Brother”, in George Orwell’s 1984. Other books are not as clear about their message, but it’s still possible to draw parallels between the governments depicted in such books and North Korea where a powerful ruling elite oppresses the people for its own gain. Power is centralized and so is industry and agriculture. In the Hunger Games, the districts are divided into various industrial and agricultural sections responsible for the production of specific goods. This is clearly socialism gone wrong (like it always does). However, in most oppressive societies, there is still a chance for rebellion or revolution. In the Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen (played by Jennifer Lawrence) provides the spark for resistance.
I wouldn’t want to ruin the second book for you if you haven’t read it, but just know that any sign of self-empowerment from the enslaved represents a direct threat to the ones in control. As you will see, those that speak out against the ruler almost always become a target.
I can’t be the only American who wonders whether this type of society could ever come about in our free country. It’s hard to imagine we would ever get to the point where our government forces us to take part in brutal games where people die. However, oppression and control can and does take many different forms.
For example, the desire on the part of some Americans for economic equality can lead us onto the wrong path, away from freedom and towards oppression. It’s wonderful we have equality before the law in America. Not every country has equal justice for all. In sharia law countries, for example, a woman’s testimony is worth only half that of a man’s in court.
However, equality in a different sense - radical economic egalitarianism, where everyone has the same amount of money - is a different case entirely. As French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville warned us in his classic book Democracy in America, “Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” You can’t make sure that everyone has the same amount of money, right down to the penny, without heavy doses of governmental coercion. It’s just not in the American character to put up with what would be required for complete economic equality for very long.
Just look at how people are reacting to the coercive measures in Obamacare. That law has never had the support of a majority of the American people. That’s because it centralizes the healthcare system under Washington’s control and forces all Americans to buy health insurance whether they want it or not. In the process, the young are forced to subsidize the old and people with more money are forced to subsidize those with less. This is servitude. Equality has come at too high a price.
The healthcare sector is now a district and the games are about to begin. Make no mistake, they will result in death for people Washington disfavors. But we knew this was going to happen. Senator Max Baucus, author of the bill in the Senate, is on record saying Obamacare is not about healthcare; it’s about redistribution of income. And the coercion that goes with it, he might have added. Where is Katniss Everdeen when we need her?
The popularity of the Hunger Games shows that young people still have the American instinct for freedom. They may not be able to speak eloquently about limited government or free markets, but they certainly know the difference between life here and what life is like in North Korea. So go enjoy the movie and thank your lucky stars you live in America where we are still (mostly) free.
Fun Facts
Official Movie Website
By Caleb Yee
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The story takes place in a dystopian society composed of different districts where, every year, the government holds the “Hunger Games” - a deadly competition where two members from each district kill off other district representatives to stay alive.
This is not the first time this brutal practice has appeared in literature. The Japanese novel Battle Royale (also turned into a film) had a similar plot where the Japanese government forced school children to kill each other off in order to survive. Children also faced such violent deaths in the Maze Runner by James Dashner.
With young fans eagerly anticipating the release of Catching Fire this November, many wonder why dystopian literature is so popular among the youth.
Some dystopian books have clear themes, such as living under totalitarian government, i.e., “Big Brother”, in George Orwell’s 1984. Other books are not as clear about their message, but it’s still possible to draw parallels between the governments depicted in such books and North Korea where a powerful ruling elite oppresses the people for its own gain. Power is centralized and so is industry and agriculture. In the Hunger Games, the districts are divided into various industrial and agricultural sections responsible for the production of specific goods. This is clearly socialism gone wrong (like it always does). However, in most oppressive societies, there is still a chance for rebellion or revolution. In the Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen (played by Jennifer Lawrence) provides the spark for resistance.
I wouldn’t want to ruin the second book for you if you haven’t read it, but just know that any sign of self-empowerment from the enslaved represents a direct threat to the ones in control. As you will see, those that speak out against the ruler almost always become a target.
I can’t be the only American who wonders whether this type of society could ever come about in our free country. It’s hard to imagine we would ever get to the point where our government forces us to take part in brutal games where people die. However, oppression and control can and does take many different forms.
For example, the desire on the part of some Americans for economic equality can lead us onto the wrong path, away from freedom and towards oppression. It’s wonderful we have equality before the law in America. Not every country has equal justice for all. In sharia law countries, for example, a woman’s testimony is worth only half that of a man’s in court.
However, equality in a different sense - radical economic egalitarianism, where everyone has the same amount of money - is a different case entirely. As French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville warned us in his classic book Democracy in America, “Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” You can’t make sure that everyone has the same amount of money, right down to the penny, without heavy doses of governmental coercion. It’s just not in the American character to put up with what would be required for complete economic equality for very long.
Just look at how people are reacting to the coercive measures in Obamacare. That law has never had the support of a majority of the American people. That’s because it centralizes the healthcare system under Washington’s control and forces all Americans to buy health insurance whether they want it or not. In the process, the young are forced to subsidize the old and people with more money are forced to subsidize those with less. This is servitude. Equality has come at too high a price.
The healthcare sector is now a district and the games are about to begin. Make no mistake, they will result in death for people Washington disfavors. But we knew this was going to happen. Senator Max Baucus, author of the bill in the Senate, is on record saying Obamacare is not about healthcare; it’s about redistribution of income. And the coercion that goes with it, he might have added. Where is Katniss Everdeen when we need her?
The popularity of the Hunger Games shows that young people still have the American instinct for freedom. They may not be able to speak eloquently about limited government or free markets, but they certainly know the difference between life here and what life is like in North Korea. So go enjoy the movie and thank your lucky stars you live in America where we are still (mostly) free.
Fun Facts
- Even though the Hunger Games was a trilogy, the continuation of the other two books on film depended on the success of the first film.
- Suzanne Collins wrote the script for the first film herself.
- During the last day of filming for her training session scenes, Jennifer Lawrence literally ran into a wall and had to get a CT scan as a precautionary measure.
- All the main characters had to be on a protein diet and work out daily.
- Jennifer Lawrence received archery lessons from Olympic athlete, Khatuna Lorig.
- The themes of the Hunger Games appeal to the Tea Party movement which promotes constitutionally limited government and free markets. The national Tea Party Patriots group made a high-quality video called “A Movement on Fire” which features a Hunger Games-like dystopian storyline. Watch the video at AlexandriaTeaParty.com
Official Movie Website
By Caleb Yee
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SOPA: A Wakeup Call for This Generation 3/20/12
On October 26, 2011, Senator Lamar Smith of Texas introduced to the US House of Representatives H.R. 3261, or SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) that awoke young Americans to a potential loss of freedom by going directly to their primary source of information: the Internet. What caused an entire generation to engage as never before? What does it mean to the future of politics, and what can politicians glean from the phenomenon of SOPA? How exactly did SOPA get all this outrage, ignite the youth, and get defeated so quickly?
People of all ages, including—especially generation Y—rose to action. Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, and countless other social media outlets were plastered with tweets, status updates, and numerous other means of communication. All decried the infringement of a legislation that would assume control of the Internet.
It was nearly impossible to avoid the topic of SOPA. People who may never have given most political issues a second thought became political activists. It awoke the sleeping giant of America’s young people, who saw their freedoms threatened within the Internet.
Legislation that poses similarly dangerous threats to American liberty often go underreported and overlooked. What was different about SOPA? It mattered to youth because they view the Internet as the preceding generation might have viewed an interstate or public passage. This generation feels an ownership of the Internet that goes beyond “user”. Young people view the Internet as a home community—it is at the core of their lives.
Word about SOPA spread, and ironically, the websites that most of us know and hit all the time became hubs for its defeat. Wikipedia shut down its entire American website (for one day) in protest. Wikipedia users, (and who is not?) that wanted to use Wikipedia that day got a glimpse of what life would be like without it. Urban Dictionary’s Word of the Day was a negative definition of “SOPA”, also in protest. Websites that the average (especially young) person visits daily were staunchly protesting SOPA. Masses of youth discussed and tweeted the dangers of SOPA, by most counts, more than any other political issue of our time.
The communal and regenerative nature of the Internet caused the outcry to build upon itself. This issue ignited young people by going to the heart of their world. This generation spends more time than ever before on the Internet, and they are willing to engage when it is threatened. People who may never have given most political issues a second thought turned into political activists. There is a marketing, if not a political science study in the phenomenon of the whole SOPA experience. The extraordinary public outcry that we saw because of SOPA should be a warning to politicians nationwide; do not mess with our First Amendment/Internet rights. If you threaten the Internet, you threaten opening the Pandora’s Box of outraged, politically engaged young people.
By Lyda Loudon
People of all ages, including—especially generation Y—rose to action. Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, and countless other social media outlets were plastered with tweets, status updates, and numerous other means of communication. All decried the infringement of a legislation that would assume control of the Internet.
It was nearly impossible to avoid the topic of SOPA. People who may never have given most political issues a second thought became political activists. It awoke the sleeping giant of America’s young people, who saw their freedoms threatened within the Internet.
Legislation that poses similarly dangerous threats to American liberty often go underreported and overlooked. What was different about SOPA? It mattered to youth because they view the Internet as the preceding generation might have viewed an interstate or public passage. This generation feels an ownership of the Internet that goes beyond “user”. Young people view the Internet as a home community—it is at the core of their lives.
Word about SOPA spread, and ironically, the websites that most of us know and hit all the time became hubs for its defeat. Wikipedia shut down its entire American website (for one day) in protest. Wikipedia users, (and who is not?) that wanted to use Wikipedia that day got a glimpse of what life would be like without it. Urban Dictionary’s Word of the Day was a negative definition of “SOPA”, also in protest. Websites that the average (especially young) person visits daily were staunchly protesting SOPA. Masses of youth discussed and tweeted the dangers of SOPA, by most counts, more than any other political issue of our time.
The communal and regenerative nature of the Internet caused the outcry to build upon itself. This issue ignited young people by going to the heart of their world. This generation spends more time than ever before on the Internet, and they are willing to engage when it is threatened. People who may never have given most political issues a second thought turned into political activists. There is a marketing, if not a political science study in the phenomenon of the whole SOPA experience. The extraordinary public outcry that we saw because of SOPA should be a warning to politicians nationwide; do not mess with our First Amendment/Internet rights. If you threaten the Internet, you threaten opening the Pandora’s Box of outraged, politically engaged young people.
By Lyda Loudon
Liberalism 101 11/22/11
This year marks the sixtieth anniversary of the audacious 24-year-old William F. Buckley Jr.'s courageous confrontation with his Alma Mater in God & Man at Yale. In his exposé, Buckley gave the country a look into the collectivist-trending, religion-mocking world of the American campus.
Buckley was a pioneer in challenging the liberal establishment in academia but his work in and of itself is no longer sufficient. As he stated in 1975, “a very recent graduate is not only supremely qualified, but uniquely qualified, to write about the ideological impact of an education he has experienced.” It is up to subsequent generations of conservatives to continue to highlight the liberal trends in our higher education institutions.
Thus without the least presumption of meeting the Buckley standard, I recount my own experiences as a recent graduate of Denison University. A comprehensive story of liberal bias during the pursuit of my undergraduate degree would likely fill a multi-volume collection. For this reason, only some of the most egregious examples are here presented.
My enrollment in a course taught by a popular professor in the Religion Department offers the first example. Despite the amiable nature of the professor, comments ranging from the immorality of Wal-Mart’s business practices to claims that government inaction during Hurricane Katrina was the result of racism were not uncommon during class lectures. Among the required reading was God of the Oppressed by James Cone, a friend of the professor and a guest lecturer during the semester.
For those unfamiliar with Cone, he is the author of the following gem, “Theologically Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.’” He is also considered by many, to be the mentor of the ever-radical Reverend Jeremiah Wright – President Obama’s pastor and spiritual guide for many years.
Of course one example of bias is not proof of systematic flaws. On another occasion, class instruction for a Political Science course was interrupted for a special presentation. Our class was selected by the university’s administration to listen to an outside group preach about the justice and morality of affirmative action. Of course the opposite side of the argument was not presented. Thus, the university made very clear their stance on affirmative action.
The final example I offer involves a broader issue; namely the selection and corresponding campus reaction to guest speakers. The school administration habitually brought very liberal individuals to campus. The list during my tenure included: First Lady Rosaylnn Carter, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Howard Dean, Chelsea Clinton, and actor and Obama Administration official Kal Penn to name just a few.
Liberal guests on campus were always treated with the utmost respect yet conservatives were never afforded the same deference. When a conservative was announced as a speaker, liberals leapt into panic mode and began preparations for a protest.
They even protested the arrival of First Lady Laura Bush in Denison’s hometown of Granville, Ohio. Nothing, however, threw the campus into more of a frenzy than the appearance of Ann Coulter.
Many of the students were angry, some of whom privately threatened to throw eggs at her. During a Political Science class prior to the event, one student discussed his intention to interrupt Coulter’s speech by streaking naked down the aisle. This plan was met with approval and encouragement by the professor.
Thankfully, Ms. Coulter was spared this indecency due to enhanced security measures. Nevertheless the point was well-taken. Conservative speech is unwanted and will be encounter obstacles if attempted. Although I cannot speak for other institutions, it is doubtful that Denison is alone in its liberal persuasion and intolerance for anything resembling conservative thought.
The behavior detailed here is the result of liberalism unchecked and run amok. So what is the answer? We need to encourage precocious conservatives to enter the academic profession. We can only change the pervasive culture of liberalism if individuals that share our beliefs are well-represented in academia. Otherwise, we are destined to lose in the long-term promotion of our ideas.
By J.D. Thorpe
Buckley was a pioneer in challenging the liberal establishment in academia but his work in and of itself is no longer sufficient. As he stated in 1975, “a very recent graduate is not only supremely qualified, but uniquely qualified, to write about the ideological impact of an education he has experienced.” It is up to subsequent generations of conservatives to continue to highlight the liberal trends in our higher education institutions.
Thus without the least presumption of meeting the Buckley standard, I recount my own experiences as a recent graduate of Denison University. A comprehensive story of liberal bias during the pursuit of my undergraduate degree would likely fill a multi-volume collection. For this reason, only some of the most egregious examples are here presented.
My enrollment in a course taught by a popular professor in the Religion Department offers the first example. Despite the amiable nature of the professor, comments ranging from the immorality of Wal-Mart’s business practices to claims that government inaction during Hurricane Katrina was the result of racism were not uncommon during class lectures. Among the required reading was God of the Oppressed by James Cone, a friend of the professor and a guest lecturer during the semester.
For those unfamiliar with Cone, he is the author of the following gem, “Theologically Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.’” He is also considered by many, to be the mentor of the ever-radical Reverend Jeremiah Wright – President Obama’s pastor and spiritual guide for many years.
Of course one example of bias is not proof of systematic flaws. On another occasion, class instruction for a Political Science course was interrupted for a special presentation. Our class was selected by the university’s administration to listen to an outside group preach about the justice and morality of affirmative action. Of course the opposite side of the argument was not presented. Thus, the university made very clear their stance on affirmative action.
The final example I offer involves a broader issue; namely the selection and corresponding campus reaction to guest speakers. The school administration habitually brought very liberal individuals to campus. The list during my tenure included: First Lady Rosaylnn Carter, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Howard Dean, Chelsea Clinton, and actor and Obama Administration official Kal Penn to name just a few.
Liberal guests on campus were always treated with the utmost respect yet conservatives were never afforded the same deference. When a conservative was announced as a speaker, liberals leapt into panic mode and began preparations for a protest.
They even protested the arrival of First Lady Laura Bush in Denison’s hometown of Granville, Ohio. Nothing, however, threw the campus into more of a frenzy than the appearance of Ann Coulter.
Many of the students were angry, some of whom privately threatened to throw eggs at her. During a Political Science class prior to the event, one student discussed his intention to interrupt Coulter’s speech by streaking naked down the aisle. This plan was met with approval and encouragement by the professor.
Thankfully, Ms. Coulter was spared this indecency due to enhanced security measures. Nevertheless the point was well-taken. Conservative speech is unwanted and will be encounter obstacles if attempted. Although I cannot speak for other institutions, it is doubtful that Denison is alone in its liberal persuasion and intolerance for anything resembling conservative thought.
The behavior detailed here is the result of liberalism unchecked and run amok. So what is the answer? We need to encourage precocious conservatives to enter the academic profession. We can only change the pervasive culture of liberalism if individuals that share our beliefs are well-represented in academia. Otherwise, we are destined to lose in the long-term promotion of our ideas.
By J.D. Thorpe
Missing the Point: The Case Against Federal Student Loans 11/22/11
A remarkable trait of the Tea Party is the movement’s simple and consistent message. The acronym TEA, standing for “Taxed Enough Already,” serves as a powerful rallying cry for millions of Americans who viewed President Obama’s policies to create “fairness in the tax code” as a euphemism for legalized theft.
However, consistency of message is a characteristic that is entirely missing in the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests. Among the wide-ranging demands of the group, one of the strangest – and thus, one worth analyzing in some depth – is the faction within OWS who believes they shouldn’t be obligated to pay back student loans that they borrowed of their own volition.
Protestor Rose Swidden told a CNBC reporter, “We did what we were told to do: go to college, get an education, you’ll get a job, get a house, you’ll be cool.” She went on to say, “And that’s what we did. And now here we are done with it – and now what?”
Ms. Swidden’s statement raises an important question: What is the purpose of going to college?
On the surface, this may seem like a very basic question. But the sinister idea that everyone has a “right” to go to college has so pervaded modern society that it has distorted the average American’s thinking on the subject. And it explains well the roots of the ridiculous demand of this OWS faction.
College affords young people the opportunity to acquire the necessary critical thinking skills and other training that is supposed to increase students’ long-term value as professionals. This doesn’t necessarily imply monetary gain, but quite often it does.
To this point, when high school graduates make the decision that it’s a worthwhile endeavor to spend the next few years of their life in the pursuit of a college degree, the decision should be made based on a pre-evaluated cost-benefit analysis.
Not every job requires a college education, so why should everyone go to college?
When one ponders this question, the aforementioned quote by the OWS protestor and the general policy of the federal government that everyone has a “right” to go to college amounts to utter absurd logic.
Moreover, the blame for exploding prices in college tuition lies squarely with the federal government’s policy to arbitrarily expand loans to students. This expansion has distorted the market mechanism, causing rising prices that correlate directly to the rising demand made possible by increased federal student loans doled out at taxpayers’ expense.
It’s also leading to the bourgeoning student loan bubble, which will wreak havoc on the economy in a few years.
Exacerbating this looming crisis is President Obama’s executive order, a gift to OWS, which forgives the balance of a student’s loans after 20 years and mandates that lenders can’t charge borrowers more than 10 percent of their discretionary income.
With this one quick maneuver that bypassed congressional approval, President Obama further undermined the concept of voluntary contractual agreements.
In addition, while the recent talk in politics has centered around the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on Obamacare – a plan that further centrally plans and heavily subsidizes healthcare - President Obama has taken the same course in the area of student loans.
Is it fair that I, a person who is paying off my loans ahead of time, should be coerced by the government to subsidize the repayment of someone else’s loans? I ask this question because that is exactly what will happen to me and many other responsible young people if this executive order remains in place.
Fortunately there are small glimmers of hope among the youth in this country. Russell Leboff, a student at Hampden-Sydney College and a National Coordinator of Tea Party Students [www.teapartystudents.org], remarked that student loans are “not an entitlement,” but rather an “investment” in one’s future.
And with any investment, there are risk and rewards. The policies of President Obama and other like-minded individuals introduce disastrous problems that soon follow any policy based on moral hazard. People tend to make bad choices when they are incentivized to take risks but are shielded from the consequences.
So what’s the answer? To put it briefly, privatize the student loan market by completely removing the federal government’s role. Private companies can decide who the most worthy applicants are to receive loans and offer interest rates that are commensurate with a person’s perceived ability to pay back the loan.
Thus, we would return to a free market in student loans and maybe colleges would stop offering majors that don’t translate into successful professional careers.
There’s a famous quote that policymakers in Washington would do well to remember. In the immortal words of Judge Smails from Caddyshack, “The world needs ditch diggers too.”
By J.D. Thorpe
However, consistency of message is a characteristic that is entirely missing in the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests. Among the wide-ranging demands of the group, one of the strangest – and thus, one worth analyzing in some depth – is the faction within OWS who believes they shouldn’t be obligated to pay back student loans that they borrowed of their own volition.
Protestor Rose Swidden told a CNBC reporter, “We did what we were told to do: go to college, get an education, you’ll get a job, get a house, you’ll be cool.” She went on to say, “And that’s what we did. And now here we are done with it – and now what?”
Ms. Swidden’s statement raises an important question: What is the purpose of going to college?
On the surface, this may seem like a very basic question. But the sinister idea that everyone has a “right” to go to college has so pervaded modern society that it has distorted the average American’s thinking on the subject. And it explains well the roots of the ridiculous demand of this OWS faction.
College affords young people the opportunity to acquire the necessary critical thinking skills and other training that is supposed to increase students’ long-term value as professionals. This doesn’t necessarily imply monetary gain, but quite often it does.
To this point, when high school graduates make the decision that it’s a worthwhile endeavor to spend the next few years of their life in the pursuit of a college degree, the decision should be made based on a pre-evaluated cost-benefit analysis.
Not every job requires a college education, so why should everyone go to college?
When one ponders this question, the aforementioned quote by the OWS protestor and the general policy of the federal government that everyone has a “right” to go to college amounts to utter absurd logic.
Moreover, the blame for exploding prices in college tuition lies squarely with the federal government’s policy to arbitrarily expand loans to students. This expansion has distorted the market mechanism, causing rising prices that correlate directly to the rising demand made possible by increased federal student loans doled out at taxpayers’ expense.
It’s also leading to the bourgeoning student loan bubble, which will wreak havoc on the economy in a few years.
Exacerbating this looming crisis is President Obama’s executive order, a gift to OWS, which forgives the balance of a student’s loans after 20 years and mandates that lenders can’t charge borrowers more than 10 percent of their discretionary income.
With this one quick maneuver that bypassed congressional approval, President Obama further undermined the concept of voluntary contractual agreements.
In addition, while the recent talk in politics has centered around the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on Obamacare – a plan that further centrally plans and heavily subsidizes healthcare - President Obama has taken the same course in the area of student loans.
Is it fair that I, a person who is paying off my loans ahead of time, should be coerced by the government to subsidize the repayment of someone else’s loans? I ask this question because that is exactly what will happen to me and many other responsible young people if this executive order remains in place.
Fortunately there are small glimmers of hope among the youth in this country. Russell Leboff, a student at Hampden-Sydney College and a National Coordinator of Tea Party Students [www.teapartystudents.org], remarked that student loans are “not an entitlement,” but rather an “investment” in one’s future.
And with any investment, there are risk and rewards. The policies of President Obama and other like-minded individuals introduce disastrous problems that soon follow any policy based on moral hazard. People tend to make bad choices when they are incentivized to take risks but are shielded from the consequences.
So what’s the answer? To put it briefly, privatize the student loan market by completely removing the federal government’s role. Private companies can decide who the most worthy applicants are to receive loans and offer interest rates that are commensurate with a person’s perceived ability to pay back the loan.
Thus, we would return to a free market in student loans and maybe colleges would stop offering majors that don’t translate into successful professional careers.
There’s a famous quote that policymakers in Washington would do well to remember. In the immortal words of Judge Smails from Caddyshack, “The world needs ditch diggers too.”
By J.D. Thorpe
A Tea-Party Student View: Bureaucracy Inside and Out of the Classroom
by Dan Nicholson 8/23/11
- courtesy Tea Party Tribune
As a tea-party student attending public university in upstate New York I have a long history dealing with bureaucracy. New York state carries the nick name “The Empire State,” a nickname that makes more sense every time I visit the DMV or recently my universities registrars office.
New York state as a whole has been making cuts in education, especially concerning the multitude of SUNY schools. (Instead of one state school we have multiple SUNY schools all of which offer most of the same stuff) Because of these cut-backs one of the programs I was getting my bachelors degree in, Classical History, was severed. In an attempt to save professors jobs the art history department absorbed the dead program without changing the requirements for graduation. The simplest way to put it is that my degree and thus the requirements to graduate say “classics” but there exists no classics program and as a result I was caught in a corner.
I emailed everyone I could including my advisors and the classics administrators. If I received a reply, which I didn’t get many, it was only with instructions to contact other professors who then would suggest the same thing. After one suggestion I visited the registrars office and was faced with the type of customer-care featured in bad DMV scenes. Finally, after about two weeks of no progress, I contacted the president of the university hoping for a direct and final solution from the big boss himself. I was met with only apathy and a determined secretary insisting in multiple emails I go back to the registrars office.
The problem eventually was solved when a professor in the art history department took it upon himself to help me, a shining star in a pile of bureaucratic garbage. I basically got lucky that I found the one person who had the power to care without retribution from the administration, other students in similar predicaments though have not been so lucky.
The story may be not be movie script worthy but the lesson is important: I had basically gotten a crash course in the type of world dominated by a large scale bureaucratic administration. People all over say they want the benefits of large government, but they ignore the inhumane treatment that such policies entail. My lefty friends view my situation and complaint as individually based. They claim that it was the actions of a few bad apples and that as a whole the institution is helpful and courteous. They ignore the fact that the main principle at question here is that every tax payer in this state pays to support this school, not discounting my own tuition costs, but yet they have no responsibility to help me?
It comes together when you consider everything I was taught about bureaucracy in the classroom here on campus: first and foremost all bureaucracies resist change. This is because if change (deficits in state budgets, a new election etc.) occurs then the bureaucracy must also change, an action that could result in layoffs or losing appropriations from the government. The second most important aspect is that bureaucracy only answers to bureaucracy with no responsibility to the taxpayer. If an employee of the DMV treats you like dirt (“How dare you interrupt my job with work!”) you can only complain to their boss, who most likely has no power to coerce this employee to change. Even further, if this boss could potentially go a step higher and obtain permission to coerce this bad worker into acting better he has no incentive from me to do so, so why bother?
A bureaucracy will do everything in its power to continue existing which often means creating a false sense of importance and success while down-playing problems. This type of organizational doctrine creates a situation where when a problem does occur no one, top or bottom, wants to be the one to rock the boat and thus become a visible target for extermination. Why would the president of the DMV make drastic changes to improve customer service, a change requiring firing, hiring and a budget increase, if all it will do is put him on the radar as a big spender or a problem maker?
My lesson is important because as a tea-party student dealing with bureaucracy in the classroom now I can only imagine how awful things like big government healthcare will be. Imagine having a problem with your healthcare and the possibility that today was not a good day to be asking “Government Worker A” for answers or that they had no intention of helping you anyways. We need to, as a nation, reconstruct the dialog when it comes to the inhumane and destructive nature of bureaucracy. One of the major problems we have on campuses when we debate with our fellow students is reversing the individual versus collective argument when it comes to principle. We the people pay for this government and thus should be treated as individuals and not as problems. Bureaucracy, by just existing negates the individual, and therefore should be used sparingly. We should also use these examples as caution to the bulldozer effect big government has over the little guy.
In my example if the professors and administration had been free from the bureaucracy that chokes them, or if they had an ounce of responsibility to me and the tax payer it would have played out a lot differently. I would be sitting here graduating on time instead of a semester late and would have no horrible taste in my mouth when it came to the University.
On the other hand I might not have learned such a valuable lesson otherwise.
Dan Nicholson is a Tea-Party Student from Upstate New York. Looking into law school as well as JAG with the Marines. Currently an Intern with the New York State Republican Committee.
As a tea-party student attending public university in upstate New York I have a long history dealing with bureaucracy. New York state carries the nick name “The Empire State,” a nickname that makes more sense every time I visit the DMV or recently my universities registrars office.
New York state as a whole has been making cuts in education, especially concerning the multitude of SUNY schools. (Instead of one state school we have multiple SUNY schools all of which offer most of the same stuff) Because of these cut-backs one of the programs I was getting my bachelors degree in, Classical History, was severed. In an attempt to save professors jobs the art history department absorbed the dead program without changing the requirements for graduation. The simplest way to put it is that my degree and thus the requirements to graduate say “classics” but there exists no classics program and as a result I was caught in a corner.
I emailed everyone I could including my advisors and the classics administrators. If I received a reply, which I didn’t get many, it was only with instructions to contact other professors who then would suggest the same thing. After one suggestion I visited the registrars office and was faced with the type of customer-care featured in bad DMV scenes. Finally, after about two weeks of no progress, I contacted the president of the university hoping for a direct and final solution from the big boss himself. I was met with only apathy and a determined secretary insisting in multiple emails I go back to the registrars office.
The problem eventually was solved when a professor in the art history department took it upon himself to help me, a shining star in a pile of bureaucratic garbage. I basically got lucky that I found the one person who had the power to care without retribution from the administration, other students in similar predicaments though have not been so lucky.
The story may be not be movie script worthy but the lesson is important: I had basically gotten a crash course in the type of world dominated by a large scale bureaucratic administration. People all over say they want the benefits of large government, but they ignore the inhumane treatment that such policies entail. My lefty friends view my situation and complaint as individually based. They claim that it was the actions of a few bad apples and that as a whole the institution is helpful and courteous. They ignore the fact that the main principle at question here is that every tax payer in this state pays to support this school, not discounting my own tuition costs, but yet they have no responsibility to help me?
It comes together when you consider everything I was taught about bureaucracy in the classroom here on campus: first and foremost all bureaucracies resist change. This is because if change (deficits in state budgets, a new election etc.) occurs then the bureaucracy must also change, an action that could result in layoffs or losing appropriations from the government. The second most important aspect is that bureaucracy only answers to bureaucracy with no responsibility to the taxpayer. If an employee of the DMV treats you like dirt (“How dare you interrupt my job with work!”) you can only complain to their boss, who most likely has no power to coerce this employee to change. Even further, if this boss could potentially go a step higher and obtain permission to coerce this bad worker into acting better he has no incentive from me to do so, so why bother?
A bureaucracy will do everything in its power to continue existing which often means creating a false sense of importance and success while down-playing problems. This type of organizational doctrine creates a situation where when a problem does occur no one, top or bottom, wants to be the one to rock the boat and thus become a visible target for extermination. Why would the president of the DMV make drastic changes to improve customer service, a change requiring firing, hiring and a budget increase, if all it will do is put him on the radar as a big spender or a problem maker?
My lesson is important because as a tea-party student dealing with bureaucracy in the classroom now I can only imagine how awful things like big government healthcare will be. Imagine having a problem with your healthcare and the possibility that today was not a good day to be asking “Government Worker A” for answers or that they had no intention of helping you anyways. We need to, as a nation, reconstruct the dialog when it comes to the inhumane and destructive nature of bureaucracy. One of the major problems we have on campuses when we debate with our fellow students is reversing the individual versus collective argument when it comes to principle. We the people pay for this government and thus should be treated as individuals and not as problems. Bureaucracy, by just existing negates the individual, and therefore should be used sparingly. We should also use these examples as caution to the bulldozer effect big government has over the little guy.
In my example if the professors and administration had been free from the bureaucracy that chokes them, or if they had an ounce of responsibility to me and the tax payer it would have played out a lot differently. I would be sitting here graduating on time instead of a semester late and would have no horrible taste in my mouth when it came to the University.
On the other hand I might not have learned such a valuable lesson otherwise.
Dan Nicholson is a Tea-Party Student from Upstate New York. Looking into law school as well as JAG with the Marines. Currently an Intern with the New York State Republican Committee.
U Missouri "Labor Studies" 6/6/11
College student Philip Christofanelli got more than he bargained for when he walked into the University of Missouri's "Introduction to Labor Studies" course. The course was taught by Professors Don Giljum and Judy Ancel. After Christofanelli complained to the administration, the university defended the course content with the mealy-mouth excuse of academic freedom.
In one class, Prof. Giljum explained that he belonged to the Communist Party because it is the only party that focuses on the worker class. One of the goals of the Communist Party is to capture and merge into the Democratic Party, he said. In a later class, Giljum brought in Tony Pecinovsky (formerly of the SEIU), a recruiter for the Communist Party. Pecinovsky extolled the virtues of Communist Party membership for two hours. He gave out his phone number and offered to stay as long as anyone wanted to talk about signing up.
The only textbook for the course was "Why Unions Matter" by Michael Yates, editor of the Monthly Review. The book was put out by the magazine's publishing arm. The magazine expressly states that it speaks for socialism and against capitalism. In one part, the book claims: "An entire television network, Fox, spreads pro-business and anti-labor propaganda twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week." In another, it asserts, " the employer must come to be understood as the class enemy of the workers, one that can only be defeated if workers stick together." This is what passes for a college textbook these days?
The first assignment was to write a letter to Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, asking: “What is it going to take to convince younger, future workers that belonging to and supporting a union’s organizing effort is in their best socio-economic interest?”
During the course, students were taught how to re-frame messages for battles against right-to-work legislation in Missouri and other states. The professors brought in someone from the UAW to help with the instruction Prof. Ancel, who sees no difference between capitalism and fascism, presented a slide with talking points for students to use against right-to-work advocates in debates.
There was extensive discussion of the illegal strike tactic known as a lock-in. Drawing on his own experience while on strike against the utility company Ameren, Prof. Giljum described how workers should bring in food, bedding, TVs and other supplies and lock themselves in the plant, denying the owners any use of it. When asked whether this tactic is legal, Giljum laughed and averred that not all of labor's achievements have been legal. Ancel added approvingly that cats were set loose in a utility plant in Peru to short out and bring down the electrical grid.
Fear and intimidation tactics were also discussed, such as leaving articles describing equipment sabotage around the workplace for management to find, and confronting executives at church with seemingly innocuous questions like 'how are negotiations going, not too well, huh?' One CEO felt the need to wear body armor to work after being subjected to such tactics. These tactics were discussed in the context of the history of violence in the labor movement, with the professors opining how industrial sabotage has its place in contract negotiations.
Yo, Missouri, what's wrong with you? You got budget problems? Don't ask us to feel sorry for your state. Why are you paying for this garbage? Why are you funding the Left? Why are you subsidizing your own demise? Why are you using tax money to fund political propaganda, recruitment efforts for the Communist Party, and training in illegal strike tactics? Get a grip and demand that your public universities stop using public money to proselytize impressionable young minds in doctrines that avowedly seek to destroy the country.
Academic freedom? What about the students' right to receive something other than worthless political indoctrination for their tuition dollar? Academic freedom is not the issue. The misuse of public funds to spew political propaganda and the attempt to turn a public university into an arm of the avowedly communist labor movement, THOSE are the issues. Professors, you want total academic freedom? Start your own universities. Don't expect us to keep giving you access to ours.
- CampusTown.US
In one class, Prof. Giljum explained that he belonged to the Communist Party because it is the only party that focuses on the worker class. One of the goals of the Communist Party is to capture and merge into the Democratic Party, he said. In a later class, Giljum brought in Tony Pecinovsky (formerly of the SEIU), a recruiter for the Communist Party. Pecinovsky extolled the virtues of Communist Party membership for two hours. He gave out his phone number and offered to stay as long as anyone wanted to talk about signing up.
The only textbook for the course was "Why Unions Matter" by Michael Yates, editor of the Monthly Review. The book was put out by the magazine's publishing arm. The magazine expressly states that it speaks for socialism and against capitalism. In one part, the book claims: "An entire television network, Fox, spreads pro-business and anti-labor propaganda twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week." In another, it asserts, " the employer must come to be understood as the class enemy of the workers, one that can only be defeated if workers stick together." This is what passes for a college textbook these days?
The first assignment was to write a letter to Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, asking: “What is it going to take to convince younger, future workers that belonging to and supporting a union’s organizing effort is in their best socio-economic interest?”
During the course, students were taught how to re-frame messages for battles against right-to-work legislation in Missouri and other states. The professors brought in someone from the UAW to help with the instruction Prof. Ancel, who sees no difference between capitalism and fascism, presented a slide with talking points for students to use against right-to-work advocates in debates.
There was extensive discussion of the illegal strike tactic known as a lock-in. Drawing on his own experience while on strike against the utility company Ameren, Prof. Giljum described how workers should bring in food, bedding, TVs and other supplies and lock themselves in the plant, denying the owners any use of it. When asked whether this tactic is legal, Giljum laughed and averred that not all of labor's achievements have been legal. Ancel added approvingly that cats were set loose in a utility plant in Peru to short out and bring down the electrical grid.
Fear and intimidation tactics were also discussed, such as leaving articles describing equipment sabotage around the workplace for management to find, and confronting executives at church with seemingly innocuous questions like 'how are negotiations going, not too well, huh?' One CEO felt the need to wear body armor to work after being subjected to such tactics. These tactics were discussed in the context of the history of violence in the labor movement, with the professors opining how industrial sabotage has its place in contract negotiations.
Yo, Missouri, what's wrong with you? You got budget problems? Don't ask us to feel sorry for your state. Why are you paying for this garbage? Why are you funding the Left? Why are you subsidizing your own demise? Why are you using tax money to fund political propaganda, recruitment efforts for the Communist Party, and training in illegal strike tactics? Get a grip and demand that your public universities stop using public money to proselytize impressionable young minds in doctrines that avowedly seek to destroy the country.
Academic freedom? What about the students' right to receive something other than worthless political indoctrination for their tuition dollar? Academic freedom is not the issue. The misuse of public funds to spew political propaganda and the attempt to turn a public university into an arm of the avowedly communist labor movement, THOSE are the issues. Professors, you want total academic freedom? Start your own universities. Don't expect us to keep giving you access to ours.
- CampusTown.US
