Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Liberals, Conservatives and Those Airport Screenings

Drudge has been after this for months, and now not only cable news but the mainstream media have noticed the very intrusive searches that the Transportation Security Agency has been doing at airports.

But what about liberal and conservative reactions?

Conservatives have been up in arms, while the reaction of liberals has been much more muted, if not downright supportive.

Here’s the irony: liberals were apoplectic about security measures early in the Bush Administration. The Patriot Act, warrant-less wiretapping of foreign phone numbers associated with terrorism, searches of computers of suspected terrorists — all these were condemned as invasions of privacy.

And of course conservatives supported Bush.

So what is going on here? Is it as simple as whether the president is a Republican or a Democrat? That’s part of it.

But the key factor is that conservatives are protective of ordinary, law-abiding U.S. citizens. And liberals are protective of politically correct victim groups.

On 9/11, Muslims ceased to be evil fundamentalist oppressors of women, and became victims of American imperialism.

So we get 75 year-old grandmothers sexually molested in airports.

Labels: , , , , ,

Gay Fascism in a High School Economics Class

From the Livingston Daily:
Howell Public Schools Superintendent Ron Wilson on Thursday said high school teacher Jay McDowell was disciplined after it was determined McDowell violated a student’s First Amendment rights and significantly violated a district policy.

“The student was speaking out on being offended by the gay and lesbian lifestyle because it’s against his religion. The teacher said that wasn’t appropriate,” Wilson said.

The student, 16-year-old junior Daniel Glowacki, was then ejected from McDowell’s economics class, Wilson said, along with another student after Glowacki and McDowell argued about another student wearing a belt buckle featuring the Confederate Flag.
Glowacki was asking the teacher why, if the Confederate Flag was considered offensive, he didn’t have an equal right to feel offended at the rainbow shirts gay, lesbian and liberal students were wearing, since his Catholic beliefs hold that homosexuality is sinful.
Glowacki was given a referral for his role in the ordeal. A referral is given to a student for breaking a school rule. The referral, given for minor offenses, goes on the student’s permanent record. Glowacki was given a referral, written up by McDowell, but not suspended from school.

Daniel Glowacki’s mother, Sandy Glowacki, told the Daily Press & Argus on Thursday that Howell High School Principal Aaron Moran delivered a letter to her home saying the referral had been taken off his record because Daniel Glowacki committed no wrongdoing.

The Daily Press & Argus on Tuesday filed a Freedom Of Information Act request seeking documentation from the district investigation. Assistant Superintendent Lynn Parrish on Thursday said the district served notice of the request to McDowell, alerting him the information may be released. McDowell has the option to request the information be held for an extended period of time.

“(McDowell) has options and he has the right to exercise each and every remedy he may have,” Parrish said.

McDowell did not return calls Thursday from the Daily Press & Argus seeking comment. He has declined comment when asked about the issue throughout the week.

The district Oct. 20 was taking part in a national “Spirit Day” — a Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation event aimed to raise awareness of anti-gay bullying after the recent suicides of six gay teens across the United States who had been harassed. Students in support of the day wore purple T-shirts that read “Tyler’s Army,” for one of the six who died. Others wore shirts featuring a rainbow, which signifies gay pride.

Daniel Glowacki, who has since been removed from the class and placed in another class at the request of his mother, questioned why it was allowed for students to show their support for the gay community and not allowed for a student to wear her Confederate flag belt buckle.

“I don’t really care what people think, but I don’t want people to think I’m against gays. That’s just not true,” Daniel Glowacki said.

A complaint was filed against McDowell, head of the Howell Education Association teachers’ union, by a parent. Sandy Glowacki said she did not file the complaint. That complaint led to an investigation, which led to McDowell being suspended one day without pay. District officials considered the issue over until it was found out McDowell posted information about his suspension on Facebook. He has since returned to work.

“The day the incident took place, I received several e-mails from parents saying they believe students were being harassed for not wearing the T-shirts,” Wilson said Thursday. “We have a clear, established anti-bullying policy. [emphasis added]
Translation: students who declined to show support for the gay and lesbian cause were victims of bullying.
“All the student was doing was voicing an opinion. The same thing would have been done had the student been on the other side. As superintendent, it’s my responsibility to foster fair, respectful treatment of all staff and students, and the teacher didn’t do that.”

Sandy Glowacki said she wanted her son and McDowell to apologize to each other, but because of comments being made about her son, she may seek legal action, although she acknowledged no one has mentioned her son by name.

Wilson said he is hopeful no legal action comes from the occurrence.

“My son is not a bigot,” Sandy Glowacki said. “He has a very diverse group of friends that includes some gays. If a gay student was being picked on in class, he’d stick up for them.

“But I feel his freedom of expression and freedom of speech have been violated along with his character.”
There is more coverage here and here.

Apparently the teacher verbally assaulted the dissenting students, calling them “racists.”

Daniel Glowacki learned some lessons about political correctness. Politically correct people are allowed to shut down any views they dislike by claiming to be offended, but politically incorrect people are required to tolerate anything thrown at them.

McDowell should not have merely received the one-day suspension, he should have been fired. One qualification to be a teacher is to deal tolerantly with disagreement from students, even when the student is expressing an idea you dislike. Not being a bigot, in other words, should be a qualification to be a teacher. And “bigotry” here is not defined as leftists define it — holding politically incorrect opinions. Bigotry is getting bent out of shape in the face of politically incorrect opinions.

We were about to ask rhetorically “how long before something like this happens at Marquette?” But almost certainly things like this have happened here. We have learned about some, but been unable to blog about them because we could not source them properly.

In one case a student of ours told us about hair-raising things that happened to his roommate. We urged him to urge his roommate to talk to us, but the roommate never did. A lot of students, feeling intimidated and emotionally bruised, want to let the issue drop.

Glowacki is a hero for, at least briefly, sticking to his guns and challenging what the teacher said. That’s a dangerous thing to do in high schools, and in colleges, when the teacher is a politically correct liberal or leftist.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Witchhunt: Global Warming Believers Attack and Threaten Skeptics

This is not new, but we just ran across it. From Climate Depot, an account of how a blogger at Talking Points Memo asked “At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers. . . . Shouldn’t we start punishing them now?”

A public appeal has been issued by an influential U.S. website asking: “At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers.” The appeal appeared on Talking Points Memo, an often cited website that helps set the agenda for the political Left in the U.S. The anonymous posting, dated June 2, 2009, referred to dissenters of man-made global warming fears as “greedy bastards” who use “bogus science or the lowest scientists in the gene pool” to “distort data.”

The Talking Points Memo article continues: “So when the right wing fucktards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events - how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn’t we start punishing them now?”

The article also claims the “vast majority” of scientists agree that man-made warming “can do an untold amount of damage to life on Earth.”

The full text of the Talking Points Memo is reproduced below:

(Note: The entry is posted under the anonymous byline “The Insolent Braggart”)

At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers

June 2, 2009, 9:42PM

What is so frustrating about these fools is that they are the politicians and greedy bastards who don’t want a cut in their profits who use bogus science or the lowest scientists in the gene pool who will distort data for a few bucks. The vast majority of the scientific minds in the World agree and understand it’s a very serious problem that can do an untold amount of damage to life on Earth.

So when the right wing fucktards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events - how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn’t we start punishing them now?
We are happy to report that the blogger in question repented and apologized. Unfortunately, some things are hard to take back. The fact that you said it in the first place is damning. Further, the retraction seemed to be because (in the blogger’s words) “I did true harm to this site, as well as the cause of global warming research.”

Would he have repented if his tirade had helped the movement?

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg (so to speak). Some of the other goodies include:

Climate Depot Editor’s Note:

The Talking Points Memo appeal to execute skeptics is not unique. As the science behind man-made global warming fears utterly collapses, many of the biggest promoters of the theory and environmental activists are growing increasingly desperate. Looming Question: If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the “debate is over” and the science is “settled,” why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?

Small sampling of threats, intimidation and censorship:

NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for “high crimes against humanity.”

Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics in 2007, declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors”

In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared CEOs “should be in jail... for all of eternity.”

In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled in their beds. “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,” stated the remarks, which Romm defended by calling them “not a threat, but a prediction.”

In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics.

In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.”

In 2007, The Weather Channel’s climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.

A 2008 report found that “climate blasphemy” is replacing traditional religious blasphemy. In addition, a July 2007 Senate report detailed how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation.

In 2007, then EPA Chief Vowed to Probe E-mail Threatening to “Destroy” Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called “Climate Criminals” who are committing “Terracide” (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007)

In addition, in May 2009, Climate Depot Was Banned in Louisiana! See: State official sought to “shut down” climate skeptic’s testimony at hearing.

Below are many more examples of the threats, name calling and intimidation skeptics have faced in recent times.

November 12, 2007: UN official warns ignoring warming would be “criminally irresponsible” Excerpt: The U.N.’s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible.” Yvo de Boer’s comments came at the opening of a weeklong conference that will complete a concise guide on the state of global warming and what can be done to stop the Earth from overheating.

September 29. 2007: VA State Climatologist skeptical of global warming loses job after clash with Governor: “I was told that I could not speak in public” Excerpt: Michaels has argued that the climate is becoming warmer but that the consequences will not be as dire as others have predicted. Gov. Kaine had warned. Michaels not to use his official title in discussing his views. “I resigned as Virginia state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise, global warming, as state climatologist,” Michaels said in a statement this week provided by the libertarian Cato Institute, where he has been a fellow since 1992. “It was impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech restriction.” (LINK)

Skeptical State Climatologist in Oregon has title threatened by Governor (February 8, 2007) Excerpt: “[State Climatologist George Taylor] does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change...So the [Oregon] governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor.

Skeptical State Climatologist in Delaware silenced by Governor (May 2, 2007) Excerpt: Legates is a state climatologist in Delaware, and he teaches at the university. He`s not part of the mythical climate consensus. In fact, Legates believes that we oversimplify climate by just blaming greenhouse gases. One day he received a letter from the governor, saying his views do not concur with those of the administration, so if he wants to speak out, it must be as an individual, not as a state climatologist. So essentially, you can have the title of state climatologist unless he`s talking about his views on climate?

October 28, 2008: License to dissent: “Internet should be nationalized as a public utility to combat global warming skepticism - Australian Herald Sun - Excerpt: British journalism lecturer and warming alarmist Alex Lockwood says my blog is a menace to the planet. Skeptical bloggers like me need bringing into line, and Lockwood tells a journalism seminar of some options: There is clearly a need for research into the ways in which climate skepticism online is free to contest scientific fact. But there is enough here already to put forward some of the ideas in circulation. One of the founders of the Internet Vint Cerf, and lead for Google’s Internet for Everyone project, made a recent suggestion that the Internet should be nationalized as a public utility. As tech policy blogger Jim Harper argues, “giving power over the Internet to well-heeled interests and self-interested politicians” is, and I quote, “a bad idea.” Or in the UK every new online publication could be required to register with the recently announced Internet watchdog...

November 5, 2008: UK Scientist: “BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE” – UK Daily Express
Excerpt: FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV. A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm. Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists. His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming. Here he reveals why – and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change.

U.N. official says it’s “completely immoral” to doubt global warming fears (May 10, 2007)
Excerpt: UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus.”

Former US Vice President Al Gore compared global warming skeptics to people who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona”
(June 20, 2006)

Gore Refuses to Hear Skeptical Global Warming Views (Video)

UK environment secretary David Miliband said “those who deny [climate change] are the flat-Earthers of the twenty-first century.”(October 6, 2006)

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

(January 17, 2007) Excerpt: The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to “Holocaust Deniers” and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

Barone: Warmists have “a desire to kill heretics” -- Calls for capital punishment for “global warming deniers” - DC Examiner - June 9, 2009

Strangle Skeptics in Bed! “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds” - June 5, 2009

In theory, none of this proves that anthropogenic global warming isn’t happening. After all, fanatics are sometimes right.

But in reality, fanaticism makes us doubt the empirical judgments of the fanatics. It makes us suspect that they are driven by some inner lust for righteousness, purity and orthodoxy that distorts their assessments of facts.

Add to this the fact that people who are confident of their position generally seek discussion and debate, and tolerate people who have different views.

Obviously, not all believers in anthropogenic global warming are fanatics. A lot are simply people who go along with what they have been told.

But the fanatics are not marginal figures (see above). A movement that creates such fanaticism has to be viewed with skepticism.

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, November 22, 2010

Warrior Columnist Asks: “What Makes the LGBT Community Better Than Me?”

From The Warrior, a column by Joseph Dobbs, about the fact (first reported here) that lesbian activist and college administrator Ronni Sanlo visited Marquette to “consult” with the Office of Student Affairs.

Her visit was apparently intended to be a secret. No notice went out to faculty, nor students, nor to others in the University community. Rather, only narrow group of gays, lesbians and liberal “allies” knew about the visit.

At least not until we “outed” the entire affair here.
Out of all the issues that are sticking their hands up shouting “Me sir, me!” at the university we call Marquette, one of the loudest and most resonant is that of the whole different sexuality thing. But before we call on Lindsay George Beau Tracy, we have to remember something important: Marquette University is a Catholic school and is stuck that way. Nobody is forced to come here and nobody is forced to stay. While celebrating 100 Years of Women All Over Campus was quite a hoot, I still have the funny taste of tradition in my mouth from Marquette’s 125th birthday. After all, this is a school (run by religious folk, no less!); I think the idea is that we students are the ones who are supposed to change[rather than the University changing to accomodate students]. The good news is that Marquette is quite open to giving out free hugs once your tuition check has cleared.

As reported in the Warrior blog (mu-warrior.blogspot.com), Vice President of Student Affairs Chris Miller invited lesbian activist Ronni Sanlo Ed.D. as a “consultant” for an on-campus meeting October 28 and 29. If you haven’t heard of this, you’re not alone; apparently no one did. A search for Sanlo’s name brought up no results on the Marquette web page, and the invitation e-mails obtained by Warrior staff were sent to a very narrow selection of people. Furthermore, there is no mention of Sanlo’s visit in the Marquette University News Briefs, though the invitations to attend her meetings were sent out weeks before. The implication is that we hoi polloi were not welcome to attend and support Sanlo’s message, or to question its relevance to our own experience, or even to be aware that one of the “20 Powerful Lesbian Academics” named by Rachel Pepper, coordinator of LGBT studies at Yale, was visiting our humble campus with us in mind.

So, what’s going on here? Sanlo is known for her implementation of a Lavender Graduation at the University of Michigan, which, according to her, “recognizes LGBT students of all races and ethnicities and acknowledges their achievements and contributions to the university as students who survived the college experience.“ Are we going to get one of those? Are faculty and students going to get sensitivity training?

The more obvious conclusion, that Sanlo’s visit was meant to assuage concerns about LGBT sensitivity at Marquette after what happened last time the issue was brought up, sounds about right, but is clearly undermined by the restricted access.

Hopefully the few dozen people who actually got to see her all had really big epiphanies, so they can tell us all how to be better people. Whatever her per diem was, I helped pay it, so I hope we’ll get some benefit out of it.

I like having people visit the university. . . . The problem is with the secrecy. Anyone who knows anything about the history of discrimination can tell you that its most subtle and nefarious manifestation is in segregation and isolation. “Colored” drinking fountains didn’t spray acid or sharks; their crime was in teaching black people that they were different from everyone else, even that they were a contaminant. I don’t get to see Sanlo because I’m not a fifth-dan member of the Gay-Straight Alliance. My homo-fu is lacking! But why do the Illuminati get to hang out with her when it’s everyone else who needs illumination? Shouldn’t Sanlo be meeting with the people who disagree with her and using her advanced education and research to debate the merits of their position?

Making up nonsense words like “Homophobia” and hurling them at anyone who disagrees with them hasn’t exactly gotten the LGBT folks a huge number of converts. Assuming your opponent has an open mind gives rise to gentleness and friendly discussion. Assuming whoever doesn’t agree with you has a closed mind requires you to ignore them, punish them or break it open with a club. But our lovely university has an idea of Cura Personalis; breaking people’s heads open or punishing them for their views shouldn’t really be kosher, should it? . . .

The other problem with what Sanlo’s modus operandi appears to be is the whole idea behind things like Lavender Graduation. The opposite of segregation and discrimination against Group X by Group Y is not segregation and discrimination against Group Y by Group X. Everyone has to deal with terrible things happening to him; everyone has obstacles that he cannot control but must overcome regardless. LGBT students and people should not be hated or spat on, but why should be put them on a pedestal? Orphans don’t get a special graduation ceremony or commemorations, neither do the physically or mentally scarred. The difference between these examples and the LGBT crowd is, of course, that LGBTs are victims of active hatred and abuse by other people. But it’s not being hated that makes you better; it’s transcending the hatred and not returning it. Does graduating college indicate that any given LGBT student has made achievements and contributions to a degree that he or she cannot sit next to the rest of us? What do all the students who have learning disabilities think about this, that they have to work so much harder because of a condition beyond their control, only to graduate with the rest of their school? All the ones I know are proud of it, proud to have succeeded in a task they set their minds to. They aren’t ashamed to wear the same kind of mortarboard and robe; they don’t feel like they need to be separate from everyone else.

LGBT students are different. We wouldn’t need a name for them if they weren’t; we could just call them “students.” I don’t want to make them normal. I don’t want anyone to be normal; though if I ever meet anyone who is (a possibility much in doubt), I might change my mind. But their differences don’t make them stupid or clumsy or ugly. People can be crappy to them, and that’s terrible. But the university provides counseling and support, and is hardly friendly to anyone who expresses hate towards LGBTs, verbally or physically.

At the end of the day, I want this from Ronni Sanlo, Chris Miller, the LGBT community and anyone who thinks I’m wrong, stupid or inferior because of the views I have just expressed: I want you to tell me why you think I’m wrong. I want you to show me your reasons for treating LGBTs as special, separate members of our community. Tell me why the university should use my tuition money to make me think the way you do. Tell me what you think and why. Treat me as a person with intellect and emotion, without hate or anger. In return, I offer you the same.
Of course, the comments below Dobbs’ column show that his hope of being treated civilly was for naught. One poster said “It’s hard to treat you as a ‘person with intellect. . . . ’” and another “I have never read such an offensive, degrading article in the Warrior in my four years at Marquette. And that is saying something. . . It is a shame the Warrior would publish such a disrespectful and untimely article in the wake of hate crimes that led humans to think life wasn’t worth living.” And the same poster called the article “disgusting” and “insensitive.”

Note the assumption here: if you fail to embrace the gay agenda, you want gay people to commit suicide.

Finally, another poster calls the column “disgusting.”

What Dobbs has done, of course, in run full-force into campus political correctness. Nobody bothered to argue against his column, nor to identify any logical fallacies. They simply attacked with nasty, ad hominem insults.

It’s clear who the intolerant people are.

Yet Dobbs has an excellent point (a few, actually).

In the wake of the Jodi O’Brien fiasco, the University promised to initiate a “dialogue” about four concerns:
  • LGBT issues
  • “Shared governance” issues (faculty input into University decisions)
  • Academic freedom
  • the “Catholic mission” of the institution.
But of course, sponsoring “consultants” whose visits are secret, and holding secret meetings of the campus gay lobby (we are tempted to say “gay cabal”) runs entirely contrary to the idea of “dialogue.”

They suggest scheming University officials with an agenda they want to ram down people’s throats.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Last Chance to See Cream City Bluegrass

An e-mail from our colleague Ryan Hanley, concerning a band about which we have blogged a few times.
Dear Bluegrass Fans and Friends,

After five years of fun, the Cream City Bluegrass Band (or at least its current alignment) will be saying farewell tonight. We’d love to see you at the last hurrah though!

We’ll be at the Silver Creek Brewing Company in Cedarburg from 8:30-11:30 tonight (Sat Nov 20). For directions, see http://silvercreekbrewing.com/.

Thanks to all of you for all of your support over the years! We’re so grateful for what you’ve helped us do as a band, and for your support of Wisconsin bluegrass more generally!

Finally – I have in mind a new project or two. I won’t carry this email list over, but if you’d like to be added to the lists for the new projects – one of which will likely be bluegrass and the other western swing – drop me a line and I’ll keep you on!

Best,

Ryan
While this might not be as big a deal as the last Seinfeld episode, bluegrass fans will hate to see the band go, and will enjoy themselves if they come out tonight.

Labels:

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Provost Pauly Caves, Rescinds 8:00 a.m. Class Mandate

Below is an e-mail, sent to various University offices by Anne Deahl, a staffer in the office of Provost John Pauly.

It’s inconceivable that she had the authority to do this by herself, so Pauly is obviously hiding behind one of his employees.

The Backstory

We blogged on this issue back in February. Provost John Pauly required that all departments increase the number of classes offered at 8:00 a.m. We showed that plenty of empty rooms were available at 9:00 a.m. (or 9:30 a.m. Tuesday-Thursday).

Pauly and the Registrar (Georgia McRae) surreptitiously briefed various administrators on the issue, disputing our analysis. Of course, neither Pauly nor McRae bothered to share their claims with us — obviously knowing that they could not withstand the scrutiny we would give them.

We found out about this, and did a new analysis dealing with all the issues they raised. We found empty classrooms to be plentiful at 9:00 a.m. (9:30 a.m on Tuesday-Thursday) and at 1:00 p.m. (12:30 p.m. on Tuesday-Thursday).

Pauly promised to raise the issue with McRae, and to respond to our new analysis, but failed to do so.

The E-Mail
Colleagues,

This is a follow-up to my previous email and subsequent discussion at CAPS regarding the revision of the Course Scheduling policy. I have discussed this critical issue at length with the registrar, vice provosts and the provost. We have heard your comments and taken into consideration all of the needs expressed, as well as each college’s unique scheduling issues.

Upon further review, given your feedback, we have determined that the proposal many of you recently requested to maintain the 9% maximum in each time block and eliminate the 7% requirement at 8am is a viable solution.

Some background here may prove helpful. Several years ago when this 9% metric was our guideline, we did not strictly enforce this as a policy, nor did we require courses to be offered in approved time blocks. As classroom capacity became a concern two years ago, the guidelines became policy. There had also been a provost initiative at the time to more evenly spread courses throughout the day and the week to benefit students. Given these factors, we implemented a scheduling policy that included required 8am courses, and was conservative, to ensure adequate classroom space to meet our current and potential future needs for growth.

Having considered your input over the past year, we realize that while teaching more 8am sections does help distribute courses more evenly throughout the week, this may not outweigh the challenges it presents to both faculty and students. Your willingness to work within the 9%, and to work together in schedule-building, both within and across colleges has allowed for greater efficiency in scheduling as well. Eliminating an 8am teaching requirement will, however, mean some flexibility on your part and we would ask your continued collaboration and the following:
1. There is a limited number of particular types of classrooms available in each time block; therefore, staff in the Office of the Registrar may come to you at times and ask that a course be moved into another time block, or, if this is not an option, then it could mean that the class will be assigned into a classroom that does not meet 100% of the pedagogical needs of the instructor. We would ask your forbearance and accommodation during these times.

2. When there are ADA issues that must be addressed, we may need to move more than just that one class, as has been our practice in the last year, to accommodate those needs. As more of our classrooms become accessible, we expect this issue to diminish over time.

3. Your understanding that these recommendations continue to be predicated on several assumptions:
a. The total number of course sections will remain relatively consistent (i.e., no college/school designs major structural course changes that would reduce class size, but double the number of sections needed, etc.)

b. We will retain the current inventory of General Pool Classrooms (121), or its equivalent.

c. Some colleges/schools will continue to teach some courses at the 8:00am hour by choice, as they did prior to the implementation of the 8:00am requirement.

d. Your continued cooperation to work across colleges/departments to maximize the use of each time block.
With this change and your help, the Office of the Registrar will make every effort to keep the commitments made earlier:
1. Priority in scheduling a classroom is given to faculty who have a specific piece of equipment/software installed in a classroom that is needed for a particular class.

2. Priority in scheduling classrooms in the building in which a college/school/department resides is given to the faculty in those colleges/schools/departments.

3. Priority in scheduling a classroom within the same building is given to faculty who teach back-to-back classes.

4. Priority in scheduling a classroom that meets the enrollment and pedagogical needs of the class.

5. The University’s commitment to follow the ADA regulations and move those classes with students/faculty with ADA issues to an appropriate classroom.
Knowing many of you are beginning work on your fall 2011 schedules, we will implement this policy now and you may follow it for fall 2011 schedule building. It is our hope that this change will be amenable to you and meet as many of your needs as we can reasonably meet. Please share with me any comments or questions you might have.

Thank you.

Anne Deahl

Associate Vice Provost for Academic Support Programs and Retention
Marquette University
Zilber Hall 454 C
P.O. Box 1881
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201-1881
It’s easy to understand why campus scuttlebutt holds that Pauly will occupy the Provost’s office for only a “decent interval” before being given the axe. The most important piece of baggage he has is his central role in the attempt to hire a lesbian dean candidate who was outspoken in her opposition to Catholic teaching on sexuality.

The current fiasco goes beyond showing bad judgment in pushing a policy that was both unneeded and anathema to the vast majority of students and faculty. Pauly defended the policy with bogus data, and when challenged stonewalled for six months.

Our initial suspicion was that Pauly was simply bamboozled by Registrar Georgia McRae, and would relent in the face of good information. But instead, we found that Pauly was responsible, and was rigidly attached to the policy.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Professor Berates, Attacks Students Who Question Global Warming Policies

From CampusReform.org:

A video about Prof. Bradley Schaefer, an astronomy professor at Louisiana State University who made students seat themselves according to their views on policy toward “global warming.”

Here is the seating chart.

He then began to attack and berate students who failed to endorse liberal policies on the issue.
“You will not want your children, if they live, why you’re sitting on that corner, that you’re part of the the trouble, right?” he says. Then he tells another student, “Too little, too late. Blood will be on your hands.”
Schaefer’s department chair conceded “I will confess that while this film was heavily edited, it looks pretty embarrassing. I think it’s probably fair to say he was not sufficiently sensitive.”

We’ve written Prof. Schaefer asking for comment, and will report his reply.



[Update]

A commenter on the web page we linked to claimed that Schaefer is the victim of selective editing. Specifically:
The truth of the matter is that this was an intellectual exercise. The professor did seperate [sic] the class by their self reported political beliefs, but then he attacked the views of both sides. The folks who run this site left that part out though because it doesn’t fit the story they are trying to spin.
And further, quoting Schaefer:
“You want to get rid of the internal combustion engine,” he said mockingly to self-identified liberals. “How many people are going to die with that? How are you going to feed the people in the cities?”
The problem with this argument is that all the “middle” positions he did not attack were in fact liberal positions.

See the seating chart below (and you can click on the graphic and see it full size).


So the exercise was a bit like putting Communists on one side of the room, and Republicans on the other, and “even-handedly” attacking both, leaving the liberals unmolested.

CampusReform.org has posted the full, unedited video. If anything, it’s worse that the edited version they originally posted.

[Further Update]

Another version of the video shows Schaefer suggesting that India and Pakistan, both of which have nuclear weapons, might use them to attack the U.S. because of our failure to adopt the policies he favors.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Liberal Democrat Senator Rockefeller: Ban Fox News, MSNBC

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Campus Speaker: A Skeptical Take on “Global Warming”

From the College Republicans: a talk by Christopher Horner, best selling author and Global Warming skeptic, this Wednesday (tomorrow) in the Weasler Auditorium at 6:00 p.m.

More information on Horner can be found here.

Did your high school teacher (or maybe your Marquette professor of English or Sociology) make you watch “An Inconvenient Truth?”

Do you get all your news from the New York Times and PBS (we have a colleague who does this and is proud of the fact)?

Then you need to know about the other side. After all, why would anybody want to hear only one side of a debate?

Unless perhaps they are wedded to an orthodoxy, and are offended that anybody is even allowed to challenge it.

Labels: , ,

Liberal Elitist Bigotry: Bill Maher & Michael Moore Say Americans Are Like Dogs



To state the obvious: not all liberals are as bigoted as Maher and Moore.

But to state the less obvious: liberals have created for themselves a culture where this kind of bigotry is nourished, and flourishes

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, November 12, 2010

Mark Steyn: Hate Speech About Islam?

Below is a video interiew with Mark Steyn, a fellow who has been in trouble with Canadian “human rights” authorities for “hate speech.” These authorities have the power to punish people for things they say.

The interview is worth watching all the way through — a total of four parts. Particularly interesting is the discussion of how “Muslim” now trumps “gay” and “female” among the politically correct.

And also, how Christian civilization is the bulwark protecting free societies.


See Parts 2, 3 and 4 here.

Labels: , , ,

Conference on Social Justice Starts Today

Here is a flyer on a conference my colleague Ryan Hanley put together on “social justice.”

The term gets thrown around at any Catholic university, but is seldom analyzed. Look for a lot of analysis at this conference.

It is typically assumed by campus activists that everybody knows what “social justice” is, with the only question being whether you believe in it or not. It’s not, as the conference will make clear, nearly so simple.

Labels:

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Support for ObamaCare At New Low

This based on a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation:

Support for ObamaCare can be measured in two ways. First, we can ask whether Americans
Do you think you and your family will be better off or worse off under the new health reform law, or don’t you think it will make much difference?
The number of people saying “worse off” is close to the all time high, and is currently at 31%.

The number of people saying “better off” is at an all time low, at 25%.

The chart is below (you can click on the image to see it full size).


Public disapproval of an extension of the welfare state is rare. Usually, the public just sees they are getting goodies, and isn’t inclined to ask questions about who pays, and when the bill comes due.

But now it’s different. The public is aware that there is a lot they may lose.

Labels: , ,

Socialism: The Peasant Mentality

From Victor Davis Hanson:
Traditional peasant societies believe in only a limited good. The more your neighbor earns, the less someone else gets. Profits are seen as a sort of theft. They must be either hidden or redistributed. Envy rather than admiration of success reigns.

In contrast, Western civilization began with a very different ancient Greek idea of an autonomous citizen, not an indentured serf or subsistence peasant. The small, independent landowner — if left to his own talents and if his success was protected by, and from, government — would create new sources of wealth for everyone. The resulting greater bounty for the poor soon trumped their old jealousy of the better off.

Citizens of ancient Greece and Italy soon proved more prosperous and free than either the tribal folk to the north and west, or the imperial subjects to the south and east. The success of later Western civilization in general, and America in particular, is testament to this legacy of the freedom of the individual in the widest political and economic sense.

We seem to be forgetting that lately — though Mao Zedong’s redistributive failures in China, or present-day bankrupt Greece, should warn us about what happens when government tries to enforce an equality of result rather than of opportunity.

Even after the failure of statism at the end of the Cold War, the disasters of socialism in Venezuela and Cuba, and the recent financial meltdowns in the European Union, for some reason America is returning to a peasant mentality of a limited good that redistributes wealth rather than creates it. Candidate Obama’s “spread the wealth” slip to Joe the Plumber simply was upgraded to President Obama’s “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

The more his administration castigates insurers, businesses and doctors; raises taxes on the upper income brackets; and creates more regulations, the more those who create wealth are sitting out, neither hiring nor lending. The result is that traditional self-interested profit-makers are locking up trillions of dollars in unspent cash rather than using it to take risks and either lose money due to new red tape or see much of their profit largely confiscated through higher taxes.

No wonder that in such a climate of fear and suspicion, unemployment remains near 10 percent. Deficits chronically exceed $1 trillion per annum. And now the poverty rate has hit a historic high. We are all getting poorer in hopes that a few don’t get richer.

That limited-good mind-set expects that businesses will agree that they now make enough money and so have no need to pursue any more profits at the expense of others. Therefore, they will gladly still hire the unemployed and buy new equipment — as they pay higher health care or income taxes to a government that knows far better how to redistribute their income to the more needy or deserving.

This peasant approach to commerce also assumes that businesses either cannot understand administration signals or can do nothing about them. So who cares that in the Chrysler bankruptcy settlement, quite arbitrarily the government put the unions in front of the legally entitled lenders?

Health insurers should not mind that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius just warned them to keep their profits down and their mouths shut — or face exclusion from health care markets.

I suppose that no corporation should worry that the government arbitrarily announced — without benefit a law or court ruling — that it wanted BP to put up $20 billion in cleanup costs for the Gulf spill.

What optimistic Americans used to call a rising tide that lifts all boats is now once again derided as trickle-down economics. In other words, a newly peasant-minded America is willing to become collectively poorer so that some will not become wealthier.

The present economy suggests that it is surely getting its wish.
Hanson’s point is consistent with the thinking of famous political theorist Louis Hartz, who in a book called The Liberal Tradition in America (“liberal” as in free markets and free people) observed that socialism in Europe did not grow out of capitalism. It rather grew out of the feudal past of the continent. It was simply the peasant mentality applied to modern industrial society.

Of course, the lust for redistribution in the U.S. today does not come from the poor, and certainly not from the working class. It comes from the New Class — people in government, academia, the media and activist groups who use redistribution as a tool to attack a rival elite, the business class.

It is not, in other words, the project of people who value equality, but rather the project of a new elite, an elite perfectly personified by the Obama Administration.

Labels: , ,

MSNBC Host: We Need a Revolution

Labels:

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Gulf Oil Spill: Obama Administration Lied About Scientific Advice

From the Associated Press, via Fox News:
WASHINGTON -- The Interior Department’s inspector general says the White House edited a drilling safety report in a way that made it falsely appear that scientists and experts supported the idea of the administration’s six-month ban on new drilling.

The inspector general says the editing changes resulted “in the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer reviewed.” But it hadn’t been. The scientists were only asked to review new safety measures for offshore drilling.

“There was no intent to mislead the public,” said Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who also recommended in the May 27 safety report that a moratorium be placed on deepwater oil and gas exploration. “The decision to impose a temporary moratorium on deepwater drilling was made by the secretary, following consultation with colleagues including the White House.”

The Interior Department, after one of the reviewers complained about the inference, promptly issued an apology to the reviewers during a conference call, with a letter and personal meeting in June.

The inspector general’s report, which was originally requested by Louisiana Sen. David Vitter and Rep. Steve Scalise in June, said the administration did not violate federal rules because the executive summary did not say the experts approved the recommendations and the department offered a formal apology and had publicly clarified the nature of the expert review.

But Louisiana Rep. Bill Cassidy, a Republican, said in a statement that the investigation proved “that the blanket drilling moratorium was driven by a politics and not by science.”

“Candidate Obama promised that he would guided by science, not ideology,” Cassidy said. Cassidy said if that were true thousands of jobs and billions in economic activity would have been preserved on the Gulf coast.

Labels: , ,

Irony #1

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Election Post-Mortem Tonight: Marquette Political Scientists Discuss Election

2010 Elections Aftermath
What Happened? What is Next?

Tuesday, November 9
LL 176
7-8:30PM

Moderated by
Dr. Barrett McCormick, Professor of Political Science and Department Chair
Analysis from our Panel Participants

• Dr. Julia Azari, Presidential Studies Scholar
• Dr. Karen Hoffman, American Foreign Policy Scholar
• Dr. John McAdams, Voter Behavior Scholar
• Dr. McGee Young, Business and Politics Scholar

Questions and Comments from the Floor
Free and Open to all
Free Food!
See the flyer here.

Labels: ,

Saturday, November 06, 2010

Keith Olbermann - A Memorial Tribute



Of course, what NBC did in sacking Olbermann was silly.

Apparently, they fear that if the public knows their on-air people contribute to liberal political candidates, it might catch on that they are liberals.

Anybody who didn’t know that already deserves to regularly watch Obermann and believe everything he says.

Labels:

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

Is Obama a Keynesian? Views From the “Rally for Sanity”

Monday, November 01, 2010

George W. Bush Throws Out First Pitch at World Series