Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on April 19, 2005, 06:18:53 PM
-
http://www.campusmagazine.org/articledetail.aspx?id=4ff8775f-04a8-45c7-b61c-e6a8f9f157a5
Yes the list is out for this year. Yet another example of how the PC left wants everyone to be happy....unless you are a white male.
First: At LeMoyne College, graduate student Scott McConnell was expelled after writing a paper rejecting multiculturalism and advocating light spanking in elementary school classrooms. Despite his exemplary grades, McConnell received a letter from the Director of his program stating: “I have grave concerns regarding the mismatch between your personal beliefs regarding teaching and learning and the LeMoyne College program goals…. You will not be allowed to register for any additional courses. Your registration for Spring 2005 courses has been withdrawn.” McConnell declared in his paper that he bases his teaching philosophy “upon the pre-1960’s learning when discipline was present in the learning environment.” He argues that the students should be told that “their job is to learn and my job is to teach.” McConnell has little sympathy for the sacred cows of modern educational philosophy. “The classroom environment would revolve strictly around the American culture and state culture, not multicultural learning,” McConnell boldly states in his paper. “I will help the child understand that respect of authority figures is more important than their self-esteem.” McConnell received an A- on the paper and an A for the course. He received A’s and B’s in all the courses he took in the M.S.T program. However, when he attempted to register for classes the following semester, he learned the school had expelled him. Regionally, the story was covered by the Syracuse Post-Standard and nationally by the New York Times. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is assisting McConnell in his quest to become registered once again at LeMoyne.
Yes cause we can't have students writing about things that might offend people. NO, not in college!
Second: At the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Economics Professor Hans Hoppe received disciplinary sanctions for making an economically verifiable argument that homosexuals engage less in long-term financial planning than heterosexuals because they typically do not have children. One of Hoppe’s students, Michael Knight, filed a complaint leading to a yearlong battle between Hoppe and the University (which Hoppe eventually won). Knight accused Hoppe of “stereotyping homosexuals…When the door closes and the lecture began [sic], he needs to make sure he is remaining as politically correct as possible.” In an interview with Professor Hoppe by the Collegiate Network, Professor Hoppe believes he lost a year of his life to the entire affair. The University’s Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity Officer affirmed the complaint by Knight and recommended that Hoppe receive a reprimand and be suspended without pay for one week. A grievance committee made up of one student and Hoppe’s faculty peers was held on November 18, 2004. The committee upheld the original grievance and recommended that Hoppe be reprimanded and forfeit any merit pay for the current academic year. On February 9, 2005, Hoppe received “a non-disciplinary letter of instruction” from Raymond W. Alden, III, the university’s Executive Vice President and Provost, affirming the decision of the grievance committee, stating that Hoppe had created “a hostile learning environment” in his classroom, and instructing Hoppe “to cease mischaracterizing opinion as objective fact in the educational environment.” However, nine days later, the university’s president, Dr. Carol Harter, released a statement in which she acknowledged that professors “are entitled the freedom to teach theories and to espouse opinions that are out of the mainstream or are controversial…” nowhere in the statement did Harter apologize to Hoppe for what university officials put him through, nor were any individual university officials singled out for criticism. Knight, the student who filed the complaint, would have fit right in at LeMoyne College. The letter from the university, and the statement from President Harter are available on the web. Professor Hoppe’s Victory Blog shows how support for his cause has reached beyond the borders of the United States.
Hmmm one student was offended by economically verifiable facts. THAT BASTARD TEACHER!
Third: At Carnegie Mellon University, SPIRIT, an officially sanctioned student group, hosted “New Black Panther Party” chief Malik Zulu Shabazz. Shabazz is a noted anti-Semite who publicly advocates killing Zionists and claims that whites are genetically disposed towards racism. Bodyguards armed with riot batons—a violation of CMU weapons policy—escorted Shabazz around campus, and black students and attendees were given preferential admission to the speech. During the speech, Shabazz asked all Jews to raise their hands and then warned those who did, “I’m watching you.” Shabazz has also claimed that Jews were complicit in the 9/11 attacks. A columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described the speech as “Farrakhan in Nuremberg.” A transcript of his speech is available on the web. Along similar lines, Duke University, hosted the annual Palestine Solidarity Movement conference. The conference included a recruiting session by the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) during which an ISM co-founder told students how to illegally enter Israel and admitted that the ISM cooperates with Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and PFLP terror groups. The university spent (in addition to space), $50,000 on security for the event. Security means, in this case, metal detectors to keep out cameras and recorders for this supposed “open dialogue” event. Two graduate students at Duke wrote a piece for Commentary Magazine, while the Duke Conservative Union took out an advertisement in the Duke Chronicle. Lee Kaplan also wrote a very thorough piece for Frontpage Magazine.
Were's forrest gump when you need him. This must be part of the multiculturalism/diversity movement. In order to promote diversity only minority hate groups are allowed on campus. It's not descriminating if it's against white people is it???? didn't think so. Don't forget about those pesky jews.....jihad and anti semitism are the new rage....why all the kids are doing it!
-
Fourth: In an astonishing abuse of administrative power at Occidental College, campus shock-jock Jason Antebi was fired from his radio program and found guilty by the school’s Title IX Officer of “sexual and gender hostile environment harassment,” against his entire audience after three students were offended by sophomoric comments he made on the air. Additionally, when members of the student government came to Antebi’s defense, the University disbanded it, leaving $441,000 in student fees that will not be administered by the students’ elected representatives. For those of us who believe in free speech, this situation is positively Kafkaesque. All anyone had to do to avoid this “harassment” was turn off his or her radio. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is representing Antebi and has additional information on the lawsuit.
No we cannot have a democratically elected student govt appose the wishes of the administration.....they must be eliminated! Sounds rather stalinistic to me!
Fifth: Harvard University President Lawrence Summers drew the ire of the politically correct crowd, and recently received a faculty vote of no-confidence, after suggesting that innate differences between the sexes could be one reason women are less likely than men to excel in the sciences. Nancy Hopkins, an MIT professor, walked out during the talk, saying that if she had listened to Summers any longer, “I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up… It is so upsetting that all these brilliant young women [at Harvard] are being led by a man who views them this way.” Interesting that academicians rush to the aid of Ward Churchill, who stated that civilians killed on 9/11 were “little Eichmanns,” (referring to Hitler’s henchman, Adolf Eichmann) but Larry Summers putting forth a theory makes them sick. Summers has been a target of the Radical Left ever since he had the courage to question African-American studies professor Cornel West's pseudo-scholarship and work ethic. Of course, Summers was exercising the right of academic freedom and offering a theory that has some scientific support.
of course science is important. College is all about the meeting of minds and growth of new ideas/theorys.....unless they offend woman/minorities. We can't have scientific data shed new light on well known genetic differences!
-
and of course ward churchhill has the full support of the college he teaches at.
hippycrats
-
Of course, Summers was exercising the right of academic freedom and offering a theory that has some scientific support.
OMG Scientific support shouldnt matter if it offends WOMAN!
-
This is just further proof of what I have always believed..Colleges are poisoning the minds of young people today..education has become secondary to professors pushing their own beliefs and agendas..If you want a college education, do it online or by distance learning or something..stay away from universities. Who needs em anyway? I make great money on my HS diploma and retire in another 8 years (Only been working it for 12)
-
or you could double your income by getting a second job at Walmart!
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
or you could double your income by getting a second job at Walmart!
My net income is 51,164/yr...and don't have to pay for health insurance..according to the pay and compensation calculator I used I would have to make 62,943 to live at the same level I am now....how many Wal Mart employees make that much?
Plus retirement...
High-3 Participants Retirement
Based on your input, your total military retirement payout over 40 years would be $1,720,123.
As a civilian, you would have to accrue $933,395 at the time of retirement to receive a comparable payout. In order to achieve this amount, you would have to invest $20,397 annually at a 8.00% return over a 20-year period.
How many average people can pay into a retirement account for only 20 years and accrue 933,000 dollars?
And I still have my medical benefits on top of that.
Not to mention that the Commissary and Navy exchange are cheaper than most stores and TAX FREE , and I can shop there ther rest of my life...I think us military guys have got it pretty good. And all on just a HS diploma.
-
Dont mind spit ASTAC, he is all about the personal attack, just ignore him. It is not like he ever has anything worth hearing to say.
-
In other PC news:
Scouting for Sponsors, Pope-ophobia
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
By Scott Norvell
The ACLU has stepped up its assault on scouting by insisting that the pledge "to do my duty to God and my country" makes the group ineligible for any sort of government funding or support, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Scouting councils across the nation are said to be scrambling to find new sponsors for thousands of Boy Scout troops and Cub Scout packs whose charters are held by taxpayer-funded institutions, including public schools, following a challenge from the ACLU that such public sponsorship is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
An ACLU spokesman, Ed Yohnka, said the group is concerned that public sponsorship of Boy Scout troops tramples on the rights of boys who want to participate in Scouting without publicly pledging allegiance to God.
Pope-ophobia
A parent at a public school in Nevada has complained about her child's school showing students parts of Pope John Paul II's funeral on television last week, according to the Reno Gazette Journal.
The parent of an elementary school student in Washoe County said she was concerned that showing the pope's funeral sends a mixed message about what is allowed in public schools about religion.
School officials said they just wanted to show children an example of a historical world event. "If there are parents who don't want their children participating, they can opt out," one said.
LOL
Indiana Pacers forward Jermaine O'Neal says racism is the only possible explanation for the NBA's current efforts to raise the minimum playing age to 20, according to ESPN.
Players currently have to be at least 18 to be drafted, but NBA commissioner David Stern would like to see the age raised to 20. But O'Neal insists: "As a black guy, you kind of think [race is] the reason why it's coming up."
"You don't hear about it in baseball or hockey. To say you have to be 20, 21 to get in the league, it's unconstitutional. If I can go to the U.S. Army and fight the war at 18, why can't you play basketball for 48 minutes?" O'Neal said.
Guardians of the Public Interest
The Des Moines Register has ruined a few high school seniors' days by relaying to school officials one parent's complaint about "sexist and inappropriate" awards to be handed out at a banquet. School officials promptly canceled them.
The lone parent complained that awards for "best butt," "best body" and "best legs" violated the school's sexual harassment policy by being "sexist, inappropriate and harassing."
Human resources officials at Roosevelt High School apparently agreed, much to the chagrin of most students.
"For some of the seniors, that might be the only award they ever get in their high school years," said student Paul Hall. "I would feel happy if I got one."
-
And yet they don't kick "Reality Church" out of the public school on the corner in my community..wish they would go(but only because they block up the street with cars every sunday). The ACLU should be listed as a domestic terrorist group..because while suppossedly defending your freedoms they are making you afraid to exercise them with their lawsuits. Not to mention how much do their lawsuits cost us in "court costs"? You never used to hear of this stuff..can we just go back to the times where we lived our lives and kept our mouths shut about trivial nuances?
-
Along similar lines, Duke University, hosted the annual Palestine Solidarity Movement conference. The conference included a recruiting session by the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) during which an ISM co-founder told students how to illegally enter Israel and admitted that the ISM cooperates with Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and PFLP terror groups. The university spent (in addition to space), $50,000 on security for the event. Security means, in this case, metal detectors to keep out cameras and recorders for this supposed “open dialogue” event. Two graduate students at Duke wrote a piece for Commentary Magazine, while the Duke Conservative Union took out an advertisement in the Duke Chronicle. Lee Kaplan also wrote a very thorough piece for Frontpage Magazine
The ISM draws heavily on Jewish volunteers (apart from 2 of the 3 founders, their main spokesman was a man named Raphael Cohen, about 20% of their membership is Jewish).
Their advice for "entering Israel illegally" is not to say you are coming to join ISM. In fact, one of their sources of volunteers is Jews who go on the "birthright" program, which pays for flight for young Jews to visit Israel. The ISM volunteers take the free flights, then join up with ISM.
-
I only ever ran into one leftwing nutjob professor. But she was totally in over her head and didn't belong teaching the class to begin with (in fact I believe she was fired the next year).
Anyhow, 6 years (and counting... sigh), countless professors, one leftwing nutjob. I must have just gotten lucky.
[edit] I should add, I disagreed with her in almost every class, and on the test but I still got an A in the class. So even she wasn't that bad in the end.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
). The ACLU should be listed as a domestic terrorist group..because while suppossedly defending your freedoms they are making you afraid to exercise them with their lawsuits. Not to mention how much do their lawsuits cost us in "court costs"? You never used to hear of this stuff..can we just go back to the times where we lived our lives and kept our mouths shut about trivial nuances?
I was gonna post something sarcastic about the 'real' good old days, but you are probably too young to remember them.
The American Civil Liberties Union is tasked to defending Civil Liberties. I think Civil Liberties are a good thing... don't you?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I was gonna post something sarcastic about the 'real' good old days, but you are probably too young to remember them.
The American Civil Liberties Union is tasked to defending Civil Liberties. I think Civil Liberties are a good thing... don't you?
MT you are correct. But, to me it seems like they are persuing an agenda beyond civil liberties and creating contriversy were there is none.
Granted the Vegas prof. in one of the examples I posted was in fact represented by the ACLU on the grounds of free speech infringment. Sometimes they do serve a good purpose even if their organization and the person they represent's political poles are miles apart. That is one of their few redeeming qualities.
-
Granted the Vegas prof. in one of the examples I posted was in fact represented by the ACLU on the grounds of free speech infringment. Sometimes they do serve a good purpose even if their organization and the person they represent's political poles are miles apart. That is one of their few redeeming qualities.
Personally, I agree with a lot of their positions. I have no problem with their position on the Boy Scouts, for example. But it is funny the shaky interpretations they embrace in an effort to not support the 2nd amendment
Charon
-
Gunslinger, where in the article is Summers' scientific data mentioned, or did you just make that up?
-
9,256 Postsecondary Institutions in the US
15.3M Students Attending
783,000 Instructional and Research Faculty
1.6M Professional/Administrative Staff
Five "outrages" noted here.
Is Higher Ed a bastion of liberalism - one could argue so, especially in the liberal arts (hey, there's a clue!) programs. Not so much so in engineering and business schools.
But college students are presumably adults and really are capable of filtering out the crap and making up their own minds.
Remember, most colleges and universities are meeting a market demand. Even those so-called state funded institutions have a fraction of their funding actually coming from the state. So there is a demand being met.
What's the saying - if you're not a liberal when you are 20, you have no heart and if you're not a conservative when you're 50 you have no brains?
If we are condeming entire industries based on a few outrages, we maybe should start with the energy sector, or professional athletics, or the brokerages, or real estate, or....
U.S. Higher Ed's track record aint bad when it comes to legitimately producing what it is established to produce. People from all over the world wish to study at our institutions and U.S. educated people eclipse the world in terms of innovation, business leadership, and productivity.
And before you accuse me of being a leftist appologist for higher ed: I'm a registered republican, have an arsenal of 30+ collectible and modern firearms, and love off-roading in my '94 Ford Bronco.
-
mt.. tell your wife that I think the Aclu is more about squashing and banning things than about assuring that I have the liberty to say and do them.
lazs
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I was gonna post something sarcastic about the 'real' good old days, but you are probably too young to remember them.
The American Civil Liberties Union is tasked to defending Civil Liberties. I think Civil Liberties are a good thing... don't you?
Roger Baldwin, the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union, once said, "I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."
The ACLU dosent seem to have strayed to far..................Civil Liberties seems to be what the ACLU sues you into silence and accepting what they are now days, take the Boy Scouts for example, or Christianity in the U.S, or the rights of pedaphilic degenerites in NAMBLA ............. Any of you BB members here in the U.S. have son's 5-10? The ACLU is defending NAMBLA's civil rights to share information on how to seduce your children...............
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Gunslinger, where in the article is Summers' scientific data mentioned, or did you just make that up?
asuming the fact that he's a scientist/professor speaking at Harvard to a bunch of other scientists one would suffice he is speaking of science or refferring to some sort of scientific research.
Maybe you havnt heard of the case maybe you have, look it up and read the details for yourself. Don't apply liberal BBS OC argument method to everything in life, you might miss something.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
asuming the fact that he's a scientist/professor speaking at Harvard to a bunch of other scientists one would suffice he is speaking of science or refferring to some sort of scientific research.
That's better, at least you're saying it's an assumption.
Maybe you havnt heard of the case maybe you have, look it up and read the details for yourself.
You prove your case yourself.
Don't apply liberal BBS OC argument method to everything in life, you might miss something. [/B]
Oh I see, you think that critical thought is solely the perview of "liberals". And you go ahead and make another assumption, in that I apply it to everything in life. Perhaps I do, but there are alot worse things I can be obessive about than separting fact from fantasy and truth from fiction. And I imagine the only thing I would be missing out on is making decisions based bad information.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Roger Baldwin, the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union, once said, "I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."
The ACLU dosent seem to have strayed to far..................Civil Liberties seems to be what the ACLU sues you into silence and accepting what they are now days, take the Boy Scouts for example, or Christianity in the U.S, or the rights of pedaphilic degenerites in NAMBLA ............. Any of you BB members here in the U.S. have son's 5-10? The ACLU is defending NAMBLA's civil rights to share information on how to seduce your children...............
Yea, Baldwin was a pinko, but the organization he founded is better than the man. Kinda like the FBI isn't just cross dressing homosexuals.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Yea, Baldwin was a pinko, but the organization he founded is better than the man. Kinda like the FBI isn't just cross dressing homosexuals.
Dude, now that is funny.
Who wrote it for you?
:p
-Sik
-
Originally posted by bustr
Roger Baldwin, the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union, once said, "I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."
Only jealous people are communists..they can't make it on their own..so they try to take it from everybody else.
It is not in human nature to not want to own property and have nice things. Therefore ideas like his can never work.
And the ACLU has an instruction manual on how to illegally immigrate into the US..yeah..these guys are on our side:rolleyes:
-
MT,
Cool then you are ok with pedophiles sharing how to seduce and rape prepubesint boys. Thats what the ACLU is attempting to take to the Supream Court. Gee I dind't know you cared. If they win you gonna march in the first memorial parade in SF to celebrate the civil right of pedophilia?
The ACLU is kinda like a doctor who finds cures for things like AIDS, but along the way gets busted for 1st degree murder with 12 eye witnesses who say he just walked up to the 5 year old kid and blew his brains out. I guess we have to excuse him from the rules of right and wrong because it looked like he saved millions of lives before he killed the kid.
-
Originally posted by bustr
MT,
Cool then you are ok with pedophiles sharing how to seduce and rape prepubesint boys. Thats what the ACLU is attempting to take to the Supream Court. Gee I dind't know you cared. If they win you gonna march in the first memorial parade in SF to celebrate the civil right of pedophilia?
The ACLU is kinda like a doctor who finds cures for things like AIDS, but along the way gets busted for 1st degree murder with 12 eye witnesses who say he just walked up to the 5 year old kid and blew his brains out. I guess we have to excuse him from the rules of right and wrong because it looked like he saved millions of lives before he killed the kid.
So how free would you like speech to be?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
That's better, at least you're saying it's an assumption.
You prove your case yourself.
Oh I see, you think that critical thought is solely the perview of "liberals". And you go ahead and make another assumption, in that I apply it to everything in life. Perhaps I do, but there are alot worse things I can be obessive about than separting fact from fantasy and truth from fiction. And I imagine the only thing I would be missing out on is making decisions based bad information.
no you moron this was a guy doing research who was invited to give a speech. During that speech he said that woman are less apt at science for biological reasons....IE WOMAN ARE DIFFERENT (biology 101)
the liberal left and feminazis went after him for his study INTO science. All the article is claiming is the W's. you want more specific information go look for it. Just cause what I posted doesnt mention it doesnt mean.....Oh why bother. Do I have to post a backround check of Dr. Summers too??
http://www.president.harvard.edu/biography/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183495.stm
http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~lai/nytsummers.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/18/education/18harvard.html
http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/031605WC.shtml
http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article505387.html
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4167
http://www.kurakani.tk/Article390.phtml
http://www.dunndailyrecord.com/main.asp?ArticleID=64927&SectionID=10
http://pubsociology.typepad.com/pub/2005/01/dude_what_is_la.html
so you agree that if inelectual thought offends woman we should abandon it all together??????
First is what Dr. Summers calls the "high-powered job hypothesis," where success demands putting in 80-hour weeks, and men are more willing or capable to do so. In support of how marriage and family impact women's careers, he added that when one does see women in the higher reaches of science, they tend to be unmarried or have no children.
Dr. Summers' second hypothesis is that there are sex differences in IQ and aptitude at the high end, and his third is that socialization and discrimination might explain some of the underrepresentation.
OMG what a pig....what statments to make. This is so common sense that it must be offesive.....get the pitch forks!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
no you moron this was a guy doing research who was invited to give a speech. During that speech he said that woman are less apt at science for biological reasons....IE WOMAN ARE DIFFERENT (biology 101)
No he didn't, there you go making assumptions again. He presented it as a possible hypothesis, he didn't present any "scientific data" to back up the claim.
"In his remarks last week, Summers pointed to research showing that girls are less likely to score top marks than boys in standardized math and science tests, even though the median scores of both sexes are comparable. He said yesterday that he did not offer any conclusion for why this should be so but merely suggested a number of possible hypotheses."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html
[QUTOE]the liberal left and feminazis went after him for his study INTO science.[/QUOTE]
There was no study. He observed a trend, and offered up a hypothesis as an explanation with no data to back it up, which isn't even science, it's just guessing.
so you agree that if inelectual thought offends woman we should abandon it all together??????
What the heck is intellectual about about factless postulates, you should know, you are doing a fair bit of it yourself in this thread.
OMG what a pig....what statments to make. This is so common sense that it must be offesive.....get the pitch forks!
Heh, common sense tells us that the sun goes around the earth. You can see it happen every day.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Cool then you are ok with pedophiles sharing how to seduce and rape prepubesint boys. Thats what the ACLU is attempting to take to the Supream Court. Gee I dind't know you cared. If they win you gonna march in the first memorial parade in SF to celebrate the civil right of pedophilia?
Hmmm... seems to me that the ACLU advocates personal responsibility.
ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations
August 31, 2000
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=8100&c=86
As for the Boy Scouts, the Supreme Court ruling states that it is within a private organization's rights to discriminate against whom they please. That's all fine and good, but these same organizations cannot expect to be able to do so on public land or facilities. The Supreme Court ruling last year says as much. You can blame the ACLU all you want, but they didn't write the Constitution or make the laws.
-
factless postulates
Heh, common sense tells us that the sun goes around the earth. You can see it happen every day.
I don't know about you thrawn but when I check my jock I don't have a vagina in there. I'm also farily certain that 99.9999% of the woman I've dated didn't have a noodle.
I don't need a scietific study to tell me that woman and men are different. You can disagree with this all you want for all I care. Check your shorts and go play doctor with some girl and learn for yourself.
PS formulating a hypothisis from trends is science how ever you want to look at it.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I don't need a scietific study to tell me that woman and men are different. You can disagree with this all you want for all I care.
I don't disagree that men and women are different. I'm saying that it hasn't been proven that women and men score differently in maths and scientences because of genetic predisposition.
PS formulating a hypothisis from trends is science how ever you want to look at it.
No, it is the beginning of science but good science doesn't end there.
1. Observe a trend.
2. Come up with a hypothesis to explain it.
3. Test the hypothesis through experimentation etc.
4. If the experimentation proves the hypothesis send it for peer review (see if your results can be duplicated etc.).
All buddy did was 1 and 2. Anyone can do that, but it's not science.
1. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
2. Therefore the sun revolves around earth.
There I have done science, fear my skillz.
-
""That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie""
the nazis never marched in skokie, chicago cut a deal with the nazis, the nazis stay out of skokie and they could hold a rally in a chicago park.
-
..... Dr. Summers cited research showing that more high school boys than girls tend to score at very high and very low levels on standardized math tests, and that it was important to consider the possibility that such differences may stem from biological differences between the sexes.
Dr. [Richard Freeman, Harvard economist and the conference's organizer] said, "Men are taller than women, that comes from the biology, and Larry's view was that perhaps the dispersion in test scores could also come from the biology."
Dr. Summers said, "I was trying to provoke discussion, and I certainly believe that there's been some move in the research away from believing that all these things are shaped only by socialization."
hmmm.....do they do research in science and the pursuit there of?
Either way I don't have the time to argue simantics.....substance is another story but this really is a waist of time. This guy is under fire for trying to provoke thought and discussion. Last time I checked that's what they do at them fancy ivy league scrules.
-
You'd never read it on this BBS, but the ACLU is exceptionally tight with the NRA, they both a lot of joint litigation. NORML does a lot also
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I'm also farily certain that 99.9999% of the woman I've dated didn't have a noodle.
I like that you leave a margin of error there. You ever get drunk overseas?
-Sik
-
You'd never read it on this BBS, but the ACLU is exceptionally tight with the NRA,
That's news to me. My understanding is that they are pretty much anti-gun and shape their perception of the 2nd amendment to suit that. Here's an excellent, reasoned analysis of their position and its flaws:
ACLU 2nd Amendment (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=307)
However, they have cooperated on some 1st amendment/patriot act stuff.
Charon
-
Considering the fact that the ACLU budget is not limitless, why would they spend any effort on 2nd Amendment issues while the NRA exists?
-
Originally posted by Charon
That's news to me. My understanding is that they are pretty much anti-gun and shape their perception of the 2nd amendment to suit that. Here's an excellent, reasoned analysis of their position and its flaws:
ACLU 2nd Amendment (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=307)
However, they have cooperated on some 1st amendment/patriot act stuff.
Charon
Not one line of that article supports the author's definition of the views of the ACLU. He states what he thinks the views are, then he shoots them down. Silly logic. I'm surprised that you thought it was good Charon.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I like that you leave a margin of error there. You ever get drunk overseas?
-Sik
that's to account for the many trips to mexico ;)
-
Not one line of that article supports the author's definition of the views of the ACLU. He states what he thinks the views are, then he shoots them down. Silly logic. I'm surprised that you thought it was good Charon.
I already knew the ACLU's position, they make it very clear. I found the article above to be a concise rebuttal. From the ACLU itself:
Gun Control
"Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's unlimited right to keep and bear arms?"
BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns. (edit: except there is no mention in the Constitution of the right to "drive automobiles." That is a privilege.)
http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25
They are extraordinarily silent in their support of the 2nd Ammendment compared to most other constitutional issues. In addition, as the author of the 1st piece notes, their arguments from "collective vs. individual" to "outdated" seem fairly weak. They seem to work very hard at maintaining that “collective” stance when there is significant evidence to suggest that it is inaccurate and not in spirit with the use of “militia” at the time. Perhaps the 1st amendment is also outdated in the era of shock radio and hateful Web sites? Groups like the ADL certainly think so where white supremacist groups are concerned.
From the Yale Law Journal:
I cannot help but suspect that the best explanation for the absence of the Second Amendment from the legal consciousness of the elite bar, including that component found in the legal academy, [28] is derived from a mixture of sheer opposition to the idea of private ownership of guns and the perhaps subconscious fear that altogether plausible, perhaps even "winning," interpretations of the Second Amendment would present real hurdles to those of us supporting prohibitory regulation. Thus the title of this essay --The Embarrassing Second Amendment -- for I want to suggest that the Amendment may be profoundly embarrassing to many who both support such regulation and view themselves as committed to zealous adherence to the Bill of Rights (such as most members of the ACLU). Indeed, one sometimes discovers members of the NRA who are equally committed members of the ACLU, differing with the latter only on the issue of the Second Amendment but otherwise genuinely sharing the libertarian viewpoint of the ACLU...
I, for one, have been persuaded that the term "militia" did not have the limited reference that Professor Cress and many modern legal analysts assign to it. There is strong evidence that "militia" refers to all of the people, or least all of those treated as full citizens of the community. Consider, for example, the question asked by George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because of its lack of a Bill of Rights: "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." [48] Similarly, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." [49] We have, of course, moved now from text to history. And this history is most interesting, especially when we look at the development of notions of popular sovereignty. It has become almost a cliche of contemporary American historiography to link the development of American political thought, including its constitutional aspects, to republican thought in England, the "country" critique of the powerful "court" centered in London.
http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/emb2nda2.htm
For me, it's obvious that to the ACLU some Constitutional rights are more important than others. I have yet to see them make any stand that would be considered "pro-gun," even in some of the more extreme areas of regulation. That, frankly, is distressing since I do agree with their efforts protecting the rest of our individual rights against the "righteous majority." It should cast doubts on the organizations “agenda,” which is unfortunate because it makes it easy to spin against its other efforts.
Here's another good discussion:
http://www.outdoorsbest.com/kates061404/
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
I already knew the ACLU's position, they make it very clear. I found the article above to be a concise rebuttal. From the ACLU itself:
They are extraordinarily silent in their support of the 2nd Ammendment compared to most other constitutional issues. In addition, as the author of the 1st piece notes, their arguments from "collective to individual" to "outdated" seem fairly weak. They seem to work very hard at maintaining that “collective” stance wven if there is significant evidence to suggest that it is inaccurate and not in spirit with the use of “militia” at the time. Perhaps the 1st amendment is also outdated in the era of shock radio and hateful Web sites? Groups like the ADL certainly think so where white supremacist groups are concerned.
From the Yale Law Review:
It is for me, impossible not to conclude that to the ACLU some Constitutional rights are more important than others. That, frankly, is distressing since I do agree with their efforts protecting the rest of our individual rights. It should cast doubts on the organizations “agenda,” which is unfortunate because it makes it easy to spin against its other efforts.
Here's another good discussion:
http://www.outdoorsbest.com/kates061404/
Charon
Charon
That lame argument is to assume that one of the "Bill of Rights"
is a right granted to the government to maintain a militia. Why would the government need a "right"? To protect it from itself?
If you use the States rights argument that would mean the States could have private State Armies not under control of the central government. Good luck there, didn't we have a civil war over that a while back. No.... either the constitution says what it means, and means what it says. Or we will all lose the freedoms we have enjoyed for over 200 years.
-
Considering the fact that the ACLU budget is not limitless, why would they spend any effort on 2nd Amendment issues while the NRA exists?
IMO, because you can't pick and choose and be considered credible. You support constitutional rights, both the good and the bad. Even if you think gun ownership is bad, unsafe, counterproductive, etc. you still have to let the Nazi's speak in public, NAMBLA spout their twisted **** and someone own a handgun for self protection in Chicago.
Charon
-
That lame argument is to assume that one of the "Bill of Rights"
is a right granted to the government to maintain a militia. Why would the government need a "right"? To protect it from itself?
If you use the States rights argument that would mean the States could have private State Armies not under control of the central government. Good luck there, didn't we have a civil war over that a while back. No.... either the constitution says what it means, and means what it says. Or we will all lose the freedoms we have enjoyed for over 200 years.
Read through this link, already posted.
http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/emb2nda2.htm
Assorted snippets (indicated seperations by ...) from the link:
THE EMBARRASSING SECOND AMENDMENT
Sanford Levinson University of Texas at Austin School of Law
Reprinted from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659
...A standard move of those legal analysts who wish to limit the Second Amendment's force is to focus on its "preamble" as setting out a restrictive purpose. Recall Laurence Tribe's assertion that the purpose was to allow the states to keep their militias and to protect them against the possibility that the new national government will use its power to establish a powerful standing army and eliminate the state militias. This purposive reading quickly disposes of any notion that there is an "individual" right to keep and bear arms. The right, if such it be, is only a states's right. The consequence of this reading is obvious: the national government has the power to regulate--to the point of prohibition--private ownership of guns, since that has, by stipulation, nothing to do with preserving state militias.
This is, indeed, the position of the ACLU, which reads the Amendment as protection only the right of "maintaining an effective state militia...[T]he individual's right to keep and bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated [state] militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected." [40] This is not a wholly implausible reading, but one might ask why the Framers did not simply say something like "Congress shall have no power to prohibit state-organized and directed militias." Perhaps they in fact meant to do something else. Moreover, we might ask if ordinary readers of the late 18th Century legal prose would have interpreted it as meaning something else.
The text at best provides only a starting point for a conversation. In this specific instance, it does not come close to resolving the questions posed by federal regulation of arms. Even if we accept the preamble as significant, we must still try to figure out what might be suggested by guaranteeing to "the people the right to keep and bear arms;" moreover, as we shall see presently, even the preamble presents unexpected difficulties in interpretation...
...I, for one, have been persuaded that the term "militia" did not have the limited reference that Professor Cress and many modern legal analysts assign to it. There is strong evidence that "militia" refers to all of the people, or least all of those treated as full citizens of the community. Consider, for example, the question asked by George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because of its lack of a Bill of Rights: "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." [48] Similarly, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." [49] We have, of course, moved now from text to history. And this history is most interesting, especially when we look at the development of notions of popular sovereignty. It has become almost a cliche of contemporary American historiography to link the development of American political thought, including its constitutional aspects, to republican thought in England, the "country" critique of the powerful "court" centered in London.
More Constitutionally contemporary definitions of "militia" from my very first link:
"I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." George Mason, Virginia's U.S. Constitution Ratification Convention, 1788.
"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state." George Mason, Virginia ratification convention, 1788.
"What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped." James Madison, Federalist No. 29.
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience, or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788.
"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms." Richard Henry Lee, Letters from The Federal Farmer, 1788.
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=307
And yet, the ACLU seems to like to use a much later definition of "Militia." To my satisfaction a militia, as intended, is the people, not an organization in the sense of the National Guard. The right is for us to protect ourselves from our government, should the need arise. [edit: and also the right to individually protect ourselves from harm/criminality/civil unrest] . Something our revolutionary (in all senses of the word) founding fathers understood, since thay had recently done exactly that.
THE EMBARRASSING SECOND AMENDMENT (a few more)
...Such analyses provide the basis for Edward Abbey's revision of a common bumper sticker, "If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns." [67] One of the things this slogan has helped me to understand is the political tilt contained within the Weberian definition of the state -- i.e., the repository of a monopoly of the legitimate means of violence 6 [68] -- that is so commonly used by political scientists. It is a profoundly statist definition, the product of a specifically German tradition of the (strong) state rather than of a strikingly different American political tradition that is fundamentally mistrustful of state power and vigilant about maintaining ultimate power, including the power of arms, in the populace…
One would, of course, like to believe that the state, whether at the local or national level, presents no threat to important political values, including liberty. But our propensity to believe that this is the case may be little more than a sign of how truly different we are from our radical forbearers. I do not want to argue that the state is necessarily tyrannical; I am not an anarchist. But it seems foolhardy to assume that the armed state will necessarily be benevolent.
The American political tradition is, for good or ill, based in large measure on a healthy mistrust of the state. The development of widespread suffrage and greater majoritarianism in our polity is itself no sure protection, at least within republican theory. The republican theory is predicated on the stark contrast between mere democracy, where people are motivated by selfish personal interest, and a republic, where civic virtue, both in common citizen and leadership, tames selfishness on behalf of the common good. In any event, it is hard for me to see how one can argue that circumstances have so changed us as to make mass disarmament constitutionally unproblematic. [94]
Indeed, only in recent months have we seen the brutal suppression of the Chinese student demonstrations in Tiananmen Square. It should not surprise us that some NRA sympathizers have presented that situation as an abject lesson to those who unthinkingly support the prohibition of private gun ownership. "f all Chinese citizens kept arms, their rulers would hardly have dared to massacre the demonstrators... The private keeping of hand-held personal firearms is within the constitutional design for a counter to government run amok... As the Tianamen Square tragedy showed so graphically, AK 47's fall into that category of weapons, and that is why they are protected by the Second Amendment." [95] It is simply silly to respond that small arms are irrelevant against nuclear armed states; Witness contemporary Northern Ireland and the territories occupied by Israel, where the sophisticated weaponry of Great Britain and Israel have proved almost totally beside the point. The fact that these may not be pleasant examples does not affect the principal point, that a state facing a totally disarmed population is in a far better position, for good or ill, to suppress popular demonstrations and uprisings than one that must calculate the possibilities of its soldiers and officials being injured or killed.
[NOTE: republican used here refers to the political philosophy, not the current party]
Charon
-
Contrary to popular belief, I've actually seen the ACLU defend the second ammendment 2 or 3 times. They won't actively pursuit those cases, but if asked by a person, they will defend him.
-
Contrary to popular belief, I've actually seen the ACLU defend the second ammendment 2 or 3 times. They won't actively pursuit those cases, but if asked by a person, they will defend him.
That's interesting, and good to hear. What type of cases?
Charon
-
yep... I have never heard of any meaningful defense of the second amendment by the aclu commies. They all seem to have the same agenda they had when they were founded. They do seem to spend a great deal of time on religion and making sure that there is not the slightest bit of it allowed in any public place.
I for one think my second amendment rights are infinitely more important than some percieved evil of having a xmas manger scene at city hall.
lazs
-
I forget what the cases were about. I remember one clearly in my mind happening about 1.5 years ago though.
-
Originally posted by Charon
IMO, because you can't pick and choose and be considered credible. You support constitutional rights, both the good and the bad. Even if you think gun ownership is bad, unsafe, counterproductive, etc. you still have to let the Nazi's speak in public, NAMBLA spout their twisted **** and someone own a handgun for self protection in Chicago.
Charon
With a limited budget, you must pick and choose. The NRA has the 2nd Amendment pretty well covered. They don't need help from the ACLU.