Monthly Archives: March 2013

Bias

Posted on by
1

The lesson in a Florida Atlantic University class involved the professor instructing his students to write Jesus’ name on a piece of paper, put the paper on the floor, and then stomp on it.  A student refused to do the stomping,

I said to the professor, ‘With all due respect to your authority as a professor, I do not believe what you told us to do was appropriate.  ‘I believe it was unprofessional and I was deeply offended by what you told me to do.’

The student also went to the professor’s boss, who then suspended the student for refusing to comply with the professor’s instruction.

The lesson itself reasonable; here’s the lesson syllabus:

Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper.  Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up.  Ask the students to think about it for a moment.  After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper.  Most will hesitate.  Ask why they can’t step on the paper.  Discuss the importance of symbols in culture.

The instructions in the syllabus are intended to build a feeling about the action in the student so the student can reflect on it—at no point did the syllabus expect the student actually to carry out any step of the lesson.

It’s clear from the description of the incident (and for this post, I’ll assume the description to be accurate) that FAU reacted wrongly in a number of ways: it overreacted to the student’s protest, and the reaction it had was in the wrong direction.  Suspension was both too much (no opprobrium of any sort was appropriate), and if the school were to react in any way, it needed to act on the professor’s handling of the lesson.

The other error that FAU made was that its reaction violated the clear intent of the syllabus—to make the students think about an action, not to force the student to do that act.

Paul Kengor, Executive Director of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College in Grove City PA:

Gee, I wonder if the instructor would dare do this with the name of Mohammed[.]

Indeed.  And so there’s a third error by FAU: Mohammed, Buddha, Brahma, and so on, should have been subjects of this lesson, also.  The broad range of reactions to a suggestion to desecrate these deities would have added immensely to the lesson’s outcome.

In the end, FAU “apologized” for the lesson.  The university also said the lesson will never again be used.

We sincerely apologize for any offense this has caused.  Florida Atlantic University respects all religions and welcomes people of all faiths, backgrounds and beliefs.

Not “our offense.”  A cynically amorphous “any” offense.  And apparently not a word of apology to the student for the university’s treatment of him for his objection.

Incoherent Foreign Policy

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama has it.

Here’s an illustration of that incoherence, vis-à-vis Israel and Iran.

Vice President Joe Biden, on 4 March:

Let me make clear what that commitment is: it is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.  Period.  End of discussion.  Prevent—not contain—prevent….  Big nations can’t bluff….  And President Barack Obama is not bluffing.

Here’s Secretary of State John Kerry, on 5 March:

[Red] lines have been drawn before and they’ve been passed.  …  [President Obama] would like to see the P1+5 process and negotiation process be able to work and avoid any consideration of any kind of military action.  …we are prepared through P5+1 and negotiating process to engage in a serious proposal that they would make to prove their program is in fact a peaceful program.

Commander US CENTCOM, General James Mattis before the Senate Armed Services Committee, on 5 March, in answer to the question, “In your professional opinion, are the current diplomatic and economic efforts to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability—are they working?”

No, sir.

Then he testified that he was working on “other options” at Obama’s direction.

Obama knows he’s better than any of his expert advisers, but does he, or by extension do any of his advisors, have any idea of what he’s doing in this arena?

Gun Control Fools are Everywhere

Posted on by
Reply

Todd Starnes, writing for Fox News tells has this example, a dark of night (literally) raid on the home of a gun owner.

New Jersey police and Dept of Children and Families officials raided the home of a firearms instructor and demanded to see his guns after he posted a Facebook photo of his 11-year-old son holding a rifle.

The father’s lawyer, Evan Nappen, said,

Someone called family services about the photo. …  They wanted to see his gun safe, his guns and search his house.  They even threatened to take his kids.

DCF naturally had excuses. A “spokesperson,” while ducking comment on the specific raid assured us all that

The department has a child abuse hotline for the state of New Jersey and anybody can make a call to that hotline.  We are required to follow up on every single allegation that comes into the central registry.

Of course they are.  With police raids, and not with an individual representative of the department.  Because all gun owners are crazies.

It gets better: the father was told [by the raiding police]

I was being unreasonable and that I was acting suspicious because I wouldn’t open my safe[.]

It’s suspicious behavior to insist that Constitutionally acknowledged individual rights be honored.  It’s suspicious behavior to object to a warrantless search.  It’s suspicious behavior to object to legally owned weapons being inventoried by a government.

This is one of the reasons we have the 4th Amendment: to protect us against exactly this sort of governmental arrogance.  These government men knew they were the ones being…unreasonable and suspicious.  After threatening to get a search warrant so they could conduct their search, they never did.

This is the offending image:

Notice another example of the stupidity of gun control, especially proposals wanting to ban particular weapons.  That’s a .22 rifle, not a “semi-automatic assault weapon.”

Oh, and the boy has a New Jersey hunting license, and he’s passed the state’s hunter safety course.

Of course, nothing wrong having been done (by the victims, anyway), no charges were filed.

Obama Sequester Cluelessness

Posted on by
Reply

Here are two examples.

DHS Budget Undersecretary Rafael Borras, just last Tuesday, on the sequester:

There was an expectation that the sequester would not come to pass.  We’re doing everything we can to limit the impact.

House Democrats are whining about President Barack Obama and his administration being hectored about the sequester’s budget impacts before his Cabinet and agencies have had a chance to begin dealing with it.  Also last Tuesday, Congressman Gerry Connolly (D, VA) bleated

Did we expect [the sequester] to kick in within 19 days?  No!

Crap.  They’ve had 19 months since the sequester was passed—and signed into law by Obama.  On what basis do these folks think a law was not to be obeyed?

Gun Control Hypocrisy

Posted on by
Reply

Colorado has passed its gun control bills into law.  Included in that set is a limit on the size of semi-automatic rifle ammunition magazines to a maximum of 15 rounds.  In response to Magpul Industries’ statement that they would leave Colorado if the bills were passed, those good Democrats passed an amendment:  Magpul could make any size magazine they wished so long as the larger ones were not sold in Colorado.

State Congressman Mark Waller (R) has the right of it, noting the Democrats’ monumental hypocrisy.

[Y]ou can sell [magazines] at any other place where any of these tragic shootings have happened.  …a monumental inconsistency in their thought process.

Yeah.  Can’t sell normal magazines in Colorado, but feel free to sell them in, oh, say, Newtown, CT.

That’s the problem with interfering with freedom.  The damage is far-reaching, and it’s tough to do without the dishonesty of hypocrisy.