The Assassination of Scott Walker By The Coward Liberal Media

We all knew this was coming: liberal attacks on Gov. Scott Walker for not having a college degree. In 1990, Walker decided to drop out of Marquette University during the spring semester of his senior year - a decision that’s mystified the political left. But then there’s former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who–as Dan wrote it will. Scott Walker, were he to become president, would be the first president in many generations who did not have a college degree. So the issue here is not just the issue of dancing around the question of evolution for political reasons, the issue is, how well educated is this guy?"

This is emblematic of the politics of condescension and elitism that’s fraught within American liberalism; that one is not qualified for any public office lest he be a college graduate (preferably from an elite school) and has acquired a lexicon that shocks the masses.

 

Read more at Townhall.com
(Hat tip: KimR)

Read More......

Re-education at George Mason

By Walter E. Williams - This week begins my 34th year serving on George Mason University's distinguished economics faculty. You might imagine my surprise when I received a letter from its Office of Equity and Diversity Services notifying me that I was required to "complete the in-person Equal Opportunity and Prevention of Sexual Harassment Policies and Procedures training." This is a leftist agenda for indoctrination, thought control and free speech suppression to which I shall refuse to submit. Let's look at it.

Ideas such as equity and equal opportunity, while having high emotional value, are vacuous analytical concepts. For example, I've asked students whether they plan to give every employer an equal opportunity to hire them when they graduate. To a person, they always answer no. If they aren't going to give every employer an equal opportunity to hire them, what's fair about forcing employers to give them an equal opportunity to be hired?

I'm guilty of gross violation of equality of opportunity, racism and possibly sexism. Back in 1960, when interviewing people to establish a marital contract, every woman wasn't given an equal opportunity. I discriminated against not only white, Indian, Asian, Mexican and handicapped women but men of any race. My choices were confined to good-looking black women. You say, "Williams, that kind of discrimination doesn't harm anyone!" Nonsense! When I married Mrs. Williams, other women were harmed by having a reduced opportunity set.

George Mason's Office of Equity and Diversity Services has far more challenging equity and diversity work than worrying about the re-education of Professor Williams. They must know that courts have long held that gross racial disparities are probative of a pattern and practice of discrimination. The most notable gross racial disparity on campus, and hence probative of discrimination, can be found on GMU's fabulous men's basketball team. Blacks are less than 9 percent of student enrollment but are 85 percent of our varsity basketball team and dominate its starting five.

It's not just GMU. Watch any Saturday afternoon college basketball game and ask yourself the question fixated in the minds of equity, diversity and inclusion hunters: Does this look like America? Among the 10 players on the court, at best there might be two white players. In 2010, 61 percent of Division I basketball players were black, and only 31 percent were white.

Allied with the purveyors of equity, diversity and inclusion are the multiculturalists, who call for the celebration of cultures. For them, all cultures are morally equivalent and to deem otherwise is Eurocentrism. That's unbridled nonsense. Ask your multiculturalist: Is forcible female genital mutilation, as practiced in nearly 30 sub-Saharan Africa and Middle Eastern countries, a morally equivalent cultural value? Slavery is practiced in Sudan and Niger; is that a cultural equivalent? In most of the Middle East, there are numerous limits on women - such as prohibitions on driving, employment, voting and education. Under Islamic law, in some countries, female adulterers face death by stoning, and thieves face the punishment of having their hand severed. Are these cultural values morally equivalent, superior or inferior to those of the West?

Western values are superior to all others. Why? The greatest achievement of the West was the concept of individual rights. The Western transition from barbarism to civility didn't happen overnight. It emerged feebly - mainly in England, starting with the Magna Carta of 1215 - and took centuries to get where it is today.

One need not be a Westerner to hold Western values. A person can be Chinese, Japanese, Jewish, African or Arab and hold Western values. It's no accident that Western values of reason and individual rights have produced unprecedented health, life expectancy, wealth and comfort for the ordinary person.

Western values are under ruthless attack by the academic elite on college campuses across America. They want to replace personal liberty with government control and replace equality before the law with entitlement. The multiculturalism and diversity agenda is a cancer on our society, and our tax dollars and charitable donations are supporting it.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Read More......

The scientific technological elite [Eisenhower's other warning]

 Republished 6/4/2012
AMERICAN THINKER, 12/7/2009 by Robert W. Ball - President Dwight D. Eisenhower's famous 1961 farewell address contained more than an admonition about the danger of an expanding "military-industrial complex." That speech was also an early warning of the current unholy alliance between the government and a scientific community dependent on the government for its funding.

"...(In) the technological revolution during recent decades...research has become central...complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government...the solitary inventor... has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields...

...the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded....we must...be alert to the...danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite." [ii]

Read more at American Thinker... Read More......

In case Magaña runs again

In 2006 Mario E. Magaña (D), associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science at OSU, challenged Sen. Frank Morse (R-Incumbent) for the Dist. 8 Oregon State senate seat but failed. In case the professor runs for elected office again, it might be instructive to keep this OSU Barometer forum exchange on hand for a glimpse into Magaña’s rather smug outlook.

Political science senior, Lyndsey Shaver, wrote a letter to the editor (4/26/07 Issue of The Barometer) critical of an anti-violence rally held on the OSU campus following the Virginia Tech shooting where 32 innocent students lost their lives. Among other points, Shaver advocated rethinking the ‘right to carry’ ban on the VT campus. He wrote, “...work to give students the KNOWLEDGE and ABILITY to PROTECT THEMSELVES.”

Professor Magaña had every right to disagree with the Shaver opinion (only one opinion regarding VT on Thursday) but let’s look at how he did this in his 5/1/07 letter (h/t: Reece).

Response to last Thursday's letters - Use your brain

In the aftermath of the tragedy at Virginia Tech, I find it very hard to believe that college students, who in principle are supposed to be capable of performing minimally complex thinking, can express such absurd and ludicrous ideas, and even have the audacity of justifying them with arguments worthy of small minds.

Minimal analysis of the speed of motion of a projectile launched by a fire arm should lead to the inescapable conclusion that no human being is capable of outpacing it. Moreover, with today's modern semi and automatic weapons, which can be obtained legally even by the mentally deficient, can release projectiles at an incredibly high rate and the probability of multiple targets (humans) being hit in a very short period of time is extremely high. The idea that the best way to protect ourselves is by having everyone carry a gun is laughable at best, unless we are willing to live in a society "a la OK Corral".

After reading these letters, I also decided to take a close look at the famous second amendment to see if I could arrive at the same conclusion as those who claim that the founding fathers could foresee the future (perhaps with a crystal ball) and figured that the parameters of that era would remain unchanged after more than two hundred years! Unfortunately, regardless of how much I tried to bring myself down to their level of mental development, I could not!

The proponents of such irrational and illogical thinking that support uncontrolled gun possession should take a look at countries such as Spain and Germany to educate themselves about sensible gun ownership laws. The fact that we live in the most violent society earth today does not mean that we have accept it and keep it that way.

-Prof. Mario E. Magaña
School of EECS

Do we need more elitist's looking down their noses at 'the little people'? I don't think so. See also Was Cho Taught to Hate? Read More......

Roosevelt’s or Reagan’s America?

A Time for Choosing.
Imprimis (Hillsdale College), March 2007 – John Marini, University of Nevada, Reno
Commentary and quotes: Adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on January 29, 2007

On January 11, 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent the text of his Annual Message to Congress. Under normal conditions, he would have delivered the message in person that evening at the Capitol. But he was recovering from the flu, and his doctor advised him not to leave the White House. So he delivered it as a fireside chat to the American people. It has been called the greatest speech of the century by Cass Sunstein, a prominent liberal law professor at the University of Chicago. It is an important speech because it is probably the most far-reaching attempt by an American president to legitimize the administrative or welfare state, based on the idea that government must guarantee social and economic security for all.

Thirty-seven years later, in his First Inaugural Address on January 20, 1981, President Ronald Reagan would deny that government could provide such a broad guarantee of security in a manner consistent with the protection of American liberty. Indeed, he would insist that bureaucratic government had become a danger to the survival of our freedom. In looking at the differences between the views of Roosevelt and Reagan, we can discern the distinction between a constitutional regime—in which the power of government is limited so as to enable the people to rule—and an administrative state, which presupposes the rule of a bureaucratic or intellectual elite. Continued...

Reprinted by permission from IMPRIMIS, the national speech digest of Hillsdale College, www.hillsdale.edu. Read More......