Monday, May 25, 2015

Dem To Grads: ‘They Go To College for Free in Germany’

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) told Hartford Seminary graduates last week, “students ought to be able to go to college, they go to college for free in Germany.”

“We believe that the students ought to be able to go to college, they go to college for free in Germany. They’re not bigger than us, they are not richer than us -how can they send their kids to school for free and we cannot?” Ellison said.

According to the YouTube video posted by Hartford Seminary, which describes itself as a non-denominational graduate school for religious and theological studies, Ellison was addressing the “Myth of Scarcity."

“We live in a world where we are told constantly ‘there is just not enough’. We are given the myth of scarcity all the time,” Ellison said.

“There's just not enough. There’s not enough money so we cannot possibly afford to make sure our senior citizens retire in comfort –gotta cut social security. Oh, there’s not enough  – so our students they just gotta pay 40-thousand dollars a year in loans, because there’s not enough to educate our young people.”

Government supported college is a theme within the Democratic Party.  Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has proposed government funded tuition for 4-year public colleges and universities. Hillary Clinton has called for making higher education as “debt-free as possible” and President Barack Obama has proposed making community college free for two years.


The 'Science' of Sex Education

There's no classroom experience the libertine supports more mightily than "sex education." They have struggled to banish even a whisper of a religious worldview from the classroom. Only the secular and "science-based" ideology is allowed.

The Daily Beast website recently celebrated a San Francisco ruling: "Hero Judge Rules Abstinence-Only Sex Ed Is Illegal." Judge Donald Black ruled "access to medically and socially appropriate sexual education is an important public right," and that one district had provided "medically inaccurate information," like the notion that sexual abstinence prevents pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.

Do the guardians of "science" — like the happy "reproductive justice" folks at the American Civil Liberties Union — think this is "medically inaccurate" because no child can avoid having sex before graduation?

Liberals arrogantly think their "science" is superior because their religious opponents base their sexual ethics on faith, not on reason. (In truth, advocating abstinence is based on both.) These are the same radical "scientists" who tell us a baby isn't technically a baby until it's left the hospital, and insist that gender should not be oppressively "binary" or based on primitive methods of analysis, like looking at your genitals.

This same Daily Beast has discovered a brave new model of sex education for America. It's found in Norway. "All Hail Scandinavia," they proclaimed. A female doctor named Line Jansrud demonstrates sex for Norwegian children aged 8 to 12. In one episode, she "gives herself a hickie with a vacuum cleaner, narrates over a simulated masturbation demonstration, and reveals the science behind orgasm." This came after she French-kissed a tomato.

The article raved, "In a scene sure to make awkward prepubescent Norwegians practically die at their desks, Jansrud then pushes a lubricated hand-held dildo in and out of an anatomically correct model of a woman's lower half while a porno groove plays in the background."

"Science" has arrived! The Daily Beast mourns that this wouldn't "stand a chance" in archaic America, even though the Norwegians claim "the overall reception to Jansrud's joyous deconstruction of the most mysterious time in a young person's life has been overwhelmingly positive." And the effects on little children? "The most dangerous consequence for Norwegian preteens has been a few red faces."

This is child pornography in reverse — porn made for children to watch — and only a sick mind would support it.

The "joyous deconstruction" of sex has surfaced in America. These revolutionaries would probably saddened to hear that the authorities at Hampshire High School in Romney, West Virginia, managed to stop a spring showing of the porny R-rated sadist-sex romp "Fifty Shades of Grey" in a classroom as a reward for hard academic labor. The "medical accuracy" of that film could be very educational, they might argue.

And at Champion Theme Middle School in Stone Mountain, Georgia, a teacher of advanced "scientific" mien is being fired for organizing sexual trysts during school hours for eighth graders in one of his classroom closets. One mother discovered a long series of text messages between her 14-year-old son and his teacher, who warned he didn't provide the condoms, just the closet, and that the girl "can't tell anybody."

This wild lack of discipline ends at the cafeteria door. At lunchtime, the highest expectations for healthy behavior are demanded. The first lady of the United States insists that children must eat a government-mandated menu of broccoli and whole grains. No one on the libertine left argues it's unrealistic to expect children to eat their vegetables, even as the garbage cans overflow.

Apparently, you can lead a child to French-kiss a tomato, but you can't make them eat it.


UK: Bahar Mustafa and the rise of campus racialism

Bahar Mustafa, the welfare and diversity officer at Goldsmiths Students’ Union, recently caused a media storm after she banned white men from attending an event aimed at challenging the ‘white-centric culture of occupations’. Students have since launched a petition to have Mustafa sacked, citing her fondness for hashtags like #KillAllWhiteMen as proof that she is guilty of ‘reverse racism’. Responding to the controversy, she said that, as an ethnic-minority woman, she ‘cannot be racist or sexist to white men, because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender’.

Divisive and petty though Mustafa’s ‘liberation’ politics is, her no-whites rally is really nothing to get worked up about. Private campaign groups and organisations should have the liberty to organise – and discriminate – as they please. And the attempt to present Mustafa’s Twitter tirades as ‘hate speech’ will only further entrench the sort of illiberal campus politics she herself promotes.

What is concerning here is her definition of racism, which is now commonly spouted on campuses by pseudo-radicals. According to this definition, racism is not merely about racial prejudice or discrimination; in order to qualify as racist, those doing the discriminating must also occupy a position of power, of privilege, in society. The oppressor, therefore, has to be of a higher privilege level – in a predetermined hierarchy – than those they are ‘oppressing’. Ditto for every other ‘-ism’ and ‘-phobia’.

This obsession with ‘power’ and the eternal battle between the ‘oppressor’ and the ‘oppressed’ offers campus radicals a shockingly simplistic moral lens through which they now analyse every expression, action and concept. From this perspective, unfettered freedom of speech on campus, for instance, is seen as a tool of oppression, used only to entrench the privileged in their positions of power.

At best, this logic projects a patronising view of ethnic minorities as in need of constant protection from the ‘privileged’ realm of public life. At worst, it is fetishising victimhood by associating powerlessness with virtue. I only wish this way of thinking was confined to campuses, but the wider pseudo-left also deploys this kind of patronising, power-relations politics. A common criticism of the slain Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, for instance, was that they were ‘punching down’ – that is, satirising Muslims from a position of relative privilege. Similarly, while nominal leftists will happily mock the backward ways of Christianity – as a wealthy and privileged religion, it is fair game – Islam is seen as being off limits. This racialised outlook not only promotes a feeble view of particular groups — it also robs them of their moral agency, too. So, many commentators continue to interpret acts of jihadist violence as a natural response to alleged Western oppression.

This abandonment of universalism in favour of a more relativistic analysis of society has had disastrous consequences for the left, particularly in its current inability to compute anti-Semitism. Historically, the Jews were a persecuted group, but, in light of the Israeli-Gaza conflict, the tables are seen to have been turned. By suggesting that Muslims across Europe have somehow internalised the struggle in Palestine, Western commentators often rationalise and write off anti-Semitism as an understandable response to oppression. The recent attacks on a kosher supermarket in Paris and a synagogue in Copenhagen were framed by many commentators as being fuelled by the attackers’ anger over the Israel-Palestine conflict, rather than their clear hatred of Jews.

Confronting anti-Semitism head-on makes the left deeply uncomfortable, because, in this twisted relativistic mush, defending the perceived ‘oppressor’ is the only moral sin. The fact that presenting all Jews as somehow powerful or privileged echoes age-old, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories never seems to register.

Rather than crowing on about the ‘reverse racism’ of one pseudo-radical, we need to challenge this deeply divisive and distorted definition of racism. Mustafa’s dodgy tweets are only the tip of the iceberg.


No comments: