" E screwus dildim"
Hat tip to Fausta's Blog
If any of you readers have children attending Northwestern University, you might want to read this article and see how your tuition money is being used.
http://www.suntimes.com/4099633-417/northwestern-university-defends-after-class-live-sex-demonstration.html
"It was for me academic like everything else,” he said. (Northwestern student)
(I'll bet.)
Here is the Fox Report:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/03/northwestern-university-professor-defends-explicit-sex-toy-demonstration/?intcmp=obinsite
"Other students contacted by FoxNews.com said they found the demonstration to be educational. For senior Nick Wilson, it helped promote a "sex-positive environment," he said."
"Northwestern University faculty members engage in teaching and research on a wide variety of topics, some of them controversial and at the leading edge of their respective disciplines,” said Alan K. Cubbage, vice president for University Relations. “The University supports the efforts of its faculty to further the advancement of knowledge.” (That was Wednesday.)
Advancement or penetration, Mr Cubbage?
Later....
“Many members of the Northwestern community are disturbed by what took place on our campus,” Northwestern President Morton Schapiro said in a statement. “So am I.” He said the university was launching an investigation. (That was Thursday.)
-Fausta's Blog
I hope it's not like those infamous UC-Irvine investigations. Because you know where that will go.....
"Yes! Yes! YES!!!
Are people becoming as stupid as turkeys who don't know how to mate anymore, so that they have to be shown? Also, why don't they show the movie "When Harry met Sally" so they learn for sure that there is such a thing as a female orgasm.
ReplyDeleteIt is amazing how every generation seems to think they invented sex. I wonder how we ever found out when no one showed us, or did we do it all wrong?
Amazing what passes fro education these days.
ReplyDeleteHave you heard about this yet?
ReplyDeleteJewish Student Brings Civil Rights Case Against Berkeley
Claims the University failed to take measures to protect against racially motivated assault
A first of its kind federal civil rights case has been filed in United States District Court in Oakland, California, against the University of California at Berkeley, the Regents of the University of California and their ranking officials, by a Jewish student who had been assaulted on campus last year by a leader of a Muslim student organization during a pro-Israel event.
On March 5, 2010, Jessica Felber, a twenty year old Jewish student at Berkeley, was attacked and injured on campus because of her Jewish ancestry and religious affiliation. At the time she was holding a sign stating “Israel wants Peace.” Her assailant, Husam Zakharia, also a UC Berkeley student, was the leader of Students for Justice in Palestine (“SJP”) at Berkeley.
Yep, I heard. Something about a shopping cart. I have not heard about the lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteI don't get Dusty's relevance to this post. Is he saying that Jews or Muslims advocate live sex shows in the classroom? And who should sue Northwestern, the woman who stripped in front of the class because the university's pending statement condemning the whole affair insulted her demographic category? Or the students who were offended when they saw what they had stayed to watch after class?
ReplyDeleteSiarlys,
ReplyDeleteI suspect the lad responded to the wrong post.
Why am I reminded of a Monty Python skit?
ReplyDeleteI was trying to be funny and not I get such serious responses.
ReplyDeleteI'm guilty of responding to the wrong post as well, but I'm wondering why Gary hasn't addressed the Orange County anti-Muslim protest yet. It would seem to be right up his alley. His locale, and the protesters use phrases from his blog. Care to comment on this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NutFkykjmbM
ReplyDeleteAu contraire Atticus,
ReplyDeleteHere is what I responded two days ago-on the correct thread.
"Obviously that video deserves an honest response. Here is mine. Hours before the event began, I arrived and saw an elderly couple setting out posters on Imperial Hwy. One said, "Muslims are not welcome in Yorba Linda". I beseeched the couple to remove them because that was not the message the organizers of the event wanted to send. The prote4st was not meant to demonize all Muslims. It was also obvious that the media and CAIR et al would hone right in on posters like that. The woman by the way, was an immigrant. I could not persuade them but finally a local pastor who knew them prevailed upon them to remove the posters.
As for the group that splintered off from the demonstration to chant at the people as they arrived, I regret it. When you have a crowd of 1000-1500 people who show up, some have their own agenda. The speeches were going along fine and ABC news was filming the speeches. Yet when the attendees began arriving several dozen saw fit to go to the barrier of the parking lot and began chanting. What I heard (because I stayed away from them) was "USA, USA, USA", "No shariah law" and "Go back home". Obviously other things were said that were not appropriate.
It is also troublesome that children were present for a couple of reasons. First, as you would agree, protesters should have zipped it when they saw children. The other point is that the ICNA knew beforehand that there would be a protest. Why did so many bring their children anyway? For a YOUTube moment perhaps?
I also point out, for what it is worth, that at least one of the women yelling on the bullhorn was herself an immigrant. I happened to speak to her and her husband early in the event, and I knew they could be a problem.
To sum it up, the yelling by those people was regrettable. The planned event itself and the speeches were not the problem.
I was also a speaker. As I said, "I don't hate Muslims. The Muslims I know love America and appreciate the freedoms they enjoy here-which they don't have back home."
Finally, the reason the protest occurred in the first place was not because it was a Muslim gathering. It was because of the nature of the two speakers, Amir Abdel Malik Ali and Siraj Wahhaj, both of whom have a history of radical ties and statements. You will note that the CAIR video doesn't even mention their names. Well they shouldn't.
Ali, who I have heard speak at UC-Irvine many times, has admitted that he is a supporter of Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. He has called suicide bombers in Israel "Heroes" and Martyrs". He has called people like Rupert Murdoch, Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and others, "Zionist Jews". At UCI last May, he called Jews in the audience and I quote: "You Jews-You'all the new Nazis."
Siraj Wahhaj was listed as a unindicted co-conspirator by US Atty Mary Jo White in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He testified as a character witness for the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman at his terror trial in NY.
He is on video-tape telling his followers not to take non-Muslims as close friends and speaking of Jihad (violent Jihad). He has spoken of converting blacks in prison to Islam so they could return to the inner cities and conduct Jihad with Uzis.
That is why people organized a protest. CAIR won't tell you that.
That some people (a minority) resorted to bad behavior, I regret."
Does that satisfy you?
They never had courses like this when I was in school. Damn!!
ReplyDeleteYes, thank you. I should've looked further for the proper thread but didn't know when that event took place and didn't see it on your front page. And you're right; immigrants can be a problem.
ReplyDelete"And you're right; immigrants can be a problem."
ReplyDeleteNot so fast there, Atticus. My comment about two ladies who were leading the charge being immigrants was only to refute the suggestion that we are a bunch of nativists who want to kick the Muslims out. Maybe you read too much into that. First of all, I happen to be married to an immigrant and I would guess that at least half of my social circle is made up of immigrants. They are a major part of my life and I think that they benefit this country overall.
What I do object to is those who come to our country and spit on our values and traditions. I recently singled out an Israeli (non-immigrant) speaker at UCI who said that opposing views don't have the right to be heard. In that respect, I am a bit nationalistic, so to speak.
In short, you either read too much into my comments or were trying to put words into my mouth.
Gary, while I don't doubt your sincerity that you wanted to distance yourself from some of those protesters, maybe you might want to keep this sort of thing in mind the next time you play the guilt-by-association game. (Like the whole Obama/Ayers thing.) Just because you might associate with somebody, that doesn't mean that you share their views - and in this case, you did have some association with people who are obviously bigoted.
ReplyDeleteLance,
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Obama and Ayres, Obama involved with Ayres on a much more personal level. He launched his political career in Ayres home. He served on a board with Ayres.
As for Yorba Linda, I will be posting a statement from the moderator of the event that addresses CAIR's charges. You can listen to the speakers words yourself.
Gary, there were also Republicans on that board. Does that make him a Republican too?
ReplyDeleteI recently had dinner with a pastor and his family, all of whom are devoted Christians. Does that make me a Christian? Or are they atheists because they had me over?
Lance,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I would never set foot in the home of Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn. Nor would I serve on any board in whcih they were members.
But you'll protest alongside xenophobic bigots? Again, Lance's point is valid. Throw out the Ayers thing and remember that you are not always the company you keep (although it appears you should be more careful about yours).
ReplyDeleteOh, and I forgot to mention that I loved the little implication that these heathens brought their children to be abused at this rally because they knew angry white people would terrorize them (pun very much intended), and it would be on film. That was a nice little bit of blame the victim. Bravo.
Very consistent of you Gary, but not an example anyone else needs to follow.
ReplyDeleteThere is a logical argument to be made that Ayers and Dohrn should have been imprisoned for along time, maybe for life. I know someone who thinks they should have been executed. But the fact is, the Justice Department cut a deal with them, on Ronald Reagan's watch no less. I personally have no objection to that.
The government having cut a deal, they were free to seek employment and use any skills they had at any legitimate job available. My mother, the Republican in the family, admires the work Dohrn has done at the center on children and the law. My mother did not admire SDS. Ayers had been for many years a full professor at a university in Chicago before Obama ever met him.
Most people don't get to pick who else is on a board they serve on. Obama didn't nominate Ayers, nor Ayers Obama. Most people running for office will gratefully accept ANY invitation from someone willing to invite some friends over for cocktails and a pitch, especially a tenured professor of English. If Ayers had offered to host Scott Walker, I bet Walker would have accepted, then announced "Even Ayers gets it."
By the way, after you mentioned that Dusty seemed to have found the wrong post, we've been talking about everything BUT sex on campus. Ayers and Dohrn are married, and haven't been doing it in public, at least not since their Weather Underground days. Were there Bondage people at the CAIR protest? Live sex at the fundraiser? Is there any reason we should care at this point?
That's great, but it doesn't negate my point.
ReplyDelete