Thanks, Sen. Blutarsky

Well, the ObamaCare Repeal failed yet again. Thanks, Sen. Blutarsky (aka Mitch “The Ditch” Mcconnell).

Image result for senator Blutarsky
The Drunken Stupor of Sen. Blutarsky continues where he talked smack for 7 years to the Dean (Obama) and now he has to produce it and he just can’t get out of his own way. “See if you can guess what I am now…A weak-willed RINO” You guys up for a toga party?
Sen. Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV) said on Tuesday that she couldn’t vote for a Obamacare repeal bill because it would “hurt people.” She didn’t feel that way in 2015, “Americans deserve a health care system that works for them and Obamacare is not it. “

Not that the Republican really wanted to do it again anyhow. They are forced into it like a kid having to eat their vegetables. You serve them straight, they won’t eat them. You try and hide them, and they still won’t eat them.

Mom forces them to. They pick at it. They nibble. They make faces. They ultimately won’t.

But these guys don’t go to their room hungry. They are too Elitist and too rich and powerful to care. Oh well, no big deal.

They never wanted to do it anyways. They were just playing the “Screw You” card to Obama and getting rich and powerful on the Hate (kinda Like Sith Lords or Kylo Ren the wanna-be hapless Vader) but now that they have to actually do it, they are exposed as the frauds they are.

It’s Animal House, and The Congress is the Frat house.

Youre a goddamned disgrace!
You’re all worthless and weak!
You fucked up, you trusted us — Congress.
Now we could do it with conventional weapons, but that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part!
Us: Don’t screw around, they’re serious this time!
voters1
They talked smack about The Dean, but now they have to produce and Like Animal House, it just devolves in a display of stupidity, in this case Elitist “But I don’t wanna go”.

 

Weed Accident

According to the Washington State Marijuana Impact Report, the incidents of marijuana-impaired driving are increasing dramatically. Fatal driving accidents have risen 122 percent between 2010 and 2014, according to the Washington State Traffic Safety Commission. The traffic safety organization AAA has its own reports on marijuana use among drivers in fatal crashes, and the picture is equally bleak.

“That’s anecdotal evidence!!” Weed advocates always say in the most predictable fashion imaginable… while citing their own anecdotal experiences. Usually something along the lines of “Pot helps me focus, man.”

YodaFacePalmReaction GIF

Try again, dummy.

As we’ve learned in the past, arguing pot is bad gets you no brownie points with the surprisingly large pot crowd. It’s a losing battle, like trying to drive efficiently while stoned out of your mind. But the potheads stopped reading at my mention of “brownies.” For you non-stoners, it gets worse…

According to the impact report… In 2014, youth under the age of 20 made up 45 percent of Washington Poison Center calls. That number of calls has increased 80 percent since legalization. One in six infants and toddlers admitted to Children’s Hospital in Colorado with coughing, wheezing, and other symptoms of bronchitis tested positive for marijuana, according to a study found in the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Okay, potheads. Remember when you said “Hey man, pot is, like, totally fine, and it’s only affecting me, so stay out of my life, bro”? No. You’re a moron. Also you reek.

Let’s be honest here: there’s an impact. Not just because of your stench. (Speaking of impacts… And it’s not maybe connected to marijuana legalization. There are studies that substantiate a definite connection. The results? Not awesome. Obviously.

If you want to get high… well you’re a moron, and getting high will make you more of a moron. But fine. After all, things like Coachella wouldn’t exist if potheads weren’t there to attend. Just don’t drive, operate any machinery, or be around children. All things, by the way, a responsible person would’ve known. But since you’re actively dumbing yourself down, on purpose, we have to spell it out for you. Thanks for that.

And no, pot’s not comparable to alcohol. There are tests that determine how much alcohol content is in your bloodstream. We can’t yet do that with weed, so it’s impossible to handle these incidents the same way. Which makes this entire ordeal much more difficult to navigate. Weed laws are messy. Almost as messy as your ganja saturated dreadlocks. Soap. Seriously, go find some.

But here’s what we know: marijuana is a mind-altering substance. So when you drive while high, you’re endangering the lives of everyone else on the road. Again, a major duh for those of us who prefer to keep our mental facilities semi-sharp. Our inability to monitor you stoners leaves the majority of the responsibility up to the smokers.

Which is problematic, because if you’re smoking weed good decisions probably aren’t your thing.

Publishing Diversity

equal1

When does the “oppressed” become the oppressor? When do they go too far in the other direction and their is no balance. No Tolerance. No Diversity. Only their view and nothing else?

“The oppressed, instead of striving for liberation, tend themselves to become oppressors.” “Liberation is thus a childbirth, and a painful one.” … They do not liberate, nor are they liberated: they oppress.”-Paolo Freire

Academics and scholars must be mindful about using research done by only straight, white men, according to two scientists who argued that it oppresses diverse voices and bolsters the status of already privileged and established white male scholars.

Geographers Carrie Mott and Daniel Cockayne argued in a recent paper that doing so also perpetuates what they call “white heteromasculinism,” which they defined as a “system of oppression” that benefits only those who are “white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered.” (Cisgendered describes people whose gender identity matches their birth sex.)

Mott, a professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, and Cockayne, who teaches at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, argued that scholars or researchers disproportionately cite the work of white men, thereby unfairly adding credence to the body of knowledge they offer while ignoring the voices of other groups, like women and black male academics. Although citation seems like a mundane practice, the feminist professors argue that citing someone’s work has implications on his or her ability to be hired, get promoted and obtain tenured status, among others.

Related: Women’s issues are different from trans women’s issues, feminist author says, sparking criticism

“This important research has drawn direct attention to the continued underrepresentation and marginalization of women, people of color. … To cite narrowly, to only cite white men … or to only cite established scholars, does a disservice not only to researchers and writers who are othered by white heteromasculinism …,” they wrote in the paper published recently in the journal Gender, Place and Culture.

Mott and Cockayne did not immediately respond to questions from The Washington Post, but Mott told Campus Reform last week that they decided to write about citation practices after observing that research done by white men are relied upon more heavily than those done by experts from other backgrounds.

Work done by women and other minorities have often been overlooked by their peers, hindering their professional advancement and depriving disciplines of diverse perspectives, she argued.

When citations are predominantly those of the work of white, straight males, “this means that the views and knowledge that are represented do not reflect the experience of people from other backgrounds,” she told Campus Reform. “When scholars continue to cite only white men on a given topic, they ignore the broader diversity of voices and researchers that are also doing important work on that topic.”

In their 22-page paper, “Citation matters: mobilizing the politics of citation toward a practice of ‘conscientious engagement,'” they explained that their work was motivated by “shared feelings of discomfort, frustration, and anger” over actions of fellow scholars and publication practices.

The authors offer what they describe as practical strategies for fellow geographers who work in a largely male-dominated discipline. According to the American Association of Geographers, men and women account for 62 percent and 38 percent of its members, respectively.

Related: Feminist group alleges sexually hostile environment at U of Mary Washington

One of them: Scholars should read through their work and count all the citations before submitting their work for publication, and see how many people of diverse backgrounds — women, people of color, early-career scholars, graduate students and non-academics — are cited.

“Today, the field is more diverse, but this diversity is largely represented by earlier career scholars. Citing only tenured, established scholars means that these voices are ignored, especially when it is well-known that today’s brutally competitive academic job market continues to privilege the white heteromasculinist body,” they wrote.

Editors and reviewers also can act as watchdogs of sort by scrutinizing a scholar’s body of citation, they argued.

A Campus Reform writer said she asked the researchers whether the disparity in citations is simply because there are more men than women in the field of geography. In response, Cockayne said their point is that research done by “marginalized voices” is often ignored.

Mott and Cockayne both describe themselves as feminists and have done research related to feminism.

Mott also focuses her research on race and social justice, among other things. She describes herself as a “feminist political geographer,” who’s interested in “how resistance movements mobilize to fight against state-sponsored violence and marginalization.” Cockayne’s research and interest are on digital media, entrepreneurship, and gender and sexuality. (WP)

Trust Issues

Conservatives have long had justifiable concerns with today’s colleges. Parents send their children to school, only to have them inundated with liberal lessons in the classroom and progressive events on campus. Commencement speakers with explicitly liberal ideologies outnumber conservatives by 4-to-1. 

To put it bluntly, conservative ideals are demonized and conservatives have officially had it, at least according to a new Pew Research Center study.

A majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (58%) now say that colleges and universities have a negative effect on the country, up from 45% last year. By contrast, most Democrats and Democratic leaners (72%) say colleges and universities have a positive effect, which is little changed from recent years.

This study makes even more sense when taking a look at the political breakdown of today’s campuses. In a study of dozens of college faculty, the Econ Journal Watch found that professors clearly favored one party over the other.

We investigate the voter registration of faculty at 40 leading U.S. universities in the fields of Economics, History, Journalism/Communications, Law, and Psychology. We looked up 7,243 professors and found 3,623 to be registered Democratic and 314 Republican, for an overall D:R ratio of 11.5:1.

President Trump has done much to expose the liberal bias rampant in today’s universities. More than once this past year, a professor has been busted for spewing hate against the commander-in-chief. Orange Coast College Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox said Trump’s election was an “act of terrorism” and called the president “one of the most anti-gay humans in this country.”

St. Joseph University Professor David Parry said that Trump’s victory was an act of “violence.”

“People are going to die because of what happened,” he told his students.

There are plenty more opinionated professors where they came from.

Roger Ream, president of the Fund for American Studies, said the culture needs to change – now.

“With the price of a college education skyrocketing and the landscape of the American economy rapidly changing, we must make sure that students are graduating with the ability to think critically and form nuanced opinions. That can’t happen if they only encounter one point of view. Students deserve to receive a balanced educational foundation and it’s the job of college administrators to ensure they do so.”

 But Homo Superior Liberalis is a narcissistic beast. They believe only THEY are superior and thus anything they say is superior so who would they want to be “fair” and “open minded” when they are already perfection?
  • Two Illinois professors are using “social justice video games” developed by high school students to teach about “white privilege” and “police misconduct.”
  • The games, which were developed in 2015 by 13 Chicago teenagers, include selections such as “Can You Serve and Protect?” and “Growing Up Black in Chicago.”

Two Illinois professors are using “social justice video games” developed by high school students to teach about “white privilege” and “police misconduct.”

The Street Arcade”—a collaboration between Steven Ciampaglia, a professor at Northern Illinois University, and Kerry Richardson, who teaches at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago—is designed to help teens create “social issue video games as a platform for community dialogue.”

“We designed this project…as a medium for social justice.

[RELATED: University to offer ‘Social Justice Advocacy’ certificate program]

The program began in the summer of 2015, when the professors worked with 13 teenagers from Chicago’s South Side to create a series of art video games on contemporary social issues, which include “white privilege, racial profiling, peer pressure, and others,” according to their website.

The video games, which can also be played online, were then unveiled to the public at the Hyde Park Art Center in Chicago later that summer, where passersby could play titles such as “Can You Serve and Protect?” and “Growing Up Black in Chicago.”

“I am African American and I see on the news how the police are killing my kind,” reads a description of the the former. “It kind of hurts me and I want to just change that to make a better world, for not only my community, but for everybody else.”

Neither Richardson nor Ciampaglia responded to inquiries from Campus Reform as to whether the program is currently running, but the professors just published an article on their project in the latest issue of the Journal of Art Education.

“Video games are clearly attractive to teens in our experience running community art programs,” they said, noting that they’ve often found that teenagers want to learn how to make them. “We designed this project to capitalize on this allure by using the new media art conception of video games to—known as art games—as a medium for social justice.”

[RELATED: USC video game panel cancelled over lack of women]

The project was funded by the nonprofit A Blade of Grass, which granted the professors $20,000 in “unrestricted project support” and a one-year fellowship, according to their announcement of their 2015 Fellows for Socially Engaged Art.

Earlier this year, the nonprofit produced a video in praise of the program, during which students lamented the preponderance of “white people programming the games” that are normally released to the public, and expressed a desire for more women and minorities to be involved in the video game industry.

“The game is engaging people and putting them into this place where they’re forced to consider [these social justice issues],” Professor Richardson said in the video.

Neither professor responded to requests for comment on their program.


RINO Shame

Michael Reagan

I saw an honest Republican congressman on TV the other day.

I was so shocked I can’t remember who it was or what channel I was watching.

It was a mirage.

But he gave the most truthful explanation I’ve heard from a  Republican politician all year about why the GOP can’t get it together on health care reform.

The congressman was asked the same simple question that House and Senate Republicans have been asked a million times before –

“Why didn’t you guys have a bill ready in January that would repeal and replace ObamaCare?”

After all, for seven years Republicans had railed in unison against the stupidities, inefficiencies and inequities of ObamaCare.

See yesterday’s blog IMHO.

Republican candidates in flyover country had used the “repeal & replace” mantra to help them win dozens of governorships, House seats and Senate seats.

The GOP-controlled House had bravely and boldly voted for bills to repeal it at least five hundred times.

Then last fall Donald Trump shocked the world and Republicans even took narrow control of the U.S. Senate.

Repealing ObamaCare suddenly became possible.

And the Republicans went “oh shit! You mean we actually have to do something?”

But as the honest congressman I saw on TV admitted, the GOP wasn’t ready because “We never thought Donald Trump would win.”

So they were geared up to be The Trolling Opposition as usual. They didn’t mean a word of it. They were just using the Sheeple for their own power.

Like everyone else in the political and media establishment, Republicans in DC believed Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president.

With her and Bill in the Oval Office armed with their veto pens, the GOP had no serious plans drawn up for ending ObamaCare – or trying to do anything else.

I still think secretly and strategically they wanted her.

So when Trump won on Nov. 8, 2016,, Republicans in Congress basically said, “Oh, crap. What do we do now?”

Overnight a whole bunch of Republicans became terrified about having to back up their tough repeal-and-replace talk with actual legislation.

YOU MEAN WE HAVE ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING! WE HAVE BE ACCOUNTABLE!!

Eight months later they’re still looking for their conservative spines and trying to figure out what to do.

They’re stuck between living up to their empty promises or losing their seats in Congress in 2018.

They’re afraid to vote to take away the “free” or subsidized health care coverage ObamaCare gave millions of voters as it wrecked the already government- wrecked health care world.

A RINO has no spine. But boy, does he have a big mouth when hr’s not in charge.

But if they lose control of the Senate in 2018, Republicans are done. They’ll see nothing passed if Chuck Schumer and the Democrats get to run the Senate.

And it will be THEIR FAULT. The last, best hope for salvation squandered because they were too narcissistic to get out of their own way.

Schumer will do what Harry Reid did when he was boss – make sure no House bill ever comes up for a vote in the Senate.

At least this week the Senate took President Trump’s hint and put off their summer vacations for two weeks.

Now GOP leaders are again promising us they’ll put together a health care reform package that Rand Paul, Susan Collins and 48 other Republicans can vote for.

Ted Cruz announced Thursday that he’ll vote for the new bill as it exists at this point in time, but who knows what will change by next week.

After all the tough talk, Republicans may end up having to sit down with Democrats to “repair” ObamaCare, which will mean we’ll never be able to shop for health insurance across state lines and idiotic things like mandated maternity benefits for grandmothers will live forever.

 
And the end is nigh.
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Aw Sh*t! Really?

Do you get the same feeling I get?

It’s the feeling that the Republican Party really, deep down, wanted Hillary to win too? I was much easier for them to just snipe and bitch and moan from the sidelines. Give The Democrats the finger and puff up their chests like a peacock and make themselves look important.

But not actually DO ANYTHING.

Just rile people up. Make excuses why you don’t do anything and collect your fat millions from the sheeple and the rich fat cats.

What a life.

The perpetual Troll.

Then f*cking Donald Trump and The American People had to go and screw it all up.

NOW we actually have to DO SOMETHING!!

How dare he!

And how dare you get mad us for promising for a decade “to fix it” and riling you up into a drooling lather then when it came to actually fulfill all those promises we just wanted to dick around, pick at our food like a teenager who got served vegetable. Go on vacation. Complain and moan some more.

Why do we have to do anything? It was som much easier just being the voice of “outrage”. Life was so much simpler then.

We’d pass a bill, 40 times in 8 years, to repeal Obamacare just for show.

We’d feign outrage at all his socialist and unconstitutional excesses but we really didn’t want to do anything about it. Not really.

We are the Government Elite. We just wanted to profit from them.

Now you want us to fix them?!! Are you F*cking nuts!

Why the hell would we want to do that?

Because we promised for 10 years we would?

Oh, ok Mom, I’ll half-ass it and act like I care. I’ll put on a show of “good faith”.

But really, my hearts just not in it. Can we go back to the way it was. I liked that better.

gop-says-thanks

Freedom of Speech is Censorship

Colleges should “screen” speakers to ensure that they are not giving a platform to “intolerant perspectives,” a University of Maryland student argues in a recent op-ed.
Moshe Klein argues that “there are important reasons to censor speech on the campus,” saying some viewpoints make certain students feel “unsafe.”

Colleges should “screen” speakers to ensure that they are not giving a platform to “intolerant perspectives,” a University of Maryland student argues in a recent op-ed.

“There is nothing inherently wrong with screening speakers, teachers and even students on the campus,” sophomore Moshe Klein declares in an op-ed for The Diamondback, arguing that “intolerant” points of view “prevent certain groups of people from participating in campus life safely.”

“There are important reasons to censor speech on the campus.”

“There are important reasons to censor speech on the campus,” Klein asserts, saying for instance that students would be justified in tearing down “fascist white power posters” to protest a speech by David Duke.

At the same time, he contends that it was “reasonable” for Harvard to revoke the acceptances of incoming freshmen who participated in an offensive meme-sharing group, because such action demonstrated “that there is no space for intolerant behavior.”

He does, however, acknowledge that “in some cases, what we consider intolerant is simply a different perspective,” saying students should only “walk out” on speakers—as University of Notre Dame students did to Vice President Mike Pence at their Commencement ceremony—when they “directly advocate targeting groups and [making] them feel unsafe.”

“That is how decisions about free speech on campus should be made, especially if campuses want to be authentically diverse and open-minded, and not just echo chambers,” he says.

Klein explained in an interview with Campus Reform that he was motivated to write his op-ed because he had been thinking often about free speech in light of how President Trump’s speech “often falls outside the parameters of acceptable discourse,” adding that he stands by his arguments.

“Speakers and teachers should be screened for hate speech—absolutely—especially on a campus like the University of Maryland, which proudly believes that every student has a ‘rightful place,’” he said, referring to the “Multicultural Philosophy” statement from UMD’s from their Department of Residential Life, which states that students have a “responsibility to recognize the rightful place of every other citizen in our community.”

Hate speech, he explained, has no place on college campuses, because “when hate speech is used, it is an assault on the safety and security of people,” and on a college campus “would constitute an assault on the safety and security of students.”

He did concede that it is often difficult to demarcate between views that are truly dangerous for students and those that are acceptable, saying that “oftentimes, these lines are difficult to discern and we have to use our best judgement about when we move from being uncomfortable to being unsafe.”