The writeup itself is a bunch of liberal racist gobbledygook, filled with virtue signaling, misrepresentations, and blindness to the meaning of the findings.
Glorious. Truly glorious. Levels of stupidity that only academics can achieve. I am pretty sure it was put together by the Yale PR department rather than the researchers, who seem a bit more sober than the PR people.
The study to which I refer is not new. It is new to me, though, so I feel utterly free to share my thoughts because the study confirms what anybody who has spent time around condescending liberals instinctively knows.
The Yale writeup of the study is a perfect example of how clueless liberals are, and how blind to reason academics are so often.
Just reupping this Yale study from a few years back that demonstrated that white liberals literally use smaller words when talking to nonwhite people, while conservatives do not. https://t.co/1BNqBGzVP8
New research suggests that bias may also shape daily interactions between racial minorities and white people, even those whites who tend to be less biased.
According to new research by Cydney Dupree, assistant professor of organizational behavior at Yale SOM, white liberals tend to downplay their own verbal competence in exchanges with racial minorities, compared to how other white Americans act in such exchanges. The study is scheduled for publication in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Notice how the discussion begins? They claim to be studying Whites who are LESS BIASED. The assumption is that White liberals are not biased against Black people, while their research shows exactly the opposite as we shall see. The researchers are liberal, know that liberals are good, and therefore liberals are not the biased ones. Conservatives, who behave the same with both Whites and minorities, are the genuinely biased ones.
Liberal=good. It is a law of nature.
So how do liberals behave, these truly good and unbiased people?
The team found that The difference wasn’t statistically significant in speeches by Republican candidates, though “it was harder to find speeches from Republicans delivered to minority audiences,” Dupree notes. There was no difference in Democrats’ or Republicans’ usage of words related to warmth. “It was really surprising to see that for nearly three decades, Democratic presidential candidates have been engaging in this predicted behavior.”
In other words, Democrats talk down to Black and Hispanic people, while Republicans do not.
Republicans treat their audiences of whatever race the same, and with the same basic respect for their intelligence and ability to reason.
Hmmm. Who is “less biased?”
What about in work settings? Perhaps liberal politicians treat minorities as if they were children, but the average liberal treats their Black colleagues just the same as their White colleagues?
Nope, they too assume that Blacks are stupid.
The researchers found that No significant differences were seen in the word selection of conservatives based on the presumed race of their partner. “It was kind of an unpleasant surprise to see this subtle but persistent effect,” Dupree says. “Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.”
Hmm. Patronizing? Why would anybody assume that treating people as if they are stupid and incompetent is patronizing?
Dupree and Fiske suspect that the behavior stems from a liberal person’s desire to connect with other races. One possible reason for the “competence downshift,” as the authors describe it, is that, regardless of race, people tend to downplay their competence when they want to appear likeable and friendly. But it’s also possible that “this is happening because people are using common stereotypes in an effort to get along,” Dupree says.
Initial data from follow-up studies suggest that describing a black person as highly intelligent, thus reversing the stereotype, or as already highly motivated to get along with whites, thus removing the need to prove goodwill, can reduce the likelihood that a white person will downplay their competence in their interactions with the black person.
Do you see what they are doing here? Liberals treat minorities as if they are clumsy children because they want to be liked. They are just super nice people, that’s all.
Conservatives, those meanies, treat everybody the same, proving that they hate minorities and are a bunch of White supremacists. If they were truly good people they would treat Black people like children, as liberals do. Or something.
Despite all the evidence that White liberals are racist–they assume that Blacks cannot understand complicated things and that Blacks are incompetent–the researchers actually characterize the White liberals as “allies” to minorities.
Some allies.
While many previous studies have examined how people who hold racial bias behave in multi-racial settings, few have studied how whites who are more well-intentioned interact with people of other races. “There’s less work that explores how well-intentioned whites try to get along with racial minorities,” Dupree says. “We wanted to know their strategies for increasing connections between members of different social groups—and how effective these strategies are.”
Conservatives are the ones who aren’t well-intentioned. We know this because they treat minorities like they treat everybody else. We know liberals are well-intentioned because they treat Blacks and Hispanics like little children.
Yeah, you go with that.
There is, of course, an alternative explanation for why White liberals behave as if they look down on minorities as inferior: it may be because they look down on minorities because they believe them to be inferior.
Ever consider that? Isn’t that the assumption in every affirmative action program? In every attempt to eliminate testing requirements? In fact, in every DEI initiative is an assumption that minorities are incapable of achieving success on their own.
Most Whites, particularly socio-political liberals, now endorse racial equality. Archival and experimental research reveals a subtle but reliable ironic consequence: White liberals self-present less competence to minorities than to other Whites—that is, they patronize minorities stereotyped as lower status and less competent. In an initial archival demonstration of the competence downshift, Study 1 examined the content of White Republican and Democratic presidential candidates’ campaign speeches. Although Republican candidates did not significantly shift language based on audience racial composition, Democratic candidates used less competence-related language to minority audiences than to White audiences.Across five experiments (total N= 2,157), White participants responded to a Black or White hypothetical (Studies 2, 3, 4, S1) or ostensibly real (Study 5) interaction partner. Three indicators of self-presentation converged:sophistication of vocabulary selected for an assignment, competence-relatedtraitsselectedfor an introduction, and competence-related content of brief, open-ended introductions. Conservatism indicators included: self-reported political affiliation(liberal-conservative), Right-Wing Authoritarianism (values-based conservatism) and Social Dominance Orientation (hierarchy-based conservatism). Internal meta-analyses revealed that liberals—but not conservatives—presented less competence to Black interaction partners than to White ones. The simple effect was small but significant across studies, and most reliable for the self-reported measureof conservatism. This possibly unintentional but ultimately patronizing competence-downshift suggests that well-intentioned liberal Whites may draw on low-status/competence stereotypes to affiliate with minorities
Liberal racism is a very real, measurable phenomenon, based upon the assumption that minorities are unintelligent, incompetent, and lack self-control.
The latter is made clear by the criminal justice policies the Left is putting forward: they refuse to hold minority criminals responsible for their actions because, apparently, they do not believe they are competent moral actors capable of behaving in a civilized fashion.
That assumption is not true, and in fact, encourages criminality among minorities who are assured they will catch a break. For many, it becomes rational to behave as a criminal because they can get away with it.
The statistics are actually pretty clear that success in America is not determined by race. Whites are, among ethnic groups, pretty much in the middle of the pack in income compared to other racial groups. This data is a bit old, but the chart is so easy to understand that I chose to use it. The current data is not much different.
Lord Monkton has been a shining star on the truth of the climate issue. Here is what he delivers as damning evidence.
I know people who worship the climate as their religion and wouldn’t believe the truth were it this clear. I marvel at how far some will go to be wrong. SMH
The true economic, social, and political cost of the measures proposed by governments (in the West only) to destroy their nations’ businesses and jobs and to impoverish every household is becoming ever more visible. At last, therefore, a few brave souls in the scientific and academic communities are beginning to question what I shall call — with more than a little justification — the Communist Party line on climate change.
Three devastating equations have emerged, each of which calls fundamentally into question the imagined (and imaginary) basis for the economic hara-kiri by which the West is throwing away its gentle and beneficent global hegemony. Power and wealth are passing inexorably from the democracies of the West to the communist-led tyrannies of the East.
However, the three equations stand firmly in the way. It is these three equations — simple enough to be explained here for the general reader, yet devastating enough utterly to destroy the official climate change narrative — that will soon lay low the enemies of prosperity, democracy, and liberty who have, until now, gotten away with undermining the West, no less from within than from without, by their childishly apocalyptic climate change narrative.
The first of these equations was presented to you here a few months ago. Therefore, I shall summarize that discussion briefly. The equation comes in two versions: the wrong version, on the basis of which the climate science establishment felt improperly confident that unabated emissions of carbon dioxide and other harmless greenhouse gases would soon bring about Thermageddon, and the corrected version, which shows that IPCC’s predictions of large and dangerous global warming are false and without scientific foundation.
The system-gain factor is the variable by which the predicted 1.2 K direct warming by doubled CO2 in the air is multiplied to obtain the predicted final warming by doubled CO2 after taking account of feedback response, a knock-on, additional warming signal driven by and proportional to the direct or reference signal.
The erroneous version of the equation neglects what engineers call the base signal, the 260 K direct sunshine temperature. Climate scientists call this the emission temperature. It is the temperature that would obtain at the Earth’s surface in the absence of any greenhouse gases.
The 29 K total greenhouse effect is the sum of 8 K direct warming by natural greenhouse gases, 1 K direct warming by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and 20 K total feedback response.
Multiply the 1.2 K direct doubled-CO2 warming by the erroneous system-gain factor 3.2 to get climatologists’ 3.85 K final doubled-CO2 warming. Sure enough, the average final or equilibrium doubled-CO2 warming predicted by the general-circulation models in the sixth and latest generation of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project is 3.85 K.
But the corrected system-gain factor bears in mind — as climatologists in this crucial respect do not — that the sun is shining and that, therefore, the dominant 260 K sunshine temperature must be included in the corrected equation. Therefore, the system-gain factor is not 29 / 9, or 3.2, but (260 + 29) / (260 + 9), or just 1.1. Then the final warming to be expected in response to the 1.2 K direct warming by doubled CO2 is not 3.85 K, but more like 1.3 K, which is small, harmless, and net-beneficial.
Climate scientists made their error when they borrowed the physics of feedback from a branch of engineering physics known as control theory. They did not understand what they had borrowed. When I pointed out their grave error to the world’s most eminent climatologist, he said he did not believe that the feedback processes in the climate (chiefly the extra water vapor — itself a greenhouse gas — that the air can hold as it is directly warmed by the non-condensing greenhouse gases) would respond to the sunshine temperature.
So I asked him how the inanimate feedback processes in the climate knew that at any given moment, such as the present, they should not respond in the slightest to the 260 K sunshine temperature but should respond violently and extremely to the 9 K direct warming by natural and anthropogenic greenhouse gases. A Kelvin is a Kelvin is a Kelvin, I said. He had no answer to my question. He shuffled off, looking baffled.
It was hitherto unnoticed that feedbacks such as the water vapor feedback (the only one that really matters — all the others broadly self-cancel) necessarily respond to the entire 269 K input signal or reference temperature. Therefore (I shall not show the working for this, but trust me), just 0.01 unit of increase in feedback strength would add as much as 1 K to the final warming by doubled CO2. But it is entirely impossible to measure feedback strength directly by any method, and certainly not to a precision of only a few hundredths of a unit.
Therefore, after correction of climate scientists’ error, no method of deriving predictions of anthropogenic global warming that is based on feedback analysis — as just about all of the current official predictions are — is capable of producing predictions that are any better than mere guesswork.
The IPCC, not realizing this even though it has been told about the error, bases very nearly all of its predictions upon feedback analysis. Its 2013 Fifth Assessment Report mentions “feedback” more than 1,100 times, its 2021 Sixth Assessment Report more than 2,600 times. In short, the IPCC’s entire analysis of the “how much warming” question is meaningless and valueless.
How could so crass a mistake have been made? The answer is that when the climatologists asked the control theorists how to calculate feedback response, they were told that they should base the calculation only on the gain signal (in the climate, the 9 K direct warming by natural and anthropogenic greenhouse gases) and on the 20 K feedback response. Control theorists do things this way because in typical control-theoretic applications, such as electronic long-distance telephone circuits or factory control processes, the feedback response signal is 10 to 100 times larger than any other signal in the circuit. Therefore, neglecting the base signal usually makes no significant difference to the calculation, so they neglect it.
In the climate, however, it is the other way about. The base signal in the climate, the 260 K sunshine temperature, is almost 30 times the 9 K direct warming by greenhouse gases, and 13 times the feedback response. The sunshine dominates. Therefore, as common sense would in any event dictate, one cannot ignore it in carrying out the “how much warming” calculation.
The significance of this first equation, then, is that it proves beyond reasonable doubt that climatologists’ profitable but misguided whining about the rate of future global warming is based on a very large and very serious error of physics that has gone undetected until now because different scientific disciplines — here climatology and control theory — are increasingly narrow in their specialization. The climate scientists did not (and do not) understand the control theory they had borrowed, and the control theorists did not (and do not) realize what climate scientists have done with the borrowed theory. It is in this disastrous interdisciplinary compartmentalization that the climate change scare is rooted.
The truth is that one must use methods other than feedback analysis to derive estimates of future anthropogenic warming. But all such methods, which are based on observation rather than theoretical manipulation of data in climate models, show far less global warming than diagnosis of feedback strength from the models’ outputs shows.
The simplest observational method is this. The IPCC in 1990 predicted that until 2090, the world would warm by between 0.2 and 0.5 K/decade, with a midrange estimate of 0.3 K/decade (i.e., 2 to 5 K per century equivalent, with a best estimate of 3 K). Likewise, now as then, the IPCC predicts that final warming in response to doubled CO2 in the air will be 2 to 5 K, with a best estimate of 3 K. However, according to the University of Alabama in Huntsville, which maintains the most accurate and up-to-date satellite temperature record, since the IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990 there has only been 0.136 K warming per decade.
This slow warming is equivalent to less than 1.4 K per century or, per CO2 doubling, well below the lower bound of the IPCC’s range of predictions, and less than half its midrange prediction.
Note how close that 1.36 K is to the 1.3 K we obtained by correcting official climatology’s error of feedback analysis. A more elaborate method, known as the energy-budget method, also shows about 1.3 K warming per century or per CO2 doubling, with a range of 1 to 2 K. The first equation, then, powerfully suggests that our sins of emission have not caused and will not cause a problem, crisis, emergency, or apocalypse.
But let us pretend, just for the sake of argument, that climatologists had not perpetrated their elementary error and that, therefore, there might, after all, be an impending cataclysm. In that case, what can we do about it? The second of our three equations demonstrates that the currently favored method of Saving the Planet — replacing coal and gas generation with windmills and solar panels — will make little or no difference to global temperature.
Our second equation says excess generation E by wind and solar power in a given grid is the difference between the installed nameplate capacity N of wind and solar in that grid (their output in ideal weather) and the total mean hourly demand D for electricity from that grid.
Obvious though this equation seems, grid operators and governments are, as far as we can discover, wholly unaware of it. But by rights it ought to signal the E = N — D of any further costly destruction of the countryside and the oceans, the birds, bees and bats, the whales and dolphins by ugly solar panels and wind turbines.
Douglas Pollock, the Chilean engineer who discovered the equation, has investigated several Western national grids and has plotted the results on the graph below.
The United States could, if it wished, add more wind and solar power to its grid, but the cost would be enormous and the CO2 emissions abated surprisingly small, because coal and gas-fired backup generation must be kept running at wasteful spinning reserve at all times in case the wind drops and the sun goes down.
However, the seven countries listed as already exceeding the fundamental hourly-demand limit on wind and solar capacity will not reduce CO2 emissions at all if they try installing any more wind and solar power. All they will do is to drive up the cost of electricity, which is already eight times greater in the West than in China or India, where the expansion of the world’s cheapest form of electricity — coal-fired power — is continuing rapidly.
This second of our equations also puts an E = N — D to the notion that replacing real autos with electric buggies at twice the capital and running costs will reduce emissions. It won’t, because in most Western countries, wind and solar power are already at or above their Pollock limit, so that the power for the buggies will have to come from coal and gas, at least until the soi-disant “Greens” abandon their sullen opposition to the peaceful use of nuclear power.
The Traffic-Light Tendency — the Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds — are opposed to coal-fired, gas-fired, oil-fired, nuclear, and hydroelectric generation. Yet wind and solar power, which they favor, cannot keep the lights on 24/7; are cripplingly expensive; are cruel to landscape, seascape, and wildlife; and, though their exceptionally low energy density, do more environmental damage per MWh generated than any other form of power.
Why, then, do the climate communists advocate wind and solar power and oppose just about everything else? They do so precisely because there is no quicker or more certain way to destroy the economies of the hated West and to end its hegemony than to destroy its energy infrastructure. For that, and not Saving the Planet, is their true objective. What they advocate makes sense when seen in that light and makes no sense otherwise.
So to our third simple but decisively powerful equation. Let us pretend not only that there may be a global warming Armageddon (though we have proven there will not be), but also that we can do something about it by the proliferation of windmills and solar panels (though we have proven that we can achieve nothing by that method except crippling our grids and vastly increasing the already prohibitive cost of electrical power, further turning the terms of trade to the advantage of the communist-led countries that are vastly increasing their coal-fired generation).
How much global warming would worldwide attainment of net zero emissions by 2050 prevent? It is a measure of the extent to which such little debate as the far left have permitted on the climate question has been stifled, and of the extent to which the objective of climate policy is political rather than scientific or existential, that this question does not seem to have been asked before.
I was in Parliament the other day, talking to a Conservative M.P. I asked him what he thought about global warming. He said, “I’m a mathematician, so I know we have to show leadership by getting to net zero emissions by 2050.”
“So,” I replied, “if the whole world followed the policy of just about all the British governing class and went to net zero emissions by 2050, how much global warming that would otherwise have occurred by that year would be prevented?”
His face was a picture. He had clearly never thought of asking that surely elementary question. When I told him the answer, he was dismayed. But the answer is not in doubt, for the necessary equation is again unchallengeably simple.
First, we need to know how much global warming would occur on present trends. Typically, one goes back at least 30 years, so let us go back to 1990, the date of the IPCC’s First Assessment Report. Since then, our sins of emission have added one 30th of a unit of influence every year in a near-perfect straight line. All those trillions squandered on trying to make global warming go away have not altered that third-of-a-century-long trend one iota.
Now, if the whole world went immediately to net zero emissions today, we should be able to abate 27/30 units of our influence on the climate. But if we get there in a straight line over the next 27 years, we shall abate about half of those 0.9 units — i.e., 0.45 units.
Next, how much global warming would each unit we abate prevent? Here, as throughout, we are using official figures. The IPCC says that the warming over the next 70 years if we suddenly doubled the CO2 in the air today would be 1.8 C. This is known as the “transient doubled-CO2 response,” or TCR. And, again according to the IPCC, there is an “effective radiative forcing,” or ERF, of 3.93 units of anthropogenic influence in response to doubled CO2. Therefore, temperature change per unit of influence is 1.8 / 3.93, or 0.46 K per unit.
Multiply the 0.45 units the world would abate if all nations went to net zero by 0.46 K per unit, and the total warming prevented by global net zero emissions would be just 0.2 K.
The M.P., on being told this strikingly puny figure, said: “Oh, well, there must be a very large uncertainty in that number.”
“No,” I said, “there isn’t. The IPCC predicts up to 5 K warming this century. But even if the whole world actually got to net zero emissions, which it won’t because the communist-led nations are expanding their coal-fired capacity at a very rapid rate, somewhere between 0.1 and 0.3 K of that warming would be prevented by 2050. The midrange estimate is 0.2 K.”
In fact, even less warming than this would be prevented. For we have used official midrange estimates to calculate the 0.2 K warming that even global net zero would prevent. But those estimates are proven to have overstated the true medium-term rate of global warming by more than double. So the true warming the world would prevent if all nations, rather than just those of the empty-headed West, were to go together to net zero would be less than 0.1 K.
Then I added the clincher. I told the M.P. that the U.K. National Grid had estimated $3.6 trillion as the cost of re-engineering the grid to meet the net zero target; that electricity generation accounts for less than a quarter of U.K. emissions; and that, therefore, the cost to the U.K. of getting to net zero by 2050 would be more than $15 trillion, or six years’ total annual GDP.
Therefore, I said, every $1 billion the world squanders on trying to get to net zero emissions by 2050 would prevent only one 16-millionth of a degree of warming. Did he, as a mathematician, consider that to be value for money?
The M.P. capitulated. “The trouble with you, Monckton,” he said, “is that you take impossible positions on everything, and you’re always right.”
Now, the purpose of this unusual exercise has been to reduce the apparently complex global warming argument to just three equations so simple that they can be explained to a layman without too much difficulty, and then to explain them. In my submission, any one of these three equations, on its own, would in a rational world be more than sufficient to lead Western governments to abandon all their global warming mitigation policies at once.
The three equations together are devastating. There is no global warming problem; even if there were, our current method of addressing it will make no difference; and even if the whole world attained net zero by 2050, global temperature would barely change.
These three arguments are simple, but they are strong. It is only because the far left have captured the debate and have silenced discussions such as this that governments have allowed themselves to be fooled. Soon, that will change, whether the far left and their paymasters and instructors in the FSB and the Ministry of State Security like it or not. For the laws of physics, of economics, and of mathematics are not up for repeal.
It’s claim to fame is being the oldest University in the country, and Michael Jordan.
Now, it has gone into the toilet of wokeness and should be the home of the Frankfurt School instead of Columbia. I lived near there and worked with it’s graduates in RTP. Back then, it was busting at the seams trying to hold in how liberal it was. We could hardly stand them and their graduates while they pretended to be normal. They weren’t turning out stellar employees back then.
During that time, it was just about hating conservatism and history. Now, it has gone off the edge of hating the country it resides in and has gone full Marxist.
Have a Bud Light and wear Nike clothes while marching in lockstep with the politburo.
No way would I sent my kids to that indoctrination camp of the liberals socialists.
Let’s list the ways it has gone bad, starting with hating the constitution:
673 university professors sign letter opposing courses on America’s founding, Constitution
Hundreds of professors at the University of North Carolina signed a public letter Tuesday opposing legislation that would require university students to take courses on America’s government and founding documents.
The 673 UNC Chapel Hill professors revealed the public letter Tuesday, arguing the new courses and another bill in the North Carolina House of Representatives would constitute an infringement on the university’s “academic freedom.”
The first piece of legislation, House Bill 96, would require students to take a 3 credit-hour course covering America’s founding and history. Required reading for the course would include the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, at least five essays from the Federalist Papers, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham Jail and the Gettysburg Address.
The professors argue the legislation “violates core principles of academic freedom” and “substitutes ideological force-feeding for the intellectual expertise of faculty.”
The second bill, H.B. 715, would eliminate tenure at UNC and its affiliated campuses, establish minimum class sizes and require colleges to report “all non-instructional research performed by higher education personnel at the institution.”
The 673 professors decry both bills as an attack on “expertise,” arguing the American government courses constitute little more than indoctrination. (imagine that, the history that made it great to be there now sucks because it’s not in their group think)
Pride came early at the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill, which launched events on Apr. 10 to celebrate the LGBTQ community.
UNC’s Pride Week, which commemorated the twentieth anniversary of the university’s LGBTQ Center, happened in April because the semester ends before Pride Month in June, according to the student newspaper, The Daily Tar Heel.
The Carolina Student Union Art Gallery hosted the first of five events by featuring an LGBTQ exhibit throughout the week.
Another event included student volunteers and LGBTQ Center staff stationing themselves in “The Pit”–a central, iconic location on campus–for Pride in the Pit. The Daily Tar Heel reported that activities included “a trivia game for visitors to test their knowledge about LGBTQ+ topics” and “button-making.”
Students were invited to participate in a “Rainbow Walk” on Apr. 13, with Pride Week culminating in “The Story of Us: Oral Histories of LGBTQIA+ Alum.” During this performance, a cast of mostly alumni actors read accounts of LGBTQ student experiences at UNC “from the 1950s through the 2010s,” Indy Weekreported.
The description of Pride Week also says that alumni led tours with “previews of LGBTQIA+ spaces on campus,” and they “provide[d] insight into some resources available for queer students at Carolina.”
In July 2022, UNC hosted Queerolina, “an online history exhibition” launched by the Carolina Pride Alum Network (CPAN) as part of “The Story of Us.”
I don’t care if they think it’s cool to be a pervert, once you put a crack in the moral fiber of something, the water leaks forever.
Now the bad news, where at the University of North Carolina, some 673 professors signed a public letter last Tuesday protesting new legislation that would require university students within the Tar Heel State to learn about America’s founding documents — you know, the Declaration, the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address, stuff like that.
Even the writings of Martin Luther King Jr. fall into this category of foundational documents. And yet these faculty members are against it, calling it “indoctrination” and citing its encroachment on the principle of — you guessed it — academic freedom.
“House Bill 96 would require students to take a 3 credit-hour course covering America’s founding and history. Required reading for the course would include the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, at least five essays from the Federalist Papers, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.‘s Letter from Birmingham Jail and the Gettysburg Address.”
The professors complain that the legislation “violates core principles of academic freedom” and “substitutes ideological force-feeding for the intellectual expertise of faculty.”
Ah, yes, that would be the intellectual expertise of a faculty and an academic institution that in 2021 disgraced itself by offering a tenured professorship — the position of Knight Chair in Race and Investigative Journalism — to New York Times journalist hack Nikole Hannah-Jones, the author of the universally debunked alternative history known as “The 1619 Project.”
Hating America is obviously alive and well there in Chapel Hill.
I hated being anywhere near that place. You used to be able to put up with it while the basketball team was competitive, but they didn’t even get to the tournament recently. It is a blight on a good area of the state. Everyone there march in line to the sickle and hammer now. Damn, am I glad to be out of there.
It’s academics suck and they are trying to ignore history by taking down statues, as if that changes what happened. They are a bunch of woke little Commie snowflakes.
Just when I thought they couldn’t get worse, hello, they found a way to ruin kids lives even more. It’s a shithole now headed down the same path as San Franfreakshow. We can see how that turned out.
It doesn’t take a genius to know a guy isn’t born with boobs. Even if you put silicone in there, they still aren’t boobs if on a human born a male.
Nike could have picked any female in the world to promote their products, yet they picked a mentally health challenged boy with a dick to sell their workout products.
I doubt they will be as affected as Transnheuser-Busch because they have put the worst people as spokespersons already (I’m looking at you Colin Kaepernick, America hater and racist cry-baby). They have a solid track record for being in the woke dumpster.
Megyn Kelly sums it up perfectly: He has no idea what it is like to need and wear a sports bra. It’s also cringe worthy to see him prancing around like a pansy. Three women with six boobs calling Nike and their pretender out for disrespecting females.
“I’m sorry, Dylan doesn’t have breasts. Dylan’s been taking some sort of a hormone that has turned Dylan into some — I don’t know what’s happening there, but those are not breasts,” she said. “And Dylan doesn’t need any sort of a bra, never mind a sports bra.”
A self-described “Southern Mama” said she was “sick and tired” of Nike “pushing us around” before burning her sports bra and encouraging others to join in the viral challenge.
“All you real women out there – we are in the fight of all fights,” the woman who goes by the TikTok handle “chatterbox.mama” said to her more than 140,000 followers on Tuesday.
“Since the 1960s, we have been fighting for the right to be women,” she said.
“Nike, you should be ashamed of yourself,” the TikTok influencer continued.
“You chose a little boy with no breasts and some junk in his pants to represent real women.”
The TikToker declared: “Nike, I am done with you.”
“I will never, ever buy a Nike product for as long as I live,” she said.
“And there are millions and millions and millions of women just like me.”
She then challenged other women to “burn your Nike bras … as a way of showing our solidarity and how serious we are that we will be recognized.”
Not the best known of holidays, but finally something intellectually stimulating is being celebrated instead of kids cutting off their genitals. It is the actual science unlike what Fauci and the climatards claim.
The World Quantum Day aims at engaging the general public in the understanding and discussion of Quantum Science and Technology, namely:
how it helps us understand Nature at its most fundamental level,
how it helped us develop technologies that are crucial for our life today,
and how it can lead to future scientific and technological revolutions, and how these can impact our society.
The World Quantum Day is an initiative from quantum scientists around the World, launched on 14 April 2021 as the countdown towards the first global celebration on 14 April 2022.
It is a decentralized and bottom-up initiative, inviting all scientists, engineers, educators, communicators, entrepreneurs, technologists, historians, philosophers, artists, museologists, producers, etc., and their organisations, to develop their own activities, such as outreach talks, exhibitions, lab tours, panel discussions, interviews, artistic creations, etc., to celebrate the World Quantum Day around the World.
As soon as I saw the Bud Light campaign with the tranny Dylan fake-a-girl as spokesperson, I had to ask who could be that out of touch with a customer base.
I was almost positive that it was from the Ivy League and most likely Harvard. I also figured it had to be a girl. No straight Bud Light drinking man would think a tranny would be a good idea. The final guess was it was a someone who was woke.
What gets me is what executive at Budwiser gave this the green light when it got to his/her desk? This had loser written all over it that any redneck in mid-America would instinctively know.
Here you go. Every guess I made was right, not that it was hard given what a FUBAR decision this was.
And there it is
Bud Light went woke & recently hired Alissa Heinerscheid, a Woke Ivy League grad, as the first woman to lead marketing for a major beer brand
She’s also now the 1st woman to destroy the largest beer brand in the industry
My already rock bottom opinion of Harvard was able to go lower.
I now await the case study or new textbook of colossal marketing mistakes along with Gillette trashing it’s male base and losing $8 Billion. I wonder which one will lose the most money and customers (and loyalty).
I give it a short bus as it is that bad of a mistake. It just confirms what I learned in the working world, that an Ivy League degree and especially Harvard are among the most overrated and overpriced mistakes parents make.
How tough can it be to sell beer, especially Bud? Get some guys, some trucks, animals (likely dogs) and good looking actual girls. Then film at the beach, a sporting event or concert. If you don’t want to spend the money on loser executives and advertising campaigns, cut the price a bit and you just got a bigger college customer base.
Go woke and go broke, every damn time.
Just to rub some salt into woke, the exec behind the Gillette ad was also a woke girl.
Carolyn Tastad, group president of P&G North America
And in her own words, how and why she killed the brand to be inclusive to a new generation. Like I said, she could have just given them a price break without chasing off the other 98% of her existing customers. You have to try really hard to be this bad. I wonder how proud Harvard is for teaching how to fail.
Whoever hired her made a bad decision.
Meet Alissa Heinerscheid, Bud Light’s VP of Marketing. She explains her strategy of using “inclusive” marketing to promote the brand to young people.
I lost a year and a half of posts when I switched from blogger to WordPress. I’ll post some of the stuff mostly to get it on record.
December 28th, 2006 by jsimonds
“Stewardesses” is the longest word typed with only the left hand and “lollipop” with your right. (Bet you tried this out mentally, didn’t you?)
No word in the English language rhymes with month, orange, silver, or purple.
“Dreamt” is the only English word that ends in the letters “mt”. (Are you doubting this?)
Our eyes are always the same size from birth, but our nose and ears never stop growing.
The sentence: “The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog” uses every letter of the alphabet. (Now, you KNOW you’re going to try this out for accuracy, right?)
The words ‘racecar,’ ‘kayak’ and ‘level’ are the same whether they are read left to right or right to left (palindromes).(Yep, I knew you were going to “do” this one.)
There are only four words in the English language which end in “dous”: tremendous, horrendous, stupendous, and hazardous. (You’re not doubting this, are you?)
There are two words in the English language that have all five vowels in order: “abstemious” and “facetious.”(Yes, admit it, you are going to say . a e i o u)
TYPEWRITER is the longest word that can be made using the letters only on one row of the keyboard.(All you typists are going to test this out)
A cat has 32 muscles in each ear.
A “jiffy” is an actual unit of time for 1/100th of a second.
A shark is the only fish that can blink with both eyes.
A snail can sleep for three years.(I know some people that could do this too.)
Almonds are a member of the peach family.
An ostrich’s eye is bigger than its brain.
Babies are born without kneecaps They don’t appear until the child reaches 2 to 6 years of age.
February 1865 is the only month in recorded history not to have a full moon
In the last 4,000 years, no new animals have been domesticated.
If the population of China walked past you, 8 abreast, the line would never end because of the rate of reproduction.
Leonardo Da Vinci invented the scissors.
Peanuts are one of the ingredients of dynamite!
Rubber bands last longer when refrigerated.
The average person’s left hand does 56% of the typing.
The cruise liner, QE2, moves only six inches for each gallon of diesel that it burns.
The microwave was invented after a researcher walked by a radar tube and a chocolate bar melted in his pocket.(Good thing he did that)
The winter of 1932 was so cold that Niagara Falls froze completely solid.
There are more chickens than people in the world.
Winston Churchill was born in a ladies’ room during a dance.
Biology is something that is hard to argue with. They know if a dinosaur is male or female from fossils thousands or millions of years ago. They haven’t discovered any of the other 74 genders the woke try to claim.
Next,
For the alphabet people:
I got a fitness tracker and when setting it up, here were my options during setup:
It’s also why the guys who can’t compete against men change colors and kick ass on the girls with ease. It’s why they have to lower the standards in the military so that females can graduate the hardest courses.
I can’t pretend that any guy makes a good looking girl. There is always something off (they are still a dude). What kills me is that most of them who transition still date girls. They say they are lesbians, but they are just dudes who like girls, dick or no dick.
The woke love to screw things up. Way to ruin woman’s day Taco Jill….
“We have these mediocre male athletes,” Gaines told The Daily Signal in an interview. “In my experience, we had Lia Thomas, who was ranked 462nd at best as a male, just one year later winning a national title, and then further going on to be nominated for NCAA Woman of the Year. “
Gaines, 22, said that allowing men into women’s sports makes a mockery of competition and puts women in danger. She explained that she swam every day for 18 years and put an enormous amount of effort into nutrition to be the best she could be.
For those who will get offended by this post, this one’s for you:
At least if you are going to argue this point, other than the less than 1% that have gene anomalies, explain it in terms of XX and XY. XY who got an add-a-dick-to-me surgery is still a girl. Cutting off a guys unit doesn’t let them have children either.
As usual, woke ruins everything it touches. When do men need menstrual products? Never, but there it is in the link below.
What kills me is that people are paying so much for this kind of crap going on. It used to be valuable to get the sheepskin. It meant you actually learned something. Now? Read on. It pays to be a victim though. You get attention and entry.
It’s springtime, which means its college admissions season. And, for thousands of American families cursed to bear the wrong skin color, this means a rude encounter with the new American regime’s priorities.
On Feb. 23, Twitter anon Peachy Keenan relayed the story of a friend’s niece, and her faceplant during last year’s admissions cycle.
Go read the rest at the link, but if you aren’t in the hierarchy of victimhood, you ain’t gettin’ in. Most hurt – Asians and whites.
As affirmative action likely comes to an end later this SCOTUS term, higher ed will not give up its obsession with racial preferences, it’ll just eliminate the key type of evidence relied upon by the Asian students in the Harvard case: Standardized test scores.
Yep, the Asians take a hit because the school would be mostly that group, as they are the most qualified to go. But no, you are not the right victim.
But after his native Florida adopted legislation restricting LGBTQ rights, Nobles, who is gay, is planning to find a similar environment in a different political climate. The 19-year-old says he wouldn’t have to worry as much about discrimination or even physical assault in California.
“I came to reality and realized that I might actually have to involve those things into where I go, because you never know where I might be going,” Cody said, expressing concern about the possibility of having to attend school in “a place that has a record of hate crimes or a very old-fashioned point of view when it comes to gender.”
“For me personally, I just naturally assumed I was going to college down here,” he said. “But if things got worse, then I suppose I would have no choice.”
More victimhood. I haven’t read about physical assaults on that group recently, but don’t confuse the narrative with facts.
Hate hoaxes are good for more than garnering the sympathy of fools. They can also be used to shut down free speech, as with flyers blaspheming against sacred sexual deviants that were found on the campus of Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
The incident came in the wake of a two-month-old MIT faculty resolution that defends freedom of speech and expression — even speech some find “offensive or injurious.”
Even some college professors are getting fed up with the climate of fear that prevents the free exchange of ideas.
A report released in mid-January by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression … found that “Large portions of MIT faculty and students are afraid to express their views in various academic settings. Faculty and students are at least as afraid of each other as they are of the administration.”
Oh good. The Frankfurt School of Communism will now dumb down their student population even more.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the drift. I would like to hear of a University that promotes fairness based on meritocracy. Those would be the kids I’d hire.
Oh, and woke sucks again. It ruins everything it touches
As I wrote my way through my youth in a journal, I went to school with some people for up to 17 years. When I had the chance to be included, something I thought would finally endear me into their group, I wouldn’t do it. I realized who they were and knew they were poison and I couldn’t move ahead in life with them as an anchor.
It was the same for almost every group I’ve been in. The thought of being stuck with the same people because of duty was emotionally too great of a burden. I wasn’t there for the right reason. I couldn’t stay anymore.
A college girlfriend reached out to me recently, but I couldn’t talk to her. It was a relationship that ended badly. I don’t have the desire to relive it again even though we’ve moved on. That is the point though, I moved on.
You can’t take a shit and then try to put it back in you butt.
‘Better and Stronger’: Harvard Hosts Second Annual Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging Forum
Harvard students and affiliates participated in the University’s second annual Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging Forum last week under the theme “Reckoning and Transformation,” gathering for keynote speakers, mixers, and performances.
The three-day forum — which was hosted in a hybrid format by the Office for Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging — included speakers from the Harvard Museum of Science and Culture, the Harvard University Native American Program, and Harvard’s faculty.
The forum featured a keynote speech from founder and president of Justice for Migrant Women Moníca Ramírez and a conversation with vice provost Sarah Bleich, who will oversee the implementation of Harvard’s Legacy of Slavery initative.
Harvard’s Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer Sherri A. Charleston, who both attended and spoke at the event, wrote in an email to The Crimson that the forum was intended to provide Harvard affiliates with an opportunity to learn about diversity initiatives.
“The EDIB Forum, for me, is about passing the mic to those who don’t regularly have opportunities to participate, share ideas, or ask questions on a University-wide platform,” Charleston wrote. “There is a wealth of expertise here at Harvard, and the Forum is an opportunity for all of us, me included, to learn with and from nationally recognized experts.”
The event included discussion around Harvard’s reckoning with its legacy of slavery, Gen Z activism, and the ethical stewardship of the Harvard Museum Collections.
The forum occurred in light of controversy surrounding the stewardship of the remains of 19 individuals of African, African-American, and Brazilian descent who were likely to have been enslaved. According to a report by the University’s Steering Committee on Human Remains in Harvard Museum Collections, Harvard museums house the remains of more than 22,000 human individuals.
Since the days of the Greeks, doctors have been guided by the Hippocratic Oath, by which physicians pledge to administer only beneficial treatment and to refrain from causing harm. This oath is obsolete, now that killing children in the womb and sexually disfiguring them to advance a political agenda are considered “health care.” Columbia University — the American beachhead of the cultural Marxist Frankfurt School that has remained at the cutting edge of wokeness — provides an alternative:
The 140 members of the Class of 2025 were welcomed into the profession of medicine at August’s White Coat Ceremony with the usual traditions but with one twist…
Students decided on a new oath … that better reflects the values they wish to uphold as they enter their medical training.
These “values” consist mainly of leftist identity politics.
The VP&S [Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons] Class of 2025 has more students from underrepresented minority backgrounds than any medical school class in Columbia’s history.
Formerly, medical schools took pride in their students’ aptitude. Now they take pride in the students not being white. This does not bode well for the future quality of healthcare.
Going forward, each incoming MD class will have the opportunity to create its own oath.
This is important, because what is politically correct one year can fall behind into thoughtcrime the next as we rush at an ever-accelerating speed toward absolute moonbattery.
Here’s how this year’s oath starts:
“We enter the profession of medicine with appreciation for the opportunity to build on the scientific and humanistic achievements of the past. We also recognize the acts and systems of oppression effected in the name of medicine. We take this oath of service to begin building a future grounded in truth, restoration, and equity to fulfill medicine’s capacity to liberate.”
The loaded buzzwords “oppression” “equity,” and “liberate” signify that medicine is not about medicine anymore. Like everything else that has fallen to the Long March Through the Institutions, it is about leftism.
Yale sacred music center launches climate change art initiative
The Institute of Sacred Music at Yale University has a new initiative that seeks to combine art, religion and concern for “ecological crises.”
Titled the “Religion, Ecology, and Expressive Culture Initiative,” the program’s aim is to “amplify cross-disciplinary and integrative work at the intersection of religion, ecology, and expressive culture,” according to its website.
Ryan Darr, the postdoctoral researcher who runs the program, told The College Fix via email that the goal is to “support and disseminate the work of scholars, artists and practitioners both at Yale and beyond.”
“Going forward, we hope that most of the initiative’s energy and resources will go to supporting the proposals of others,” Darr said in his email.
“Our plans for the initiative this semester include a webinar series titled ‘Mass Extinction: Art, Ritual, Story and the Sacred,’” Darr said. The initiative also plans an “art exhibition in April with Angela Manno called ‘Sacred Biodiversity: Icons of Threatened and Endangered Species.’”
Manno is an iconographer who “has brought the same kind of religious ‘reverence’ to nature by featuring endangered animals in her art,” the Yale Daily Newsreported.
“We’re also involved with the ‘Breath of Life’ concert, including a roundtable before the conference on images of Eden and the garden,” Darr told The Fix.
‘Towards Equity’ Dartmouth event introduces years-long program to implement DEI
Dartmouth College hosted an event Jan. 31 to launch a three-year institutional program called “Towards Equity: Aligning Action and Accountability,” dedicated to promoting diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging.
The College Fix attended the event along with approximately 125 people, mostly Dartmouth administrators and professors.
A document sent to all attendees outlines DEI initiatives Dartmouth is planning for the coming years, including establishing an Institute for Black Intellectual and Cultural Life “following the national racial unrest in 2020,” according to the document.
Additionally, Dartmouth aims to increase the number of faculty of color, provide more resources for underrepresented minorities in STEM, and implement DEI training for all leaders on campus.
“The weight of systemic forms of oppression are heavy,” Shontay Delalue, who led the development of the three-year initiative, told the group at the event.
Delalue is senior vice president and senior diversity officer with the Dartmouth Division of Institutional Diversity and Equity. She has a doctorate in education and is an adjunct assistant professor of African and African American Studies, according to her university bio.
To Delalue, equity means “leveling the playing field” and giving people what they need as opposed to “giving everybody the same thing,” which she would define as equality, she told The Fix in an interview. “Equity is making sure that in policies and practices that people who have not been given access in the past are now getting access, so it’s leveling the playing field, not just making sure everybody has the same exact thing.”
The biggest problem I have in my arguments is timing. I get out talked by people who tend to be wrong. Only later does the truth come out or I can express myself, but no one (except me) cares by then.
Like most introverts, I think things through, throw out the things that are wrong, then come up with a salient and correct argument. All of this is well after the discussion took place.
LESSONS LEARNED
While being pressured to get the jab during Covid, I knew it was wrong and listened to everyone regurgitating the media and government lies (paid for by the Big Pharma companies). Since I was an island, it was everyone against me. There was nothing I could say that anyone would listen to other than my black friends. They remembered Tuskegee like I did.
The lesson? Stop trying to be right, learn patience for the facts to come out. They are coming out now.
This would have also helped me a lot earlier in life if I’d have known. I didn’t understand that I was an introvert though and thought I could go toe to toe with extrovert talkers not afraid to be wrong. I lost a debate to an imbecile in 8th grade when I clearly had the facts. He had the class popularity and the class went with him as he made up stuff.
It was similar in politics. The 2016 election won me a $100 bet, not that anyone cared. The 45th President continues to be right, so they just throw dirty underwear against the wall until something sticks. He is the comeback champion in rhetoric though so I stopped talking about that also. I was an island politically also. I lost every discussion on that one also even though my facts were proven right over time.
I found out that a lot of people don’t have a sense of history or really understand anything other than reading and repeating talking points they are told to think. Social media is making idiots out of the next generations. Knowing how to find information is not the same thing as understanding why things are the way they are.
I was already recognizing the pattern of facts that led to the truth, just not when I wanted it. I’d never make it as a lawyer or politician.
Maybe that’s why I write about this. It gets my thoughts (mostly cogently) in order and documents my position. It’s all I have sometimes. Since the internet is forever, here you go in the future if you read this.
Very rarely in my life do I have the proper comeback. It’s not satisfying when I do compared to the frustration of not being drop quick witted and precise information when needed.
So, I just have decided to let some stuff pass. It gets me out of talking to the under educated anyway.
The other lesson?
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
Here are two examples that just came through. A diploma from there comes with a woke minor in any discipline. Were I a hiring manager, I’d shuffle these students to the bottom. Not only are they doing the below, but the parents are way overpaying for this.
Harvard Law School’s journal Civil Rights and Civil Libertiesrequires that applicants submit their sexual orientation, gender identity and race for their article submissions to be considered, a relatively new requirement for the publication.
Also required are the applicant’s pronouns, whether they have a disability, and whether they are a first-generation professional or student, according to the “Author Submission Form” Google document for the journal.
There is more at the link, but how about the merit of being a critical thinker instead of a color? How is this not racist or sexist?
This next one is the killer. If I have a life threatening disease, the climate is the last thing I’m going to care about.
The Harvard School of Public Health’s Caleb Dresser said students and faculty “have been pushing” to add a climate change component into the HMS studies for some time.
“Many graduates of Harvard Medical School go on to leadership positions in medicine and beyond,” Dresser said. “It’s going to be increasingly important for people in leadership roles in healthcare and other industries to integrate climate change and climate-related hazards into their strategic decision making as they lead organizations.”
[Student Benjamin] Grobman said changes in the Medical School’s curriculum are just one step toward addressing the impacts of climate change on health care.
“It has to go beyond that, and I think that’s something that hopefully we can start to do in the future,” he said. “But I think curriculum is essential because it really lays the groundwork for people to be thinking about these issues.”
HMS student Madeleine C. Kline said though medical education remains outside of her core passions, the potential for enhanced patient care has motivated her to push to modify the curriculum.
“Every student who comes through the Medical School will leave with an understanding of what climate change is and what it means for their patients,” she said. “I think it is going to mean a lot for their patients.”
There is a fork in the road for the future of Cornell University. Cornell must choose between what Jonathan Haidt calls two mutually exclusive telos—the search for truth or social justice activism. The fact that these two teloi are mutually exclusive has been highlighted at Cornell University where the SIPS Diversity and Inclusion Council claims on an official website of the CALS School of Integrative Plant Science (SIPS):
The Council’s vision is for an inclusive SIPS community that flourishes because it values and supports diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice. It recognizes that our institution was founded on and perpetuates various injustices. These include settler colonialism, indigenous dispossession, slavery, racism, classism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, antisemitism, and ableism.
Does anyone who is reading this now believe that Cornell perpetuates slavery? Does anyone in charge of perpetuating this website care whether this claim is fact or fiction, true or false—a fundamental concern of science at a university? Sadly, as documented in The College Fix and by Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, the answer is no.
When the search for truth is subservient to another telos, authoritarianism becomes more likely. As reported in Current Biology, in an 2020 interview with Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, former President Obama admonished,
If we do not have the capacity to distinguish what’s true from what’s false, then by definition the marketplace of ideas doesn’t work. And by definition our democracy doesn’t work. We are entering into an epistemological crisis.
Enjoy paying way more for your education there, if you are going to call it education anymore.
I lived near there for over 20 years. It is in the Raleigh area geographically, but is more like the set of The View politically.
When you go there, it is a different world that most of North Carolina. You feel like you just went to Boston, Washington or a similar virtually all blue city. When it comes to woke, it’s hard to beat Chapel Hill and Carborro.
When RTP was developed, all the people who came from the North East cities gathered there. It went downhill ever since. What used to be a nice state was invaded by northerners who turned it into a leftarded gathering place. At least they flock together
Of course the oldest university in the country is there, better known for basketball than it’s academics recently. There have been many issues like Moderna working with UNC-CH on gain of function for Covid-19, removing statues because someone got their little blue feelings hurt and other examples. It isn’t the academic powerhouse it used to be.
I found it to be one of the more embarrassing parts of living in NC. In a state that has mostly polite people and a nice atmosphere, the people that congregate there are liberal birds of a feather. There are pockets of libtards there, and most academic cities. Who would have guessed that?
I’ve worked with a lot of people there. They match Columbia U, Harvard and Notre Dame for a sense of entitlement and far more unqualified that you’d expect.
I wouldn’t send my kids to this cesspool school system. I paid more for an education that produced a critical thinker, rather than a woke sheep
The school district just provided this gem.
In 2021, the Chapel Hill School District hired a new Superintendent, Nyah Hamlett, Ed.D. (The previous superintendent resigned following revelations that she hired an educational equity consultant company without school board approval.) The new hire came from Loudoun County, Virginia, a district infamous for woke controversies, including a female raped in the girls bathroom by a boy wearing a skirt. During Hamlett’s tenure as Chief of Staff for Loudoun County Schools, the district developed an “Action Plan to Combat Systemic Racism” including a “Student Equity Ambassador program” that would later be challenged in a lawsuit as viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause.
Dr. Hamlett immediately emphasized equity following her move to Chapel Hill. “It’s really about modeling equity in the work that we do, and having it embedded in everything that we do…. Equity is something that has to support, and be the foundation of, our work,” she stated.
With significant support and involvement from Hamlett, Chapel Hill Schools released its “Think (and Act) Differently” 2027 Strategic Plan with five core values: Engagement, Social Justice Action, Collective Efficacy, Wellness, Joy. Clearly the strategic plan encourages a child’s call to activism over academic achievements, and the children must show “joy” in this vision. To push partisan activism on kids, Hamlett receives a $226,000 per year government salary.
Not unlike the “Student Equity Ambassador” program of Loudoun County, Hamlett started an “Equity and Empathy Ambassador Program” in Chapel Hill composed of 39 high schoolers from the district. To Hamlett’s delight, her personal ambassadors of wokism successfully lobbied the district to eliminate class rankings. The deputized social-justice warriors have their sights set on rendering homework useless, calling for grades based on completion rather than accuracy. Without grades, there can be no inequities.
Unfortunately, recent controversy has disrupted Hamlett’s march toward a more equitable but less academic future here in North Carolina. An anonymous tip led a local newspaper, the News & Observer, to investigate whether Hamlett plagiarized portions of her education doctorate dissertation. The article included interviews with three plagiarism experts, reporting:
The multiple examples of duplicate wording and incorrectly cited sources suggest intentional plagiarism, two experts told The N&O, although a third expert viewed it more as a case of sloppy work.
The credible questions of plagiarism against the school superintendent could not stand. In an open letter that deserves to be read in Greta’s “How dare you!” voice, a self-described “multiracial group came together because of concern that [the] superintendent was undergoing this kind of attack.” According to the authors, investigations of plagiarism are racist and a clear violation of public transit slogans. The letter quoted one teacher asking, “If she wasn’t a Black woman, would they be asking these same questions about her dissertation?” Asserting, “It’s not typical that we scrutinize the academic work our leaders completed as students,” (Hamlett’s dissertation was published only five years ago) the authors insisted, “Black educators in our town report exaggerated levels of scrutiny and suspicion regarding their academic backgrounds and their work.”
Source here and here, the latter by the very liberal Raleigh News and Observer Snooze and Disturber.
I love these stories. I worked with geniuses who created technology that we take for granted (and carry around or wear). They were great to talk to as they spoke with different words on how things are related and put together. They explained things on another plane of knowledge that required me to expand my thinking to deal with them.
It also confirms how different we are. I have relatives through marriage in Denmark who believe in Jante’s Law to bash American’s. This kind of flies in the face of what they believe, but then they were triple jabbed so they aren’t that smart.
Story begins here:
A toddler has become one of the youngest people ever to become a member of MENSA, after he taught himself to read at the age of two.
Staggeringly, when he was only 26 months old, he was able to read a book fluently to his parents, Beth and Will.
After that, the youngster progressed to learning how to count up to 100 in Mandarin, Somerset Live reports.
His 31-year-old mum Beth said: “He has always been interested in books so we made sure he had plenty around.
“But, during the lockdown, he started to take a real interest, and by the age of 26 months, he had taught himself to read.
Teddy Hobbs, now four, managed to gain entry to the exclusive organisation for the intellectual ‘elite’ aged just three years and nine months last year (
Image: Beth Hobbs / SWNS)
“He then moved onto numbers and was learning times tables. We got him a tablet the following Christmas for him to play games on. But instead, he taught himself to count up to 100 in mandarin.”
The child prodigy can already count to 100 in six non-native languages, including Mandarin, Welsh, French, Spanish and German.
Beth and Will were confused by his unheard of talents whilst still a toddler, and so got in touch with health visitors to ask them to assess Teddy.
“With him looking forward to starting school, we wanted to have some sort of assessment so we knew the level of skills he was going to start school with.” said Beth.
The child prodigy from Portishead, Bristol, can already count to 100 in six non-native languages, including Mandarin, Welsh, French, Spanish and German (
Image: Beth Hobbs / SWNS)
“Teddy was our first child and as he was conceived via IVF, we have nothing to compare him with.”
Continuing to search for support for their son, the couple approached MENSA for guidance.
Teddy, then aged three years and seven months old, had to undergo an hour long online assessment with experts.
“I was worried about him being able to sit in front of a laptop for an hour, but he absolutely loved it.“ said Beth.
Experts then revealed that Teddy sat in the 99.5 percentile for IQ.
Teddy, who starts school in September, received a certificate confirming his membership of MENSA (
Image: Beth Hobbs / SWNS)
Experts then revealed that Teddy sat in the 99.5 percentile for IQ (
Even I’m getting bored about how bad they act there. Anyway, here is the short bus again and story below.
In a militantly secular society like ours, the highest authority is the intelligentsia. The innermost sanctum of the intelligentsia, our answer to the Oracle of Delphi, the dispenser of ultimate truth, is Harvard University. That’s how we know that it is possible for even infants to achieve the pinnacle of cultural Marxist oppressiveness by identifying as sexual deviants:
Harvard Medical School students can learn about how to provide healthcare to “infants” who are LGBTQIA+, according to a course catalog description.
“Caring for Patients with Diverse Sexual Orientations, Gender Identities, and Sex Development,” a regularly available med school course, promises to give students a chance to work with “patients [who] identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex or asexual.”
The course description explicitly includes infants — i.e., babies less than 1 year old.
Prelingual babies would not be able to share the details of their perverse sexual proclivities even if they had any. But this doesn’t matter, because the LGBTism comes from woke parents, until kids are old enough for schools to provide indoctrination in progressive sexual ideology.
Ivy League college credit can be earned by evangelizing on behalf of the LGBT agenda:
Students in the course may also “engage in a mentored scholarly endeavor” such as “advocacy, quality improvement, medical education, original research, or public health project.”
The directors of the course are Alex Keuroghlian and Alberto Puig. They also work at Massachusetts General Hospital, where the course is held. This hospital performs horrific sex change surgeries starting at age 18. In addition,
It also has a patient guide telling parents how to support their child’s “transgender journey” by affirming an identity contrary to their biological sex.
Let’s not single out Mass General:
Another institution involved in the course is Boston Children’s Hospital, which became the center of a national controversy in August due to videos of employees promoting “a full suite of surgical options for transgender teens,” including vaginoplasties and hysterectomies. One video contained the claim that children can know they’re transgender “from the womb.”
What’s more,
Keuroghlian has authored research that connected transgender drugs and surgeries to better mental health outcomes for patients. He has also condemned government restrictions on the procedures.
You do not have to attend a prestigious and outlandishly expensive medical school to know that people cannot be transformed into members of the opposite sex. Harvard students are taught to unknow it.
It is well known that the Frankfurt school moved to Columbia University last century. How that escaped McCarthy is beyond me as academia has exhibited more communist traits than Hollywood.
I’ve worked with a lot of Ivy League graduates in my decades. The person with the biggest Napoleon complex I ever worked with came from there. I’ve never seen someone treat others so poorly and with such prejudice regarding their place of residence or birth. It was clearly discrimination and abuse that wouldn’t be tolerated by HR (note: he’s gone from IBM now).
Naming Hillary seems appropriate. I’m not calling her a commie, but her criminal track record, along with her elitist stance on everything not agreeing with her is legend.
Before I post the press release below, this is not new to me and I’ve known she is an evil woman for a long time. She is duplicitous to feminism given her husband’s documented abuse of women. It is far worse than what Trump was accused of. Again, there are two sets of rules in the media and Washington.
Here you go:
The former U.S. Secretary of State will hold two appointments as a professor of practice at the School of International and Public Affairs and a presidential fellow at Columbia World Projects.
January 05, 2023
Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former U.S. Secretary of State, will join Columbia University as professor of practice at the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) and presidential fellow at Columbia World Projects (CWP). The news was announced today in a message to the community from President Lee C. Bollinger.
“I have had the great pleasure of knowing Hillary personally for three decades, since her early days as First Lady of the United States. Her public service has expanded since then, most notably in her remarkably successful tenure as Senator for the State of New York, in her impressive role as Secretary of State, and in her two historic and record-breaking presidential campaigns. Given her extraordinary talents and capacities together with her singular life experiences, Hillary Clinton is unique, and, most importantly, exceptional in what she can bring to the University’s missions of research and teaching, along with public service and engagement for the public good,” Bollinger wrote.
“I am honored to join Columbia University, and the School of International and Public Affairs and Columbia World Projects,” said Clinton. “Columbia’s commitment to educating the next generation of U.S. and global policy leaders, translating insights into impact, and helping to address some of the world’s most pressing challenges resonates personally with me. I look forward to contributing to these efforts.”
Because that is what it is. It’s like the longest drive, fastest car, number of wins your team got, name it.
There are some that are hard to top. They are conversation stoppers, also one of my favorites.
I won’t compare it to my schools because I put as much distance as I can from both my high school and college, both school and people. Those people would lose every time to the non-woke army.
If it weren’t for the Nazi thing, this would be the ultimate dick measuring contest for a school. Based on my work experience, I’ve noted how overrated the Ivy League schools are, and you can include others like UNC-CH, Duke and most California schools. They turn out losers now that are more concerned about gender and race than history and education.
Still, if it came down to it and someone started giving me the Harvard or Notre Dame speech. I’d like to say I’m from the Panzer School and we’d blow your doors off, literally. That’s a show stopper.
It’s like someone bragging they play golf and you answer, Hi, I’m Tiger Woods.
What I can’t believe are the sheep that believe this, but I guess that’s what they get for believing the media, the government and social media. None of them are your friends or care about you. They care about them and you are the pawn.
If you want an unbiased education at least. Maybe if you want to learn how to discriminate or play victim, it might be ok.
The North East continues to fail the education system
Now, they want to kill all the white people. A little too far and short of facts, don’t you think?
Rutgers professor says that "white people are committed to being villains" and falsely claims that Africans arrived in North America before white Europeans.
"Whiteness is going to have an end date," she warns. "We gotta take these muthafuckers out."pic.twitter.com/263DDPRTwl
Update, they got rid of her, but no one at Rutgers said a thing until social media reported this. What does that tell you about the rest of the faculty there?
I’ve had 2 of them. I fished with guys who had a bigger loan on their boat than their mortgage. I paid for mine on a credit card I recall to get frequent flyer points.
Everything you hear about owning a boat is pretty much true. Best/Worst day, hole in the water where you dump your money and so forth.
It was fun, but I didn’t see how those guys could afford it, but here you go.
I mean, the headline says it all really. First, take it because it is safe and effective. Then, it was a pandemic of the unvaxxed. Stop blaming those of us educated enough not to get jabbed for your problems. I knew they were lying from the beginning about the mRNA lie.
I didn’t make anyone get jabbed. My position is everyone has to decide for themselves. The facts are coming out now, along with the consequences, but they were there the whole time.
A study published in August in the Journal of BioMedicine actually claims in its abstract:
Fear mongering and misinformation being peddled by people with no scientific training to terrorise people into staying unvaccinated is not just causing people to remain susceptible to viral outbreaks, but could also be causing more side effects seen in the vaccination process. This brief review will offer data that may demonstrate that misinformation perpetuated by the anti-vaccination movement may be causing more deaths and side effects from any vaccine.
Yes, apparently all those people suddenly dropping dead of heart attacks and strokes are being stressed into it by us anti-vaxxers warning them about heart attacks and strokes.
Now, if you’re thinking that’s the most ridiculous thing you’ve ever heard…well, you’re wrong. He’s done the research:
A mini review of published literature has been conducted and found that mental stress clearly causes vasoconstriction and arterial constriction of the blood vessels. Therefore, if subjects are panicked, concerned, stressed or scared of the vaccination, their arteries will constrict and become smaller in and around the time of receiving the vaccine.
See, they’re not dying because the vaccine gave them a heart attack…they’re dying because they were afraid it might.
Anytime a government is giving you free stuff, they took your money and are giving part of it back to you.
For example:
My wife’s relatives in Denmark can’t wait to brag about free education and medical care and how much better it is than the US. They spend a lot of time trying to make their country better by bringing down the US (especially to me), only it’s not.
They always shop here as it is half the price like a lot of the EU.
I casually mention that they pay 70% income taxes and then VAT on that for their medical care. OBTW, you have to wait 6 weeks for a Dr’s appointment there and I had a kid who went to school there.
I got in to the Dr the same day 2 weeks ago.
I had a daughter go to school there.
The education in socialist countries was at least a year behind where she was in the US, so she didn’t have to work that hard. She was taking courses in her sophomore year that she took as a freshman.
Now for the US. Bernie loved to compare the US to Scandinavian systems.
The group of individuals trying to suck free stuff out of the US government are now prisoners of the very same. Working and doing what you want with your own resources is freedom. Very few actually need the handouts, or only need it a little while to get back on their feet.
Our government (the half currently in charge) wants as many people as possible on the dole. They control the people who take their money. How is this not a form of indentured servitude? Money for votes.
The administration before produced the lowest unemployment for all races and genders. That is freedom and that is the American Dream.
Why do they always go there. History shows it’s never worked yet the same group thinks they can do it better. It’s going on right now with the WEF, UN, COP27 and the rest of the one world wonders. Well, feast on this:
After the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, Communism was dead. Or so we were told at the time. However, it should be clear by now that Communism is the John Barleycorn of political ideologies:
They worked their will on John Barleycorn, but he lived to tell the tale.
That is, Communism was thought to have been destroyed, but not only did it survive, it eventually came to dominate those who believed they had destroyed it. (A full-length exegesis on this conceit may be found in my 2008 essay “John Barleycorn Was Dead”.)
The 21st-century version of the victorious ideology is not called “home-brewed ale”, but rather “Progressivism”, or the “New World Order”, or “Global Governance”, among other terms. The process of imposing the new global utopia is, of course, referred to as “the Great Reset”. Which is currently well underway, and will probably be completed before most people realize what is happening.
One of the features of latter-day Communism is that it has always been able to count on a multitude of fellow travelers among the members of the political class in the liberal democracies. The Soviets recruited agents of influence in Western governments and cultural circles, but they really didn’t have to work all that hard to find them; there was always a pool of idealistic intellectuals who were eager to embrace the utopian vision provided by the Socialist Revolution.
Communism is primarily a disease of the intellectuals. The proletariat — the purported beneficiaries of the socialist revolution — are generally indifferent to the allure of progressive utopias. But those who hold multiple advanced degrees are especially attracted to the idea of a glorious future planned and implemented by technocrats. They can draw up detailed plans for the construction of an ideal political economy, but they lack the political power to realize their dreams. Achieving such power tends to consume all their energy for well over half their lives; hence the pursuit of power becomes an end in itself.
They get them young with the college professors. How many of them do you think are conservatives or middle of the road? About 4 percent. Most of the mush heads don’t have a chance. It’s why they vote liberal when they aren’t educated properly. Usually they keep the single women, as demonstrated by the last election. They are the easiest to persuade.
I see the current administration trying to take us down that road in the (thinly veiled) guise of climate change and woke. I don’t buy it.
The answer is that it is about money and power. The intellectuals think they know more and need to tell others how to live and what to do.
Bear in mind, the rest of us are getting tired of this charade and are well educated in how to live. Let the power go out and see who survives and who gets robbed.
Travelers flying into the United States will still need proof of Covid vaccination in 2023 — making the US the only country in the West to stick by the failing policy.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has extended the rule, which only applies to non-US citizens, until at least January 8 next year to ‘limit the risk of Covid-19, including variants of the virus’.
But there has been a growing acceptance among experts that Covid vaccines – while highly effective at preventing severe illness – do not stop infections very well.
Dr Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), admitted earlier this year that shots ‘can’t prevent transmission anymore’.
Yet since November 2021, non-US citizens entering America have had to provide proof of Covid vaccination.
The CDC defines fully vaccinated as having had an accepted single-dose vaccine, or both doses of an accepted two-dose series, at least two weeks ago. A booster dose is not needed.
Most major Western nations such as the UK, France and Germany, have already dropped these types of recommendations.
I tried to explain legal vs illegal immigration to a colleague, Mauricio Godoy at IBM. He mistook the law and it’s consequences. I knew the history of the country and the basis for it’s existence and laws, and it is playing out like I tried to explain. I chose not to engage this one due to not wanting a fight against immaturity. It was too bad as I tried to help him. Eventually he back stabbed me and others at work.
It turns out that Legal Aliens are more patriotic, my point to Mauricio. I was only for upholding the law and it turns out I was right.
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― Mark Twain
When you are not from here, you don’t learn why the history is so important. It’s also why the laws mean something.
I get that one part of the Left wants the replacement theory (get rid of white people who love the country because they will never vote for elitists and socialists like we currently have). That is not what made it the greatest country in achievement and benevolence to others. They just promise money and people vote for then, falling for it every election
Why are they forcing law abiding citizens to get poisoned, and those with diseases get to run anywhere they want once they cross.
They are about to use polio vaccine in NY for the first time in over 40 years. Who brought that in?
Fentanyl? It comes from China through the Mexican border.
So get your poisoned clot shot if you want to come in. Many are doing that now. I’d never get poisoned to go anywhere. I can see it on TV.
All your personal freedoms taken away by people who partied, traveled, never wore masks, didn’t get jabbed because they had access to Ivermectin and Hydroxychloriquine and monoclonal anti-bodies, and you didn’t. They banned it remember.
This is what happens when they lie well enough to fool the weak minded.
Think 20 years from now because that is the decision for your kids you will be making tomorrow.
It’s time for a change. This group just lies and votes themselves the ability to be innocent.
A great sport has been overtaken by the environmentalists saying this is the future of clean energy and the usual word salad to prove their point. They have created some of the most cutting edge technology and speed you can possibly do. It was at the cost of fun, enjoyment of the car and the rush you get from all of your senses.
Before I get to the facts below, everyone likes the sound of a screaming V-12,10 or even 8 over a hybrid car. You can hear them before you see them and the noise and smell enhance your senses of excitement.
It’s not going to happen though, but here’s why it should:
The electric car’s biggest disadvantage on greenhouse gas emissions is the production of an EV battery, which requires energy-intensive mining and processing, and generates twice as much carbon emissions as the manufacture of an internal combustion engine. This means that the EV starts off with a bigger carbon footprint than a gasoline-powered car when it rolls off the assembly line and takes time to catch up to a gasoline-powered car.
One of the big unknowns is whether EV batteries will have to be replaced. While the EV industry says battery technology is improving so that degradation is limited, if that assurance proves overly optimistic and auto warranties have to replace expensive battery packs, the new battery would create a second carbon footprint that the EV would have to work off over time, partially erasing the promised greenhouse-gas benefits.
With governments now in the business of mandating electric vehicles, the battery challenge assumes a global scale. The majority of lithium-ion batteries are produced in China, where most electricity comes from coal-burning power plants.
The process of mining critical minerals is sometimes described in language that evokes strip mining and fracking, an inconvenient truth that is beginning to attract notice. “Electric cars and renewable energy may not be as green as they appear,” a 2021 New York Times article noted. “Production of raw materials like lithium, cobalt and nickel that are essential to these technologies are often ruinous to land, water, wildlife and people.” The Times has also warned that with global demand for electric vehicles projected to grow sixfold by 2030, “the dirty origins of this otherwise promising green industry have become a looming crisis.”
All of these CO2 metrics could come into play in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s recently proposed rule that would require publicly traded companies to disclose the greenhouse gas emissions they produce directly, as well emissions produced indirectly through their supply chains around the world. While the implications aren’t clear yet, the new rule could standardize CO2 disclosures and transparency on EV carbon impacts, but some say that such calculations are nearly impossible for global contractors, and automakers would have to rely on the same kinds of estimates and modeling that are used now. Echoing a common concern, EV battery maker Nikola Corp. told the SEC that “some climate data is not readily available, complete, or definitive.”
As a result of these uncertainties, many consumers don’t understand the complexity of these analyses and may assume that their electric cars are literally zero-emissions, or that what matters most is that EVs are better for the environment and the precise degree is not that important.
more….
EV advocates are optimistic that in the coming decades electric cars will become cleaner as power grids are “decarbonized” and the industrialized world reduces its reliance on CO2-spewing fossil fuels, primarily coal and natural gas. Exactly how much cleaner is not easy to pinpoint. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, about 60% of the nation’s electricity was generated from coal and gas in 2021. In its Annual Energy Outlook, the agency projects those two fossil fuels will generate 44% of U.S. electricity by 2050.
But those percentages can be misleading. Even as the relative fuel proportions change over time, overall electricity demand is going up, so the total amount of fossil fuels actually burned in the mid-21st century goes down by only about 5%, according to EIA estimates. Future greenhouse gas emissions will depend on the number of EVs on the road and how electricity is generated, and those forecasts swing wildly. The EIA forecasts a mere 18.9 million EVs on U.S. roads in 2050, which is very conservative compared with advocacy group EVAdoption’s prediction of more than 25 million EVs on U.S. roads by 2030, only eight years away. BloombergNEF forecasts 125 million EVs on U.S. roads in 2040, up from 1.61 million at the end of last year, which would constitute about half the cars in this country.
“They’re making these forecasts that are basically licking your finger and sticking it up in the air,” David Rapson, a professor of energy economics at the University of California, Davis, who analyzes electric vehicle policy, said about California forecasts, which also applies more broadly. “Nobody knows what’s going to happen.”
Back to me.
Don’t try to tell me racing a hybrid is environmentally helpful when you fly around the world in many private and cargo jets each F1 weekend. Hauling the freight to one race is the pollution (carbon is not pollution) of all the cars in every race.
Cut us some slack and put real engines that we can hear coming, building our excitement.
Even the greenie drivers loved it when Fernando Alonso drove his championship winning Renault to some exhibition laps. They miss the sound also.
It’s not a step backwards, rather a step in the right direction.
Burying the blades of wind turbines because they can not be recycled. Very Earth friendly move by the climate crowd. They don’t tell you this part of the lie.
The Media
“Every human has four endowments—self awareness, conscience, independent will, and creative imagination. These give us the ultimate human freedom … The power to choose, to respond, to change.”
It’s a guy rule. You have to get all of the bags from car to house in one trip. Other stuff is seeing how far away the garage door opener will work from your house. If you can make a throw to the trashcan easily, you have to add difficulty to it like behind the back or use the other hand.
Spell check catches a lot of my mistakes. I’ve noticed a trend recently when I write a word that I can’t find anywhere, so I started keeping a list. I’m sure that some of these should be words and I’ve used them in posts already.
Some may actually be words and I’m wrong about it, but I didn’t win the National Spelling Bee or grammar contest either.
Here’s my list so far. I’ll add to it as I make stuff up. I’ll take contributions if you have one and give you credit on the blog.
Christmasness – too much Christmas
Commerciality
Dickness – acting like a dick
Assholiness – speaks for itself
Incorrecter – more incorrect
Silenting – silencing someone
Frothily – frothy
Ender – the event that signals the end of something. That goal was the ender of the game.
Holify – translation of sanctify from the Greek, but we don’t have that word in english.
Sandwichable – things you can put in a sandwich, or a nice girl in a tight place
Introverting – avoiding people
Libtardedness
Conservatardedness
Ineptocracy – Biden administration
Fuckedupness
Propagandish – sort of propaganda
Pussify – make less manly or more cowardly
Impartation – to take part of
Hero’d – being a hero at something, I’m super hero’d out I’ve seen it so many times
Columbia University said that it relied on “outdated and/or incorrect methodologies” in submitting data to U.S. News & World Report for consideration in the publication’s 2021 college rankings, according to a statement released by the university Friday.
In February, Columbia Mathematics Professor Michael Thaddeus questioned the Ivy League school’s rise in rankings from 18th place, on its debut in 1988, to 2nd place in 2021. In a statement posted on Columbia University’s Department of Mathematics’ website, Thaddeus noted that “few other top-tier universities have also improved their standings, but none has matched Columbia’s extraordinary rise.”
Thaddeus pointed to data submitted by the university to U.S. News & World Report in questioning Columbia’s seemingly meteoric rise in rankings.
“Can we be sure that the data accurately reflect the reality of life within the university?” Thaddeus rhetorically asked. “Regrettably, the answer is no.”
So the Columbia school of Frankfurt Marxism lies….
Columbia again. Of note, one of the worst VP’s I worked with went there. I’ve never seen anyone abuse people verbally and stay employed more than him.
If you like free speech, don’t go to Columbia.
A leading free speech organization ranked the best and worst college campuses for freedom of speech and New York’s top school, Columbia University, came in dead last.
Columbia University came last and was the only school to be slammed with a Speech Climate rating of “abysmal.” Scoring just 9.91 out of 100, New York City’s Ivy was dragged down by its high number of scholars who were sanctioned for expressing their views. Between 2019-2020, seven academics faced investigation or disciplinary action for tweets or comments deemed unacceptable. Columbia did not immediately respond to The Post for comment.
Judge James C. Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit announced Thursday that he would no longer be hiring law clerks from Yale Law School and urged other judges to follow suit. In a keynote address to the Kentucky Chapters Conference of the Federalist Society, titled “Agreeing to Disagree — Restoring America by Resisting Cancel Culture,” Ho cited a number of high-profile examples of speakers being shouted down or otherwise censored at law schools across the country but singled out Yale Law as “one particular law school where cancellations and disruptions seem to occur with special frequency.”
“Yale not only tolerates the cancellation of views — it actively practices it,” Ho said, according to prepared remarks exclusively obtained by National Review. “Starting today, I will no longer hire law clerks from Yale Law School. And I hope that other judges will join me as well.”
It’s why they need to stop ruining the kids by trying to pervert them into thinking they are something they weren’t born to be. It’s hard enough to be a kid trying to figure out all of the life stuff while you are skinning your knees or having fun not worrying about inflation, paying the bills or nimrod’s at work.
Even when they go through puberty, all the hormones keep them from figuring out what to do later in the day, much less the rest of their lives.
You can change your appearance (and pretend to be another gender), but not your sex. It’s still XX or XY no matter what you cut off or add on.
Now let’s rewind. You’re on the vacation of a lifetime in Kenya, traversing the savanna on safari, with the tour guide pointing out elephants to your right and lions to your left. From the corner of your eye, you notice a rhino trailing the vehicle. Suddenly, it sprints toward you, and the tour guide is yelling to the driver to hit the gas. With your adrenaline spiking, you think, “This is how I am going to die.” Years later, when you walk into a florist’s shop, the sweet floral scent makes you shudder.
“Your brain is essentially associating the smell with positive or negative” feelings, said Hao Li, a postdoctoral researcher at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in California. Those feelings aren’t just linked to the memory; they are part of it: The brain assigns an emotional “valence” to information as it encodes it, locking in experiences as good or bad memories.
And now we know how the brain does it. As Li and his team reported recently in Nature, the difference between memories that conjure up a smile and those that elicit a shudder is established by a small peptide molecule known as neurotensin. They found that as the brain judges new experiences in the moment, neurons adjust their release of neurotensin, and that shift sends the incoming information down different neural pathways to be encoded as either positive or negative memories.
To be able to question whether to approach or to avoid a stimulus or an object, you have to know whether the thing is good or bad.
Hao Li, Salk Institute for Biological Studies
The discovery suggests that in its creation of memories, the brain may be biased toward remembering things fearfully — an evolutionary quirk that may have helped to keep our ancestors cautious.
The findings “give us significant insights into how we deal with conflicting emotions,” said Tomás Ryan, a neuroscientist at Trinity College Dublin who was not involved in the study. It “has really challenged my own thinking in how far we can push a molecular understanding of brain circuitry.”
I spent most of my career in either Press or Analyst Relations. I have seen my share of successes and failures. I’ve been in both. We know each other well. My work includes dealing with behemoths (IBM), so I understand what it’s like dealing with a Kraken.
When I see others making mistakes, it’s cringe worthy. Tactical mistakes happen. Strategic planning mistakes are usually worth termination, like Gillette trashing men on Super Bowl Sunday. Putting incompetent people in front of a crowd is inexcusable.
I’ve seen unqualified, and that is what we have at the White House Press Podium right now. If anyone cries racism or sexism at this, you are wrong. So wrong that 180 degrees from now you’d still be wrong. There are professionals and there are amateurs. We have someone who is not seasoned enough to be where she is. It reared it’s ugly head yesterday more than the usual incompetence that is rookie material.
I’ve overlooked a lot of what has been said. Jen Psaki lied every day, but was skilled at how she said it and commanded the room. She was a professional and acted for the most part like one. So did almost every other White House Spokesperson prior to her. They handled some tough ad hominem attacks.
In the arena of politics, incompetents and charlatans can have long careers in ways that others in fields like medicine and architecture cannot. If someone botches a heart bypass operation or designs a wobbly skyscraper, the consequences of those mistakes arrive quickly and cannot be explained away. Even when their policies fail spectacularly, politicians can obscure, deflect, and mislead for years and not be held accountable.
This is essentially what we are seeing now from the Biden Administration, practiced to a more shameless and insulting degree than any of its predecessors have ever attempted. The latest nadir of this strategy happened recently when Fox News reporter Peter Doocy confronted White House flack Karine Jean-Pierre about the glaring hypocrisy of not allowing unvaccinated tennis star Novak Djokovic to fly to the United States to compete, while untold numbers of unvaccinated illegal aliens enter the country on foot daily and are allowed to stay.
“But that’s not how it works,” Jean-Pierre said over Doocy’s indignation. “It’s not like somebody walks over.”
Millions walk over the border in full view of cameras (and hidden by coyotes) bringing fentanyl, diseases (Covid) crime and a drain on the taxpayers. They are given phones, EBT and rooms in luxury hotels. The new American dream.
THE TRUTH SLIPS OUT
When you can’t keep track of your lies, the PR mistakes happen. You step in it like KJP did. It is a rookie mistake by an unqualified person. You have to have ice water in your veins when you stand up and mis-direct questions or deflect issues. You don’t give the press the gun to shoot you with.
When Doocy pressed further, Jean-Pierre could only respond by reading talking points about how the administration is adding technology at the border and securing more funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Those bullet points do nothing to explain why thousands of unvaccinated aliens are being allowed into the country.
Such comments are indicative of either next-level gaslighting or ignorance of the issues on a breathtaking scale. Any sentient being who has followed the news the last two years has surely seen the ubiquitous videos showing thousands of foreign nationals crossing the Rio Grande into Texas, then processed by the Border Patrol.
Biden’s own Customs and Border Protection has reported 1,822,160 encounters with illegal aliens so far in fiscal year 2022, a 586 percent increase since 2017. It is reasonable to assume that most, if not all, of those people are still in the United States. Maybe Jean-Pierre was being too literal and splitting hairs, since technically the border-crossers are swimming and wading across the border, not walking. Regardless, noncitizens are clearly traversing our border in record numbers and are being allowed to stay.
How did the situation get this bad? While the border security problem has been festering for decades, it is only in the last two years that the situation has spun out of control at its current record-breaking pace. The White House, again in gaslighting mode, has blamed the spike on everything from COVID to climate change. It couldn’t possibly be anything they did, right?
Even in a sea of political spin, the truth occasionally slips out. During a recorded deposition as part of discovery in a lawsuit filed by Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody against DHS and other border agencies, Border Patrol chief Raul Ortiz made a succinct and honest statement. Under questioning about the number of people crossing the border, Ortiz, a 31-year law enforcement veteran, said, “In my experience, we have seen increases when there are no consequences,” said Ortiz during the deposition.
Most of what I really learned happened after I started working. I get that an Ivy League degree gets you into the club in New York, but the rest of the world doesn’t care. The good workers rise to the top no matter where you studied.
Now, what you study matters. See below for examples.
I made some references below to everyone going to school. It’s not true. I’ve worked with plumbers who didn’t graduate high school, but had a Ph.D in their hands. They are as successful or more than a lot of college grads I’ve had to put up with.
I think the right college and the right degree are good and can be useful in life. You have to make the right choice on both. I don’t see a lot of that these days by those who need loan forgiveness.
Hello Harvard. The working world is pointing at you.They teach you to be a victim and to blame othersThe Meathead in the family thinks everyone has to go to college.More evidence for Meathead.
And finally, the truth of the whole student loan crisis.
Biden isn’t “canceling” student debt. He’s making everyone else pay for it. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation reported:
Public reporting indicates President Biden may soon announce executive action canceling federal student loan debt for a large set of borrowers. Though parameters of the student debt cancellation have yet to be announced, the Biden administration may cancel $10,000 of debt per borrower for borrowers making $125,000 in income per year or less.
Based on projections from the Penn Wharton Budget Model for the total cost of such cancellation, we estimate President Biden’s plan would cost the average taxpayer over $2,000.
The Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM) released a policy report on Tuesday that estimated the total cost of $10,000 in debt cancellation for borrowers making less than $125,000 per year would be $329.1 billion over 10 years. There were just under 158 million taxpayers in 2019 according to the IRS, meaning that the average cost of debt cancellation is $2,085.59 per taxpayer.
This is not a perfect proxy for cost, however, given the U.S. tax code is progressive and tax burdens are not evenly distributed across households. Accounting for the share of taxes paid by low- and middle-income households, we estimate that:
The average cost of student debt cancelation per taxpayer making between $1 and $50,000 is $158.27;
The average cost per taxpayer making between $50,000 and $75,000 is $866.87;
The average cost per taxpayer making between $75,000 and $100,000 is $1,477.78;
The average cost per taxpayer making between $100,000 and $200,000 is $3,158.35; and
The average cost per taxpayer making between $200,000 and $500,000 is $9,947.92.
Some may dispute that taxpayers bear the cost of canceling student debt. But the $329 billion cost of student debt cancellation would be $329 billion previously borrowed from the federal government and not returning to the Treasury. Policymakers will need to make up for that gap in the future with government spending cuts, tax increases, more borrowing, or some combination thereof.
Another bad economic decision that hurts Americans, the middle and lower class. It violates the (HA!) campaign promise of no taxes on those who make under $400,000.
The colleges have over $40 billion in endowments. They can pay for it. The universities raised costs when student loans became available. They are culpable for teaching anti-American policies and helping to ruin, not better our youth.
I expect a lot of clicks from China on this, they always do when I write about either them or technology.
I found this out playing Duo Lingo, where you learn a new language. They use marketing tools to keep you interested and try for more points such as doubling your score if you finished a lesson before 12.
The AI program does one of two things. Foremost, it gets you involved and competing at a higher level trying harder and spending more time on the app. For learning it is a good thing. For an App company selling advertising, the more time on their site, the more ads they sell.
The second thing it does is discard those who give up killing themselves when they are put into groups with more aggressive players. The lower performing scorers are segregated into a less-competitive group. This group isn’t worth trying to squeeze more money or time out of because they are casual App users.
One of the marketing techniques is a tournament where only a few advance, the aggressive players whom the AI has developed. I’ve ignored it twice because it becomes a 3 week time suck. For me, spending time only on one thing burns me out and I lose interest. I only want to play on my terms, something they didn’t calculate.
THE KOBAYASHI MARU
I love to win and do a lot, like last week. I wanted to beat not only the other players in my division, but the AI behind the game. This is the fault of much of AI. It has to assume human behavior, but goes on perceived behavior. Humans can be random thinkers or those outside of the AI logic.
Winner!
Any reader of my blog knows I look for patterns to make my life easier and better. Sometimes it is is just for the satisfaction of figuring it out. It was like learning the jab was poison and avoiding it while the sheep lined up to get their daily ration.
It’s almost like living in the Matrix and avoiding the Mr. Smiths of the world.
I was at IBM during Watson and knew the tech companies were seeing this as a potential holy grail. I couldn’t out develop the great minds that write AI, but beating them at their game was equally gratifying. I observed what they were doing and always considered the weaknesses.
Ken and Brad didn’t have a chance
Why did I want to do this? I know the Snidely Whiplashes of the world want to take over and control others, like Big Tech and the WEF. Knowing that they are beatable at their own game is valuable. It is like taking the red pill and being in the matrix.
MY STRATEGY
I found that in between the two groups above is where the programmers weakness lies. Those that don’t seem to try or or try outside of the AI rules. It’s AI learns at a machine rate, but not at a human rate.
It’s like when Watson learned to hunt for Double Jeopardy clues and was faster to the buzzer than humans, but AI can be out thought or out maneuvered.
I decided to hold back my scoring for a few weeks to fool the AI into putting me into a lower scoring crowd. I’ve done many thousands of points and finished in the top group without winning, only to be promoted to a higher scoring group. I wanted to see if I tried to score less, would the AI would “learn” that I’m a low scorer.
As I suspected, the groups I got put in were less and less aggressive. The point totals to keep advancing were less and less.
I knew I was gaining ground on the AI weakness and could be manipulated.
Last week, I kept to my minimal effort while learning (both foreign languages and the AI engine behind the App). I noticed that I have been put in lower performing groups. I did my daily amount I’d allowed myself to have and was slowly advancing up the ladder. I was using the AI engine to put me where I wanted to be, not in it’s calculations.
By Friday, I was in the lead with far less points than I’ve done many times in only a day (it starts on Sunday). I had to rely on human behavior that my group weren’t aggressive players, but that was my AI bet that we would be with each other. I was right. I predicted the AI pattern and beat it.
Beating the AI was far more of a challenge than beating the other players.
CONTINUING TO BEAT MACHINES
I knew I’d won by Saturday and did the minimal on Sunday to score. Why? To keep fooling the AI into believing I am a low scoring player. My goal was to win at the lowest level to keep getting promoted into groups that I could predict, and to keep proving that AI is beatable and malleable.
I’ll find out this week if that is fully true as I’m in a tournament for winners now (another marketing ploy) and I will try to finish last and keep advancing. I normally like to crush the competition, but winning by thinking is far more satisfying than winning by brute force. It’s as if you are running the game and the other players.
THE TURING TEST
Of course this is famous, can a machine behave like a human (roughly translated by me). Of course Duo Lingo isn’t as complex as war or landing on Mars, but there are hundreds of millions of humans. That is what they want AI to control, humans (like their free speech on social media).
I wanted to beat a machine, AI and find the holes that are in AI. It is programmed by humans still and can always be beat. They are not sentient. Find the pattern.
OTHER AI CHALLENGES
I play Wordle like a lot of others. I’m not busy trying to win right now, I’m trying to trick their AI into a pattern that I can out think their word selection.
After reaching both puberty and achieving my drivers license, we drove around and made up games. It was sort of like video games in real life.
Everyone has been in a car and someone scores a target based on how many points you get if you open the door by driving and hit them, or just hit them with the car. Before you gasp, this was teenage boys showing off without ever following through. It garnered a good laugh and we always did the same. We drove past the target and counted the score based on who called it first. No lives were lost that I know of.
But here were the rules…..
Old People or disabled – no score as they moved slow and are too easy to hit
Mooning old people – extra points if they grab their heart and gasp (ok, we really did this one)
Young couples or families – a double score, but still low as the kids are like old people, slow and easy
Regular pedestrians – multiple score if you get more than one
All of these are walkers, and aren’t much of a challenge. For higher scores, move on to….
Bikers – A fairly high score as they are a moving target and satisfying if they are holding up traffic. This can only be scored with an open door as hitting with a car wouldn’t be a challenge. The faster the biker, the higher the points. Multiple bikers garners a multiple score, like a 7-10 split.
Motorcycles – A very high score as they are fast. A lower but more satisfying score if you open the door while stopped in traffic and catch one cutting between cars.
Animals -no score as you should lose points if you hurt one. They don’t know you are playing a game.
Practice – revving your car while stopped before someone crosses the sidewalk, then waving them to cross as you keep revving. The smart ones will just say no and not cross.
I’ve written about Harvard based on my work experience with their graduates. To a person, they were not properly trained and always tried some classroom methods that slowed down our work and always failed. We had to undo it and then do things the right way. They consistently over estimated their abilities.
I worked in RTP and while the Tar Heel graduates were at least better workers than those from Harvard, they came with the same attitude that we gave a shit where they went to college vs what they could do to help our company.
HERE IS WHAT THEY DID
Harvard and UNC are being sued because they allegedly (HA) discriminate(d) against Asians. Why? Because they have higher GPA’s and test scores, but are of the wrong skin color for diversity and wokeness.
You’d think that for prestige, you’d want the best and the brightest, but Harvard and by extension the Ivy League and Duke (UNC-CH isn’t that great, I lived there and watched who went and who came out, they didn’t get into Harvard so they wound up there).
Instead, they want to be woke, show diversity, embarrass the Alumni and further taint the reputation and respect for the institution and it’s graduates.
Harvard uses race at every stage of the admissions process. To begin, Harvard recruits high-school students differently based on race. App.154-56. African-American and Hispanic students with PSAT scores of 1100 and up are invited to apply to Harvard, but white and Asian-American students must score a 1350. JA.577:6-581:20; JA.3741. In some parts of the country, Asian-American applicants must score higher than all other racial groups, including whites, to be recruited by Harvard.
* * *
Harvard’s admissions data revealed astonishing racial disparities in admission rates among similarly qualified applicants. SFFA’s expert testified that applicants with the same “academic index” (a metric created by Harvard based on test scores and GPA) had widely different admission rates by race. App.179-80; JA.6008-09. For example, an Asian American in the fourth-lowest decile has virtually no chance of being admitted to Harvard (0.9%); but an African American in that decile has a higher chance of admission (12.8%) than an Asian American in the top decile (12.7%).
THE RESULT
From Legal Insurrection:
The Legal Insurrection Foundation filed an Amicus Brief in support of the Asian students. It provides, in part:
The grand judicial experiment of excusing racial discrimination in university admissions in the hope it would promote the educational objective of diversity of viewpoint has failed, and accordingly, this Court should overrule or modify its holding in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (“Grutter”). Despite the Court permitting the use of race in higher education admissions, viewpoint diversity is increasingly endangered on campus. Since Grutter, the range of viewpoints permitted on campus, particularly on matters regarding race, has narrowed. It’s time to return to the constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination without an exception for education.
It goes on to say:
The dirty little secret of higher-ed admissions is that achieving a desired “diverse” racial mix means discriminating against Asian applicants — or at least, secret until Students for Fair Admissions exposed it.
The higher-ed establishment is brazenly defending its race-conscious admissions in dozens of amicus briefs…
The statistics are shocking. As SFFA noted in its Harvard petition, “an Asian American in the fourth-lowest decile has virtually no chance of being admitted to Harvard (0.9%); but an African American in that decile has a higher chance of admission (12.8%) than an Asian American in the top decile (12.7%).”
Such unequal treatment followed the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Grutter v. Bollinger permitting schools’ temporary, limited use of race as one of many factors for the desired educational objective of viewpoint diversity. Harvard and other schools have used this loophole to drive de facto illegal racial quotas, using admissions subterfuges like personal scores and a “holistic” approach reminiscent of the methodologies Harvard developed a century ago to limit Jewish enrollment….
Not a single college or university supported the Asian students. To the contrary, several dozen briefs were filed against SFFA on behalf of hundreds of colleges, universities, higher-education and professional-school associations, teachers unions, more than 1,000 professors and deans and even college basketball coaches.
One of the most striking things about these briefs is the openness with which colleges admit to having racial preferences and their complete lack of sympathy for the Asian victims of discrimination.
The American Bar Association, which accredits law schools, bluntly demanded the court “not ban race-conscious admissions policies.” The University of California president and chancellors argued that “universities must retain the ability to engage in the limited consideration of race.”
A group of highly competitive schools including most of the Ivy League claimed, “No race-neutral alternative presently can fully replace race-conscious individualized and holistic review to obtain the diverse student body.”
Without racial preferences, in other words, these schools could not achieve their desired racial mix….
HURTING MINORITIES
So Harvard lets in those who it knows won’t be able to make it (look up STEM studies, entrance vs graduation), saddle them with excessive student loan debt and then let them get a degree in the Arts, for those who stick it out. They enter the job world penalized by both knowledge and debt.
The rest of them will be ok as long as they stay with their alumni buddies. Work is just the next Ivy League club anyway, going by their definition.
An acquaintance’s father passed away a few years ago. He was an adjunct to a Five Star General in WWII and a press officer for IBM. He wrote his obituary and his funeral notice. It was spectacular. Not because it touted all that he had done, but that it was clear and concise. When my uncle died, I got that he was a pilot, but not much else and he did a lot of other things that would have been nice to hear.
It’s because someone else wrote his obituary. And there you have the key.
Write your own eulogy and find out what you want the world to know or not know about you. It’s harder than you think because you only have a short space to get in what are the highlights.
A BIGGER PROJECT
For me, it went to exploring the rest of my life and before I knew it, I’m writing about kindergarten or my 3rd job. No one will ever read it, but I finally found out that things like me being an introvert were there all along. My life would have been a lot easier if I’d have known the things I wrote. Sure, it’s hindsight, but the pattern was there. I wonder why it took me so long to see some things.
I remembered teachers (back to kindergarten), classmates, situations, jobs, life and so much that I couldn’t type fast enough. I knew I’d have to edit and re-edit for details and accuracy, but if I could remember it, I wrote it down. I forget a lot of stuff now anyway.
It fell out on the pages who was loyal or a back stabber to me. What was it that I expected or deliverd to friendships. Who I could count on and who I could count on to try to cause me difficulty or harm (mentally or physically).
I realized who was actually a friend and why, and who was passing through that time of my life, but didn’t remain. As I have said, there are a lot of characters in my autobiography who don’t make it to the end.
MY EULOGY
Guess what I haven’t finished yet. That’s right, the original project. I got so enthralled with trying to recall memories that sometimes would flood my mind, or that one deep memory that I hadn’t thought about in decades.
I’m going back to it as I need a break. It wasn’t just the writing, but having to re-experience feelings and situations that I’d buried were mentally taxing. I haven’t been blogging much as it has been overwhelming.
DO IT
Why? You will find out more about yourself than you could imagine. You think you know who you are until you write about your warts and missteps, the awkward things you said that you wish you could take back. Why you react the way you do instead of being more effective, especially when you are protecting your inner self.
I found out who I was and why I act the way I have. I got to re-visit a lot of times in my life. While writing, I put myself back into the 6 or 12 year old to feel those times again the way they were, instead of how my mind changed them over the years. Then, I thought if that moment affected my life later. Most times the answer was yes.
There were times I couldn’t type fast enough and had to keep a separate list of all the things I needed to write about. Conversely, I didn’t want to go back after vomiting up memories, joys and pain, success and failures in my life. I didn’t want to write the pain, but it felt better after having said it.
I’ll keep the eulogy, but delete the life story, no one cares anyway other than me. I won’t care soon either.
I guess I’d better get around to that Eulogy now so the kids don’t screw it up.
I read Introvert Dear, most of which I agree with, but even introverts come in different flavors. Today they wrote an article that resonates with me.
When taking multiple personality tests, I always came up with the same 4 letters and the strongest was I (introvert), always. The rest define me also, but not for this post.
See 15 things Introverts want you to know, but might not tell you and look at networking events. They are the worst nightmare for us. Force a bunch of people together and let them talk about themselves until perhaps you might find something in common. That is hell for me. It’s like small talk, something else I loathe. I prefer the silence, almost every time.
Want to meet me and watch me talk passionately? I do stuff I am passionate about, and then find people who have that in common and we naturally connect, without the social pressure of being forced to.
Icebreakers are supposed to be “fun,” but many introverts absolutely dread these activities because they force them into the spotlight.
Being an introvert at work has always been hard, but most days I get by just fine by minding my own business. For the most part, I don’t mind my job, and sometimes I even enjoy it.
Except when it comes to staff meetings.
I’ve been lucky that most of my past jobs haven’t required weekly staff meetings, because honestly, I’m not sure I could handle that. My current job only has quarterly staff meetings, but they’re enough to drain me and stress me out.
In fact, the most recent one was so difficult that I’m still reeling from it.
It’s part of why I hate family reunions and holidays. It’s forcing people together, only some of whom want to be there.
These are extrovert rules forced on us in public.
Another excerpt:
Why Introverts Hate Icebreakers
Not all introverts hate icebreakers, but many of them do, especially introverts like me who suffer from anxiety. I’m sure there are some extremely confident and self-assured introverts out there who have no trouble speaking in front of a crowd, but that’s never been me. (me: I can do it but hate it and it’s an act when I have to do it. Hell, I hate being at a small gathering and having to act like you are interested, when in fact most times people are more interested in talking about themselves. It’s like a Facebook post to get the most likes by telling the good parts about your life).
Why do introverts tend to feel uncomfortable during icebreakers? For one, an icebreaker forces you to become the center of attention. Whereas extroverts may enjoy being in the spotlight, introverts may find it overwhelming. In general, introverts thrive in calm environments where there isn’t much stimulation. I can’t think of a more stimulating situation than a roomful of eyes watching your every move! For introverts, all this attention may simply put their nervous system in overdrive. (I hate Christmas for this).
Also, icebreakers are supposed to move quickly, so there’s little time to think about what you’re going to say or do. Although no one likes being caught off-guard, for introverts, it can be especially difficult to think of something to say on the fly. That’s because the introvert’s brain might be wired a little differently in this sense. According to Marti Olsen Laney, author of The Introvert’s Advantage, we “quiet ones” may rely more on long-term memory as opposed to short-term or “working” memory, which makes us a little slower to gather our thoughts and speak out loud (it’s because we’re processing our thoughts and experiences deeply). Extroverts, on the other hand, may do the opposite. (Here’s the science.)
Personally, even when I come up with something to say, it never comes out quite the way I planned it in my head. I might stutter or stumble or mix up my words. In turn, this spikes my anxiety even more and leaves me feeling frazzled and embarrassed… all in front of people I work with… in a situation where I am trying to make a good impression. I know icebreakers are supposed to be “fun,” but I, like many introverts, absolutely dread them.
No, those of us who didn’t get jabbed are the better educated, less likely to jump at what the government lies to us about and made good decisions about our bodies.
They made fun of us at first, but those of us with long term thinking and the ability to see the big picture. Now, we are getting a return on our investment of educating ourselves before being lemmings.
Covidiots to me are still wearing masks thinking they work. They get boosted with a cocktail made for a variant that doesn’t exist anymore. Most of all, they believe the news being reported.
Yes, I just came out the other side of Covid, still alive to talk about it (along with 99.8% of those who were infected). That never changed my position on what was right, wrong and dangerous.
I just can’t believe so many people fell for the ruse that is the jab. They are the long term study for the effects of the what is now inside of them.
It’s been a point of contention when Covid hit whether to be jabbed or not. I procrastinated getting jabbed at first until I could figure out fact from fiction. I soon understood that the jab was poison (ex-Pfizer exec called it a bioweapon). I have years of studying Crisper-Cas research so I knew the science behind it does not have enough of a track record, nor any long term results to know the DNA damage.
I also watched the propaganda arm of the government trying to force it on everyone before approval. Once they said it was an emergency and bypassed FDA approval, then indemnified the Pharma companies from damage and death. How does this not add up to being wrong to every neuron of IQ on what to do? How did people not see that they were being coerced, manipulated with lockdowns and fed a pack of at best misinformation.
I then looked at what data was suppressed and why, what medications were working as an actual cure and why, and the jab effectiveness at preventing Covid.
I have a relative I call meathead who said I’m intelligent, so why didn’t I get jabbed? It’s because I’m more intelligent than the sheep.
If you read about me, I am a person who see’s patterns in life. It came to me quickly that the jab was a ruse, it just took me a little longer to fill in the facts, but they couldn’t contain all the lies. It presented itself to me and I’ve written over 10,000 words on this blog about Covid and the jab, most of which you didn’t read in the MSM or by the government because it didn’t fit their narrative. Hint, like Watergate, follow the money. A lot of it changed hands while you were being held hostage from going out.
If you want to know how you’d have acted in 1930 in Germany when told to comply, you now know what you’d have done if you were a covidiot or a sheep.
MY COURSE OF ACTION
For 2 years, it came down to me taking Ivermectin instead of getting jabbed and I have been unaffected until last week.
While moving to a new state, mixing with too many people finally caught up with both people in my house. We’ve both tested positive, but have taken 2 different directions in life on how to deal with it.
Backing up, I’m giving credit to God on this as an answer to prayer. I didn’t know what to do in the beginning. I finally made my decision and I believe God revealed to me what I should do. After that, my eyes were opened up to me knowing I was on the right path. My life was flooded by scientific information being actively suppressed by fake book, Google, Twitter and the rest of big Tech. The rest of the sheep in my family pressured me relentlessly to get jabbed and they were wrong and now know it (except meathead)
I’d also like to say thank you to Aaron Rodgers and Joe Rogan. Both went against the grain and didn’t get jabbed. They also took a beating for not being sheep, but proved the world wrong. They didn’t get cancelled, but not from lack of trying. Both got Covid and in less than a week for both it was over. It kept my belief that I was choosing the right path. I enjoy knowing that they are like me in life.
MY PLAN OF ATTACK
The more I studied and read reports, the more I knew that the jab was more malicious than a preventative. It kept popping up that countries using HCQ and Ivermectin had reduced cases of Covid and a faster cure. That it was banned as a cure just lit up in neon that it both worked and was a danger to the profits of the jab.
I called it “my plan” of attack because it was prior to Joe Rogan and Aaron Rodgers doing the same thing. Before then, I didn’t know many Americans that have tried it (because they were smothering the news that it worked). I’m glad I’m not famous, because they took a beating for challenging the status quo and won.
All my friends got jabbed and some have gone on cruises, the lamest of all vacations. They got Covid on the cruise after a negative PCR test just to get on board, 3 jabs and all the proof in the world that they don’t have it and are protected. They got it before I did. Everyone I know who got jabbed also got Covid. There is my personal evidence that the jab is not a vaccine for Covid and doesn’t prevent transmission to others. Speaking of sheep.
THE TIME LINE
First, the other person in our house tested positive a week ago Thursday, 3 days ahead of me. That person is double jabbed and boosted, 3 stabs in the arm.
I didn’t tell anyone what to do as everyone needs to decide for themselves, as did I. After testing positive though, I made the jabbed person take the Ivermectin because I could trust it more than the jab. It helped speed up healing, and it did. At some point you try to cure it, because nothing prevented it.
I finally tested positive on Sunday but didn’t feel it until Monday. By this time, jabbed person had been in bed for 3 days and had respiratory issues and some other severe symptoms.
Seven days later, jabbed person was coming back to life but is tired and was still hacking and is constantly tired. I woke up after 3 days like Joe and Aaron did, feeling much better. I was tired for a a week and had a nagging cough, the same for jabbed person.
At the end, we had it about the same amount of time. Surprisingly, I wasn’t as sick. The jab (let alone 3) was supposed to lessen the effects of Covid. Most of all, I didn’t have the spike protein running through my veins artificially. The final count was 10 days for the vaxxed, 8 for the unvaxxed.
HOW DID IT GO?
I took vitamin C, B complex, Quercetin, Zinc, D, A, NAC, melatonin and now HCQ and Ivermectin. I also rinsed my nose with a solution of salt water and hydrogen peroxide. I’ve done that all through Covid though. I gargle with Peroxide as well.
My symptoms were a slight headache the first day, but more of a hangover feeling. My stomach was funky like after you drank too much the night before. It took 4 of days to get over that, I had a lot of practice at that before I stopped drinking.
I walked the dog just fine on day 2 and hung stuff in the house on day 3.
Day 4 found me dealing with the residual effects. I occasionally coughed up some stuff breaking up but every cold I’ve had was worse. I was a little tired, but then I wanted to watch the Tour de France and Formula 1. It was just a cold. A cold is a coronavirus, Covid-19 is a lie.
Day 5 is just more of the same. I hauled a bunch of garbage first thing. I took it easy just because I’m not young anymore and know I needed the rest.
Day 6 was just getting better. I’m not ready to save the world, but it’s getting better. I’m driving for 4 hours on Day 7 to take care of house details. It turns out getting jabbed not only didn’t work, it made it worse.
THE BULLSHIT I GOT FROM THE DOCTOR ABOUT GETTING MEDICINE TO CURE IT
I asked my Dr for Ivermectin or HCQ over a year ago so that I would be ready to deal with it. She said that you don’t know the drug interaction (I don’t take anything other than vitamins) so I knew it was lying. Both have proven to be safe for decades with almost every other drug and I don’t take much.
We had a biological discussion on gene editing so it was clear she knew the truth, but was being silenced by the threat of a license revocation. I expected that answer and knew I’d be getting Ivermectin at the feed store and would have to find the HCQ. To protect the pharmacy, I won’t mention them but I found a source.
I maintain that everyone needs to make their own choice. As I type this I’m listening to the other in my house who has an awful cough and told me they feel terrible and have the entire time unlike me.
So other people told me they took the jab for me because that is what they told them on TV, and the internet. I knew that was wrong by how much the government was pushing it on us. I’ve written ad nauseum about coercion, payments under the table and de-population conspiracy (I documented who has said what and their global power grabs, look under Gates or Schwab in the tag cloud). I chose not to get into that fight and let the cards fall where they may.
Everyone who thought I was misguided and a conspiracy theorist will get a lesson in this. If you can’t challenge science, then it is propaganda – Aaron Rodgers.
Think I’m the only one who doesn’t trust it?
MY GOALS.
My intentions the whole time was get infected, but protect myself as much as possible so I don’t have to get jabbed and still get the NATURAL immunity and anti-bodies. I’ll still eat the horse de-wormer and laugh every time I do. I know there are no unknown side affects ruining my insides the rest of my life. I guess I won’t have any worms or malaria either. I got it and it worked.
It turns out that even Pfizer and Moderna admit it is gene therapy, not a vaccination. I instinctively knew this and it finally came out. There is no explaining it to anyone who is vaxxed though.
I’ve not been dealing with Covid much lately on my blog because I thought most of this was known. Banning HCQ and IVM told me that was a cure and they couldn’t launder money through the political parties. They are safe, effective and have a track record of curing a lot of things, including Covid-19. It’s why I knew to look into them as a cure, not a preventative.
While it may be obvious to those paying attention that the experimental mRNA treatments have caused profound damage to the health of people across the globe, the extent of the problem is still vague even if we know its widespread. However, thanks to a new research study that was published this week by the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), we are finally starting to see the bigger picture, and the ‘safe and effective’ narrative should finally be able to be destroyed once and for all.
According to the study, mRNA vaccines from both Moderna and Pfizer were more likely to cause a “severe” adverse reaction (vaccine injury like myocarditis, etc.) than prevent covid hospitalizations. And not just a little more either. Moderna’s vaccine was found to cause “15.1 serious adverse events” for every 6.4 people kept out of the hospital.
Pfizer’s mRNA jab was even worse. Clocking in at an astonishing 10.1 serious adverse events per every 2.3 prevented hospitalizations – which is nearly 5 to 1.
Keep in mind that Covid-19 is only moderately more dangerous than the flu in the first place. The serious medical complications linked to the vaccine are much more life-threatening than the virus itself. And yet, Pfizer’s vaccine is 5x more likely to cause a serious adverse event than prevent a serious case of Covid-19, per the study.
It was so easy to see. At least I know I’d never be a Nazi and would stand up for the truth.
There is nothing better than when people cancel plans on me, even if I wanted to do something as I usually can do it alone anyway.
The more I think about it, the less I want any more people in my life wanting to do stuff together. At this point I’d rather just not have to deal with them.
Here is the kicker. I stopped caring if people liked me in high school. Once I learned that lesson, life is much less complicated. If they talk bad about me, I just kill them off figuratively in my Autobiography. Not all characters survive in stories. Very few do in mine.
I loved lawn darts. It’s like eating a tootsie roll pop. You always bite it. With lawn darts, you take maybe 2 throws at the circle and then you are aiming at the other kids. Now, micro aggression’s need safe spaces in case I hurt you with an incorrect pronoun or say a forbidden word. How sad it is that you can become so shallow that words thrown childishly and generally out of context hurt you.
Now for dodgeball. They don’t let kids play it because the unwritten rules are kill the fat kids and girls first as they are the slowest and easiest to hit. It’s why lions kill the slowest in the heard. They are the ones that got a good game banned because they couldn’t win. Note: This game is a good lesson in life, survival, awareness and loyalty.
Loyalty in dodgeball? Yes. When it’s down to a couple of kids, you don’t throw at your friends first. It spilled over into class and life.
Did we aim for the body? If it was available, otherwise a head shot was good for stories 2 days later that everyone enjoyed until Karen’s came along.
If they would stop banning the good games (also red rover), maybe kids would go outside more.
Yep, I tested for it a few days back. This post is to serve notice that I am about to document the paths taken by 2 people living in the same house that tested together.
All this time I’ve been spouting about who is right and wrong on this. What is Science and who is following it.
Well, it’s empirical for me now. I am coming out of it with a new wealth of knowledge.
We took different prophylactic paths (2 jabs plus booster vs Ivermectin and the Dr Z protocol).
I’ve been documenting the symptoms and the virus path it so that it will be ready when it’s fully over, but it’s starting to look to me that a lot of people died unnecessarily. They either could have been cured or should never have been jabbed.
Everyone is feeling better (so far), but the path from prevention to recovery are 2 opposite paths.
“I wish I could be the bearer of good tidings and tell you that you have unlimited time to stare at the ball and decide what you’re going to do with it, but that’s not reality. Like all games, the game of life must end—and the clock is ticking as you read this.” — Robert Ringer
Once again, my friend George missed the boat and thinks that more gun laws would actually apply to bad guys. These laws only restrict law abiding citizens. I feel sorry for those who read the alphabet news sources of propaganda. He, like others should be better educated at this point in life on these matters.
Go down to the part about socialism and guns. Learn from history.
We went to the same American History classes growing up before they re-wrote the facts.
Anyway, here goes. Steal and re-post as much as possible.
An estimated 65 million Chinese died as a result of Mao’s repeated, merciless attempts to create a new “socialist” China. Anyone who got in his way was done away with—by execution, imprisonment, or forced famine. https://t.co/RBxIPnxXwm— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) June 17, 2022
Because he took away their guns first, like Stalin, Kim, and the rest of socialist dictators who killed 100’s of millions once the people couldn’t defend themselves.
I have out-law relatives in the socialist paradise of Scandanavia, more precisely in the home of Jante’s Law (also one of the stupidest assumptions about people’s nature). I told them that if you take away guns, people will use knives. If you take away knives, they will use rocks. It progresses to sticks and anything else. Just ask Cain and Abel.
All of this happened right after I told them, but did they listen? No. Guns are bad (to liberals) because conservatives and students of history aren’t afraid of them and built the greatest country in history. They only support leftards and liars like Hillary, Obama and Pocahontas and anyone who wants to tear down America. Bashing the USA is Europe’s favorite sport.
They get to enjoy inflation and lack of prosperity now that that the current administration is screwing the world and them because of it. They are getting a good education in trickle down economics, even in their socialist paradise. It’s just that it’s like plumbing with Biden or socialism, shit flows downhill.
They say they are the happiest country only because of the lowest expectations. They need guns because of the Islamic invasion sucking dry their money that they give 70% to the their government.
My favorite is the half breed James Governor who wondered on twitter who is, why do we need a well armed country and who are we fighting. We are fighting to keep our freedom from people who want communism like James. I’m surprises that you hold a US passport but don’t understand this. Russia, China or Cuba are good places for your dream country.
.jpg)
Delusions of Adequacy 