Precious Snowflakes at Yale are Revolting (UPDATED)


Apparently someone has taken away their precious “safe space” – and by that, I mean voiced an opinion with which they disagree. Because you see, precious Snowflakes at Yale are entitled to wrap their little feelings in bubble wrap to insulate them from any kind of dissent! And if you dare voice an opposing view, Precious Yalian Snowflakes get so much sand lodged in their collective snatches, they simply walk out. And screech. And demand action to destroy the dissenters

How could the Precious Snowflakes of Yale possibly be expected to attend class and learn in a “safe” environment if a member of the faculty fails to take into consideration their fragile feelings?

This is the state of Ivy League education, people.

First, a little background.

On Wednesday, October 28, Yale Dean Burgwell Howard sent an email to Yale’s entire undergraduate student body from the university’s Intercultural Affairs Committee, a 13-member group of administrators from the Chaplain’s Office, campus cultural centers, and other campus organizations. The email, titled “Halloween and the Yale Community,” implored students to be thoughtful about the cultural implications of their Halloween costumes and how they might offend or degrade others, pointing to costumes such as feathered headdresses, turbans, “war paint,” and blackface as examples of inappropriate “cultural appropriation and/or misrepresentation.” Howard sent a similar email to the Northwestern University community in 2010 when he was the dean of students there.

While the committee’s email acknowledged that students “definitely have a right to express themselves,” the committee hoped they would “actively avoid those circumstances that threaten our sense of community or disrespects, alienates or ridicules segments of our population based on race, nationality, religious belief or gender expression.”

Translation: You must give due consideration to anyone who may become butthurt by your costume. No, you will not dress up as anyone from another culture. You may not dress up as an animal, because that’s insensitive to our “otherkin” friends (I just learned the definition of that particular SJW assbaggery, and Holy Fucking Shit in a Blanket! You just don’t want to know! Trust me.  Click that link at your own risk! Seriously! You’ve been warned.) Basically, you may dress up as something innocuous, like a tomato… no… wait. Vegetables have feelings too. Nope. Don’t do that. Just dress up as a white hetero male. That’s acceptable.

Seriously… what in the everloving, breathing, farting fuck?

At least one faculty member chose to challenge the Precious Snowflakes of Yale.

Just after midnight on Friday, October 30, Erika Christakis sent an email to the Silliman community in response to the Intercultural Affairs Committee’s Halloween email. Christakis explained that she and her husband Nicholas had heard from a number of students who were frustrated by the committee’s email. Although the email was allegedly supposed to serve as a recommendation rather than a formal policy, to some, its length, tone, content, and the list of 13 signatories seemed to indicate otherwise.

Christakis drew on her experiences as a child development specialist to question whether a university should dictate what students should and shouldn’t wear on Halloween:

I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students.

In addition to expressing concerns about how policing students’ costumes can limit the exercise of imagination, free speech, and free expression, Christakis asked:

Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious… a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive? American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition.

cry_baby_1_-_iStockphotoWell, as you can imagine, the response was EPIC! The Precious Snowflakes of Yale (I think I’m going to trademark that shit) began collectively hyperventilating, clutching their pearls, and birthing kittens… hell… full grown fucking cattle at this egregious challenge to their precious FEELZ! Worse yet, when Christakis’ husband stood up for her, the Precious Snowflakes of Yale™ went into full turnip mode and began accusing the couple of racism and discrimination. That’s right – RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION – for daring to suggest that maybe the university should lay off controlling its students and allow these ostensibly legal adults some freedom to form associations, make mistakes, mature, and grow, as well as discuss their issues like, you know, adults.

A heated crowd of students encircled Nicholas Christakis after 3 p.m. and accused him of racism and insensitivity, with many in attendance demanding an apology for the email statement, which admonished the censure of Halloween costumes deemed culturally appropriating. They also criticized Erika Christakis’ behavior during an open forum hosted at the Afro-American Cultural House Wednesday night — in particular, her attempt to leave the room before speaking or answering questions directed toward her.

Nope! The nefarious offender needs to be fired at the very least! Yale needs to do something to protect the feelings of its Precious Snowflakes! Their fragile feelz need a safe space – safe from dissent, safe from things they might find offensive, safe from diverse points of view, safe from criticism, and safe from having to adult.

The Washington Post also covered this story, quoting the Precious Snowflakes of Yale™ at length. The entitlement mentality of these sad, inconsequential rodents is beyond unbelievable! They’re entitled to never be offended by anything. They’re entitled to demand everyone bow to their emotions, no matter how unreasonable or irrational. They’re entitled to ensure that anyone who disagrees with them or even voices a slightly dissenting view of their demands is fired. They’re entitled to never have their views challenged.

And if someone does dare to point out that maybe – just maybe – facing adversity, discussing their issues like adults, and working toward mutual understanding are more desirable than thought control, attacks on those who have the temerity to disagree with your point of view, and attempts to destroy the livelihoods of dissenters, they’re entitled to demand retribution due to their butthurt!

Apparently asking college students to act like adults is equivalent to racism.

Apparently treating all college students equally, regardless of skin color, race, gender identity, or sexual orientation is discriminatory, because every special snowflake deserves his/her/its own special treatment, and colleges are just not equipped to handle that daunting task!

And apparently, asking the Precious Snowflakes of Yale™ to be tolerant of others’ views, especially when those views were presented respectfully and in the spirit of tolerance, not just for the Chafed Cunt Club, but for all Yale students, will result in infantile screeching and refusal to accept a diploma from the “offender,” as well as deep and emotional hyperventilating to the press.

Fortunately both Christakis stood their ground and demanded that adults act like adults, and not like petulant children whose daddy refused to buy them a pony making him THE. WORST. DAD. IN. THE. WORLD. “I apologize for causing pain, but I am not sorry for the statement,” Nicholas Christakis said. “I stand behind free speech. I defend the right for people to speak their minds.”

Good luck with that, Dr. Christakis.

The screeching SJW rodents will target you until your lives and your livelihoods are ruined.

They don’t want freedom.

They don’t give a rat’s flying fuck about people’s right to speak their minds.

yoda-wisdom-feminism-sjwsTheir precious rubbed raw labia are much more important than anything you have to say – right, wrong, or otherwise. Your rights, your freedoms, and your insistence on being an individual and thinking independently do not matter in light of their precious butthurt.

This is the society they desire. One day, their shrill screeching will be silenced by another, MOAR underprivileged, victim who will be offended and demand their censorship.

The carnage will only stop once these destructive, authoritarian fools have eaten one another.

UPDATE: The Atlantic… No, really, THE ATLANTIC agrees. 

As students saw it, their pain ought to have been the decisive factor in determining the acceptability of the Halloween email. They thought their request for an apology ought to have been sufficient to secure one. Who taught them that it is righteous to pillory faculty for failing to validate their feelings, as if disagreement is tantamount to disrespect? Their mindset is anti-diversity, anti-pluralism, and anti-tolerance, a seeming data-point in favor of April Kelly-Woessner’s provocative argument that “young people today are less politically tolerant than their parents’ generation.”

Young people today are not just intolerant, they’re bullies, who believe they are entitled to insulation from life, from reality, and from being challenged. 

Voraciousness for learning, for free and unfettered discussion, and for diverse views has turned into a voraciousness for victimhood. 

They believe the volatile emotions they experience outstrip others’ rights and somehow justify their abuses. 

They are embarrassing, not just to their schools, but to this country, and I hope my son is strong enough to stand up and face them like a man as he makes his college journey. 

Self-Defense “Expert” Speaks Out Against Self-Defense


You ever read something so stupid, it makes your eyes bleed? I’ve been wanting to blog about this all weekend, but with no computer and only iPhone access to the Internet, this wasn’t going to work. The blog post would have looked like it was written by a slow child.

But now that I have a computer, the urge to address the utter dumbassery coming from the ignorant maw of alleged “self-defense expert” Mary Anne Franks is strong. In a recent debate about whether or not to allow concealed carry of personal firearms on Florida campuses, Franks testified in the Florida legislature against restoring the right of trained, law-abiding Floridians to defend themselves while studying in the state’s universities.

“Guns are highly effective in committing crimes. They are rarely effective in preventing them,” Franks said.

Franks’ ridiculous claim would come as a surprise to anyone who is actually capable of reading comprehension.

Why, just in the past few days, the media has reported on a concealed carry license holder who stopped an armed robbery in a Chicago neighborhood store, a pizza delivery guy in Florida, who used a gun to defend himself against an armed thug,  an armed Oklahoma man who successfully defended himself against an assailant in his own driveway, an armed father who protected his daughter from an armed thug who held a gun to her head, an armed Michigan homeowner who held off eight… that’s right EIGHT thugs until police arrived, and a California gun owner who ended a hammer rampage. That’s right, hammer rampage.

So maybe Franks just doesn’t have access to the Internet. Maybe she doesn’t make enough money as a “self-defense expert” to purchase a newspaper. Or maybe she’s just too stupid to read. Whatever the reason for the hoplophobic ridiculosity that she spewed, she’s obviously wrong. Very wrong.

Franks said law enforcement officers and military members receive extensive training in firearms yet “struggle to use them effectively and accurately,” citing an 18 percent “hit rate” in gun fights involving the New York Police Department.

A study that examined newspaper reports of gun incidents in Missouri, involving police and civilians revealed that armed civilians successfully stopped criminals 83 percent of the time, compared 68 percent of police. Additionally, only 2 percent of shootings by civilians resulted in an innocent being shot, compared to 11 percent of shootings by police who mistook an innocent person for a criminal.

So what does this mean? Apparently, armed civilians are much more effective at actually preventing crimes than police. This is not to impugn police officers. Many of them are dedicated, skilled professionals. But fact is they can’t be there all the time, and when seconds count, they’re still minutes away. Additionally, while police do have training requirements, many gun owners I know impose much stricter requirements on themselves. They enjoy the training. They practice longer and harder – not because they have to, but because they want to.

And yes, as a member of the U.S. Army, my training was extensive – in basic training. After initial entry training was over, we were lucky if we got the opportunity to qualify once per year.

Again, I don’t say this to impugn our military, but given our jobs, and especially on deployment, it’s not like we could go out and plink whenever we wanted.

Franks then doubles or triples (I’m having trouble keeping up with this much dumbshittery) down on the stupid.

“The fact of the matter is guns escalate aggression. They create a false sense of security. They encourage violence as a first resort,” Franks said.

Is that why 92 percent of defensive gun uses result in no injuries and no shots fired?

And then comes the real doozy from a woman who obviously has never experienced sexual assault, but whose goal is to ensure that everyone else is unable to prevent it should the situation arise. She noted that most assault victims know their attackers.

“Unless someone is going out on a date with her hand on a gun, this is not going to help her,” Franks said.

Franks then went from full retard to full turnip when she inexcusably squawked that “it’s an illusion to think crime victims will exhibit the calm, objective demeanor of a movie hero in defending themselves.”

“Studies done by many, many professional have shown that it is really, really unlikely for anyone to use a gun effectively in self defense, especially in cases of sexual assault,” said Franks.

What’s disgusting is that this is a woman who actually is testifying in a legislative proceeding that women are too incompetent to use a gun in self defense! What’s appalling is that she wants to keep women defenseless, because most sexual assaults are committed by those known to the victim.

While it’s true that 82 percent of sexual assaults are perpetrated by a “non-stranger,” Franks thinks (if you can call her twisted logic that) the other 18 percent don’t deserve the opportunity to defend themselves against someone they don’t know. Additionally, she assumes that every sexual assault happens on a “date” and that a woman shouldn’t carry a self defense tool in those instances.

Franks is like many other hoplophobes who believe that if the odds are against you successfully defending yourself, you shouldn’t even try. Much like the sniffly gun grabbers who point out that the Warsaw Ghetto uprisings were unsuccessful in stopping the slaughter of Jews, and therefore, why even bother, Franks assumes that since a rapist will likely be someone whom the victim knows, she is less likely to be successful at fending off a sexual assault, so why try?

anti-rapeThat’s how little this “self-defense expert” cares about the lives of women! Why bother, ladies? Just lie back and enjoy it. Or piss yourself, because rape isn’t about power and control, but about getting one’s rocks off!


This repugnant invertebrate is an insult to feminism and an affront to all women!

The fact that she considers women too incompetent and emotional to successfully use firearms to prevent assault flies directly in the face of logic and empowerment, as well as actual research.

A 2005 study revealed that resistance does reduce the chances of the rape being carried through to completion. What will armed resistance do? An article by Dave Kopel in the Washington Post this year quotes this study to show that armed self-defense does, indeed, stop an assailant.

The Colorado Sheriffs’ support for defensive arms carrying is confirmed by national data. For example, the U.S. Census Bureau conducts in-person interviews with several thousand persons annually, for the National Crime Victimization Survey. In 1992-2002, over 2,000 of the persons interviewed disclosed they had been raped or sexually assaulted. Of them, only 26 volunteered that they used a weapon to resist. In none of those 26 cases was the rape completed; in none of the cases did the victim suffer additional injury after she deployed her weapon.

That’s right. Women who admitted to have used firearms in self-defense to prevent a rape were successful in doing so.

Franks’ contention that women are incapable of rationally defending themselves is offensive to its core. It’s cowardly. It’s false. It’s insulting to strong, independent women.

Those who think the right is waging some kind of “war on women,” because goddammit, every woman should be able to buy condoms at taxpayer expense, and if you don’t think so… SHUT UP MISOGYNIST! are apparently not appalled at this barely coherent snatch impugning the ability, good sense, skill, and judgment of fellow women. They’re apparently not disgusted at Franks’ lack of respect for her females and their lives and dignity. They don’t care that she advocates rendering women helpless – unable to use the most effective self-defense tool on the market today – apparently as long as she supports taxpayer funded condoms and abortions!

Of course we shouldn’t be surprised that this progtard would advocate disarmament of women, given her publication history in such notably leftist publications as the Huffing-glue Post and the Atlantic.

We also shouldn’t be shocked that her political agenda trumps all, including common sense, women’s dignity, and safety on campus.

Social Justice Warriors Take on the Sombrero


What, you think I’m kidding?

Nah, folks. Luckily this isn’t taking place in the United States, but rather at the University of East Anglia in the (formerly) Great Britain. Although if you think that America’s SJWs won’t be looking to this example to end cultural appropriation, white privilege, cisnormativegender… something… I have no idea, let me disabuse you of that notion at once. Just think about the current discussion here in the United States about whether or not braids represent “cultural appropriation.”

But back to the University of East Anglia, where the student union has banned students from getting free sombreros from a local Tex Mex joint.

The University of East Anglia student union officials even took the big floppy hats from students at the Freshers’ Fair, because non-Mexicans wearing the traditional item of headwear could be seen as offensive, according to a new initiative.

The Union has stated that the handing out of sombreros breached a key advertising policy which was sent to all stallholders before the event, prohibiting any use of stereotypical imagery in advertising.

Because sombreros are considered not only racist, but “cultural appropriation.”

It’s OK. I’ll wait until you pick your jaw up off the floor. Here’s a comedic interlude while you do so.


Done? Good.

Next up, we will have DNA tests to prove you’re really German before we allow you to wear the lederhosen, mein freund. There’s a reason why now has that mouth swab thingy you can send in to find out what your DNA says about you! We wouldn’t want you to be culturally insensitive, now would be?

Screw diversity. Screw getting acquainted with and celebrating other cultures. Screw joy. You’re not allowed, you white, privileged racist.

Oh, and by the way the British Mexican Society backed the Tex-Mex eatery for giving away the free hats. The Mexican group dedicated to promoting the Latin American country’s cultural heritage praised Pedros for giving out the free sombreros. “We are delighted to learn that there is a Mexican restaurant in Norwich and hope that they would like to join us to become members of the British Mexican Society,” they said.

The douche pickle trying to whitesplain the contrived outrage is Campaigns and Democracy officer Chris Jarvis, who is quite obviously not Mexican, but is offended on their behalf anyway.

Chris Jarvis BANNER

“We know that when it comes to cultural appropriation the issues can sometimes be difficult to understand and many don’t realise that they may be about to cause offence or break a policy.”

Well thanks for the palesplanation, ass goblin. We’re so glad we have you to explain the outrage on those poor, uneducated Mexicans’ behalf!

Drooling, Cross-Eyed Retard Issues non-apology


So apparently, Newsweek and Perlstein have been experiencing an avalanche of roiling shit ever since they saw it fit to publish the tripe about the “racist” POW/MIA flag. The comments I have seen were mostly negative, even from diehard leftists, and only the most dedicatedly ignorant of the bunch saw it fit to defend this dreck.

Looks like both Perlstein and Newsweek had to do a little mea culpa verbal dance after getting hammered by anyone with half a brain.

A Writer’s Apology

I sincerely regret the use of the word “racist” to describe how the POW/MIA flag distorts the history of the Vietnam War. The word was over the top and not called for.

I’m deeply sorry it hurt people—especially people who’ve selflessly served their country. Most of all, I’m sorry because many of the people offended by the word “racist” are the same people who were hurt when the experiences and feelings of common soldiers and veterans were manipulated to serve the powerful interests and individuals who blithely and perennially send men and women to war, then don’t take care of them when they return home. And, of course, I regret the pain caused to the families of those who gave the last full measure of devotion to their country in Southeast Asia.

I would ask the people I angered to consider carefully reading the article, which explains, for example, that the Chinese Communists cynically leaked lies about the existence of live POWs in the years after the war in order to harm their rival Vietnam.

Most of all, I wish to express my regrets. Other than that, I stand by my article. —Rick Perlstein

The Editor’s Response

We published Rick Perlstein’s article on the POW/MIA flag, because it insightfully examines the cynical manipulation of public opinion at the expense of the downed pilots and foot soldiers the creators of the MIA movement claimed to represent. Perlstein is an accomplished historian who has spent years researching the Nixon and Reagan years. He knows this material. Our prolonged national discussion of the tragic Southeast Asian war that extended beyond Vietnam is often framed in what can be reasonably described as racist terms. The defenders of an Asian country that was invaded, bombed, defoliated and savaged (see: Kill Anything that Moves by Nick Turse) are vilified, while the invaders are beatified. Neither position is correct or fair. It was a persistent yet perhaps understandable disregard for the “other” victims of a war, beyond our own nation’s tragic losses, that informed the piece.

Nowhere is it suggested, nor do we imply, that individuals who remain devoted to the POW/MIA flag are racist. And it was neither Mr. Perlstein’s intent, nor ours, to dishonor those who served in Vietnam, although based on comments of readers, many were offended. A more careful editor would have moved the term “racist” lower in the body of the story and kept it out of the headline, where it was an unintended red flag that provoked the understandable ire of many readers. —Lou Dubose

First, Perlstein should learn the difference between “I’m sorry I said it,” and “I’m sorry it hurt people.” It’s a coward’s cop out, and had people not expressed their indignation at his spew, he would have happily continued to use the “racist” epithet to the delight of every screeching, perpetually offended, CHORF (click the link for definition).

Second, the piece “insightfully” does nothing. Perlstein has no concept of what cynical manipulation of public opinion really is, and he distorts history to fit his myopic view of it. You want cynical manipulation of public opinion? Try burning tons of “banned” food to make a point that sanctions aren’t affecting you, even as your people starve, and you do nothing to actually feed the poor in your country, and THEN see your approval ratings at 87 percent, because you’re fighting for Mother Russia!

That’s cynical manipulation of public opinion!

And yes, you don’t just imply that “individuals who remain devoted to the POW/MIA flag are racist,” you outright SAY it! With every dripping, disgusting sentence, you imply that the flag vilifies them poor Vietnamese, because RACISM! That was the point of your entire screed, you lying piece of detritus, and frankly, your removal of the word from the article does nothing to mitigate the very reason you wrote and published it.

It was a persistent yet perhaps understandable disregard for the “other” victims of a war, beyond our own nation’s tragic losses, that informed the piece.” And that disregard was due to, of course, RACISM, as explained in the very first paragraph. “You know that racist flag? The one that supposedly honors history but actually spreads a pernicious myth? And is useful only to venal right-wing politicians who wish to exploit hatred by calling it heritage? It’s past time to pull it down.”

As for your “accomplished historian,” certainly allegations of sloppy scholarship and possible plagiarism certainly don’t serve to support your contention.

Try some honor, Perlstein. It should be a new experience for you.

h/t: TSO

Newsflash: We’re stupid!


I’m probably going to piss off a whole lot of you with this post, but you know what? I don’t care. I’m in a mood, so I’ll tell you right now – you’re free to disagree. If I see one post telling me how you’re offended by what I’ve said, and you will no longer read my blog, I’ll tell you to go eat a very large, fat bag of dicks. That’s how much I give a shit.



A few days ago, there was a report about a high school that was holding “Foreign Language Week.” As part of that educational curriculum, the school decided to read the Pledge of Allegiance in foreign languages, including Arabic.

Well, you can imagine the clutching of the pearls, and the shitting of the pants that resulted!

One parent claims the New York State Department of Education has regs that specifically state the Pledge of Allegiance should be read in English.

People who lost loved ones in Afghanistan (where they don’t speak Arabic, but whatever) got upset, as did Jews.

Students Tweeted. Parents screeched.

The result? The entire idea was scrubbed. That means students wouldn’t hear the pledge in Italian, French, Russian, or any other language.

So much for education.

What the hell is the matter with this country? Have we become such a nation of pansies that we can’t even allow learning and education to interfere with our delicate sensibilities? Dog forbid something offends us!

We can’t learn Arabic, because ihaverelativeswhodiedinafghanistan / imjewish / imchristian / thisisamericalearnenglishdammit!

We can’t learn about Islam, because imoffended / imchristian / imjewish / theyattackedourcountry / sendthembackiftheyrefusetointegrateintoourculture.

We certainly can’t learn about the history of Pagans or have anything resembling a pentagram on a school bus, because SATAN!

And in order to ensure that no precious Snowflake feels slighted, we have begun demanding the infantilization of our adult populations… “safe spaces,” so no one’s experiences are invalidated – even if those experiences involve Twitter Trauma and imaginary slights stemming from society’s lack of sensitivity toward treasured punkins who are just not capable of adapting to the cruel world that won’t give them the pony they’re entitled to!

Oh ferfuckssake!

Believe it or not, Islam is part of this world’s history, and Arabic is actually a language spoken by millions of people.

Banning the knowledge of its existence or exposure to it from American classrooms makes your kids sub-educated and ignorant. Is it any wonder most high school students can’t point out Sudan on a map?

Reciting the pledge in a different language, doesn’t mean you eschew English in America’s classrooms. It’s a way to expose your precious snowflakes to other languages and cultures. No matter what language you use to recite the pledge, you’re still pledging allegiance to America – to that nation that you all purport to love, but insist on keeping in the bowels of ignorance.

And by the way… the pledge – that bunch of words you all claim to hold so dear – you probably don’t know this, but it was composed by Francis Bellamy, a Christian socialist *GASP*!

The original pledge read as follows, until 1954 when Congress added the words “under God” to it: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Why don’t you boneheads focus on learning about the world around you? Explore various languages and religions. Learn history – because believe it or not, religion is a huge part of history. Education is not indoctrination, and if you fear exposing your child to new ideas, because they might *GASP!* change their faith or become curious about other cultures, generally means your own faith in both your religion and your child isn’t too strong.

Frankly, I don’t give a damn what language you recite the Pledge in – as long as you mean it. As long as your love and your allegiance to the ideals of this country are real. No, that doesn’t mean I think you should recite a pledge of allegiance to your government, or to the idiot politicians sitting around slowly grinding the gears of this nation to a halt. You should recite it as a commitment to the ideals on which this nation was built: courage, self sufficiency, individual freedoms, limited government, limitless opportunities, and the ability to achieve and succeed by your own efforts, intellect, and commitment.

Everything else… get real!

You haven’t stopped any indoctrination by getting the idea tossed out of your high school. You’ve simply prevented them from learning.


Your list of demands is under advisement… in the circular file


The latest absurdity in this whole race relations debacle fomented by Eric Holder and his politicized Justice Department is the list of demands the Black Student Union at none other than UC Berkeley has presented to the university. This is so stupid it cannot possibly be taken seriously, but it’s Berkeley, so the Chancellor has taken the list “under advisement.”

William La Jeunesse reported on “America’s Newsroom” that the black student union wants a building renamed after Shakur, a former Black Panther and the first woman on the FBI’s list of Most Wanted Terrorists.

Shakur, who was convicted of killing New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster, escaped from prison in the 1970s and has been hiding out in Cuba ever since. In 2013, the FBI designated her a terrorist and is offering a $2 million reward for information that would lead to her capture.  

But the black student union at UC Berkeley calls her an “icon of resistance within oppressed communities,”  La Jeunesse reported.

“We want the renaming of it to someone, Assata Shakur, who we feel like represents us as black students,” Cori McGowens, a junior at UC Berkeley said.

In addition to demanding the building be renamed, the students also demanded that the university hire two black admissions officers, two black psychologists experienced in racial discrimination, two black advisers to recruit and mentor black students and create an African American student resource center, La Jeunesse said.

You ever see a dog when it’s really confused, so it sort of cocks its head to one side and looks at you like you’ve just presented it with a Bitcoin algorithm to solve?

That was me when I read this retardery.

Apparently black students at Berkeley feel all marginalized, excluded, and ignored. Interesting that this is ostensibly going on in a liberal utopia intent on instilling in its students a sense of social justice that’s so profound, its social justice symposiums include gems such as a workshop that “…will present a herstory of the #BlackLivesMatter move­ment and will highlight the organizing being done at UC Berkeley’s cam­pus, across the bay area, and nationwide. We will focus on the framework and hxstory of #BlackLivesMatter, the context of Ferguson, as well as the national surge in organizing around the non-indictments of the officers that murdered Mike Brown and Eric Garner. Additionally we will explore how movement leaders are centering the work on queer and trans* narratives, experiences, and leadership. Lastly, we aim to address horizontal allyship and how that has played out in organizing spaces within the movement.” — Presented by a male scholar by the name of David Turner (who probably is feeling all sorts of guilt about being the owner of a penis, and if he had the guts, would likely snip that puppy off with a pair of rusty pliers just to punish himself with pain for being a privileged oppressor).

But I digress…

Black students in this socially tolerant utopia are apparently feeling marginalized, and their response is to demand that a building be named after a…


A terrorist who escaped prison after committing an act of murder. Joanne Chesimard, (aka Assata Shakur) a member of the radical Black Liberation Army, shot and killed New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster execution-style in 1973, after she and two others were pulled over for a routine traffic stop. She just pulled out her pistol and shot the officer, and then finished the job with his own pistol by administering two rounds to the officer’s head.

Nice lady.

And apparently, this is what black students at Berkeley identify with. This violent terrorist is what represents the black student population at Berkeley, by their own admission.

Now, if you’re feeling marginalized and ignored, one would think you would want to do something positive to bring attention to your perceived plight. If you are feeling like you’re isolated, one would think you would want to integrate into the community in a positive manner.

And yet, these students aren’t just demanding that a building be named after a murderous terrorist, but I would submit their demands will actually further segregate and isolate them from the general community at Berkeley! Black advisors. Black psychologists. A resource center for African Americans. Instead of integrating, it seems they want to create a whole separate black Berkeley!

Segregation is so last century!

I would hope that the chancellor simply deposited that pile of excrement where it belongs, but again… it’s Berkley.

“Health Professional” bloviates about guns, paints himself to be a doofus


I apologize – I should have blogged about this earlier, but between my business trips and jetlag, I have dropped the ball. A week ago, a fellow Johns Hopkins alum and public heath professional Vik Khanna penned an essay that gave some doctors and other health professionals a bit of heartburn, because unlike many health professionals, Vik actually understands and appreciates firearms and the right to keep and bear arms.

In his essay, Vik addressed the so-called “gun problem” from a health care perspective, advocating for public education, training, and giving gun owners the benefit of the doubt that they are, for the most part, responsible, peaceable citizens. He was respectful, and he linked to credible studies and statistics to bolster his view.

Interestingly, and perhaps unintentionally, Vik also predicted pretty accurately what the response from the medical community would be to his essay.

Ironically, public health academics happily assert that there is a clear Constitutional right to privacy, even as they vilify a right that is actually expressed in the document, and they merrily condescend to its adherents, whom they regard as pathetic rubes.

Enter this arrogant, fat fuck.


Meet Art Caplan, MD. Art heads the bioethics program at the University of Pennsylvania, but judging from his snide, sarcastic, arrogant writing, he doesn’t know a whole lot about actual ethics, human interaction, or effective, respectful communication.

Instead of refuting any actual facts in Vik’s essay, Art simply proceeded to sneer out a “you’re a paranoid gun nut” reply, and in the process showed his absolute ignorance not just about firearms, but about current technologies, training opportunities, and laws.

Vik, buddy, no one and especially the roughly 28 folks in public health not completely distracted by their lack of funding and inability to secure tenure is capable of doing anything that will pry your gun from your warm-blooded grip. There is no political movement to take away anyone’s guns. The NRA is the mightiest lobbying outfit in these United States and the best Mike Bloomberg or Bill Gates are going to be able to do is to get the anti-gun lobby a few more op-eds and soundbites.

See that? No one wants to take your guns away. You’re paranoid. And by the way, GIVE US MORE MONEY!

My reply to Art’s patronizing gibberish is below. I also posted it in the comments section. The bolded text is my additional comments added in this blog post. I wonder how long it will last before it’s deleted…

Wow… condescending jerk much?

Someone offers an alternative view to your “kale crunching, fitbit wearing hordes of public health types” who cannot help but hysterically ascribe human traits to an inanimate object, and you have to come back with snide derision?

To be sure, Art, “buddy,” no you are not capable of prying anyone’s guns from their warm blooded grip. But make no mistake – when you “public health types” parade your medical authority as credibility on the gun issue, people who genuflect at the altar of your so-called “eruditeness,” will cite you as authorities on the issue.

So, to refute some of your histrionics…

1) Carnage is not CAUSED by guns. We analysts understand that using the passive voice in this manner serves those with an agenda well to obfuscate the problem. If you can’t determine the culprit, you will focus on the tool. The carnage is caused by criminals, and those who are ignorant and irresponsible on the proper handling of firearms.

2) “There is no political movement to take away anyone’s guns.” – Actually, you’re wrong there. There was a federal assault weapons BAN, which, even by the New York Times’ own admission, served merely to ban cosmetic features that had nothing to do with actual fatality rates. Until very recently guns were BANNED in certain cities such as Washington DC, and in many other locales, you have to ask permission from sometimes unwilling government authorities to exercise your basic right to keep and bear arms.

3) “Do public health folks have anything to offer that might reduce the mayhem while letting you hunt deer or shoot partridge or blast targets or whatever it is you and your son like to do with your guns?” — The Second Amendment is not about hunting, Art, “Buddy.” If you have any doubt about this, you should read the documents written by the men who founded this nation. (I would refer Art to Federalist 28, and this passage in particular: If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.)

4) “How about encouraging doctors, ministers, sporting goods salespeople and other community leaders to learn about and then talk about gun safety?” — The key here is LEARN about gun safety. Most doctors and other public health professionals with whom I have spoken don’t know which way the business end of a rifle points. When you learn the intricacies of using these tools, I might give some credibility to you when you discuss them. Otherwise, it’s much like turning to your plumber for a vasectomy. It might be cheaper, but I don’t recommend it.

5) “How about greater efforts to get gun owners to lock up their guns and ammo properly.” — Do tell me about proper storage for a tool of self defense, Art “Buddy.” Tell me how long it takes to unlock your pistol and load it during a home invasion. Have you ever experienced such an event in your safe, lily-white community? Didn’t think so.

6) “How’s about getting hunters to wear the right high-visibility gear.” — I’m all for it, but much like with seat belts, there are some folks who just don’t wear it, and won’t. You going to fine them? Throw them in jail for violation of safety rules?

7) “Is there any merit to making guns safer including ‘smart’ guns?” — The fact that you even ask that question shows your ignorance on the issue. There has been plenty of discussion on the topic, and there are some serious safety concerns with your “smart guns.” Until you get properly educated and informed on the topic, you have no credibility to speak on the matter, and yet here you are, hiding behind your “medical professional” shield and bloviating about things you obviously know nothing about. (There’s a good article in Forbes magazine on smart gun technology you should probably read, if you haven’t already)

8) “Can we teach people to call the cops when they know there is a gun in the house of someone who is mentally ill or under a restraining order?” Oh, so everyone is now a mental health professional? Everyone knows who is under an RO, or are we relying on ESP to tell us when is a good time to report your neighbor? 

9) “A little training for kids about what to do if they find a gun?” – It’s called Eddie the Eagle. Look it up, “buddy.”

In other words, Art. You obviously have no credibility on this issue, and your little sneering note toward Mr. Khanna shows you to be a supercilious, arrogant wad.

Have a nice day.

Hey, I didn’t even curse. Are you proud of me?

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: