Tag Archives: idiot
The (not so) strange case of the conservative who let her racism get the better of common sense.
It’s perfectly OK to tell someone in Academia they are full of isht, or their work is substandard…
The problem being that then you have to back up your assertion with fact.
Maybe the reason so few people of high academic achievement are conservatives is the bar that you have to prove what you say – unlike gibbering on talk radio.
Why this woman chose to attack 3 PhD candidates solely on the title of their Dissertations pretty much establishes the fact that conservatives are too stupid to be trusted with Higher Education. This conservatwerp hadn’t even read the Dissertations she was criticizing!
Naomi Schaefer Riley, Chronicle Of Higher Education Blogger, Fired For Calling Black Studies ‘Claptrap’
The Chronicle of Higher Education dismissed one of its bloggers after outcry over a blog post she wrote questioning the legitimacy of black studies as an academic discipline.
Naomi Schaefer Riley, a lecturer and author who wrote for the Chronicle’s blog, Brainstorm, was let go after readers pushed back on an essay she published last week titled “The Most Persuasive Case For Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations.” Riley’s essay responded to a sidebar of a story in the Chronicle which profiled several up-and-coming black studies scholars in the process of writing dissertations. Riley looked at the titles of the dissertations — on subjects like the role of race in housing policy and the history of black midwifery in the United States — and called them “left-wing victimization claptrap.”
Nearly 6,500 people signed a petition calling for her dismissal from the blog. Yesterday, Liz McMillen, the site’s editor, wrote a note apologizing for Riley’s post, and said that the publication had decided to part ways with the author, who is also an affiliate scholar of the Institute of American Values, a conservative think tank based in New York. Read the rest of this entry »
In quite possibly the stupidest move since the Volstead Act – Oklahoma Republicans managed to pass a referendum banning the State Judicial considering International, or Sharia Law in the decision of any cases.
Why is it stupid? The same nutcase Republicans are arguing that our country was founded on “christian principles” and thus is subject to christian law.
In order to be Constitutional – the Oklahoma proposed Amendment would have to ban ALL Religious Law – not just that of one religion based on conservative racism.
As to the ban on other aspects of International Law – Oklahoma is landlocked, so nobody gives a flock.
An Oklahoma City federal judge Monday ruled against a voter- approved restriction on Islamic law.
In a 15-page order, U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange continued to keep the restriction out of the Oklahoma Constitution. Her ruling was a victory for an Oklahoma City Muslim leader who had complained his constitutional religious rights were in jeopardy.
“While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out … the Court finds that the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual’s constitutional rights,” the judge wrote.
At issue was a constitutional amendment that forbids state courts from considering or using international law or Sharia law. The amendment describes Sharia law as Islamic law based on the Quran and the teaching of Mohammed.
Oklahomans on Nov. 2 approved the amendment — in State Question 755 — with 70.08 percent of the vote. Muneer Awad, 27, an American-born Muslim, sued two days later. The judge on Nov. 8 blocked the state Election Board from certifying the SQ 755 results.
The order Monday continues the freeze on those results.
The order is a preliminary injunction, not a permanent one. Still, the state Election Board could appeal now.
The state attorney general’s office was considering its options, a spokesman said. A key supporter of the measure, state Sen. Anthony Sykes, R-Moore, said, “I was disappointed but not surprised. We look forward to working with the AG’s office on it.”
Awad is executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. “It is another positive step,” he said after the ruling.
“The initial filing of the lawsuit was a rough time,” Awad said, “But we’ve noticed since then a tremendous outpouring of support from Muslims and non-Muslims. We are confident we have supporters who want to see this amendment fail. It’s not just about the Muslim community. It’s about Oklahoma. The nation — the world — is watching.”
Imad Enchassi, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, said, “Justice has been served.”
In Monday’s order, the judge wrote that Awad “has made a strong showing that State Question 755’s amendment’s primary effect inhibits religion and that the amendment fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion.”
The judge rejected the state’s argument that the amendment is a broad ban on state courts applying the law of other nations and cultures regardless of what faith they may be based on.
She wrote, “The actual language of the amendment reasonably … may be viewed as specifically singling out Sharia law, conveying a message of disapproval of plaintiff’s faith.”
The judge wrote: “This order addresses issues that go to the very foundation of our country, our (U.S.) Constitution, and particularly, the Bill of Rights. Throughout the course of our country’s history, the will of the ’majority’ has on occasion conflicted with the constitutional rights of individuals, an occurrence which our founders foresaw and provided for through the Bill of Rights.”
Quoting from a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision, she wrote, “One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
The judge said any harm to the state in delaying certification of the results is minimized because the amendment “was to be a preventative measure and the concern that it seeks to address has yet to occur.”
Legislators called the measure the “Save Our State” amendment. The measure’s principal author, former state Rep. Rex Duncan, a Republican, has called it a “pre-emptive strike … against a growing threat.”
Critics of Sharia law contend it could be used as a defense in state courts to such barbaric practices as marital rape.
George H W Bush, AKA “W” will likely be remembered by Historians as the worst and most disastrous President in American History outside of possibly Ulysses Grant. He will never be known as one of the brighter lights who occupied the White House, either.
Despite this, you can’t dispute the guys personality, charisma, and commitment. Sometimes a lackluster President can be saved by the people around him – AKA Raygun. Unfortunately for President Bush, the only geniuses who won control on his team were skilled at political manipulation…
Not governing or decision making. (Which coincidentally is just the opposite problem as President Obama.)
But when Dumbya calls you “dumb”… Dayam!
Former President George Bush doesn’t believe Sarah Palin is qualified to be president and thinks less of John McCain for choosing her as his running mate, a confidant tell the New York Daily News. “Naming Palin makes Bush think less of McCain as a man,” said a GOP official close to Bush. “He thinks McCain ran a lousy campaign with an unqualified running mate, and destroyed any chance of winning by picking Palin.”
Bush’s zinger against Palin—and McCain—comes through an intermediary in keeping with his policy to keep his criticism of politicians under the radar. He believes President Obama has failed, particularly in his policies concerning Afghanistan, sources say, but he publicly supports the president.