Friday, June 2, 2017

Black privilege: Celebrating separatism and balkanization. The sham called "diversity"

Photo
At Harvard’s first commencement for black graduate students, a speaker declared, “We have endured the constant questioning of our legitimacy and our capacity, and yet here we are.”CreditTony Luong for The New York Times 
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — Looking out over a sea of people in Harvard Yard last week, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive and one of Harvard’s most famous dropouts, told this year’s graduating class that it was living in an unstable time, when the defining struggle was “against the forces of authoritarianism, isolationism and nationalism.”
Two days earlier, another end-of-year ceremony had taken place, just a short walk away on a field outside the law school library. It was Harvard’s first commencement for black graduate students, and many of the speakers talked about a different, more personal kind of struggle, the struggle to be black at Harvard.
“We have endured the constant questioning of our legitimacy and our capacity, and yet here we are,” Duwain Pinder, a master’s degree candidate in business and public policy, told the cheering crowd of several hundred people in a keynote speech.
From events once cobbled together on shoestring budgets and hidden in back rooms, alternative commencements like the one held at Harvard have become more mainstream, more openly embraced by universities and more common than ever before.
Continue reading the main story
This spring, tiny Emory and Henry College in Virginia held its first “Inclusion and Diversity Year-End Ceremonies.” The University of Delaware joined a growing list of colleges with “Lavender” graduations for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students. At Columbia, students who were the first in their families to graduate from college attended the inaugural “First-Generation Graduation,” with inspirational speeches, a procession and the awarding of torch pins.
Some of the ceremonies have also taken on a sharper edge, with speakers adding an activist overlay to the more traditional sentiments about proud families and bright futures.
After Columbia’s ceremony, Lizzette Delgadillo said she spoke about the pain of “impostor syndrome — feeling alone when it feels like everybody else on campus just knows what to do and you don’t,” and of how important it was to have the support of other first-generation students.
Ms. Delgadillo, who graduated with a bachelor’s degree in biomedical engineering, had lobbied for the event for three years, as a member of a group called the First-Generation Low-Income Partnership.
“The current political climate definitely pushed this initiative to come to fruition,” said Ms. Delgadillo, the daughter of Mexican immigrants living in Los Angeles.
Photo
The audience at the new “Harvard University Black Commencement” for the graduate schools.CreditTony Luong for The New York Times 
Participants say the ceremonies are a way of celebrating their shared experience as a group, and not a rejection of official college graduations, which they also attend. Depending on one’s point of view, the ceremonies may also be reinforcing an image of the 21st-century campus as an incubator for identity politics.
“It’s not easy being a student, being a student anywhere, but especially at a place like Harvard,” Ward Connerly, president of the American Civil Rights Institute and a former University of California regent who campaigned against racial preference in admissions, said sympathetically.
But events like black commencements, he continued, serve only to “amplify” racial differences. “College is the place where we should be teaching and preaching the view that you’re an individual, and choose your associates to be based on other factors rather than skin color,” he said.
“Think about it,” Mr. Connerly added. “These kids went to Harvard, and they less than anyone in our society should worry about feeling welcome and finding comfort zones. They don’t need that.”
The alternative ceremonies at Harvard had printed programs, and incorporated the pageantry, ritual and solemnity of traditional commencements, though without the diplomas, which were reserved for the official university commencement.
A few hours after the new “Harvard University Black Commencement” for the graduate schools, including the prestigious law, divinity, business, government and medical schools, about 120 students attended the third annual “Latinx” commencement. In the cavernous basement of a science building, where an animal skeleton dangled overhead and Latin music played, students received stoles with the words “Clase Del 2017” woven into them, while siblings devoured chocolate cupcakes.
Black undergraduates held a separate event that night amid the polished pews and Greek columns of Memorial Church, Harvard’s spiritual center and the backdrop for Mr. Zuckerberg’s address.
While Mr. Zuckerberg’s speech was broadcast live and received thousands of complimentary comments on Facebook, the black ceremony was relatively small and more intimate, and seemed invisible to scores of classmates noshing on sliders and beer at a white tent nearby, part of the broader commencement week revelry.
The ceremony was open to all students, though virtually everyone who attended was black, and not all black students attended.
About 80 black graduates formed a procession to organ music, received kente-cloth stoles, listened to a classmate play Bach on cello and sang “Lift Every Voice and Sing.”
Continue reading the main story
Photo
A graduate at the black commencement ceremony at Harvard. CreditTony Luong for The New York Times 
“For me, the black community is a home away from home,” Olivia Castor, a student speaker from Spring Valley, N.Y., who earned a bachelor’s degree in social studies and African-American studies, said exuberantly.
“It’s where I spent most of my time, where I found my closest friends and, more importantly, where I’ve learned the most important lessons during my time here,” she went on. “So thank you, thank you for being beautiful, brilliant and blackety-black-black.”
Brandon M. Terry, the faculty speaker, joked that Harvard College’s black graduation had become more mainstream since he graduated in 2005.
“This setup already has us beat,” he said. “We were in one of the old Harvard buildings across campus. We had no air-conditioning, and some folding chairs on the stage.”
Professor Terry suggested that the mood was different as well.
“You began college just weeks after George Zimmerman was acquitted in the callous killing of Trayvon Martin,” Professor Terry, an assistant professor of African and African-American studies and social studies, said in his address.
“You were teenagers, like Michael Brown when he was subjected to the Sophoclean indignity of being shot dead and left in the blazing sun. Your world was shaped in indelible ways by these deaths and others like them, and many of you courageously took to join one of the largest protest movements in decades to try to wrest some semblance of justice from these tragedies.”
But like all the speakers, he spoke reverently of Harvard as an institution, saying: “The dramatic privileges that you have and will continue to benefit from in virtue of your association with this university are only worth the social cost if they are to benefit people worse off than you.”
Bhekinkosi Sibanda, a first-generation Harvard student from Zimbabwe, said he had been ambivalent at first about participating in the black graduation.
“In an attempt at inclusivity, we don’t want to end up introducing exclusivity,” he said. “You don’t want to end up where this black commencement overshadows the entire commencement of the school. You don’t want to blow away the glory.”
Then Mr. Sibanda remembered how a professor had asked if he wanted to drop a class, when all he wanted was help. “It’s good to be able to take this time for solidarity and identity,” he said, “to celebrate what we’ve achieved.”

Google could face a $9bn EU fine for rigging search results in its favour. Has Google ever opposed anything the Democrat Party says or does?

Google could face a $9bn EU fine for rigging search results in its favour

A seven-year investigation into the world's most popular internet search engine was triggered by scores of complaints from both US and European rivals

EU antitrust regulators aim to slap a hefty fine on Alphabet unit Google over its shopping service before the summer break in August, two people familiar with the matter said, setting the stage for two other cases involving the US company.

The European Commission's decision will come after a seven-year investigation into the world's most popular internet search engine was triggered by scores of complaints from both US and European rivals.
The EU competition authority accused Google in April 2015 of distorting internet search results to favour its shopping service, harming both rivals and consumers.
The Commission and Google declined to comment. The US company has in the past rejected the charges, saying that regulators ignored competition from online retailers Amazon and eBay.
Fines for companies found guilty of breaching EU antitrust rules can reach 10 per cent of their global turnover, which in Google's case could be about $9bn of its 2016 turnover.
Apart from the fine, the Commission will tell Google to stop its alleged anti-competitive practices but it is not clear what measures it will order the company to adopt to ensure that rivals get equal treatment in internet shopping results.
The regulator could set out general principles or specific instructions for Google to follow, said an observer.

The Commission's tough line is in sharp contrast with the US Federal Trade Commission which settled its own web search case with the company in 2013 by requiring Google to stop “scraping” reviews and other data from rival websites for its own products.
Google made three unsuccessful attempts to settle the case with the previous European Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia in a bid to stave off a possible fine and a finding of wrongdoing.
Mr Almunia's successor Margrethe Vestager, however, has shown no willingness to settle with Google.The company has also been charged with using its Android mobile operating system to squeeze out rivals and with blocking competitors in online search advertising related to its “AdSense for Search” platform.
The platform allows Google to act as an intermediary for websites such as online retailers, telecoms operators or newspapers. The Commission has warned of massive fines in both cases.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

James Madison explains the importance of property rights and why the globalists through the Paris Accord will take them away.

Property

[Volume 1, Page 598] 
CHAPTER 16 | Document 23
James Madison, Property
29 Mar. 1792Papers 14:266--68 
This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."
In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.
In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.
In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.
He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.
He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.
He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.
In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.
Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.
Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartiallysecures to every man, whatever is his own.
According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.
More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical [Volume 1, Page 599] use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!
A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.
If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.
If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

Black privilege at Evergreen College, the language, the intimidation, the call for segregation and wussie whites.


Watch: College president bows to radical protesters, agrees to relieve them of class homework

 


Watch: College president bows to radical protesters, agrees to relieve them of class homework
Evergreen State College President George Bridges agrees to relieve radical protesters of homework assignments. (Image source: YouTube screenshot) 




Protests at the small liberal arts college of Evergreen State College in Washington state have garnered national attention in recent days.
First, the school came under scrutiny after a video showed protesters confronting a professor who refused to leave campus over his white skin color. That teacher, professor Bret Weinstein, questioned the school event’s request that all white people leave the campus during a day-long diversity event.In response, student protesters accused Weinstein of being racist and demanded his resignation.
Weinstein appeared Friday on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight”  to discuss what happened to him. He told host Tucker Carlson that the school is essentially being bullied by protesters and the school’s president is caving to the protesters’ ardent demands.
And now, a video has confirmed what Weinstein alleged.
As first reported by Campus Reform, a newly released video shows Evergreen State President George Bridges essentially bowing to the demands of student protesters — even agreeing to relieve them of their class homework.
“All of us are students and have homework and projects and things due. Have you sent an email out to your faculty letting them know?” a female protester asks in the video. “What’s been done about that?”
“It’s the first thing I’ll do. I have not done it yet, I will do it right now,” Bridges replies.
“So they need to be told that these assignments won’t be done on time and we don’t need to be penalized for that,” the unnamed protester demands again.
Later in the video, which appeared to be recorded from Bridges’ office, Bridges is seen holding what appeared to be a list of demands. Bridges said he would immediately begin working on the list with his faculty.
The video then skips ahead and shows Bridges asking the students to leave his office because he needs some “privacy.” The students refuse to do so before one student protester speaks up and says that “students of color have to work in threatening environments every day.”
“Welcome,” she tells Bridges.

As reported by Campus Reform, additional video shows a montage of confrontations between Bridges and student protesters where the students completely disrespect Bridges by yelling, interrupting, insulting and even cursing at him.
“No, f*** you, George. We don’t want to hear a g*****n thing you have to say,” one protester is heard saying in the video. “You talk so f***ing much. No, you shut the f*** up.”
The cursing interruption is heard around the 4:00 mark. (Content warning: Rough language):

Despite the disorderly conduct by the protesters, the Evergreen State administration caved to the majority of protester demands, according to a statement by Bridges published by the Cooper Point Journal.
Bridges said that the college will not discipline the students for their protests, the college will expand police training, establish an “expanded equity and multicultural center,” and force school faculty to undergo additional cultural sensitivity training. The school also agreed to hire coordinators for transgender and gay students as well as a liaison for undocumented students.
The only demands that the school did not follow through on was firing Weinstein and two other campus officials.
“We are grateful to the courageous students who have voiced their concerns,” Bridges said.
“We have heard from students very clearly that they experience racism on campus that interferes with their education. We acknowledge that the status quo isn’t acceptable. We don’t know all the answers,” he explained. “We want to come together with you to learn from your experience, to build solutions, and to take action. We are grateful for this catalyst to expedite the work to which we are jointly committed.”

Quantum physics is not PC or in accordance with LGBT laws of physics.


Liberal scholar creates new theory of quantum physics because Newton was ‘oppressive’

 


Liberal scholar creates new theory of quantum physics because Newton was ‘oppressive’
Liberal scholar Whitney Stark has created a new theory of quantum physics because the theories established by Sir Isaac Newton (shown in an 1800s engraving) was too “oppressive” toward marginalized groups. (Getty Images) 




A progressive scholar has invented a new theory of quantum physics because the methods developed by Isaac Newton were just too “oppressive.”
The new theory is being presented by Whitney Stark, a culture and gender studies researcher with ties to the University of Arizona’s Institute for LGBT Studies. She is also on staff at Utrecht University in the Netherlands as a researcher in culture and gender studies.
Stark argued in a paper for The Minnesota Review that “combining intersectionality and quantum physics” will help in understanding “marginalized people” and create “safer spaces” for them. Thus, she created “intersectional quantum physics.”
Intersectionality explores the interconnectedness of categories like race, sex, class, and sexual orientation. Intersectional feminist theory is centered on understanding the various levels of discrimination women face in each of those categorizations.
Newton’s theory, Stark wrote, was oppressive because it “separated beings” based on their “binary and absolute differences,” which she described as both “hierarchical and exploitative.”
Ultimately, the feminist scholar concluded that Newton’s theories are “part of the apparatus that enables oppression,” according to the National Review, because the 17th-century scientist’s laws of motion established scientific binaries and absolutes, reinforcing classifications like male and female and living and non-living.
Here’s how Stark explained it:
This structural thinking of individualized separatism with binary and absolute differences as the basis for how the universe works seeped into/poured over/ is embedded in many structures of classification, which understand similarity and difference in the world, imposed in many hierarchical and exploitative organizational structures, whether through gender, life/nonlife, national borders, and so on.
In order to overcome the oppression, Stark suggested combining intersectional feminist theory and quantum physics.
Later in the paper, Stark gave a real-life example of how absolutes and binaries, which were propped up by Newtonian theories, hurt minority groups. She wrote that the tendency within scientific study to classify people has hurt marginalized groups because dominant activist groups have “overshadowed” the work of minority groups.
“For instance,” she wrote, “in many ‘official’ feminist histories of the United States, black/African American women’s organizing and writing are completely unaccounted for before the 1973 creation of the middle-class, professional National Black Feminist Organization.”
Stark argued that the struggles of black feminists were absorbed into the broader category of feminism, which, in her mind, denied legitimacy to them as a separate group because established binaries favor white women over minority women.
It should be noted that Stark doesn’t appear to detail how exactly the actual study of physics might change as a result of her criticism.
In addition to her new “intersectional quantum physics,” Stark urged privileged people to “deprioritize” themselves in order to establish “safer spaces” for minority people.
“For instance, I, being white, should not be in all spaces, positions of authority, or meetings,” she wrote, according to Heat Street. She said her presence could “stall” the forward movement of feminist causes.
In the end, Stark wrote that she hopes the marriage between scientific theory and intersectionality can “enact ways of valuing [people] differently.”

Socialism for thee but not for me: How would the Times react if the government said they couldn't lay off the 400 journalists?

Union blasts Times’ decision to cut editorial jobs


The union that represents about 400 journalists at the New York Times on Wednesday blasted a move by the newspaper to abolish a whole layer of editors — while eliminating the public editor position entirely.
“The announcement that the New York Times will be offering buyouts and eliminating editors — including the public editor — is devastating to our members and grave news for the state of journalism,” said Grant Glickson, president of the NewsGuild, the Gray Lady’s single largest union.
“The Times is supposed to be a leader in our industry,” said Glickson, “and though heartened to hear they intend to invest more in reporters and content, it comes at an unfortunate cost.”
The public editor job was hatched in the wake of the Jayson Blair plagiarism scandal 2003 to restore public trust.
Blair was a young reporter who plagiarized or made up dozens of stories over a period of several years.
Liz Spayd, the public editor since last summer, will exit on Friday, according to a memo from Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr.
In a separate 2 ¹/₂ page memo to staffers, Executive Editor Dean Baquet and Managing Editor Joe Kahn said the company was going to eliminate a layer of copy editors and what are known as “backfielders,” who work with journalists in shaping stories.
They will be replaced with a single group of editors.
“A new model of edition will end the distinction between backfielders and copy editors,’ said Baquet and Kahn in the memo.
“One group of editors will handle all aspects of a story, with a separate set of eyes looking over their shoulders before publication,” they said.

Another example of the Left's tasteless behavior: A pencil neck geek picks on an 11 year old.

Ken Jennings beefs with Trump Jr. after mocking Barron

A best-selling children’s book author and “Jeopardy!” champion is under fire for mocking President Trump’s 11-year-old son, Barron, over the grisly photo of Kathy Griffin holding a faux severed head of the commander-in-chief.
“Barron Trump saw a very long necktie on a heap of expired deli meat in a dumpster. He thought it was his dad & his little heart is breaking,” Ken Jennings, the author of the “Junior Genius Guides” series, tweeted Wednesday.
The tweet appeared to make reference to a report by TMZ that said Barron was watching television at home Tuesday when the graphic image popped up on the screen, causing him to think something terrible had happened to his 70-year-old dad.
Barron’s older half-brother, Donald Trump Jr., took shots at Jennings for taunting a kid.
“It takes a real man to pick on an 11 year old. Yet another low from the left, but they will rationalize this away with their usual excuses,” Trump Jr. tweeted.
In response, Jennings wrote back, “I will kill as many white rhinos as it takes to prove my masculinity to Donald Trump Jr.”
And Trump Jr. on Thursday called out Simon & Schuster, the publisher of Jennings’ kids book series.
“[Y]ou would think that in this day & age @simonandschuster would have an issue with one of their children’s authors bullying a kid,” Trump Jr. wrote in a tweet.
Jennings’ initial Barron tweet drummed up more than 14,000 replies, with many Twitter users bashing Jennings, who won more than $3 million over the course of 74 “Jeopardy!” games in 2004.
“I can’t believe anyone as intelligent as you doesn’t see the problem with mocking a child–any child–in this way,” Juli Caldwell tweeted.
A film director, Robby Starbuck, tweeted, “I always try to be polite to people on here but this is a bridge too far. If this joke reflects who you are, you’re an a–hole.”
Simon & Schuster did not immediately return a request for comment from The Post.
Griffin’s controversial photoshoot sparked widespread outrage from both the left and right, resulting in CNN booting Griffin from its New Year’s Eve coverage and some venues canceling her upcoming appearances.

Venezuela: Troops attack reporters and the Left in America are silent. Anyone seen Sean Penn or Danny Glover?

Troops attack AFP, other reporters in Venezuela

Caracas (AFP) - Venezuela's National Guard forces on Wednesday assaulted several reporters, including AFP photographer Luis Robayo, as they covered a protest against President Nicolas Maduro.
Robayo said the troops beat him as they sought to stop him from taking pictures of clashes between demonstrators and the National Guard on Caracas' Francisco Fajardo highway.
"The National Guard started to go by on motorbikes. They approached and one of them hit me several times in the head, then they pushed me and I fell. They lifted me up by the (bulletproof) vest, and my camera fell," he recalled.
One of them tried to take off Robayo's gas mask and arrest him only to be told to stop by a superior, the photographer said.
Guards took away the photographer's vehicle and belongings, his driver said.
At least two photographers with other media faced beatings and brief arrests, professional associations and colleagues said.
Opposition activists and government supporters were staging the latest in two months of street protests, with fresh clashes between prosecutors and police.
Prosecutors say the unrest has left 60 people dead so far.

Terror attacks are about Islam, the author of this piece in The Guardian explains. It's about us being non believers!

It's a delusion to think that the terror attacks are just about foreign policy

Please follow link to article as it cannot be copied.

Todd: Last Three Democrats to Lose Presidential Elections Don’t Believe They ‘Truly Lost’


Todd: Last Three Democrats to Lose Presidential Elections Don’t Believe They ‘Truly Lost’



BY: 
Chuck Todd, host of MSNBC's "Meet The Press Daily," pointed out that the last three Democrats to lose a presidential race believe their election was somehow unfair.
Todd's comments came Wednesday, following an interview given by 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton giving excuses for her defeat/
"Everybody chew on this and then I'm going to go to break. She's now the third straight Democratic nominee for president to not believe they truly lost," the MSNBC personality said.
"She doesn't believe she lost fair and square. John Kerry to this day does not believe he lost fair and square in '04. And we know Al Gore does not believe he lost fair—just something interesting there."
"But the other two didn't talk about it as much. Just sayin'," Ruth Marcus quipped before Todd went to break.