Feed: Marquette Warrior - AggScore: 80.4

Daniel Maguire Backs Out of Campus Abortion Debate

---

When the College Republicans contemplated having a debate on abortion, they asked us for the name of “any faculty that is very strongly pro-choice who would be willing to participant in our event” we obviously thought of Dan Maguire, who is not merely pro-abortion, but incessantly and outspokenly so.

It speaks extremely well of the College Republicans that their first impulse was to have a debate, such that students could listen to both sides.

Margaret Gervase, of the College Republicans, lined up Maguire, and then sent him an e-mail to confirm the arrangements.

From: Gervase, Margaret
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 1:20 PM
To: Maguire, Daniel
Subject: Debate

Hi Dr Maguire,

I just want to touch bases and make sure we’re on the same page for the debate on March 1st. It’s coming up fast and we are very excited to be hosting the event! Your opponent will be Dr. Mike Adams from the University of North Carolina-Wilmington. The debate will be a 20-20-10-10 format; each opponent will get twenty minutes to present their argument and ten minutes for a rebuttal followed by a question/answer wrap-up. Please let me know if you will need a room for preparation beforehand and I will see what I can do to get one adjacent to the ballrooms. Also let me know if you will be needing anything else! Thank you again for offering to do this, we really appreciate it and look forward to it!

Maggie Gervase

But Gervase got back the following response from Maguire:

From: Maguire, Daniel
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 1:43 PM
To: Gervase, Margaret
Subject: RE: Debate

Maggie,

I just looked up Dr. Mike Adams and found he is a psychology-criminology professor. I am a theologian presenting theological arguments. I would not try to debate Dr. Adams in psychology/criminology since it is not my field. Similarly he would not want to debate me in theology since he is not a theologians and could not argue a theological position with professional competence. We would be skew lines.

So when you find a theologian who wants to debate me, as was done at Notre Dame, get back in touch.

Dan Maguire

Maguire, in other words, has finked out.

His demand that he will only debate a theologian is a bit odd, since the audience would consist mostly of Marquette students, few of whom would be theology majors. Rather, the debaters would have to make cogent arguments (theological or otherwise) that undergraduates would find compelling.

Is Maguire admitting that he’s not up to that?

His insistence that he will debate only theologians is odd, given that we, over the last couple of decades, have been on two panels with Maguire. One, in the 1990s, was on the death penalty. Two people (us included) debated on the pro-death penalty side, and Maguire (along with another faculty member) were on the anti-death penalty side.

Just a few years ago, we and Maguire were (with several other people) on a panel on health care. It was not explicitly a debate, but panelists were chosen based on opposing perspectives on government run-health care.

Maguire has no special expertise in criminal justice nor in health care, but he was willing to appear.

Adams is a gifted polemicist, and extremely popular with the students he teaches.

Are none of the pro-abortion liberals at Marquette willing to take him on? It seems we will find out.

Could it be that people who have lived too long in a left / liberal / politically correct cocoon (as most college faculty have) simply lack the self-confidence to mix it up with somebody who doesn’t buy the assumptions of their culture?

A Democrat? You Don’t Have to Be Embarrassed

---

Greece, the Future of America?

---

From Front Page Magazine:

Heretofore, debt-defaulting Greece has operated on Raiders of the Lost Ark-logic: “You throw me the idol; I’ll throw you the whip.” Its European Union and International Monetary Fund sugar daddies have tired of sending cash without budget reforms in return. On Thursday, they rejected Greece’s newest amorphous pledge of budget cuts later for billions now. Burned before by big promises with no fulfillment, the Eurogroup sent a clear message to the Greeks through its chair Jean-Claude Juncker: “no disbursement before implementation.”

But with Greece already forcing creditors to take a haircut, and refusing to make good on its pledged reforms, why would European nations agree to throw more good money after bad?

A coalition of Greek political leaders came to an agreement on Thursday to narrow the chasm between revenues and receipts in hopes of paving the way for $172 billion in new loans from the European Union. But EU finance ministers balked at the proposal that contained very little in specified cuts for non-defense-related government expenditures. The European finance ministers demanded from the troubled nation $325 billion in new cuts and parliament’s preapproval of the plan before it will agree to a further bailout. Greece, which is already de facto in default since other nations are paying its creditors, stands to legally default on March 20 if it doesn’t receive a cash infusion.

The refusal to implement promised budgetary and economic structural reforms is a tacit admission that Greek politicians believe the debt crisis just isn’t their fault. This is a popular sentiment within Greece, muted only when going abroad with hat in hand. Foreign bankers, EU bureaucrats, and American capitalists are favorite scapegoats according to internal Greek rhetoric. If outsiders are to blame for the crisis, why should Greeks reform their economic system? It’s everyone else who has the problem, after all, not Greece.

This attitude manifests itself in periodic temper-tantrum street protests and strikes by state workers. Government officials behave similarly in refusing to cut state jobs and services lest they alienate voters and find themselves out of a job. The procrastination seems to be based on the hope that the EU will inflate the currency—as Greece so often did when it controlled its money in the past—and print away the nation’s debts. Given that one in ten Greeks, and one in four employed Greeks, calls government boss, the country’s political leaders have made it nearly impossible to institute meaningful reform. The politicians have bribed the populace into supporting big government, and the populace’s dependence on the behemoth state has made it politically suicidal for politicians to cut into it. Not doing what is personal political suicide is surely national political suicide.

“That’s enough, we can’t take it anymore,” chanted protesters in Athens on Tuesday. The mantra is that there is nothing left to cut. The media is only too willing to repeat it. The New York Times characterized the initial rejected agreement as “a package of harsh austerity measures,” while the UK’s Independent claimed that the “austerity drive has sent unemployment to a record high of 18.2 per cent and the country’s finances into a spiral of recession.”

But Europe’s finance ministers know something that journalists do not. There hasn’t been an austerity drive. Sacrifices have been demanded of taxpayers, such as a 217 percent rise in property taxes. And this deprivation has resulted in three years of negative growth—with a debt-to-GDP ratio set to approach 160 percent this year. But there has been no state austerity program. Greece’s government increased its spending by six percent last year. What is austere about that?

Is there nothing left to cut? Child care is free in Greece. So is university education. Private colleges, and home schooling, are forbidden. The dole is a constitutional right. So is health care, which is provided by the state. The government picks up the tab on trips to the dentist and eye doctor. The country’s 2010 budget identified 74 state-owned enterprises worth 44 billion euros. Workers retire at an average age of 53, with decades of pensions acting as a severe burden on taxpayers.

This attitude manifests itself in periodic temper-tantrum street protests and strikes by state workers. Government officials behave similarly in refusing to cut state jobs and services lest they alienate voters and find themselves out of a job. The procrastination seems to be based on the hope that the EU will inflate the currency—as Greece so often did when it controlled its money in the past—and print away the nation’s debts. Given that one in ten Greeks, and one in four employed Greeks, calls government boss, the country’s political leaders have made it nearly impossible to institute meaningful reform. The politicians have bribed the populace into supporting big government, and the populace’s dependence on the behemoth state has made it politically suicidal for politicians to cut into it. Not doing what is personal political suicide is surely national political suicide.

“That’s enough, we can’t take it anymore,” chanted protesters in Athens on Tuesday. The mantra is that there is nothing left to cut. The media is only too willing to repeat it. The New York Times characterized the initial rejected agreement as “a package of harsh austerity measures,” while the UK’s Independent claimed that the “austerity drive has sent unemployment to a record high of 18.2 per cent and the country’s finances into a spiral of recession.”

But Europe’s finance ministers know something that journalists do not. There hasn’t been an austerity drive. Sacrifices have been demanded of taxpayers, such as a 217 percent rise in property taxes. And this deprivation has resulted in three years of negative growth—with a debt-to-GDP ratio set to approach 160 percent this year. But there has been no state austerity program. Greece’s government increased its spending by six percent last year. What is austere about that?

Is there nothing left to cut? Child care is free in Greece. So is university education. Private colleges, and home schooling, are forbidden. The dole is a constitutional right. So is health care, which is provided by the state. The government picks up the tab on trips to the dentist and eye doctor. The country’s 2010 budget identified 74 state-owned enterprises worth 44 billion euros. Workers retire at an average age of 53, with decades of pensions acting as a severe burden on taxpayers.

“Nothing left to cut” is the rhetoric. Reality is closer to “Nothing has been cut.”

So much of it sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

A bloated public sector, and riots (or near riots) when an effort is made to cut back (read: Madison).

Promises to implement austerity and get things under control that are cavalierly broken (read: Obama budget).

Attempts to find scapegoats to avoid facing reality (read: the one percent).

Attempts to fix the problem with increased taxes (read: Illinois).

Government control of industry (read: General Motors).

Even the outlawing of home schooling, when hasn’t come to American yet, is clearly a battle that will have to be fought, given the fact that liberals view public schools as a means to indoctrinate children into their orthodoxies about homosexuality, global warming, and such.

If the liberals win, nobody can say we didn’t see what the consequences would be.

Another Campus Racial Hoax

---

From the Racine Journal-Times:

SOMERS — Kenosha County sheriff’s officials are recommending charges be filed against a Kentucky woman who allegedly created a “hit list” of students — including herself — before posting it in a residence hall at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside, according to the sheriff’s department.

Detectives are requesting that the Kenosha County District Attorney’s Office file charges against Khalilah N. Ford, 21, of Louisville, after detectives said evidence implicated her amid an investigation into a series of reportedly racially motivated incidents on campus last week, which included two purported nooses and the alleged “hit list.” Ford’s name was released Monday afternoon as the person who created this list of targeted students.

The incidents coincided with the beginning of Black History Month.

If approved, Ford could be charged with disorderly conduct and obstructing an officer, the sheriff’s department stated.

Efforts were made to reach Ford on Monday for comment, but she couldn’t be reached.

A student on Wednesday found a noose-like contraption made from rubber bands and plastic string in the Pike River Suites residence hall, which sheriff’s Sgt. Bill Beth said was “hanging near the trash chute in the middle of the hallway.”

After reporting it, the student — senior Aubriana Banks, 22, of Beloit — said she found a second noose and a threatening note on her door Thursday, according to investigators and Banks. Later that night, fliers containing racial slurs were found listing several black students and Ford by name and stated they were going to die in two days.

Beth on Monday said Ford did not make the nooses.

“The first one was string and rubber bands hanging in the hallway. I guess it was interpreted as a noose by Khalilah and Aubrey,” Beth said. “That’s how they perceived it. But we haven’t heard an explanation” for why nooses would be hung at those locations.

“There was some heated discussion (recently) in a class along racial (lines). I don’t know if that’s related to this,” Beth said.

Ford and Banks are friends, he added.

Investigators don’t know who hung the nooses, Beth said. And they are not even sure whether the contraptions are nooses, he added.

Ford, a junior at Parkside, reportedly confessed Friday evening to making the list after being confronted with evidence pointing to her involvement in this incident, according to the sheriff’s department. However, because of the ongoing investigations, detectives wouldn’t release details about this evidence.

Ford told them she created the “hit list” to draw more attention to the issue, according to investigators. They, in turn, told students the threats were a hoax.

“We’re very confident there’s no threat to anyone’s safety,” Beth said.

If prosecutors agree to charge her, Ford would be sent a notice through the mail informing her to appear in court. No court date has been set.

Unfortunately, hoaxes like this from racial and other victim groups have become increasingly common. Here is one case at the University of Virginia. Gay students can get in on the scam. And here is a compilation from the Los Angeles Times.

There are certainly cases where this or that black student (or gay student) has been harassed or even attacked. But the politically correct atmosphere of most college campuses (and the imperative that administrators act political correct, whatever their real opinions should be) creates an incentive for these hoaxes on behalf of victim groups.

The University of Wisconsin-Parkside is certainly a campus with this sort of politically correct administrative ethos.

“Hate crime” incidents do not result merely in the investigation of the incident, and the punishment of whomever was guilty.

Rather, they are the excuse for escalated demands from the victim group. To combat “hate” it is demanded that a university institute sensitivity training, start an African American studies program (if one does not already exist) or a Queer Studies program (if the purported victim is gay). There are demands for the hiring of more “diverse” faculty, the setting up of committees on “inclusion” and the hiring of campus bureaucrats to cater to this or that politically correct group.

One incident, in other words, can be parlayed into a cornucopia of goodies (or if the goodies don’t come, a cornucopia of grievances).

Thus universities themselves bear much of the blame for these hoaxes, having created a climate where there is a large premium on having a racial (or gay, or Hispanic) grievance.

If Clint Eastwood Had Been Honest in That Superbowl Ad

---

Yet More Dissent on Global Warming

---

From the Wall Street Journal, a statement signed by sixteen eminent scientists:

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

“But” the warmists will say, “there is a scientific concensus supporting anthropogenic global warming.”

But “science” is hardly the pristine enterprise the naïve think.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

Anybody who thinks the scientists who signed the statement are somehow margin or unqualified, should read the list of the names and positions.

The simple fact is that “climate scientists” are just a bunch of professors. And like other people (but much more so) the are subject to the influence of ideology, professional self-interest and groupthink.

Marquette Warrior Harassed Over Debunking of Bogus Feminist Rape Claims: More

---

We’ve blogged about the fact that one student on our fall American Politics class complained about “sexual harassment” because we, in class, debunked bogus statistics about date rape on campus.

Marquette Provost John Pauly insisted that the complaint be followed up, which resulted in our being summoned into the office of political science chair Barry McCormick to explain what we had said in class.

It was a clear violation of academic freedom, since the complaint didn’t allege we did anything more than debunk statistics that we judge to be bogus. The student who complained didn’t think such statistics should be debunked, apparently since campus rape is a serious problem (and therefore inflating the scope of the problem serves a good purpose).

This past Monday (January 30) McCormick came into our office, and explained that he and Pauly had decided that we were within our rights to say what we said.

So far, so good, it might seem. But not really.

No Written Explanation

McCormick informed us that Pauly was not willing to give us a written explanation of the case, or of the decision. That Marquette would not be willing to put the resolution of the case in writing raises the suspicion that campus bureaucrats might want to revive it in the future, or perhaps fear that it would create a precedent in favor of academic freedom that they might want to ignore at some future date.

Complaint Should Have Been Dropped

We told McCormick that the case should never have been pursued, since if the complaint was taken absolutely at face value, no sexual harassment happened. McCormick replied that he informed us during the office meeting why the case needed to be pursued. We asked him to repeat what his explanation was, and he refused.

In fact, he gave no such explanation. During the office meeting, he explained that perhaps a professor might ask a female student to take all her clothes off, and this would clearly need to be deal with. But nobody accused us of that. All we were accused of was debunking bogus statistics that feminists produce, and our comments were not even directed at a particular student.

Protect Academic Freedom in the Future

Marquette needs to provide a clear policy that complaints of sexual harassment will not be used in a way that infringes upon academic freedom. Simply saying something, relevant to the course material, that some feminist doesn’t want to hear is clearly protected by academic freedom. Pauly, and Marquette, are unwilling to provide any such statement, something that clearly implies they want to keep open the option of using “sexual harassment” in the future as a pretext to shut up faculty speech that the politically correct crowd does not like.

They doubtless find this option very desirable, especially for use against some faculty member less combative than we are.

Scurrilous Semi-Accusation

Finally, McCormick made a rather scurrilous semi-accusation. He suggested that perhaps we criticized feminists in an “uncivil” way in class. What evidence did he have of that? First, he said we “accused feminists of lying” in our office meeting. What we actually said was that feminists lie about the incidence of rape. That’s a much more limited (and entirely accurate) statement. Secondly, he took exception to the fact that we characterized the person who brought the complaint as a “prissy little feminist” and said that in a properly run university, “some administrator would sit this prissy little feminist down and explain to her ‘this is a university, you are going to hear things you disagree with. Live with it.’”

Of course, we said nothing remotely uncivil in class, and the student didn’t claim that we did.

Liberals, of course, have all kinds of tactics for shutting up speech they don’t like, and if they aren’t willing to escalate to shouting “racist!” or “sexist!” or “homophobe!” will invoke “civility.” McCormick, who is extremely liberal and quite politically correct, seems excessively sensitive to unkind things said about his ideological cohorts.

Conclusion

So it seems that a faculty member can be called into the office of an administrator and required to explain his or her speech, even when nobody has claimed that the faculty member did more than say things that a politically correct student didn’t want to hear.

And while somebody who is willing to make an issue of it (as we were) can prevail, Marquette refuses to renounce the sort of attack on academic freedom.

After all, it’s often prudent for administrators to pander to politically correct faculty, given that they are very numerous, and very vociferous in wanting to shut up speech they dislike.

Thus nothing has been settled, and academic freedom remains in huge danger from Marquette officials.

Tonight! Liberty or Lies: Milwaukee Conservative Talk Radio

---

pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer"
src="http://www.libertyorlies.com/modules/mod_jxtc_vtubeprosingle/videoPlayer.swf"
type="application/x-showwave-flash"
quality="high"
wmode="transparent"
allowFullScreen="true"
width="550"
height="300"
FlashVars="settingsFile=http://www.libertyorlies.com/modules/mod_jxtc_vtubeprosingle/xml.php?ref=330&"
/>


You can see the entire show here.

Gingrich and the Moon Base

---

On the Issues at the Marquette Law School

---

Just got this via e-mail:

February 2 — On the Issues with Mike Gousha: Republican U.S. Senate candidate Tommy Thompson. He was elected Governor of Wisconsin an unprecedented four times. He was Health and Human Services Secretary in the administration of President George W. Bush. Now, after a stint in the private sector, Tommy Thompson is running for public office again. What’s driving his decision, and what does he think about the current political climate in Washington and Wisconsin? Find out when the former Governor and current candidate joins us at the Law School. Marquette Law School, Eckstein Hall, 12:15 to 1:15 p.m. Reserve your spot.

February 16— On the Issues with Mike Gousha: Mark Block, Chief of Staff for former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain—Running for president is a long, tough, even strange journey. Nobody knows that better than Mark Block, Herman Cain’s top advisor. A longtime Wisconsin political operative, Block will share his stories from the campaign trail; the rise and fall of the Cain candidacy; and Block’s starring role in a low-budget campaign ad that went viral (remember the cigarette?). Block will also discuss the state of the GOP nomination battle and his role in Cain’s latest political project. Marquette Law School, Eckstein Hall, 12:15 to 1:15 p.m., Reserve your spot.

April 5— On the Issues with Mike Gousha: Vice Admiral James W. Houck, Judge Advocate General of the United States Navy—Vice Admiral Houck is the principal military legal counsel to the secretary of the Navy and Chief of Naval Operations. He leads the attorneys, enlisted legalmen, and civilian employees of the worldwide Navy JAG Corps community. Houck will discuss what he calls the Navy’s “global law firm” and the issues it faces today, including the handling of detainees, piracy on the high seas, and meeting the legal needs of sailors stationed around the world. Houck is a graduate of the Naval Academy and the University of Michigan Law School. He later earned a Masters of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center. Marquette Law School, Eckstein Hall, 12:15 to 1:15 p.m., Reserve your spot.

April 9— On the Issues with Mike Gousha: Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Tammy Baldwin—Congresswoman Baldwin has represented Wisconsin’s Second Congressional District since 1999. Now, she’s trying to make history. Running as the lone Democrat in the race to replace retiring U.S. Senator Herb Kohl, Baldwin is seeking to become the first woman elected to the Senate in Wisconsin. Baldwin is a University of Wisconsin Law School graduate. She’ll address the major issues in this year’s campaign during her visit to Eckstein Hall. Marquette Law School, Eckstein Hall, 12:15 to 1:15 p.m., Reserve your spot.

May 9— On the Issues with Mike Gousha: Yale University Professor John Lewis Gaddis, author of George F. Kennan: An American Life—Born and raised in Milwaukee, George Kennan went on to become one of the preeminent diplomats of the Cold War era. He is credited with being the architect of the American policy of containment toward the Soviet Union. Now the story of his profound influence and his complicated life has been told in a book written by John Lewis Gaddis, the noted historian of the Cold War who is the Robert A. Lovett Professor of History and Political Science and Distinguished Fellow in Grand Strategy at Yale. Professor Gaddis knew Kennan for decades, and was granted full access to his personal papers. He has produced a remarkable biography praised by critics and diplomats alike. Henry Kissinger has called it “magisterial” and “seminal.” Professor Gaddis will reveal the Kennan he came to know during this appearance in his subject’s hometown. Cosponsored by the Marquette University Department of History. Marquette Law School, Eckstein Hall, 12:15 to 1:15 p.m., Reserve your spot.

Gay Censorship in Shawano

---

From the Green-Bay Press Gazette:

SHAWANO — A gay couple with school-age children is outraged over a Shawano High School newspaper column that cites Bible passages and calls homosexuality a sin punishable by death.

The column ran on the editorial page of Shawano High School’s Hawks Post recently as part of an opinion package about gay families who adopt children. The other side said sexual orientation does not determine a person’s ability to raise kids.

“This is why kids commit suicide,” said Nick Uttecht, who is raising four children with his partner, Michael McNelly.

Uttecht told school district officials he thinks the piece opposing gays as parents is hateful and should not have run. He worries the strong language will hurt his children and could lead students to bully gay classmates.

School officials apologized and said they will review the process for editing and producing the paper.

“Offensive articles cultivating a negative environment of disrespect are not appropriate or condoned by the Shawano School District,” district Superintendent Todd Carlson said in a written statement.

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, out of 17,019 households in Shawano County, 82 were same-sex households, and nearly half reported children in the home. In Wisconsin, 13,630 out of 2.28 million households in 2010 were same-sex, and 5,978 of those households had children.

A step back?

The student newspaper column against same-sex couples says: “If one is a practicing Christian, Jesus states in the Bible that homosexuality is (a) detestable act and sin which makes adopting wrong for homosexuals because you would be raising the child in a sin-filled environment.

“A child adopted into homosexuality will get confused because everyone else will have two different-gendered parents that can give them the correct amount of motherly nurturing and fatherly structure. In a Christian society, allowing homosexual couples to adopt is an abomination.”

Uttecht said his 13-year-old son, Tanner, who is in eighth grade, saw the article and asked about it.

“When I saw this I was in shock,” said Uttecht, who is raising four children, three who are his biological kids and the biological daughter of his partner. Three are in the Shawano school system; the youngest is 4.

“I talked to the school superintendent; he said he was shocked,” Uttecht said

Carlson told the Green Bay Press-Gazette “appropriate steps are being taken” to remedy the situation, but did not provide details.

He sent the following written statement:

“The Shawano School District would like to apologize for a recent article printed in the Hawks Post newspaper. Proper judgment that reflects school district policies needs to be exercised with articles printed in our school newspaper. Offensive articles cultivating a negative environment of disrespect are not appropriate or condoned by the Shawano School District. We sincerely apologize to anyone we may have offended and are taking steps to prevent items of this nature from happening in the future.”

Uttecht said he’s worried about the lasting impact of the column.

“I’m worried about how this is going to affect my kids,” said Uttecht, who also is an elected member of the Menominee Indian Head Start Policy Council. “And I’m worried how gay students in school will be treated. It took me a long time to come out, and I think this just really sets things back by being so closed-minded. This sets things back 20 or 30 years.

“I know there are at least three openly gay families in the district, there’s probably more. What effect is this going to have on my kids? And how are other people going to react?”

Free speech

David Hudson, an expert for the Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group First Amendment Center, said the column may be distasteful to some, but student journalists were practicing their constitutional right to free speech.

“Bullying is a serious concern, and I don’t take it lightly. But I hope it doesn’t lead to squashing different viewpoints. I do think (gay adoption) is an issue people are deeply divided about. Hopefully student journalists don’t have to fear they’ll be squashed if they take a controversial view.”

Editors and advisers have the job of toning down language if it is too sensational, Hudson said.

“Freedom of speech includes speech about religious viewpoints,” Hudson said. “If you took that away, it could be seen as discrimination. Someone could have an atheist opinion, and that’s OK, too.

“Any controversial issue is a lightning rod for censorship.”

Although students have the right to voice their opinion, it doesn’t mean they should say it in a school paper, said Christine Smith, assistant professor of psychology, human development and women’s studies at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay.

Her academic specialization, of course, makes it clear what she is going to say.

“High school students are at a time in their life when they are developing intellectually and socially,” she said. “To see something like this debated in the paper could be devastating. How would you feel if someone said your family is abnormal, is not acceptable, that your parents never should have been allowed to have you, that they’re not suitable to raise you?

“Of course, it’s got to be harmful. Kids this age are so worried about discovering who they are and what they are. To have them told their family is immoral and not suitable has to be devastating. To be told by your peers, people you see in the hallways, these people who clearly have passed judgment.”

This, of course, is the theory universial among politically correct people: you can’t say bad things about homosexuality, because that might make gays (or the children of gays) feel bad.

A consistent policy of not saying things that make people feel bad might have something to recommend it. Unfortunately, the people who want to censor anti-gay speech are quite willing to attack Christians who view homosexuality in a negative light.

They don’t at all mind if the open promotion of homosexuality by a school district tends to marginalize Christian students. In fact they want that to happen.

It’s interesting to see politically correct school bureaucrats talk about “a negative environment of disrespect” when they are in fact encouraging and promoting “a negative environment of disrespect” for Christian values and thus for Christian students.

If the school is worried about negative consequences of controversial columns in a student newspaper, they should refuse to run such columns, banning both sides of the argument. In fact, a large body of Constitutional law holds that any government-imposed restrictions on speech must be “content neutral.”

You can file this case under “gay fascism.”

Brits Used to Talk Like Americans

---

From Life’s Little Mysteries:

In 1776, whether you were declaring America independent from the crown or swearing your loyalty to King George III, your pronunciation would have been much the same. At that time, American and British accents hadn’t yet diverged. What’s surprising, though, is that Hollywood costume dramas get it all wrong: The Patriots and the Redcoats spoke with accents that were much closer to the contemporary American accent than to the Queen’s English.

It is the standard British accent that has drastically changed in the past two centuries, while the typical American accent has changed only subtly.

Traditional English, whether spoken in the British Isles or the American colonies, was largely “rhotic.” Rhotic speakers pronounce the “R” sound in such words as “hard” and “winter,” while non-rhotic speakers do not. Today, however, non-rhotic speech is common throughout most of Britain. For example, most modern Brits would tell you it’s been a “hahd wintuh.”

It was around the time of the American Revolution that non-rhotic speech came into use among the upper class in southern England, in and around London. According to John Algeo in “The Cambridge History of the English Language” (Cambridge University Press, 2001), this shift occurred because people of low birth rank who had become wealthy during the Industrial Revolution were seeking ways to distinguish themselves from other commoners; they cultivated the prestigious non-rhotic pronunciation in order to demonstrate their new upper-class status.

“London pronunciation became the prerogative of a new breed of specialists — orthoepists and teachers of elocution. The orthoepists decided upon correct pronunciations, compiled pronouncing dictionaries and, in private and expensive tutoring sessions, drilled enterprising citizens in fashionable articulation,” Algeo wrote.

The lofty manner of speech developed by these specialists gradually became standardized — it is officially called “Received Pronunciation” — and it spread across Britain. However, people in the north of England, Scotland and Ireland have largely maintained their traditional rhotic accents.

Most American accents have also remained rhotic, with some exceptions: New York and Boston accents have become non-rhotic. According to Algeo, after the Revolutionary War, these cities were “under the strongest influence by the British elite.”

Smug Liberals Demand “Civility” in Discourse

---

Washington Post: Stop Electric Car Subsidies

---

The Washington Post has a reputation as a liberal newspaper, and indeed that’s what it is.

But it has shown itself able to take a cold hard look at some of the programs that give liberals the warm fuzzies. One recent example dealt with one of the Obama Administration’s favorite class of subsidies.

THERE MAY NOT have been a party in Times Square to celebrate, but two of the most wasteful subsidies ever to clutter the Internal Revenue Code went out with the old year. Congress declined to renew either the 45-cent-per-gallon tax credit for corn-based ethanol or the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol, so both expired Dec. 31.

Taxpayers will no longer have shell out roughly $6 billion per year for a program that badly distorted the global grain market, artificially raised the cost of agricultural land and did almost nothing to curb greenhouse gas emissions. A federal law requiring the use of 36 billion gallons of ethanol for fuel by 2022 still props up the industry, but the tax credit’s expiration is a victory for common sense just the same.

Meanwhile, a lesser-known but equally dubious energy tax break also expired when the year ended Saturday: the credit that gave electric-car owners up to $1,000 to defray the cost of installing a 220-volt charging device in their homes — or up to $30,000 to install one in a commercial location. As a means of reducing carbon emissions, electric cars and plug-in hybrid electrics are no more cost-effective than ethanol. What’s more, only upper-income consumers can afford to buy an electric vehicle (EV); so the charger subsidy is a giveaway to the well-to-do.

The same goes for the $7,500 tax credit that the government offers purchasers of electric vehicles, a subsidy that, alas, did not expire at year’s end. The Obama administration says that the credit helps build a market for EVs, which helps create jobs. Given the price of eligible models, like the $100,000 Fisker Karma, that rationale sounds an awful lot like trickle-down economics.

Backers of the charger tax credit may lobby Congress to renew it when lawmakers tackle the payroll tax extension issue again in the new year. We hope that Congress says no. Not only is it a case study in upward income redistribution, it also would represent a deepening of the taxpayers’ commitment to what looks increasingly like an industry not ready for prime time.

Sales of electric vehicles were disappointing in 2011, with the Volt coming in below the 10,000 units forecast. In addition to its high price, the Volt brand is suffering from news that some of its batteries burst into flames after government road tests. Meanwhile, Fisker, the recipient of more than half a billion dollars in low-interest Energy Department loans, repeatedly delayed the introduction of its ballyhooed Karma — while repeatedly raising the sticker price. And now Fisker has announced a recall of the cars because of a potential defect in its batteries — made by A123 Systems, another large recipient of Energy Department support.

Evidence is mounting that President Obama was overly optimistic to pledge that there would be 1 million EVs on the road by 2015. Electric cars are not likely to form a significant part of the solution to America’s dependence on foreign oil, or to global warming, in the near future. They simply pose too many issues of price and practicality to attract a large segment of the car-buying public. More prosaic fuel-economy innovations such as conventional hybrids, clean-diesel cars and advanced gasoline engines all show much more promise than electrics.

The ethanol credit was on the books for 30 years before it finally died. Let’s hope Congress can start unwinding the federal government’s bad investment in electric vehicles faster than that.

The problem, of course, is that policies like this have nothing to do with a cool-headed policy analysis. Rather they are mostly symbolic. The liberals who favor them want the “committment to green energy” that these programs claim, and aren’t inclined to ask whether they are really “green” and if so whether they are green at any sort of reasonable price.

After all, they are paid for with other people’s money.

Easy To See Who the Real Bigots Are

---

If the above embed does not work, check here.