Friday, April 29, 2011

THIS JUST IN! Donald Trump’s Campaign Slogan is: “I’ve got a big dick!” (by anon)


Ok, not really.  But believable, right??  With all his hyper-self-promoting-pandering-to-the-masses ramblings, nothing is off the table.  Here are some other possible campaign slogans that wouldn’t surprise me:

“Me Me Me”
“I’m white and damn proud of it!”
“Let me show you my money”
“I’m hired!”
“Winning…duh”

[Full disclosure: I’m feeling absolutely sick to my stomach writing a post about Donald Trump and a possible presidential run. <shit, I just threw up a little>]

I’m absolutely baffled as to why ANYONE takes this buffoon seriously.  Here are some recent highlights of his idiocy:

a. He promises to use swear words when negotiating with foreign countries.
b. He’ll serve McDonald’s at some state dinners for those countries he feels are being unfair to the US.
c. He takes full, unabashed credit for Obama producing his long-form birth certificate (even when his short-form birth certificate has been available for three years and that’s all most of us have anyway).  He’s “very proud” of himself.  And he does this right in front of his personal helicopter with his name plastered all over it in huge letters.
d. He championed birtherism (and he still wants to inspect the long-form to make sure it is legit).
e. He is hot after getting Obama’s college transcripts because he thinks Obama is hiding something there.  He’s suspicious about Obama’s admissions to Columbia and Harvard.
f. He follows Palin’s lead in going after any media person who says something bad about him.
g. He calls all our nation’s leaders “stupid.”
h. He claims that his renting and selling properties counts for more than enough foreign policy experience.

Points d and e are just covert ways of being racist.  Bob Schieffer of CBS’ Face the Nation said that Trump’s suspicion over Obama getting into Columbia University is “just code for saying he got into law school because he’s black.  This is an ugly strain of racism that’s running through this whole thing.”  Right on Bob!!  Call it like it is.

But why does this racist goof get any traction!  Is our nation that racist?  I guess so.  Is our nation that stupid to pay attention to this crap?  Sure is.  Is our nation that fascinated by pontificating, immature egomaniacs?  Of course it is!  Remember Charlie Sheen!?  There was a media blitz around his own on-air self-destruction.  BUT everyone saw Sheen as precisely what he is – an egomaniac with extreme delusions about himself.  So why does Trump get traction where Sheen just slides out of the spotlight??

Let me repeat for the sake of emphasis.  Donald Trump and Charlie Sheen are practically the same person.  But Sheen was ridiculed and rightly so.  Why isn’t Trump?  Is it because of his racism?  Is it that Trump packages himself together just a little bit better than Sheen?  Is it because Trump links himself with a possible presidential run and the other Republican hopefuls are pathetic?  Granted, many many people do not take Trump seriously and they do lump him into the same category as Sheen.  But there are many many others who really do esteem Trump and think that he would be a great president! <oh god, I threw up a little again>  Some lady at Trump’s last speaking engagement shouted, “Run for president!” and Trump responded, “I think I am going to make you very happy on that.”  How is it even possible that this is even a serious possibility???

Donald Trump embodies almost everything wrong with this country.  He’s an arrogant, capitalist, white, egotistic, ignorant, racist, rich man-whore who makes his living off of financially screwing other people.  The more this guy gets into the spotlight as someone we should care about listening to, the more we should be slapped in the face.  Someone should slap me now for even writing a post about him.

“I’ve got a big dick!”  It would not surprise me one bit if he ran on that.  Hell, I bet he’d even make Charlie Sheen his VP. <oops, there went the rest of lunch>

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Professor acting badly (by anon)

Something that bothers me about some professors is the lack of support they provide in higher level courses. This happened to me today in a business course. There was something that I couldn't figure out so I went to the professor to get some help on the topic. The professor simply responded, "This is a 400 level course, figure it out." I wouldn't have approached the professor about the problem had I not used every available source to solve to problem. I need this class to graduate, the least I expected from the professor was guidance on how to solve the problem.

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

You liberals need to face the facts (by an onlooker)


I happened onto your blog by your Paul Ryan post.  Interesting.  Na├»ve but interesting.  Full disclosure: I’m in the banking business and I do well for myself.  Full disclosure: I see the real world better than you academics tucked away in your classrooms and offices.

Here’s the scoop: the world operates through capital.  If you have it, it works for you and you can influence people.  If you don’t have it you’re out of luck.  You have no real power.  While you complain and gripe (even whine) about how it is so unfair that the rich are rich, that Republicans favor capitalism [and many Democrats do too], and that “the poor and needy” aren’t taken care of more, that is how the world works.

During Obama’s 2008 campaign, he rallied the idealists to chant that “Yes we can” find the means to help everyone and reign in financial spreadsheets of the big bad corporations.  That was a lie.  All of that rhetoric is a lie because everyone in Washington and in corporate America know that the engine keeping America afloat is business.  Without business there is no America.  America = business.

Let me say this another way, you need Republicans to keep making the decisions for big business.  We need to have the Bush tax cuts extended permanently.  If you spook the corporations and the CEOs, you are only hurting yourself.  They are who really lead this country.  They have always led this country.  If you make them mad or slow down their capital, you will feel the effects and you will not like it.  Your ethics really have no place in politics.   Politics is and has always been about keeping capital flowing and growing.  Social programs don’t really have a place in all this but one must keep appearances since there would be a public outcry.

If Ayn Rand praises the producers of the country that is the right view to hold.  They should be the ones making the decisions for us because they hold all the cards.  Money does talk and money does rule.

Republicans do what Jesus couldn’t do and we should be grateful.  If Jesus became president, financial America would collapse along with everything else.

-an onlooker

Monday, April 25, 2011

The value of CORE classes? (by anon)

This is a noteworthy comment left on an earlier post.  It came just recently, but it's worth opening up the debate again...

*************

The CORE classes do have some value. As much as I do actually dislike having to sit through these classes that I may be uninterested in, most teachers start out by addressing that these courses are primarily for teaching students to think critically and teach essential skills like reading apprehension. Despite the fact that it is true that each professor will emphasize different elements in each subject, most of the critical skills will still be worked. I think the biggest reason students don't take these classes seriously is because they are labeled as "required" and "general" and this immediately turns most students attention away. A lot of students don't realize that school ended in high school and this is actually our job, and even those who do realize this still just want to try and slack and have fun with their friends during these four years that they have been told are "the best four years" of their lives. So it isn't just the courses themselves but the mindsets of the students coming in that have been shaped by previous causes or conditions. I, personally, would rather not take these courses and focus on what my major is, but I still value the learning I receive from them.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

I am not going to class! (by anon)


Here is an interesting article on classes or non classes. I know profs who still take attendance and will down grade a student who does not show up. Students are adults, and if they elect not to come to class, to hang out on the lawn sipping gin and juice, that's their decision. Besides, they make be able to learn the material outside of class, or get their notes from someone in class. That is none of my business. One day soon, college will not require going to class. We already have online classes and you can get an entire degree online at Whitewater. So what is the big deal about attendance in class?

Taking attendance and forcing students to come to a boring class is useless and stupid.

“Actually Going to Class, for a Specific Course? How 20th-Century: New learning technologies prompt a rethinking of traditional course structure”
By Jeffrey R. Young

The first question many undergraduates ask professors on the first day of class is whether they really have to show up.

The way they phrase it is a bit more subtle, says Dekunle Somade, a senior at the University of Maryland at College Park. What his fellow students actually ask is: "Will reruns of lectures be available after class, or at least the full set of PowerPoint slides?"

Mr. Somade told me recently that "the general idea is that if I don't have to come to class, I don't want to come to class—and technology is giving students more and more reason not to come."

That leads to a big question: Why even have a traditional college course? Learning outside of this structure engages students more deeply, recent data indicate. Professors talking for 16 weeks or so, assigning readings, and then testing students often appears to yield a bunch of quickly memorized facts that are soon forgotten. In an era when students can easily grab material online, including lectures by gifted speakers in every field, a learning environment that avoids courses completely—or seriously reshapes them—might produce a very effective new form of college.

That was the provocative notion posed here recently by Randy Bass, executive director of Georgetown University's Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship, during the annual meeting of the Educause Learning Initiative.
He pointed out that much of what students rate as the most valuable part of their learning experience at college these days takes place outside the traditional classroom, citing data from the National Survey of Student Engagement, an annual study based at Indiana University at Bloomington. Four of the eight "high-impact" learning activities identified by survey participants required no classroom time at all: internships, study-abroad programs, senior thesis or other "capstone" projects, or the mundane-sounding "undergraduate research," meaning working with faculty members on original research, much as graduate students do.

Mr. Bass said he has found the same trend during focus groups he's conducted at his institution. "Over and over again we hear students saying, Yes there's one or two courses, one or two professors, that made a difference," he told the audience. "But otherwise, when you say Where did you get your deepest learning? Where did you have your most profound learning experiences at Georgetown? It's always outside the classroom—always outside the formal curriculum."

The message comes at a moment when many college leaders are taking a harder look at the status quo in college instruction. In January a controversial book Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses (University of Chicago Press), charged that many institutions shortchange students by asking little in traditional courses, and that students respond with small efforts outside the classroom.

Courses won't go away completely, Mr. Bass argues—they do provide a handy framework. But he said he hopes that professors will stop thinking of them as a goal unto themselves and focus more on linking skills conveyed in the classroom to hands-on student activities. In fact, Mr. Bass asserts that such an evolution has already begun, driven by student demand, a better understanding of how students learn, and a new generation of faculty members trying tech-infused teaching methods.

"Like Bruce Willis at the end of The Sixth Sense," Mr. Bass said of the traditional college course, "perhaps it is dead, but it doesn't quite know it yet."

The Noncourse Vision
For a glimpse into the course afterlife, consider an experimental media-studies class taught last semester at Baylor University by Gardner Campbell, then director of the institution's Academy for Teaching and Learning. Technically, it was a traditional course, but the professor worked to convince students to think differently about the experience.

At the start of each session, Mr. Campbell gave the 11 students a strange kind of pop quiz. For one thing, it was anonymous, so no grades were given. And rather than ask questions about the content of the homework, he asked students to detail how much time and effort they spent preparing for class. Among the questions: Did you talk to a classmate about the assignment? And how many hours did you spend on the reading?

Each person gave themselves a score from 0 to 10, with 0 reflecting no preparation and 10 representing the most, and Mr. Campbell tallied the average of the students' scores and announced that as the collective intellectual health of the class. His main point: The class discussion only really works when everyone is prepared, since he sees himself as a guide to the group rather than as a guardian of information.

The scores started low—between 4 and 5, meaning the students did far less than the assigned homework. Something happened as the term progressed, though, as students bought into the concept. Last semester, Mr. Campbell says, the students ended at an average of 8. "It's something between a game and a motivational technique," he says of his quiz system.

Mr. Campbell, who just started a job as a professor and education-technology official at Virginia Tech, did not record the lectures—you had to be there to experience them. He did invite students to pass notes in class using Twitter, and he encouraged students to continue to share ideas there after class ended.

He asked each student to create a blog, sharing their ideas and reflections during the term, and he created a "mother blog" that brings together entries from the students. He also asked students to comment on one another's blogs as well as link to blogs both inside and outside the class. "The commenting and linking are crucial," he says, "as those activities are essential parts of being in the real blogosphere."

His hope is that students will continue blogging even though the course has ended. The thing he hopes to hear most from students on the last day of class: "Let's keep this going."

The UnCollege
Some universities have gone even further to challenge the course model. At Worcester Polytechnic Institute, administrators run seven-week immersion projects with no lecture component, in which students work in teams on projects that benefit nonprofit organizations. Mr. Bass, of Georgetown, describes that as a harbinger of things to come.

If the core activity at college shifts away from the classroom and into practical activities, do students even need to come to a campus?

Dale Stephens, a 19-year-old freshman at Hendrix College, plans to drop out of school to start what amounts to a social network for students outside the traditional classroom. The group members will trade tips on how to learn enough to get the jobs they're aiming for, with the aid of several mentors. Some mentors are professors at Hendrix, but some come from other colleges.

He calls his effort UnCollege, and the plan is to charge participants $100 per month to gain access to the Web site and a network of mentors. Everything will be self-directed—unstudents will decide what "assignments" they should complete and then evaluate how well they think they've done. Participants are encouraged to post their projects and self-evaluations online to form their "experience transcript."

Mr. Somade, of Maryland, says "there's not really much need for teachers anymore," since so much is online. He made that argument in a recent editorial in the university's student newspaper, The Diamondback: "We no longer need to have personal contact with teachers to absorb much of the material, and you can rest assured universities have taken notice," he wrote. "There is definitely a broader array of options available to students who wish to forgo the commute to class altogether in exchange for online classes that essentially provide the same content that professors regurgitate to students in lecture."

But many college leaders I talked with, even those favoring some unconventional approaches, said they aren't worried about being displaced by any form of collegiate home-schooling.

Colleges themselves will continue to work because they bring smart, motivated students together with experts in a single community, says John Maeda, president of the Rhode Island School of Design. Students at the college organize a system of courses each January, called "Quickies," which they teach themselves.

Mr. Maeda argues that the fundamental model of the university isn't broken, but that courses are bound to evolve as new technologies and expectations emerge.

Mr. Campbell, of Virginia Tech, argues that moves like making recordings of lectures available to students after class can help drive home the lack of interaction in many classrooms.

"It unmasks the illusion that what we're doing has the meaning we think it has," he said. "We've created this really bad bargain. We'll stand up there and not expect much from students, and they won't complain."

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Christians cannot be Republicans (by SuSieQ)



Dear Critically Pissed,

I am a Christian and have been since I was little.  I’m baptist.  I have read my bible and I know the stories and teachings.  For the life of me, I can’t figure out why so many Christians are Republicans.  It makes no sense.  I actually think that if you are a Republican, then you cannot be a Christian.  It’s like mixing oil and water.  No matter how many times you shake it up, they do not go together.

Jesus was perfect in every way.  That’s what the bible says.  What did he do?  He spent all of his time with the poor and needy and sinful.  He wanted to help them in everything they do.  He sat down with them.  He gave them food.  He gave them drink.  He even healed some of them.  He loved them unconditionally.  And they loved him back.  Jesus couldn’t stand the rich and powerful.  He fought against the Pharisess and drove out the money-people from the temple.  Jesus was all about uplifting the meek “for they shall inherit the earth.”

Republicans believe that there should be more tax cuts to the rich.  Paul Ryan believes that our “Path to Prosperity” means increasing the healthcare costs of the elderly and poor, while giving more tax breaks to the wealthy.  Republicans fight to decrease regulations everywhere so that big corporations and Wall Street can thrive to new heights.  Republicans constantly want to cut social programs because “why should we have to pay for those people when they can’t help themselves!”  Republicans are so against abortion, but they give not a thought to the woman carrying the baby.  I have not heard one Republican ever propose funding to help single mothers.  How can Republicans think to make women carry out their pregnancies and then leave them to struggle to care for the baby?  Republicans are so against homosexual people that they want to pass special legislation to restrict them in marriage and the military.

If Jesus was a politician, he would help the poor and not the rich.  He would restrain big corporations from taking advantage of anyone.  He would make sure that everyone had good healthcare and that increasing costs wouldn’t be shouldered mostly by the elderly and poor.  He would want more social programs and make the existing ones better.  Jesus would think of the fetus and woman equally, and certainly he would make sure that single mothers were not left in the ditch.  Jesus would love homosexual people just as much as everyone else.  He would want them to be treated equally and fairly just like everyone else.

Democrats are no angels either, but Democrats care a lot more about what Jesus cared about than Republicans.

I am a Christian and so I am a Democrat.  It’s what Jesus would do.  If I became a Republican, I could no longer be a Christian.  Jesus would throw me out.

~SuSieQ

Monday, April 18, 2011

Wisconsin signs are out of control (by F.I.B.)

Critically Pissed,
    I may seem crazy criticizing such a simple thing but I have a hate for the street signs in the state of Wisconsin. I am from Illinois and when I came here I noticed there were ALOT of street signs, road markings, and lights. If you havent been out of state, you probably dont notice. The problem lies within the fact that WI in the winter had a hard time icing and plowing their roads, yet they have money for these outlandish and unnecessary signs. At one intersection on the way to Janesville, there are 3 round-abouts, arrows on the road, yield signs, stop signs, one way signs, dont enter signs, speed limit signs, slow down signs, Pedestrian crossing signs! (mind you there is no buildings around these turnabouts, complete farm land) and arrow signs to top this intersection off. I'm sure there are even more I forgot to list. At some select intersections you can find over twenty road markings! Then the changing street lights from green yellow red, to stop and go, to just yellow. The mass majority of markings doesnt help, sometimes it actually confuses me. Is it really necessary to put arrows on the road saying straight or right only, I wouldnt be in that lane if I was going left would I?? No. If you miss one turn, Bob forbid the signs dont help you, you have to travel several blocks just to turn around. The Olive Garden in Janesville is  a perfect example if you miss the turn. Driving in WI has proven to be harder for me to drive in than IL. Hard to believe right? On your next drive, you should take note of how many signs you encounter.

-From a F.I.B.

Friday, April 15, 2011

Paul Ryan and many conservatives take their cues from a sociopath (by anon)


I wish I were being over-dramatic here.  But I’m not.

Paul Ryan, Rush Limbaugh, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Clarence Thomas, Alan Greenspan, and hoards of Tea Partiers (to name just a few) all herald the writings of pop-cult writer Ayn Rand.  She wrote such books as Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, and she forges her position of OBJECTIVISM: THE PHILOSOPHY OF SELFISHNESS (her words, not mine).

Many conservatives LOVE Ayn Rand.  Paul Ryan even makes his staff read Atlas Shrugged (1000+ pages) and Clarence Thomas makes his staff read The Fountainhead.  Rand’s basic line is that there are the “producers” and there is the “collective.”  There is the strong and there is the weak.  She heralds the individual producer, the person who is strong and is willing to do what it takes to fulfill one’s potential regardless of the cost.  In some ways, this can seem sexy.  But if it means neglecting community and social responsibility, this can be dangerous.

But here’s the root problem.  Many of Ayn Rand’s protagonists (you know, the lead person in her novels whom we should all admire) are modeled after WILLIAM HICKMAN.  Who the hell is he?  Well, he was a serial killer in the 1920’s.  That’s right.  A SERIAL KILLER.  She praised him to no end in her diaries because he did things his way regardless of what society thought.  One commentator writes (and I’ll give a link to this article below) – “What did Rand admire so much about Hickman?  His sociopathic qualities: "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own.  He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"”

Hickman wanted to do things so much his way that he decided to dismember one of his victims.  He bargained with the father of a girl he kidnapped for a ransom in exchange for the daughter back.  Hickman thought that all that was required for the ransom transaction was the body of the girl.  Here is an excerpt from a newspaper reporting the rest of the incident:

***************
Then he took a pocket knife and cut a hole in her throat. Then he cut off each arm to the elbow. Then he cut her legs off at the knees. He put the limbs in a cabinet. He cut up the body in his room at the Bellevue Arms Apartments. Then he removed the clothing and cut the body through at the waist. He put it on a shelf in the dressing room. He placed a towel in the body to drain the blood. He wrapped up the exposed ends of the arms and waist with paper. He combed back her hair, powdered her face and then with a needle fixed her eyelids. He did this because he realized that he would lose the reward if he did not have the body to produce to her father.

Hickman packed her body, limbs and entrails into a car, and drove to the drop-off point to pick up his ransom; along his way he tossed out wrapped-up limbs and innards scattering them around Los Angeles. When he arrived at the meeting point, Hickman pulled Miriam's [sic] head and torso out of a suitcase and propped her up, her torso wrapped tightly, to look like she was alive--he sewed wires into her eyelids to keep them open, so that she'd appear to be awake and alive. When Miriam's father arrived, Hickman pointed a sawed-off shotgun at him, showed Miriam's head with the eyes sewn open (it would have been hard to see for certain that she was dead), and then took the ransom money and sped away. As he sped away, he threw Miriam's head and torso out of the car, and that's when the father ran up and saw his daughter--and screamed.
********************

Sick.  And Ayn Rand loved this man.  She models her protagonists (Howard Roark, John Galt) after this man.  This is nothing short of sociopathic thought.  Ayn Rand is a sociopath.  Many conservatives love Ayn Rand - and that is how they take their cues from a sociopath.  Does this make many conservatives themselves sociopaths?  Of course not, but this is a connection that should give us great pause.  As I was reminded today in a discussion, the reason why Europe does not latch onto Rand’s philosophy is because they see what that kind of thinking does in the absolute extreme: the Holocaust.  If you get enough William Hickman’s, anything like that is possible.

Here’s the link to a very interesting article: Rand a Big Admirer of Serial Killers

And if this wasn't bad enough, we even have a student group on the UWW campus dedicated to the teachings of Ayn Rand.  It is called, REA$ON.  Fitting.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Hookup Culture (by anon)


I was watching Joy Behar a while back (there was nothing else on TV…I swear), and there was an interesting segment:


Let me start off by saying I’m pro-feminism (for the most part). I believe it falls into the humanism category, which is a good thing. However, I do seem to be very anti-feminist. What I mean is that I support the struggle and general ideology, but I don’t support people who think every viewpoint a woman has is a feminist viewpoint and therefore sacred. (I’m worried that feminism has become an untouchable ideology. The very questioning of it and its adherents has become taboo. I believe all ideologies should be up for debate, but when a person comes out against policies that feminists [feminists are not necessarily those people who follow the most logical and egalitarian aspects of feminism] support, that person is automatically branded a misogynist or a backwards conservative. I am neither of those.) I’ll also say I’m not a Tucker Max fan. I don’t really like him at all, but he is interesting, and he did win the argument. I spent 4.5 years on the UW-Whitewater campus from 2006-2010, so I consider myself somewhat qualified to clear up a few things about this debate. (Also, I realize this blog is very heteronormative, but that’s what everyone is talking about, and that’s what I know about. I’d welcome a blog from a different point-of-view, but I just haven’t experienced a different point-of-view, so I’m not going to pretend I know what I’m talking about when I don’t.)

I think a big part of the argument over hookup culture is the definition of culture. Culture used to move very slowly and was defined by tradition. Traditional foods of a certain culture. Traditional religious aspects of a certain culture. Traditional roles played by people in a certain culture. But culture today isn’t the same thing. Culture today is whatever sells. Look at our culture. It’s McDonald’s and Justin Bieber and Facebook and Real Housewives of Idontfuckingcare. If I start a fast food chain and it gets popular enough, I can be a part of culture. If I write a piece-of-shit pop song today and it sells, I can be a part of culture tomorrow. Culture is whatever we want. If we get a big enough group of people to say we all love vegemite, we might steal it from Aussie culture and make it ours. Vegemite would start popping up all around us. Parents packing it in their kids’ lunches. Stupid commercials on TV. You get the idea. So, hookup culture is just giving people what sells: sex. It’s not part of the patriarchy. It’s not some systematic plot to get women into bed. It’s not misogynistic. It’s what people want, both men and women.

Bloom openly admits that people have been taking part in sexually risky behavior for a long time. It seems the only difference now is that society doesn’t place a lot of pressure on men to have relationships with these women when they have sex with them. She states that women are looking for the relationships, but they’re stuck because men only want to hookup. That reminds me of this video:


What’s really happening is that women only want to be with certain men. Most men are attracted to most women, but most women are not attracted to most men. So, women don’t want a relationship with a man if he’s not one of those few she finds attractive. The problem is all women find those men attractive, and the man who is in demand isn’t going to give up all other women for one woman, not in college anyway. I’m not blaming women for wanting what they want, but they need to take responsibility for expecting to get what they want. There are plenty of men out there who would love to be in a relationship with a woman, but women don’t want those men. That’s just how it is. I could easily tell young women to go into the library and flirt with a guy who is studying rather than getting drunk, but let’s be honest, you young women aren’t going to do that, are you?

Bloom says women are upset because men can get whatever they want. I don’t think women are upset because men can get whatever they want; it’s that women are upset that they CAN’T get whatever they want. In my opinion, it seems very logical to think that women would be upset with this because women want to control the sex of men. It gives power to the woman, and if she can control the sex of very desirable men, then her children (the original purpose of sex was to produce offspring…in case you didn’t know) will have those genes. A man who owns a Fleshlight is seen as disgusting and perverted, but a woman who has nine vibrators in her sock drawer is empowered and sexually liberated. A man with a poster of some naked chick on his dorm wall is seen as immature, but a woman with a Twilight poster, Twilight computer desktop background, Twilight calendar, and a cat named Edward Cullen is normal because she just has a little crush. A man looking at porn while in a relationship is supposedly cheating. It’s all about controlling the sexual release of men. I don’t believe it’s planned or sinister. I believe it’s just part of nature. It’s about having control over your own reproduction, which is understandable.

It seems that the idea that women can’t have their cake and eat it too isn’t acceptable to Bloom. She doesn’t say that young women aren’t interested in sex, and she doesn’t say they aren’t interested in having hookup sex. She says they’re more interested in having relationships, but she won’t admit that women need to stop hooking up in order to get a relationship. She doesn’t want to admit that a woman can’t have intercourse with whatever guy she wants and still have a relationship. This is what I see on the internet. I see women who want to continue to sleep with the hottest guys but also have a nice guy who’s there for emotional support and house chores. Women aren’t going to get to have it this way. I don’t know a guy who’d be willing to invest his emotions and finances (dates cost money) in a woman who seems very interested in sleeping with other men.

It makes perfect sense why these women see themselves as victims who have no way out of the hookup culture. It’s because they don’t accept responsibility for participating in it. I think the reason for this can be found earlier in the young woman’s life. You see, her parents never made her take responsibility for her sexual choices either. They allowed her to dress like a prostitute because that’s the style. These are not my words. These are the words of Jennifer Moses who has succumbed to letting her daughter wear whatever she likes. She wrote about it in a Wall Street Journal article found here:


There are so many interesting things about this article. Moses admits the clothes she lets her daughter wear are very sexual. She admits she feels a thrill from advertising the sexuality of her daughter. And, most importantly, she blames society and herself for her daughter dressing that way. She places no blame whatsoever on her daughter. Moses believes the culture has made her daughter want to dress in a very provocative way.

My question is: Who’s driving the culture? What if it’s the adolescent girls who are driving the provocative clothing culture? I don’t actually believe teenage girls are creating these clothing lines, but they’re the target audience, and aren’t the clothing companies just trying to cater to the wishes of their audience? If an adolescent boy is caught with a Playboy or is trying to get with a girl, nobody assumes he’s just doing it because all the other boys are doing it and he’s just trying to keep up. They KNOW why he’s doing it. So, why do we hold girls to different standards? Are these young girls not doing exactly what these young boys are? They’re trying to be the most desirable they can be in order to attract the opposite sex. It’s extremely natural. Girls have sexual desires as well, so why do we not make them accept responsibility for their choices? Why can’t we admit to ourselves that our precious little girls are going where their tingling vaginas are leading them? We’re told that women have just as much sexual desire as men do, but the same people who tell us that are also telling us the reason why young women are having more sex at a younger age is because they’re being bombarded by culture; they say young women are victims.

Possibly the most interesting part of the Joy Behar Show debate was when Bloom said males are maturing more slowly than women, which is what leads to fewer relationships and more hookups. Many women online have commented on a phenomenon among post-college-age men known as man-child syndrome. There’s some debate as to what exactly the traits of a man-child are, but, loosely defined, a man-child is a male who is physically grown but hasn’t yet become a man and seems to be prolonging the process by continuing to behave in an “immature” way. (I have many personal problems with this. For instance, there are different standards for a girl becoming a woman and a boy becoming a man. A girl simply needs to physically mature to become a woman while a man must pass a series of tests and accomplishments in order to be considered a man.) Kay Hymowitz writes about her frustration with the modern phenomenon of the man-child:


I’d like to point out that this article really makes it seem as though Hymowitz is attacking men. I don’t believe this to be the case after reading her book (I sat in Borders and read the whole thing…I need to get a life). The man-child plays too many video games, drinks too much, spends too much time on the couch in his mom’s basement, smokes too much weed, etc. when he should be getting a job, being responsible, looking to better himself, etc. I don’t feel sorry for these men. They make choices that lead to actions, and they have to live with them. If someone my age who behaves like this is complaining to me in 10 years about how shitty his life is, I’m not going to care. However, I think this is a possible side-effect from living in the hookup culture. A man who chooses to live in the hookup culture knows that a woman is going to have sex with him if she’s going to have sex with him. She just needs to like the way he looks. That’s it. When he was in college it didn’t matter if he played video games all day. He just needed to put on some fresh clothes before going out at night so he can get laid. He had no incentive to take on more responsibility. So, when he leaves college and can continue to get a steady stream of sex without having to take on responsibility, then he’s fine with it. I’m not going to dig through essays, but I believe Freud said something about society being based on a competition to be the most desirable. That’s why men got jobs that paid a lot of money and took on responsibility. However, desirability in hookup culture doesn’t factor in responsibility. If there’s no sexual incentive for a “boy” to become a “man,” then he’s not going to be in any rush to do it. And he’ll STILL reap the sexual benefits.

The very existence of Tucker Max should be enough to end the argument. Here’s a man who writes very explicit stories about having random sex with many different women and using them as objects. He’s become quite famous. Women know who he is, but they still have sex with him. They go into the Tucker Max sexual experience knowing they’re only objects/stories, but they still do it. There’s something masochistic about the idea that a man who treats women like shit is also very popular with the ladies. He blatantly tells women that he’s bad, and they shouldn’t sleep with someone like him, but they still do it. The advice for young women is very simple: If you don’t want to be treated as an object, don’t turn yourself into an object. That is fucking confusing:


Regardless of whether women are victims of hookup culture or not, I believe the most helpful thing to do for women who believe they are victims is give them responsibility. Don’t coddle them and tell them it’s not their fault. Don’t sympathize with them. Don’t tell them they’re victims and that the fault lies with men. Tell these young women it’s their own fault. If they don’t like it, they need to change it. That’s the only way it’s going to change. Feeling sorry for each other doesn’t lead to change. Take responsibility for your own actions and use them as a learning tool to create change. That’s real empowerment.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Campus parking sucks (by anon)

I would just like to start off by saying that campus and even city parking for that matter, is a money trap. I am a junior here at UWW and I am so sick of the parking setup around here. As we all know, especially if you live in a big city, there is never enough parking. That is the same case here on campus. Between the kids in the dorms, commuters, staff, faculty, visitors, visitors of visitors, whatever, you have to strategically play cat and mouse type games and/or musical chairs with other people to somehow score a spot. Now this is bad enough without having these traitorous kids riding around in gators nailing unsuspecting people left and right like its the school magazine drive or something! Every time I see them I have this urge to run over and tip cart over on them. Now last year the ticket price was $10.00 but for some reason this year it has been raised to $15.00. Why? This is outrageous, given the fact that we as students are already being cleaned out by the University and the various expenses that go along with it. Now, we are not only getting hassled about parking and tearing out our hair to find a damn spot, there are money grubbing vultures waiting for you to slip up even for a minute. Is it really wise to piss off and take advantage of already poor college students who are giving you thousands upon thousands of dollars already. I personally have two tickets sitting on my desk staring me in the face even as i write this. I don't know about you but I do not have $30 dollars just hanging out in my drawer waiting to be spent, and even if I did, I would be used on food, shampoo, tooth paste, and other essentials. I don't even own the car anymore that I got the tickets on but i never have the money to pay them so there they sit. I am not happy with the situation at all.

Friday, April 8, 2011

Government shutdown because of...GODDAMN RELIGION (by anon)

No shitting around it.  The hold up between an accepted deal between Democrats and Republicans to avert a government shutdown tonight is some funding for Planned Parenthood - that's it!  That's the stickler.  Republicans want to defund Planned Parenthood.  Democrats do not.  The reason Republicans want to defund Planned Parenthood is because they are against abortion.  Why are they against abortion?  Well, they believe that the Bible says somewhere that abortion is wrong.  Thus, God is against abortion.  And it is as simple as that.  Our gov't will shut down tonight because some people in power have a particular interpretation of the Bible.  Religion really sucks.

Whoever thinks our country holds a separation between church and state is smoking some pretty strong stuff.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Second Life kicks ass! (by CCM)

Second Life is an online virtual world.  It's free to get an avatar and start exploring over 45,000 acres of virtual lands.  And it's awesome!  I'm re-immersing myself in it right now in preparation for my Intro to Philosophy course in Second Life this summer and I happened across this music clip made in Second Life.  You have to see it...




Here's the point of this post.  If one is going to teach or take on online class (and there are many out there), it makes SO much sense to do it in Second Life when the interactions are the next best thing to face-to-face conversations.  You can use your own voice and communicate in real time.  Other online classes are mired in delayed conversations or what is called "asynchronous" communication.  Most students and teachers I talk to do not like the "traditional" mode of online classes precisely because there is such a disconnect between student-teacher and student-student.  Students feel like isolated individuals.  Well, problem solved!  In Second Life, one can have a classroom (but cooler looking!) just like the real world and have good, meaningful discussions about the course.  No more isolated individuals.  We are "present" to each other, which heightens learning, and IMO, makes the online class actually one worth taking.

Who knows...maybe we are seeing a glimpse into the future of education...

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

The Cost of Computer Literacy (by anon)

Computer literacy is defined as the knowledge and ability to use computers and technology efficiently. It's the comfort level someone has with using computer programs and other applications that are associated with computers. Texting, instant messaging, and gaming language is being incorporated into our daily talk more and more every day. It's especially prevalent in any written/typed message. After being in college and, especially, after meeting a few computer-science majors here and there, I've noticed there seems to be an inversely proportional relationship between computer literacy and compositional literacy among first world computer users. Ease of speak comes handy when necessary, but since when did saying, "You're a sweet guy and I'd love for us to go out again" become "u r sweet. =) Din 2maro?" It seems to me that our power of communication is being diminished to remove everything but the point by cutting the limbs on which we once walked to reach our intention. It is as if the proverbial prestige and glamour of speaking with words of meaning seem to be turning into a taboo. What has happened to being charismatic? What has happened to having color in our words and devotion to what we write? Has this digital divide of radio waves and paper depreciated the way we talk so radically simply for the ease of editing? Or has the ease of editing been a factor that has integrated the word processors in our minds from the word processors on our laptops? I see no psychoanalytical explanation on the degradation of human vernacular. Yet our generation's grandiloquent linguistics have been infected by this tragically cool inarticulation of expression. It's not, like, as if we don't know what we wana say, like, y'know? Words are just words, but in order to have meaning we must have feeling in what we say and not be hesitant of what we feel. Speak with authority and respect. It does matter how you say things and how you write them as well. Punctuate, capitalize, spell; I plead you to spell correctly. A lot is two words. There, their, and they're cannot be confused. So I implore you, write like you know how to. Writing is an art, one of the humanities which separate us from animals.

Sunday, April 3, 2011

Dilemma: To say the "N-word" word or not??

Here's the dilemma I'm in.  The last post mentions the offensive word, "N-word."  On the side of caution, I will not use it myself here.  But in the last post, should I have honored the contributor's original writing (like I did) or should I have edited the post to match the representation like above in order to lessen the possibility of offense?

There are multiple issues here, but I will let you tease and argue them out.  I'm open to editing the last post, but I want to hear what you say...

Oh shit there's that word again! (by anon)

The problem with many white people is that they are unaware of the deep seated nature of their racist beliefs, and like Jung's Shadow, it dogs their waking life. We continue to read about proverbial slips of the tongue (Freud would be proud here), where they inadvertently reveal their true racist selves.

From Don Imus, to Michael Richards, to Mel Gibson, they out themselves. Here is a case of a lady running for the School Board in Miami. She has used the term NIGGER without a sense of remorse or apologies. She has used the term multiple times.  I think we all agree, she is a racist and has no business in education, but this situation begs the question. How many other racists are lurking around in educational circles? In the past it was much easier to spot a racist, they used the word nigger and hated people of color. Now they have gone underground, so it is much harder to spot them, but every now and then they fuck up, and in the words of Moses Wright who courageously testified at the murder trial of Emmitt Till "There he is".  Well here is a another outed racist!  There she is!

Broward School Board member Ann Murray was asked to resign from her elected position Monday, accused of making several racial slurs in the past that she never apologized for. The request came at the beginning of the School Board meeting, in which ethics and leadership were discussed.

“You have boldly admitted using the term ‘nigger’ multiple times without even an ounce of contrition,’’ said Freda Stevens, vice president of the Democratic Black Caucus of Broward County. Murray, on the board since 2008, did not reply. After the meeting, she slipped out a side door. She did not return phone calls from The Miami Herald.  Monday, Broward Superintendent Jim Notter confirmed the incidents happened and the district took the proper steps. “It went in her personnel file, and that was basically the end,’’ he said.  The racially insensitive comments were made in 2007, when Murray was working as a school bus terminal supervisor for the district. They were never reported during her campaign, in which she portrayed herself as a working mother who understood the difficulties of raising kids and bringing in an income. They first came to light earlier this month in The Daily Pulp, a political blog by New Times writer Bob Norman. He reported Murray had “repeatedly used the “N’’ word to refer to African Americans when speaking to coworkers.” According to Norman, both black and white school transportation employees complained that Murray frequently made racial slurs. But the reprimand came when Murray was overseeing the contracted school buses at the Super Bowl in 2007. Speaking to fellow supervisor Lisa Spince, Murray said: “Do you remember when a group of us from transportation came down to watch a Bills game? Yeah, they had us up in nigger heaven. You know, way up at the top of the stadium.’’

Three black bus drivers sat nearby and looked upset. Spince, who now lives in Georgia, told Murray her remark was offensive.  In a written statement to the School Board, Spince wrote she walked over to one of the upset drivers and put her arm around her for comfort. “The [driver] told me that she was very mad because that was not the first time that Ms. Murray had used the ‘N’ word. She told me that she was going to report Ms. Murray,’’ Spince wrote. That driver, Markeia Funchess did file a complaint with the board’s Equal Educational Opportunities Department. Funchess, according to Norman, said Murray referred to it as the “nigger bleed section’’ then apologized and said “I forgot the company that I was in.’’ Spince and Funchess could not be reached Monday night. But Murray acknowledged making the slur and signed the written reprimand: "During the investigation, sufficient evidence existed, including your own admittance to corroborate that you did indeed use a derogatory term, nigger, in the presence of subordinates," wrote then-school district Transportation Director Lucille Green. "You have failed to meet the performance standards required of your position as Terminal Supervisor... Please be advised that any further failure on your part to perform to the standards... of your job duties will result in further disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment." After reading Norman’s blog post, Stevens, who has run for political office in Broward County but never been elected, contacted Murray on Friday asking for an apology or explanation. Instead of explaining, Murray went on a rant, Stevens said. “She just wouldn’t stop,’’ Stevens said Monday. “It became very clear to me that that is the way she really thinks.’’ According to Stevens, Murray replied: “You all do not know if I have black blood in my family. I cannot make up for what happened 400 years ago. I know that some of you all are just sensitive but I have been called names, whitey and honky. I just brushed it off." Stevens then questioned Murray’s grasp of history: The Civil War was fought 150 years ago, and segregation in the South lasted until the 1960s. One concern Stevens had was that Murray was making general statements about all black people. “I just don’t think like that,’’ she said. “[Murray] was separating black and white.’’ At Monday’s meeting, Stevens read a letter calling for Murray’s resignation. If she doesn’t, Stevens said, the Democratic Black Caucus of Broward County would bring the issue to the governor. “You deserve an “F’’ in character,’’ Stevens said to Murray. “The School Board is no place for a racist, especially an unrepentant one.’’

Field Negro posted an update to this case on his blog:

There is that word again, and Andrew gets dumped.


"In 2007, I used a word I should have never used,'' Murray wrote. " "Minutes after saying it, I apologized to my co-workers and subordinates. Eventually, I received a very strong reprimand from my supervisor. To this day, I have the deepest regret for the incident and the pain I may have caused others. I ask the African-American community and all communities who suffer with the ugliness of bigotry to accept my sincerest apology. I pray for healing and forgiveness from those I have offended as we move toward a new chapter and forever close the old.''

Oh Lawd! That was yet another white person in A-merry-ca having to apologize because they were caught saying the word Nigger..... publicly.
Here is the story of Broward County school board member, Ann Murray, and her little slip of the tongue which happened to be overheard by some of you Negroes a few years back. Relax Ms. Murray. I know that black folks are calling for your resignation, but I say keep on doing what you are doing. You just happened to slip up.... publicly; that's all.

In short, keep on keeping on, just don't slip up and be outed. As the King of Pop said, keep it in the closet.