Do you ever wonder why we don’t have a cure for cancer yet? It’s studies like I’m going to read that is why.
A race hoax is caught in the act so the media won’t talk about it.
And everything is racist.
Some News:
Here is some news:
- Liz McGill from Penn University has been fired for what she said about anti-Semitism on campus.
- Claudine Gay, the president of Harvard, is not going to be fired for what she said about anti-Semitism even though she, apparently, plagiarized a bunch of papers when she was getting her doctrate.
- Volodymyr Zelensky is in Washington DC begging for more money. Democrats refuse to fund border security so the bill giving $60 billion to Ukraine.
- Speaking of the border, there is a surge again. 10-14 thousand people are crossing a day.
- Hunter Biden refused to be deposed by the House of Representatives. This will lead to a contempt of Congress.
- Inflation continues on. Prices rose 3.1%, down from 3.2%. Expect the Fed to hike rates again.
They’re Surprised?
According to PsyPost.Org:
In heterosexual men, pictures of rotting flesh, maggots and spoiled food induce the same physiological stress response as pictures of two men kissing each other. That is the surprising finding that was recently published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Psychology & Sexuality.
“We originally were interested in understanding the health effects of same-sex vs. mixed-sex public displays of affection for the couples in the relationship,” explained the study’s corresponding author, Karen L. Blair of St. Francis Xavier University.
“However, one of the factors likely to influence how individuals experience PDAs is the reaction that other people have to witnessing PDAs. Consequently, we decided to begin the research by examining whether or not heterosexuals have negative responses to witnessing same-sex PDAs; in particular, we began by examining heterosexual male responses to male same-sex public displays of affection.”
“Participants watched a series of slideshows: male couples kissing, male couples holding hands, mixed-sex couples kissing, mixed-sex couples holding hands, boring images (e.g., paper clips) and disgusting images (maggots),” Blair explained. “In between slide shows, we asked participants questions about their responses to the photos (not yet published) and we also collected saliva samples in order to assess salivary alpha-amylase in response to each slide show (the current paper).”
Measuring levels of salivary alpha-amylase, a digestive enzyme that is associated with stress and is especially responsive to disgust, allowed the researchers to examine the men’s physiological reaction to the photos. The study was based on results from 120 heterosexual men (aged 18 to 45).
Later is the article:
Previous research has found a strong link between sexual prejudice and the emotion of disgust. For instance, a 2008 study found that individuals who are more easily disgusted are also more likely to make unfavorable moral judgments about gay people.
“What is most important to note is that the responses did not differ as a function of self-reported levels of prejudice or self-reported levels of aggression towards gay men,” Blair explained. “In other words, it was not our highly prejudiced individuals who were experiencing a heightened physiological response to the images of same-sex couples kissing, it was everyone in the sample, even those with very low levels of prejudice.”
The finding provides more evidence that the so-called “gay panic” defense — the assertion that a person’s sexual orientation can “trigger” a crime against them — is bunk. The defense was used by the two men who beat, tortured and murdered gay student Matthew Shepard in 1998.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/opinion-here-s-who-should-have-won-time-s-person-of-the-year/ar-AA1lcHUa?ocid=winp2fptaskbar&cvid=b3d5b64670a24e77ab10b0042e5bfcbb&ei=32
.https://www.psypost.org/2017/06/straight-mens-physiological-stress-response-seeing-two-men-kissing-seeing-maggots-49217
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19419899.2017.1328459
Oh, Jeez!
According to Pride Magazine:
A team of black mountain climbers is attempting to climb Everest to tackle what one member described as the sport’s “colonial history”.
The world’s highest peak has been conquered more than 10,000 times since Sir Edmund Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing Norgay scaled it first in 1953. Only a few of the successful climbers have been black, however.
A team of nine aim to add their names to the list in May. Rosemary Saal, 28, a teacher from Seattle, is among those joining the Full Circle Everest Expedition. She said that a team of black climbers conquering the mountain would help “change the narrative”.
“I hear ‘black people don’t do that’ all the time when I talk about my climbing,” she told The Washington Post. “That only perpetuates the stereotypes. It’s important to change the narrative.”
The first American to climb Everest was Jim Whittaker in 1963, two years before President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law, prohibiting racial discrimination at the polls.
Saal added: “It’s hugely significant to contribute to representation in these outdoor spaces. There’s been an intentional lack of access for black people.”
.https://www.pridemagazine.com/everest-is-too-white-its-time-for-that-to-change/
No One Is Talking About This
According to the Daily Wire:
Tourists stopped a 26-year-old U.S. Navy veteran this week from burning down the birth home of civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr.
Laneisha Shantrice Henderson “was detained by the bystanders at the historic home on Auburn Avenue and taken into custody Thursday night,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. “Unlike many national monuments, there is no gate restricting access to the civil rights leader’s birth home, which attracts more than 700,000 visitors from around the world annually.”
“That action saved an important part of American history tonight,” Atlanta police Chief Darin Schierbaum told reporters at the scene.
A man who became suspicious of Henderson asked her what she was doing after he saw her throw a liquid onto the front porch of the residence. Once he smelled gasoline and realized what she was allegedly doing, he grabbed her car keys — which she left in the grass — to prevent her from leaving. The man then blocked her from getting back on the porch when she returned with a lighter.
I Love When Leftism Cannot Find a Landing Area
According to the Post Millennial:
On Tuesday, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker announced that he is shutting down Chicago’s planned $65 million camp to house illegal immigrants near Brighton Park after an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report showed toxic chemicals on the property.
According to NBC, the EPA released an 800-page report that showed the site set to house over 2,000 immigrants had mercury, arsenic, lead, cyanide, pesticides, and PCBs found on site.
In a statement, Pritzker’s office said, “EPA standards on sampling and remediation are clear and known to the City. Those are not the standards the City chose to use.” It continued, “The City did not engage with IEPA or the State before releasing the report and when it did release the report, was unable to explain the lesser standards they did choose to use and how they arrived at those standards.”
“But while the City might be comfortable placing asylum seekers on a site where toxins are present without a full understanding of whether it is safe, the State is not. This site will not move forward as a shelter with State involvement,” the statement concluded.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson said that the discovery of toxicity at the site was no surprise.
Residents of the area had filed a lawsuit against the city last month to halt the construction of the site claiming that it violated zoning laws.
What a Shock!
According to the Post Millennial:
After meeting with congressional leaders and members of the Biden administration Thursday, New York City Mayor Eric Adams said he was not optimistic about getting help from the federal government to deal with the illegal immigration crisis his city is dealing with.
Adams noted in a Friday press conference that the city’s residents are weary, angry, and “seeing the impact of the migrant and asylum seeker issue, how it is taking away from the resources that should go to the day‑to‑day services of running the city.”
He said that he “did not walk out from D.C. with any level of optimism that anything is going to drastically change.” Adams added, “It is clear that for the time being, this crisis is going to be carried by the cities.”
Adams told the crowd that the city is in an “untenable situation right now” as it faces a $7 billion budget deficit, and it is “painful for the city” because “our federal government actions have taken a toll on the people of this city.”
“As I left Washington D.C., I did not leave with optimism, I left with the cold reality that help is not on the way in the immediate future,” Adams added. “It’s going to be up to New Yorkers and this administration to continue to navigate this challenge that we’re facing.”
In November, Adams was forced to slash the New York Police Department’s budget to pay for the massive influx of illegal immigrants entering the city. At the time he said, “No city should be left to handle a national humanitarian crisis largely on its own, and without the significant and timely support we need from Washington, D.C.”
W F-Up, Give Us What We Want
According to the Washington Post:
The testimony of three university presidents before a House committee last week provoked outrage after they suggested that calls on their campuses for Jewish genocide might not have violated their schools’ free speech policies. One of them, Liz Magill, was forced to step down on Saturday as president of the University of Pennsylvania, where I am a faculty member.
But their statements shouldn’t have come as a surprise. Congress could have assembled two dozen university presidents and likely would have received the same answer from each of them.
This is because the value of free speech has been elevated to a near-sacred level on university campuses. As a result, universities have had to tolerate hate speech — even hate speech calling for violence against ethnic or religious minorities. With the dramatic rise in antisemitism, we are discovering that this is a mistake: Antisemitism — and other forms of hate — cannot be fought on university campuses without restricting poisonous speech that targets Jews and other minorities.
University presidents are resisting this conclusion. Rather than confront the conflict between the commitment to free speech and the commitment to eliminating the hostile environment facing Jewish students on campus, many simply affirm their commitment to both or buy time by setting up task forces to study the problem. Some have attempted to split the difference by saying they are institutionally committed to free speech but personally offended by antisemitism. Others have said the answer to hate speech is education and more speech.
Countering speech with more speech might just mean adding to the hateful rhetoric on campus and would not solve the problem. And university presidents can set up all the task forces, study groups and educational modules they like, but what kind of educational effort could possibly bring together warring groups that are busy calling for one another’s violent demise?
In a video message released the day after her testimony, Magill issued an apology in which she suggested that her statements, while legally correct, were insensitive because she was “not focused on” the fact that a call for genocide is “a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate.” While many remained deeply troubled by the insensitivity of her comments, I am most concerned about the legal and policy conclusions Magill endorsed: that speech calling for Jewish genocide does not violate campus policies at the University of Pennsylvania. This is profoundly wrong.
First, Penn, like Harvard and MIT, is a private institution, and as such it is not bound by the First Amendment. In my experience, Penn has never actually followed the First Amendment, even to a close approximation. The same goes for other amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Penn also does not follow the Second Amendment; if it did, our campus would be a war zone, especially given our apparent embrace of hate speech!
Second, even public universities that are bound by the First Amendment are not helpless in the face of hate speech. They do not have to stand idly by and wait for such speech to turn into “conduct.” Public institutions can restrict the “time, place and manner” of demonstrations; they can restrict speech that incites violence, that involves threats of violence against specific individuals or that involves the targeted harassment of members of the community.
Universities also have a duty under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to ensure that their campuses do not descend into “hostile environments” that effectively exclude students of ethnic, religious or racial minorities from receiving the benefit of educational programs and activities on campus. In fact, Penn has already been sued by two Jewish students, alleging that the university has become an “incubation lab for virulent anti-Jewish hatred, harassment and discrimination.”
That underscores the point: With or without the First Amendment, calls for genocide against Jews — or even proxies for such sentiments, such as calling for intifada against Jews or the elimination of Israel by chanting “from the river to the sea” — are, in the present context, calls for violence against a discrete ethnic or religious group. Such speech arguably incites violence, frequently inspires harassment of Jewish students and, without question, creates a hostile environment that can impair the equal educational opportunities of Jewish students.
Though open expression and academic freedom are critically important values in higher education, there are other values that universities must promote as well. For example: encouraging civil dialogue across differences, cultivating critical listening skills, developing the skills to build community relationships, promoting the ability to engage in moral reflection and building resilience in the face of challenge. These normative skills cannot be taught effectively in an environment where students and faculty are hurling calls at one another for the elimination of ethnic, religious or racial subgroups.
Universities must also consider their obligations to the broader society as they prepare young people to assume responsibilities in public life. What values do university presidents think are most important to prepare leaders in a democracy? The ability to shout intemperate slogans or the ability to engage in reasoned dialogue with people who have moral and political differences? Is it any surprise that students educated in an environment of antisemitism would behave as antisemites in their adult lives?
Like all skills, students will become expert at that which they practice most. Privileging free speech on campus relative to other values emphasizes skills that pose the greatest challenge to our democracy and fails to cultivate the skills democratic societies most need.
The crisis of antisemitism in our universities mirrors the crisis in our democracy. Isn’t it time for university presidents to rethink the role that open expression and academic freedom play in the educational mission of their institutions?