Tuesday, September 19, 2017

UC Berkeley Faculty Want To Shut Down Campus For Free Speech Week

September 18, 2017
Mark Tapson

This Is A Clear Threat To Higher Education

A faculty letter addressed to the UC Berkeley campus and the Berkeley community at large is calling for a complete boycott of classes and campus activities during the upcoming “Free Speech Week," which will feature conservative speakers whose very names inspire college students to seek safe spaces and therapy.

The Berkeley paper called The Daily Californian reports that the letter was co-written by seven faculty members, including Michael Cohen, a campus associate teaching professor of African American studies. The letter urges fellow faculty members to take three steps: cancel classes and tell students to stay home; close buildings and departments and allow staff to stay home; and not penalize students who are afraid of coming to campus. The letter was signed by 132 campus faculty members from various departments, and by 56 individuals who aren’t part of the UC Berkeley faculty.

Cohen said that most of the students in his African American Studies class are students "of color," and he believes it is unethical and discriminatory for him to ask his students to be on campus during Free Speech Week, which will be held on campus from Sept. 24-27.

As noted by the Daily Californian, Free Speech Week is being hosted by the Berkeley Patriot, a conservative student newspaper. The four-day event includes themes such as “Feminism Awareness Day” and “Mario Savio is Dead.” Speakers scheduled to be on campus include Freedom Center founder David Horowitz, libertarian provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, conservative commentator Ann Coulter, and dreaded Breitbart honcho Steve Bannon.

“This is a clear threat to public higher education,” said Cohen. He and the other signers of the letter reluctantly concede that "we are legally bound by the Constitution to allow all viewpoints on campus." But "there are forms of speech that are not protected under the First Amendment. These include speech that presents imminent physical danger and speech that disrupts the university’s mission to educate."

The university's mission is to educate? Who knew?

"Milo, Coulter and Bannon do not come to educate; they and their followers come to humiliate and incite... The boycott is a refusal to allow this to happen on our campus.”

“We’re not afraid of Milo, Ann (Coulter) or Bannon’s words," claim the signatories of the letter. "We have a deep anxiety over the violence that their followers bring in response,” Cohen said.

Of course, the issue is not violence on the part of the followers of Yiannopoulos, Coulter, Bannon, et al; as always, it is the radical leftists who bring violence and mayhem to such events under the pretense of anti-fascism and self-defense.

“Chancellor [Carol T.] Christ’s idea that we can have these people on campus is a fantasy and a dangerous one,” Cohen complained, but he should be directing his complaint against the masked, black-clad, armed, anti-free speech protesters who come to assault innocent bystanders, intimidate peaceful conservative students, and vandalize public and private property. They are the ones who are truly dangerous.

Download a pdf of the full letter here.

From TruthRevolt.org
Tags: Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, Free Speech, uc berkeley

Thank You Mr Tapson and FPM/TruthRevolt

Monday, September 18, 2017

Feinstein: 'We Know' That 'North Korea Can Hit Anywhere In The United States Now'.


By Susan Jones | September 18, 2017 | 7:29 AM EDT

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the intelligence committee, said on Sunday that she’s spent a lot of time on North Korea. “I have read most, if not all, of the intelligence, and the real intelligence,” she told CNN’s “State of the Union.”

And she said she is concerned about the threat posed by a rogue nation with a nuclear arsenal: “We know that they can hit anywhere within the United States now,” Feinstein said.

“How concerned are you about the United States and the safety of the United States?” CNN’s Dana Bash asked Feinstein:

“How concerned are you about the United States and the safety of the United States?” CNN’s Dana Bash asked Feinstein:

Well, I am concerned about the safety of the United States. Our missile defense isn't perfect. It certainly leaves more to be desired. And it has to really be worked on to be improved. And we know that they can hit anywhere within the United States now.

And they have done this in a relatively short time. And this particular leader, over his father, has moved much more quickly. And it's been effective. The science apparently is good, because they have been able put together tests that are successful.

The Trump administration has insisted there will be no talks with North Korea until it ends its nuclear program, but Feinstein said she doesn’t think that is the right approach:

I have spent a lot of time on Intelligence looking at North Korea. I have read most, if not all, of the intelligence, and the real intelligence.

I think that North Korea is not going to give up its program with nothing on the table. I think that what could happen is that we could have reliable verification of a freeze of both the nuclear program and the missile arsenal, and that we could conceivably talk China into supporting that kind of a freeze, because it would carry with it no regime change and no war.

Feinstein expressed concern about North Korea's “recklessness":

“They now have very powerful weapons. They have done six nuclear tests. They have big missiles. And they have missiles that can carry a nuclear threat.”

Thank You Ms Jones and CNS.

Wonderful. Who was behind the Korean war and the Vietnam war?

Think real hard on this the next time (which is practically Every time) you're forced to buy something/anything/almost Everything, Made In China.

Hillary: She Doesn't Understand How Bad She Was, And Still Won't Go Away

Review: 'What Happened' by Hillary Rodham Clinton

Joseph Bottum
September 16, 2017 5:00 am

Almost no commentator, no reviewer, has mentioned the most newsworthy fact about Hillary Clinton's latest memoir—which is the near total lack of anything actually newsworthy in the book. With What Happened, Clinton would at last "let down her hair," Simon & Schuster's publicists loudly proclaimed before the book's publication. And that was the line dutifully repeated by reporter after reporter, as though it were a fact. As though, coming from Clinton's people, it didn't need to be checked or reported with even the slight distancing of "Hillary Clinton says she's let down her hair in her new book."

But then, there's a kind of fittingness in that hair cliché, for Clinton probably does believe she has exposed her real self, set forth the true inwardness of her feelings. She's let it all hang out. She's made it real. She's taken her hair down to talk to us, person to person. And with her belief in all that, she comes closest to revealing in the memoir what actually happened. Hillary Clinton lost in good part because she speaks and thinks, she moves and has her being, in a world of clichés.

So, for example, in What Happened she complains with unrelenting bitterness that she did tooaddress the concerns of the Rust Belt. She did too speak directly to the damaged blue-collar class. She did too appeal to the white voters who did not support her. It's not her fault that they didn't believe her. It's not her fault that, if they even heard her, they suspected her heart wasn't in the message. She had her well-disciplined talking points like ducks in a row. If the ducks proved dead—that's not her fault.

Has there been a more self-conscious major-party presidential candidate since Richard Nixon? The stiff way she moved, the personalizing of every slight, the grimacing smile as though she had been forced to teach herself how to wear her face: Nearly everything about Hillary Clinton spoke of a self-consciousness so vast, so heavy, that only the sternest will could shoulder it. Like a robot with slow actuators, she always seemed to have a gap between a stimulus and her response—a brief but noticeable moment of deciding how to react. Leave aside questions of her truthfulness about everything from her Rose Hill law firm's files to her private email server while she was at the State Department. Trump's needling epithet of "Crooked Hillary" gained traction because, regardless of her actual honesty, she had the affect of dishonesty—the pause that recalls for many viewers a liar choosing what to say.

At the same time, has there ever been a less self-reflective major-party presidential candidate? Richard Nixon was at least very smart, and from his 1978 Memoirs through his late books on foreign policy, he proved capable of a good deal of self-abstraction and intellectual acumen. Neither saved him from paranoia and a thin-skinnedness unrivaled by any other elected president, but by the end he could nonetheless distance himself from himself a little. Hillary Clinton can't seem to distance herself at all. However uncomfortable she is in her own skin, she's locked inside that skin, and all her attempts at self-reflection, self-criticism, and self-awareness prove little more than clichéd repetitions of the kinds of things people are supposed to say when engaging in those activities. Her expressions of her interior life in What Happened seem just as robotic, just as programmed, as her expressions of an exterior life.

And so she writes, "I've made mistakes, been defensive about them, stubbornly resisted apologizing," only to add, "but so have most men in politics (in fact, one of them just became president)"—deaf to the grating noise of her grievance trying to fit itself beside the insincerely borrowed language of a mea culpa. She speaks of loving hot sauce, only to add, "I've been a fan since 1992, when I became convinced it boosted my immune system, as research now shows it does"—unable to hear how the attempt to say she loves something is undone by that wooden "as research now shows it does."

Some tiredness has shown in the mainstream response to the book. Jon Kass wrote in the Chicago Tribune, "Hillary: How can we miss you when you won't go away?" In the New York Times, Susan Chira echoed the point, calling her "the woman who won't go away." Even David Remnick's recent hagiographical account in the New Yorker has a slight undercurrent of dismissal. Back in April, Bill Maher set the tone when he compared her to first baseman Bill Buckner losing the Red Sox a winnable World Series by letting an easy grounder slip between his legs.

What Happened might have been Clinton's way back from the woods to at least the status of elder stateswoman in the Democratic party, if it were better written. Some of the book is deadly dull. One chapter reads as though she were handed a staff-directory and told to say something about each worker at campaign headquarters. But most of the book is just plain dull.

She doesn't like Bernie Sanders, and she thinks he established the lines of attack that the Republicans would use against her. That's probably true, but how is it news? She really doesn't like Donald Trump, and she thinks that he pandered to the lowest common-denominator of America: "I was running a traditional presidential campaign … while Trump was running a reality TV show." Again, that may well be true, but after the billions of dollars spent during the last election—much of it by Clinton herself—why do we need What Happened to tell us so?

For that matter, wasn't it her husband who broke the traditional campaign she now mourns? Bill Clinton played the saxophone on late-night TV shows. He answered questions about his underwear. He triangulated every position down to the vanishing point. He ran a perpetual war room that smashed the incumbent Republican president's more old-fashioned campaign. It's a little late in the day for Hillary Clinton to bemoan the election of a man who carried some of her husband's campaign techniques to their logical extreme.

A sad endlessness suffuses the list of all those Clinton blames for her loss. The nation just wasn't ready for her. Fake news undid her. The New York Times was mean to her. James Comey and the FBI were out to get her. So were Vladimir Putin and Julian Assange. Misogyny and racism. Racism and misogyny. Misogyny again, just in case we missed it the first dozen times she mentions it. The FBI again, too.

The election of 2016 was fated by a number of factors to be a bad year for the Democrats. And the situation was made worse when the party nominated Hillary Clinton, who seemed at the time to be a bad retail politician after losing the 2008 primaries to Barack Obama despite all her institutional advantages and nearly losing the 2016 primaries to a socialist. But then—oh, miraculous day!—the other party screwed up the primaries enough to nominate Donald Trump, the only visible Republican that the Democrats could be sure of beating.

The fact that she went on to be defeated elevates her in a way that she cannot grasp with her strange combination of self-consciousness and unself-reflectiveness in What Happened. To lose to Donald Trump, with so much institutional weight behind her, raises her far beyond any other. This was not just a bad candidate. This was a terrible candidate—the worst campaigner ever to receive a nomination. Maybe the best way to look at her new memoir is that the book represents a determined, powerfully willful effort not to understand just how bad she was.
This entry was posted in Culture and tagged 2016 Election, Book reviews, Hillary Clinton. Bookmark the permalink.

Thank You Mr Bottum and Free Beacon.

No, what happened was that her own self proclaimed 'Experience' has been out on public display since the Governor's Mansion in Arkansas.

And America just couldn't get the horror she is out of their mind's eye.

That's 'What Happened'.

Feds Spend $587,441 to Make Engineering A 'Safe Zone' For LGBTQ Engineers


Elizabeth Harrington
September 18, 2017 5:00 am

Study seeks to combat 'chilly' environment for LGBTQ engineers

The National Science Foundation is spending over $100,000 to create "safe zone" inclusion training so more members of the LGBTQ community become engineers.

The project, which will not start until January 2018, is a joint study being conducted by the American Society For Engineering Education, Rowan University, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The focus of the study is to find ways to combat what the researchers call a "chilly" environment for lesbian, gay, and transgender individuals in engineering labs.

Two separate grants totaling $587,441 were awarded Thursday. A grant worth $473,325 was awarded to the American Society For Engineering Education, and $114,116 was given to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

"Recent research on the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) individuals in engineering has shown that the climate can be unfriendly (or ‘chilly') for both students and professionals," according to the grant for the study. "This project aims to increase the inclusion of LGBTQ students and professionals in engineering."

The study aims to "foster inclusion" and allow college faculty and professors to "become change agents."

"The project will identify issues faced by LGBTQ students and professionals in engineering, identify and implement strategies to create more welcoming engineering environments, and disseminate those strategies so that they can be expanded to a national level," the grant states.

The study also involves creating an online course called "SafeZone," which can train college engineering professors how to be inclusive to gay students and other sexual minorities.

"In addition, the research will be the basis of systematic development and formative refinement of an online SafeZone course to provide inclusion training to engineering students and professionals nationwide," the grant states.

"A chilly climate for LGBTQ individual [sic] can be found in every sector of STEM professions, where cultural norms and professional ideologies make it difficult to recognize and rectify exclusionary practices," the grant states. "One negative consequence of this chilly environment is difficulty in recruiting and retaining talented LGBTQ individuals into the engineering profession."

"This project uses qualitative research to generate new knowledge about the processes of developing a community of practice to promote LGBTQ inclusion in engineering, how the members of the community develop into change agents, and what strategies are effective in reshaping norms and increasing LGBTQ inclusion in engineering departments," the grant added.

Kelly Cross, a post-doctoral researcher for the University of Illinois, Stephanie Farrell, the chair of experiential engineering education at Rowan University, and Rocio Chavela Guerra of the American Society for Engineering Education, are leading the study.

Cross list of research interests includes "diversity and inclusion in STEM, intersectionality, teamwork and communication skills, assessment, and identity construction."
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

Thank You Ms Harrington and Free Beacon.

Everyone who can be labeled, by Themselves or Political Charlatans looking to gain advantage gets their own Special Parade.

If they understood how they're being played by people who don't in fact give a rat's left hind foot about them, people would Stop Labeling themselves as 'Special' and simply demand that the extant Laws be upheld.

63 Counties Projected To Have NO ObamaCare Insurer By 2018

Now 7 years into Glorious Leader's Brilliant 5 year ACA Plan.

Actually it was never a 5 year plan. It was and remains a 'Whatever it Takes' plan designed to destroy the American Private Healthcare system in order to Shove far worse than the ACA down America's throats, . . . . Single Payer. A complete 100% Government takeover.


BY: Ali Meyer
September 16, 2017 5:00 am

There are 63 counties in the United States that are projected to have no insurer participating in the Affordable Care Act exchanges in 2018, according to a reportfrom the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The agency has been tracking health insurer announcements since June and creates maps to show which counties will have no Obamacare insurer in 2018. The map will change based on future announcements if more insurers exit.

The first map the agency created on June 9 showed there would be 47 counties with no insurer participating.

Since that time, the number of counties with no insurer participating in Obamacare has fluctuated, dropping to even zero at one point on September 6. During this time, many articles came out criticizing Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) for saying there were counties in the United States that had no insurer participating.

Recent data from the agency, however, shows that now there are even more counties with no choice than ever before.

"This map currently shows that nationwide 63 counties are projected to have no issuers, representing over 70,000 Americans in these counties that could be without coverage on the Exchanges in 2018," the report said. "It is also projected that 1,472 counties—over 45 percent of counties nationwide—could have only one issuer in 2018. This could represent more than 2.6 million Exchange participants with only one health insurance option, which means they will not have any choices."

Insurers such as Anthem and Aetna have announced this year that they are planning exits from the marketplace, which will leave some areas with no options. A representative from Anthem toldlawmakers on Thursday that the company was cautious about continuing their participation because of Obamacare's uncertainty.

Individuals who will be living in an area where there is no insurer offering coverage will still be bound by Obamacare's individual mandate to purchase health insurance or be forced to pay a penalty.

Senators Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) and Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) have introduced legislation that would protect these people from being penalized for not having insurance when there are no insurers operating on the exchanges in their area.

The Health Care Options Act of 2017 would waive the penalty in these cases and allow individuals to purchase coverage outside of the exchanges.

"This legislation would help those in Knoxville and across the country by allowing any American who receives a subsidy and has no insurance available on the exchange next year to use that subsidy to buy any state-approved insurance off of the exchange," Alexander said. "Second, the bill would waive the Affordable Care Act requirement that these Americans, who have zero insurance options with their subsidies, have to pay a penalty for not purchasing insurance."

This entry was posted in Issues and tagged Health Insurance, Obamacare Exchanges. Bookmark the permalink.

Thank You Ms Meyer and FB

Feinstein's 'Anti-Catholic Bigotry' Takes Center Stage


BY: Bill McMorris
September 15, 2017 4:35 pm

Former Thomas clerk says Feinstein-Durbin questioning of Notre Dame law professor crossed the line

Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D., Calif.) attack on the faith of a Catholic judicial nominee has stoked opposition from conservative activists.

The Judicial Crisis Network has made a six-figure ad buy taking aim at Feinstein and Sen. Dick Durbin's (D., Ill.) questioning of Notre Dame law school professor Amy Barrett regarding her Catholic faith. The ad, which is called Catholics Need Not Apply, focuses on Durbin asking Barrett, a married mother of seven, if she considered herself an "orthodox Catholic" and Feinstein objecting to her nomination by saying, "the dogma lives loudly within you."

The JCN says both lines of questioning reflect anti-Catholic bigotry.

continue reading

Risperdal Judge Explains Reasons For Denying Janssen A New Trial


September 17, 2017, 03:00:00PM. By Gordon Gibb

Philadelphia, PAAs the manufacturer of Risperdal (risperidone) continues their attempts to have a recent plaintiff verdict overturned, the Pennsylvania state judge assigned to the case explained last month why he denied a request by Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. for a new trial in the Risperdal side effects lawsuit.

According to Court documents plaintiff Austin Pledger had begun taking Risperdal in 2002 to counter behavioral issues associated with autism. Pledger was prescribed Risperdal when he was seven years of age. At that time risperidone was sanctioned by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use only in adults.

An expanded indication for use in children would come four years later – in October, 2006 when the FDA, on the 6th of that month issued an updated indication for irritability associated with Autistic Disorder in children as young as five years of age, and as old as 16. The FDA also, at the same time, updated the Risperdal label to reflect a 2.3 percent risk for male breast growth, a condition known as gynecomastia.

Prior to that, according to Law 360 (08/14/17), the Risperdal label had only referenced gynecomastia as a rare event.

Medical doctors have the medical and ethical authority to prescribe medications to their patients beyond restrictions mandated by the FDA – thus it was completely within the purview of Pledger’s physician to prescribe the boy risperidone for his autism. As noted above, Risperdal would eventually be sanctioned by the FDA for children as young as five when the indication for risperidone was expanded in 2006 – tagged as it was with a warning about a 2.3 percent risk for gynecomastia.

However, the heightened level of risk for Risperdal and growing male breasts was still four years out when Pledger first started taking Risperdal at the behest of his doctor. At the time, in 2002, gynecomastia was only considered rare.

Pledger, over the course of five years taking Risperdal, was seen to grow large breasts and was diagnosed with Risperdal gynecomastia. His family sued Janssen and, following a month-long trial in February, 2015 won a $2.5 million jury award (Pledger et al. v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., Case No. 120401997, in the Court of Common Pleas of the State of Pennsylvania, County of Philadelphia).

In response, Janssen filed post-trial motions seeking a new trial on grounds that expert witness for the plaintiff Dr. David Goldstein had examined the plaintiff in Pledger’s home state of Alabama. The problem, as noted by the defendant, was that Goldstein was licensed to practice in Missouri and, as such may have violated the law.

Goldstein, at trial, withdrew as an expert witness in the face of the jurisdictional issue, and Pledger brought in a new expert witness. Janssen, however, cried foul asserting that the opinions of plastic surgeon Dr. Mark Solomon differed significantly from those of Goldstein. Because of that, Janssen asserted they had no opportunity to prepare an effective cross examination of the expert witness, and petitioned the Court for a new trial.

Judge Ramy Djerassi in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas took exception to Janssen’s tactics.

“The timing of Janssen’s motion and the nature of their accusation were extraordinary and seemed calculated for maximum surprise,” the opinion said. “If Janssen’s late motion were granted, plaintiff would have no choice but [to] move for voluntary nonsuit. If the motion were denied, then Dr. Goldstein would likely choose to take the Fifth Amendment or testify with predictable damage to his credibility. Either way, if the motion had been filed before trial, there would not have been extraordinary prejudice to plaintiff who would likely have moved for a continuance before undergoing the expense of trial.”


Risperdal Plaintiff Green Lighted to Pursue Risperdal Lawsuit in New York
Philadelphia Judge Refuses to Overturn $2.5 Million Risperdal Plaintiff Verdict
Father Worries about his Incarcerated Son with Risperdal “Female Boobs”

Djerassi also noted that Solomon had been deposed a few months prior in association with a separate Risperdal lawsuit for which he was acting as an expert witness also and thus, Janssen would have been well aware of the substance of Solomon’s testimony.

“There was no undue surprise to Janssen,” the opinion said. “The trial record shows Janssen’s trial lawyers were prepared.”

Janssen is continuing to appeal, in an effort to have the original verdict overturned. A spokesperson for Janssen said in a statement: “We continue to believe this verdict should be overturned, and we are appealing,” said Jessica Castles Smith, on behalf of Janssen. “Contrary to the impression the plaintiffs’ attorneys have attempted to create over the course of this litigation, Risperdal is an important FDA-approved medicine that, when used as part of a comprehensive treatment plan, continues to help millions of patients with mental illnesses and neurodevelopmental conditions.”


Thank You Mr Gibb and Lawyers and Settlements

Risperdal $2.5 Million Verdict Upheld On Appeal

Friday, September 15, 2017

Sanders Invites Canadian Doctor To Discuss Single-Payer: Admits To Year Long Wait Times

Posted: Sep 14, 2017 5:45 PM

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is getting more aggressive with his single-payer approach to health care. He’s cobbled together 15 Senate Democrats to sign onto his $32 trillion plan to expand coverage at the cost of reduced access to specialists and other treatments to reduce costs. Oh, and taxes are definitely going up. More taxes for degraded care, sounds like a Democratic plan to me because we all suffer together—equally. The Republican National Committee released a video showing how other countries that have enacted single-payer have fared. To put it bluntly, it’s yielded results that would not be tolerated by American voters. In fact, it’s an outright horror show. Patients dying, doctors leading protests over pay, which is reduced to keep costs down, and elderly patients being deprived of basic items, like water and food. Sounds like paradise, right? More than one million Canadians cannot find a general practitioner, while two hospital workers interviewed in the video admit that conditions are dangerous when the hospital is active with patients.

Even the Canadian doctor, Dr. Danielle Martin, which Sanders brought onto his podcast admitted to long wait times.

DR. DANIELLE MARTIN: “If I have a patient who’s got migraines and I need advice about how to manage it, they might wait several months to see a neurologist for a non-urgent problem like that. Or non-urgent surgeries, the classic example being a hip or a knee replacement.”
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: “So how long will it take me in the average?”
MARTIN: “It depends on where you are in the country. Sometimes it’s a few months, sometimes it’s a year. In some places, it’s sometimes it’s been even longer than that, that people wait for a hip or a knee replacement. And I think that is totally unacceptable. I don’t think that we should stand for it in our system. I think that there’s no reason why people should have to wait.”
Oh, and in the United Kingdom, at least a million people can’t find a general practitioner either. This was reported in the Telegraph back in July:
One million patients a week cannot get appointments with GPs, amid the longest waiting times on record, new figures show.
Doctors said they were working “flat out” but under “unsustainable” pressure, leaving “worrying” numbers of patients without any help.
The NHS figures show the number waiting at least a week to see their GP has risen by 56 per cent in five years, with one in five now waiting this long.
The pressures left 11.3 per cent of patients unable to get an appointment at all - a 27 per cent rise since 2012.  This amounts to around 47 million occasions on which patients attempted but failed to secure help from their GP, forcing them to give up, try again later or turn to Accident & Emergency departments.

Thank You Mr Vespa and Townhall.

And if that ain't up front sickening enough, there's video at the link to make your revulsion even more immediate and personal.