In the Second Word War, Germans changed sign directions in France etc.. We need this guy if we are ever invaded. Maybe the Israelis could use him.
If we sent Larry Williams to Mexico it would reduce illegal immigration and most of the Muslims who flooded into Europe, like Moses and the Israelis, would still be wandering in the desert..
simply left click this link below.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I submit we would never know because, as with Kennedy and Camelot, the mass media would have ignored and failed to report potential corruption etc,
.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
While I am on the subject of education, it seems if the government can withhold money from sanctuary cities and states they can do the same regarding government funding of colleges and universities that do not allow free speech and controversial speaker with unpopular views to appear on their campuses. (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bret Stephens on Communism. (See below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This man needs to speak to the kneelingNFL player , owners and commissioner:
https://www.bing.com/videos/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One potato, two potato three potato etc. . (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Colleges Should Protect Speech—or Lose Funds
Withhold federal research dollars from institutions that practice viewpoint discrimination.
By Frederick M. Hess and Grant Addison
Almost every week brings a new campus controversy: a college speech code that goes too far, an invited speaker shouted down by students, a professor investigated for wrongthink. While lamentations abound for the state of free inquiry at American universities, few have suggested substantive proposals for redress.
Here’s a straightforward idea that would be easy to put into practice: Require schools to assure free speech and inquiry as a condition of accepting federal research funding. In addition to subsidizing tuition and providing student loans, Washington disburses billions of dollars to colleges and universities for research—nearly $38 billion in fiscal 2015 alone.
Those funds constitute about 60% of all support for university-based research, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Because universities build in usurious rates of overhead on this money—in some instances, upward of 50% goes to underwrite salaries and facilities—these are some of the most prized funds in academia. It would be easy for Washington to require schools to protect free speech before the cash can be disbursed.
Massive federal investment in higher education dates to World War II, when the U.S. purposely made universities a pillar of the nation’s approach to research and development. In a 1945 report, Vannevar Bush, director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, insisted that “freedom of inquiry must be preserved under any plan for Government support of science.”
At the time this meant measures to protect university research from governmental interference. Today the threat to free inquiry on campus comes from within. In a study last December, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education reviewed 449 higher-education institutions—345 public and 104 private—and found that 92% had policies prohibiting certain categories of constitutionally protected speech.
Cross-referencing FIRE’s data with figures from the National Science Foundation illustrates a disheartening reality: Of the 30 higher-education institutions that collected the most federal research funds in fiscal 2015, 26 maintain formal policies restricting constitutionally protected speech. Six of them—Johns Hopkins, the University of Michigan, Harvard, Penn State, the University of Texas at Austin, and New York University—maintain policies FIRE categorizes as “substantially restricting freedom of speech.” These 26 colleges and universities took more than $14 billion in federal research funding in fiscal 2015, or nearly 40% of the total disbursed.
Academics used to understand that policies to stymie speech and expression are anathema to free inquiry. Consider the “General Declaration of Principles” issued in 1915 by the American Association of University Professors. The group asserted that the university should be “an inviolable refuge” from the tyranny of public opinion: “It is precisely this function of the university which is most injured by any restriction upon academic freedom.”
Prohibitions on what can be said or written inevitably favor certain questions, points of view, and lines of inquiry while discouraging or barring others. Speech codes, trigger warnings, bias-response teams and the like lead students and professors to self-censor. In a national survey this year by FIRE and YouGov, 54% of students said they “have stopped themselves from sharing an idea or opinion in class at some point since beginning college.” All to the detriment of a good education.
Leveraging federal money is one way to discourage campus speech restrictions. Federal research funds should come with contractual provisions that obligate the recipient schools to guarantee open discourse. Colleges should be required to offer assurances that their policies do not restrict constitutionally protected speech or expression and that they will commit to safeguarding open inquiry to the best of their ability. Violating such assurances would be grounds for loss of funds and render the school ineligible for future research dollars.
Further, colleges that receive research grants should be required to establish formal processes for investigating and appealing allegations of speech suppression or intellectual intimidation. Such machinery already exists to address other forms of research misconduct.
These provisions could be implemented by Congress, by presidential directive, or by individual grant-making agencies. Whatever the case, the move is entirely appropriate and wholly within the purview of the federal government. Taxpayer funds should not subsidize research at institutions where free inquiry is compromised.
Tying research funding to free speech would give a stake to serious scientists in fields like engineering and biology. These scholars traditionally have left the campus culture wars to their more politicized colleagues in the humanities and social sciences. Under this plan, they would suddenly have an incentive to help push higher education back to its intellectual roots. The same goes for college presidents, many of whom have found it easier to placate the radical fringe than to defend free inquiry. With federal research funds on the line, they would suddenly face a new financial and political calculus.
Mr. Hess is director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, where Mr. Addison is program manager for education policy. They are the authors of a new AEI report, “Free Inquiry and Federally Funded Research.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Communism Through Rose-Colored
Glasses
By Bret Stephens
“In the spring of 1932 desperate officials, anxious for their jobs and even their lives, aware that a new famine might be on its way, began to collect grain wherever and however they could. Mass confiscations occurred all across the U.S.S.R. In Ukraine they took on an almost fanatical intensity.”
I am quoting a few lines from “Red Famine,” Anne Applebaum’s brilliant new history of the deliberate policy of mass starvation inflicted on Ukraine by Joseph Stalin in the early 1930s. An estimated five million or more people perished in just a few years. Walter Duranty, The Times’s correspondent in the Soviet Union, insisted the stories of famine were false. He won a Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for reportage the paper later called “completely misleading.”
How many readers, I wonder, are familiar with this history of atrocity and denial, except in a vague way? How many know the name of Lazar Kaganovich, one of Stalin’s principal henchmen in the famine? What about other chapters large and small in the history of Communist horror, from the deportation of the Crimean Tatars to the depredations of Peru’s Shining Path to the Brezhnev-era psychiatric wards that were used to torture and imprison political dissidents?
Why is it that people who know all about the infamous prison on Robben Island in South Africa have never heard of the prison on Cuba’s Isle of Pines? Why is Marxism still taken seriously on college campuses and in the progressive press? Do the same people who rightly demand the removal of Confederate statues ever feel even a shiver of inner revulsion at hipsters in Lenin or Mao T-shirts?
These aren’t original questions. But they’re worth asking because so many of today’s progressives remain in a permanent and dangerous state of semi-denial about the legacy of Communism a century after its birth in Russia.
No, they are not true-believing Communists. No, they are not unaware of the toll of the Great Leap Forward or the Killing Fields. No, they are not plotting to undermine democracy.
But they will insist that there is an essential difference between Nazism and Communism — between race-hatred and class-hatred; Buchenwald and the gulag — that morally favors the latter. They will attempt to dissociate Communist theory from practice in an effort to acquit the former. They will balance acknowledgment of the repression and mass murder of Communism with references to its “real advances and achievements.” They will say that true communism has never been tried. They will write about Stalinist playwright Lillian Hellman in tones of sympathy and understanding they never extend to film director Elia Kazan.
Progressive intelligentsia “is moralist against one half of the world, but accords to the revolutionary movement an indulgence that is realist in the extreme,” the French scholar Raymond Aron wrote in “The Opium of the Intellectuals” in 1955. “How many intellectuals have come to the revolutionary party via the path of moral indignation, only to connive ultimately at terror and autocracy?”
On Thursday, I noted that intellectuals have a long history of making fools of themselves with their political commitments, and that the phenomenon is fully bipartisan.
But the consequences of the left’s fellow-traveling and excuse-making are more dangerous. Venezuela is today in the throes of socialist dictatorship and humanitarian ruin, having been cheered along its predictable and unmerry course by the usual progressive suspects.
One of those suspects, Jeremy Corbyn, may be Britain’s next prime minister, in part because a generation of Britons has come of age not knowing that the line running from “progressive social commitments” to catastrophic economic results is short and straight.
Bernie Sanders captured the heart, if not yet the brain, of the Democratic Party last year by portraying “democratic socialism” as nothing more than an extension of New Deal liberalism. But the Vermont senator also insists that “the business model of Wall Street is fraud.” Efforts to criminalize capitalism and financial services also have predictable results.
It’s a bitter fact that the most astonishing strategic victory by the West in the last century turns out to be the one whose lessons we’ve never seriously bothered to teach, much less to learn. An ideology that at one point enslaved and immiserated roughly a third of the world collapsed without a fight and was exposed for all to see. Yet we still have trouble condemning it as we do equivalent evils. And we treat its sympathizers as romantics and idealists, rather than as the fools, fanatics or cynics they really were and are.
Winston Churchill wrote that when the Germans allowed the leader of the Bolsheviks to travel from Switzerland to St. Petersburg in 1917, “they turned upon Russia the most grisly of all weapons. They transported Lenin in a sealed truck like a plague bacillus.”
A century on, the bacillus isn’t eradicated, and our immunity to it is still in doubt.
++++++++++++++++++++++
3)Well, A Girl Potato and Boy Potato had eyes for each other,
And finally they got married, and had a little sweet Potato, which they Called 'Yam.'Of course, they wanted the best for YamWhen it was time, they told her about the facts Of life.They warned her about going Out and getting Half-baked, so she wouldn't get accidentally mashed, and Get a bad name for herself like 'Hot Potato,' and end up with a bunch of tater tots.Yam said not to worry, no Spud would get Her into the sack and make a rotten potato out of her!But on the other hand she wouldn't stay home and become a Couch Potato either.She would get plenty of exercise so as not to be skinny like her shoestring cousins.When she went off to Europe, Mr. And Mrs. Potato told Yam To watch out For the hard-boiled guys from Ireland and the greasy guys from France called the French fries. And when she went out West, to watch out for the Indians so she wouldn't get scalloped..Yam said she would stay on the straight and Narrow and wouldn't associate with those high class Yukon Golds, or the ones from the other side of the tracks who advertise their trade on all The trucks that say, 'Frito Lay.'Mr. And Mrs. Potato sent Yam to Idaho PU. (that's Potato University) so that when she graduated she'd really be in the Chips.But in spite of all they did for Her, one-day Yam came home and announced she was Going to marry Tom Brokaw.Tom Brokaw!Mr. And Mrs. Potato were very upset.They told Yam she couldn't possibly marry Tom Brokaw because he's just.......Are you Ready for this?Are You sure?**
OK! Here it is!*
*
*
*
A COMMON TATER
No comments:
Post a Comment