Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Crazy Liberal Prof Back in the news...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Crazy Liberal Prof Back in the news...

    COLUMBIA — MU assistant professor of communication Melissa Click's interaction with a Columbia police officer during the university's Homecoming Parade on Oct. 10 warrants a conversation with the University of Missouri System Board of Curators, MU Interim Chancellor Hank Foley said Sunday night in an emailed statement.

    "Her conduct and behavior are appalling, and I am not only disappointed, I am angry, that a member of our faculty acted this way," Foley said in a release from the MU News Bureau. "Her actions caught on camera last October, are just another example of a pattern of misconduct by Dr. Click—most notably, her assault on one of our students while seeking ‘muscle’ during a highly volatile situation on Carnahan Quadrangle in November."

    Foley referenced body camera footage in which Click steps in between a police officer and MU graduate student and activist Jonathan Butler. In the video, Click tells the police officers to "get your hands off the children" and later curses at an officer who grabbed her shoulder. A video of the interaction was published Saturday after the Missourian obtained it through an open records request.
    http://www.columbiamissourian.com/ne...ign=user-share

    She should get fired and charged with disorderly conduct if not assault...
    Credo quia absurdum.


    Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

  • #2
    Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
    COLUMBIA — MU assistant professor of communication Melissa Click's interaction with a Columbia police officer during the university's Homecoming Parade on Oct. 10 warrants a conversation with the University of Missouri System Board of Curators, MU Interim Chancellor Hank Foley said Sunday night in an emailed statement.

    "Her conduct and behavior are appalling, and I am not only disappointed, I am angry, that a member of our faculty acted this way," Foley said in a release from the MU News Bureau. "Her actions caught on camera last October, are just another example of a pattern of misconduct by Dr. Click—most notably, her assault on one of our students while seeking ‘muscle’ during a highly volatile situation on Carnahan Quadrangle in November."

    Foley referenced body camera footage in which Click steps in between a police officer and MU graduate student and activist Jonathan Butler. In the video, Click tells the police officers to "get your hands off the children" and later curses at an officer who grabbed her shoulder. A video of the interaction was published Saturday after the Missourian obtained it through an open records request.
    http://www.columbiamissourian.com/ne...ign=user-share

    She should get fired and charged with disorderly conduct if not assault...
    This isn't the first time this nut made an idiot of herself.
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

    Comment


    • #3
      When I read that thread title my first thought was Which one this time? That is, as in All crazy professors seem to be "Liberal" so there's no shortage of them making public fools of themselves.

      And, there's no shortage of them either...

      http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/12/th...st-professors/

      http://townhall.com/columnists/larry...gher_education

      http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/do_...nate_students/

      Or the ones that are outright terrorists...

      http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultur...-as-professors

      Of course, the Left doesn't see it that way at all...

      http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversat...of-professors/
      Last edited by T. A. Gardner; 15 Feb 16, 22:23.

      Comment


      • #4
        In another thread I talked about the innate inability of humans to accurately assess risks. The evolutionary psychologist's explanation may be that risk are necessary and can only be mitigated by control. We are therefor naturally inclined to assess the risk of things we don't control out of proportion to those we control.

        Liberals fear things they cannot control such as corporations and the assumed bigotry of others. Conservatives fear liberals because they cannot control them or predict their behavior. What is lost in the process is a realistic evaluation of the risk we can control.

        We are all like the dog who growls at the door when he hears a book fall off a shelf. We assume that all things have agency because some agents in evolutionary terms wanted to eat us. The extreme manifestation of this phenomenon is called paranoia.

        An excellent example of the wider sociological ramification of this phenomenon can be seen in Global Warming. Environmentalist fear the things they cannot control while ignoring possible solutions that minimize the overall risks. In many ways this is why many movements have similarities to religion. Once you adopt a faith in something you are likely to discount realistic statistical data in favor of some form of pantheism where the thing itself becomes evil such as carbon.

        You see a similar problem with conservatives in issues like drug regulation where natural compounds take on a life of there own and become demons to be dispatch by some sort of exorcism or the violence of the state.

        Statistics and risk assessment are two of the most important tools of civilization and we have a fairly poor record of using them effectively regardless of our political leanings. Unfortunately education in this area is not very sexy and doesn't appeal to our prejudices.
        We hunt the hunters

        Comment


        • #5
          I bet that woman has tenure!

          Pruitt
          Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

          Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

          by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
            I bet that woman has tenure!

            Pruitt
            Most of them are
            Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
              In another thread I talked about the innate inability of humans to accurately assess risks. The evolutionary psychologist's explanation may be that risk are necessary and can only be mitigated by control. We are therefor naturally inclined to assess the risk of things we don't control out of proportion to those we control.

              Liberals fear things they cannot control such as corporations and the assumed bigotry of others. Conservatives fear liberals because they cannot control them or predict their behavior. What is lost in the process is a realistic evaluation of the risk we can control.
              I worry about the Left and "Liberals" because I can pretty well predict their behavior. I also understand that the risk in the short term is low but increasing. What I can't predict is an event that catapults the Left into power where they have full control.

              Everywhere that has happened for over 100 years now the society it was foisted on has either declined precipitously or been plunged into chaos and war. With a track record like that, I'd worry about the Left and I'd say my worry is fully justified by history.

              Comment


              • #8
                The big question is how to equalize the polarization of the universities. I'd be happy if it was split 50/50. But now its like 85%/15% (Liberal/ Conservative.)

                I'm really glad I put my daughter in a private school because she learned how to learn and reason. Something that they don't teach in public schools...
                Credo quia absurdum.


                Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                  I bet that woman has tenure!

                  Pruitt
                  Would an Assistant Professor have tenure? A genuine question. I don't have much knowledge of how the system works in the USA.

                  Either way it may not matter as what ever she was it looks like the university has promoted her to "example" now. Organisations will put up with a lot of things. Turning them into a laughing stock isn't one of them.
                  "Sometimes its better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness" T Pratchett

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    If this was Louisiana and the incident had happened to LSU in Baton Rouge. The State Police would have escorted her to the Mississippi Line and let her off there, after she was told not to step foot in Louisiana again! The Professional Athletes at LSU are paid too well to act like they did at Mizzou. The guy in charge at Mizzou should be fired for not firing her yet.

                    Pruitt
                    Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                    Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                    by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      I worry about the Left and "Liberals" because I can pretty well predict their behavior. I also understand that the risk in the short term is low but increasing. What I can't predict is an event that catapults the Left into power where they have full control.

                      Everywhere that has happened for over 100 years now the society it was foisted on has either declined precipitously or been plunged into chaos and war. With a track record like that, I'd worry about the Left and I'd say my worry is fully justified by history.
                      Just as the enlightenment produced the concept of liberty that the U.S. and other European democracies are founded on it also provided the seed that progressive liberalism has grown out of.

                      In England the first product of liberalism was the radical idea that the king had to be restrained by the lesser nobility. The idea of rights that the U.S. inherited from England is thus the idea of an enlightened class that would oversee society. The difference is that the concept was extended to all males with property. Later rights were extended to all males then, woman and finally all races. The people at each stage of this process were considered radical progressives.

                      Today the next step in this process is to extend rights to homosexuals and other groups that society traditional believed too lacking in self moderation to participate fully in society. Keep in mind that society had previously believed that woman and other races were similarly lacking in the qualities necessary for freedom. The protection of individual rights from the abuses of the rich and powerful seems to be continuing evolution of the enlightenment.

                      In many ways the neo con movement in the U.S. wants to turn back the hands of time and reestablish rule by the upper classes. They have had some success at protecting the upper class by rolling back laws that held corporate executives personally responsible for their criminal actions, limiting the ability of individuals to collect damages, deregulation, redistributing wealth away from the middle class investor and creating a precedent for direct tax payer support of failed financial institutions. They have also succeeding in protecting the Federal Reserve system from transparency when it engages in practices that amount to little more than handing over the profits of the productivity classes to banking cronies.

                      What history teaches us is not so much that liberalism fails when it instigates social reforms that do not favor the financial institutions but that if those institutions are left to their own devices they will self implode. In many ways the social reforms are irrelevant to what transpires financially but the lack of those reforms strangles initiative.

                      The main reason that socialism fails is not that it places too much power in the government to regulate productivity but that it restricts individual initiative. If we look at highly classed societies we see the same patterns of financial dissolution for the same reason. That is that if access to capital is too restricted by unequal opportunity it destroys personal initiative. That is why income inequity correlates so closely with over all economic vigor.

                      The evolutionary course of western liberalism clearly points to libertarianism the same stateless society that Marx envisioned. Marx's vision of course was perverted by his personal financial and relational failings that often appears more like a desire for revenge than progress. That said the reactionary forces of conservatism only delay the overall process by hopelessly trying to reestablish the pre enlightenment world of class privilege. Libertarianism of course has nothing to do with a classless society but concerns itself with destroying unwarranted privilege.

                      A people capable of ruling themselves need little government but what is evident in our society is that the most extreme expressions of licentiousness, self deception, and sociopathy are represented by the upper and lower classes equally What we see is an almost comical if tragic caricature of the robber knight and the unruly mob. We are obviously not morally suited for self rule.
                      We hunt the hunters

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Quoting Marx huh? Well in that case you're probably already lost if you believe anything that hack wrote but I'll try my best.

                        You confuse modern liberalism with classical liberalism. The likes of the Magna Carta and US Constitution are classic liberalism that's more akin to what we call libertarianism today. Modern liberalism is socialist movement and trying to base its ideas in classic liberalism just because they share a word is ridiculous. Modern liberalism is about state arbitrated fairness and social justice, classical liberalism is about individual rights and limited government. They cannot exist together as they are diametrically opposed. You cannot be free if everyone is forced to be equal. That's what right vs left is really, about liberty vs "fairness". I'll take liberty every time.
                        Last edited by frisco17; 16 Feb 16, 08:35.
                        "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
                          Quoting Marx huh? Well in that case you're probably already lost if you believe anything that hack wrote but I'll try my best.

                          You confuse modern liberalism with classical liberalism. The likes of the Magna Carta and US Constitution are classic liberalism that's more akin to what we call libertarianism today. Modern liberalism is socialist movement and trying to base its ideas in classic liberalism just because they share a word is ridiculous. Modern liberalism is about state arbitrated fairness and social justice, classical liberalism is about individual rights and limited government. They cannot exist together as they are diametrically opposed. You cannot be free if everyone is forced to be equal. That's what right vs left is really, about liberty vs "fairness". I'll take liberty every time.
                          I agree to a degree; the fact is that people on both sides of the aisle these days do not understand the Enlightenment or what classic liberalism is. A perfect example is the concept of laissez faire capitalism; it is not about letting Wall Street operate without supervision, but it is an indictment of government run monopolies. Moreover, while I agree that state mandated fairness standards can fail insofar as two more standards are often created in order to level the playing field, I strongly believe that if government had not stepped in to de-segregate the armed forces for example, we would still have segregation in the services.

                          Problems are created when the state goes overboard. So I have to disagree, it is not a simple right versus left issue as much as it is a common sense versus idiocy issue, such as the recurring issue of reparations for the descendants of slaves that pops up from time to time. How would reparations be levied in this day and age over 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation? One of my former colleagues was black and Puerto Rican but one his ancestors was an officer in the Confederate States Army during the Civil War; that is exactly the sort of situation in which modern Liberalism fails the idiocy test.
                          Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

                          Initiated Chief Petty Officer
                          Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            She's just another university whack-job who doesn't deserve fifteen minutes of fame, let alone the amount she's actually getting.
                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
                              Quoting Marx huh? Well in that case you're probably already lost if you believe anything that hack wrote but I'll try my best.

                              You confuse modern liberalism with classical liberalism. The likes of the Magna Carta and US Constitution are classic liberalism that's more akin to what we call libertarianism today. Modern liberalism is socialist movement and trying to base its ideas in classic liberalism just because they share a word is ridiculous. Modern liberalism is about state arbitrated fairness and social justice, classical liberalism is about individual rights and limited government. They cannot exist together as they are diametrically opposed. You cannot be free if everyone is forced to be equal. That's what right vs left is really, about liberty vs "fairness". I'll take liberty every time.
                              I mention Marx simply to make the point that people have a great deal of difficulty overcoming their prejudices. We hear what we want to hear. You don't have to believe Marx's basic premises to admit that some observations he made may be accurate. One of those observation is that if you extend the historical trend of greater individual freedom for the under class and if it is no longer necessary for service to society to be compulsory that eventually there is little need for the state. It is worth noting that Adam Smith made a similar observation in so far as devotion to morality was a necessary prerequisite for capitalism.

                              Classical liberalism is mistakenly confused with less government. It's main goal was a greater distribution of power within government. It stood not in opposition to government but in opposition to the traditional distribution of power where the ruling class monopolize and artificial arbitrate all authority. It fundamental recognizes that the manipulative power that had rested with the king to control the enlightened must be brought under the influence of a new kind of state. It is revolutionary because no such state had every existed that could control the excesses of the nobility.

                              In the American experience at the time of the framing of the constitution there had already been a long experience with limited democracy. More importantly there was an awareness that traditional authority was no longer workable in a world where people could simply pack up their bags and move to the frontier if the existing authority was not to their liking. People were already free not under the protection of a magnanimous state but simply because of the geography. More over the symbols of authority were thousands of miles away in England. This encourage a more libertarian mind set than may otherwise have developed. Certainly most of the founding father tried to emulate the landed nobility of Europe until that system seemed unworkable. Frontiers are always chaotic and usually violent and authority is distributed by consensus out of necessity.

                              Because the colonies were essentially independent capitalist enterprises permitted by the king and parliament for their own profit there was little to enforce a shared cultural identity. This does more to explain state rights and limited central government than anything having to do with individual freedom. The fact that voting rights were not extended to males without property confirms this view. Having just thrown off the shackles of the most powerful nation on earth it must have been obvious that whatever central government there was to be was going be would to have limited real authority. The states again for geographical reason and by tradition were going to be the real arbitrators of authority. As long as there was someplace to go, in general meaning west, where the states authority could not reach even that authority was necessarily muted. This environmental lent itself natural to a more egalitarian view of where authority could realistically be vested.

                              In Europe the situation was vastly different they was nowhere that the states authority did not extend with the possible exception of place like the Scottish highland which again were geographic anomaliteisy. Their also was no vacuum where a independent cultural identity could develop. There were few regional identities that significantly weakened central authority. Their also was an ancient tradition of class structure and none of the practical necessities of frontier life to share authority with the underclass.

                              What started in the enlightenment to force those with inherited nobility to share authority with the enlightened never really extended to the underclasses. It wasn't until after the horrors of two world wars that both the confidence of the upper class and the discontent of the underclass converged to dismantle class privilege in England. In comparison those forces never really effected the U.S. as dramatically for geographical reasons. Class privilege in the U.S. was never seriously threatened until the 1960s. In conjunction with but not because of the civil rights movement a series of laws designed to allow average citizens to challenge financial institutions were enacted. In part it was due to the growing affluence of those who fought in WWII and an increased level of education that exposed the discrepancy between supposed freedoms and actual rights.

                              In recent years there has been a reversal of the ability of average people to participate fairly in society. In part this change took place because of the dream of a kind of freedom that never really existed other than on paper or in the imagination of average citizens. The kinds of freedoms available to a frontier society are no longer available as the continent is fully occupied. New social pressure such as those that Europe experienced after WWII now dominate the political arena.

                              A civilization is based on the general voluntary surrender of certain freedoms to achieve a certain level of security. The more densely populated and technologically advance the society the more limitations there will be on individual actions if chaos is not to reign. To maintain order the power of the state will natural grow. Conversely the power of the state is restrained by the very complexity that it's increased authority was meant to organize. At some point in this process it should become evident that individual piety is the only solution to maintaining social order. The very piety that is equally obviously missing form our upper class.

                              Increased piety will either come from the aftermath of violent collapse or by our own will. Those are our choices. Social justice, individual responsibility and moderation are the requirements for capitalism. Socialism is an attempt to artificially impose those requirements in the vacuum left by moral decrepity. Most of the welfare state is simply an attempt to forestall the unavoidable calling to account of our financial leaders for their criminality. The perversion of Liberalism today is just a reflection of the corruption of the system because in a moral society socialism would gain no foot hold. As long as people believe that conservatism means a kind of freedom divorced from responsibility and social involvement there is no hope.
                              We hunt the hunters

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X