Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intimidation in the universities

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

  • Intimidation in the universities

    Three rather important cases in recent weeks disclosing how much power the Woke movement now has in North American universities and their ability to intimidate faculty and staff. Often, the only thing required is for someone to state they were 'offended' or felt 'unsafe' because of certain remarks in order for some professor or admin person to be fired or demoted.

    Case 1. Professor loses admin position for stating men cannot get pregnant, lesbians don’t have penises and/or that biological sex is real. In this case, it is difficult to determine which statement may have cost the professor her admin position, because she was never told the substance of the actual complaints, other than "her views on feminism were making students feel unsafe and there were concerns this was driving students away from choosing anthropology as a major".

    https://nationalpost.com/news/univer...iews-on-gender

    Case 2. Dean of Nursing at the University of Massachusetts, Leslie Neal-Boylan, fired for having the temerity to say in a circular to students, that "BLACK LIVES MATTER, but also, EVERYONE'S LIFE MATTERS". Apparently a horrific thing for a head of nursing to say. One person apparently found it upsetting, sending a tweet directed to the University of Massachusetts stating "the statement ‘all lives matter’ was uncalled for and shows the narrow minded people in lead positions. A sad day to be a nursing student at UML. Dean Leslie Neal-Boylan your words will not be forgotten". Within days, Leslie Neal-Boylan was fired, without even being allowed the opportunity to defend herself.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...s-life-matters

    Case 3. UCLA professor put on leave for failing to grant a course extension to a student who claimed to be traumatised by what happened in Minneapolis. A petition was then established on Change.org to have him fired (currently 21,000+ signatories). Professor later put under police protection due to threats.

    https://www.theblaze.com/news/ucla-p...-floyd-protest
    https://www.change.org/p/ucla-fire-u...r-gordon-klein
    https://news.yahoo.com/suspended-ucl...031001190.html


  • #2
    Crazy stuff Skoblin. It shows that intolerance is not confined to any particular group or side in any debate.

    In the first case her views may have offended some people but do not seem to be at odds with the execution of her duties in th context of her job.
    The second case is more or less the same.
    The third case is just nonsense.

    I got lots of flak before for suggesting that a bunch of multi-millionaire actresses (or female actors) are not the best examples of vulnerable and exploited women, that by saying nothing about Harvey Weinstein they facilitated his continuing abuse and that illegal immigrant women working in rich people's homes, diners and shops, living under the fear that they and their children could be deported if they spoke up, maybe they were a better example of vulnerable women and should be front and centre in the MeToo movement. Maybe the rich hollywood millionaires were a tad self indulgent. For that I was excoriated.
    "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
    validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
    "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
      Three rather important cases in recent weeks disclosing how much power the Woke movement now has in North American universities and their ability to intimidate faculty and staff. Often, the only thing required is for someone to state they were 'offended' or felt 'unsafe' because of certain remarks in order for some professor or admin person to be fired or demoted.

      Case 1. Professor loses admin position for stating men cannot get pregnant, lesbians don’t have penises and/or that biological sex is real. In this case, it is difficult to determine which statement may have cost the professor her admin position, because she was never told the substance of the actual complaints, other than "her views on feminism were making students feel unsafe and there were concerns this was driving students away from choosing anthropology as a major".

      https://nationalpost.com/news/univer...iews-on-gender

      Case 2. Dean of Nursing at the University of Massachusetts, Leslie Neal-Boylan, fired for having the temerity to say in a circular to students, that "BLACK LIVES MATTER, but also, EVERYONE'S LIFE MATTERS". Apparently a horrific thing for a head of nursing to say. One person apparently found it upsetting, sending a tweet directed to the University of Massachusetts stating "the statement ‘all lives matter’ was uncalled for and shows the narrow minded people in lead positions. A sad day to be a nursing student at UML. Dean Leslie Neal-Boylan your words will not be forgotten". Within days, Leslie Neal-Boylan was fired, without even being allowed the opportunity to defend herself.

      https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...s-life-matters

      Case 3. UCLA professor put on leave for failing to grant a course extension to a student who claimed to be traumatised by what happened in Minneapolis. A petition was then established on Change.org to have him fired (currently 21,000+ signatories). Professor later put under police protection due to threats.

      https://www.theblaze.com/news/ucla-p...-floyd-protest
      https://www.change.org/p/ucla-fire-u...r-gordon-klein
      https://news.yahoo.com/suspended-ucl...031001190.html
      Sounds just like Germany in the 1930's, and we already have the Neu Amerika Brown Shirts who recently gave us several versions of Krystalnacht.

      The universities will, of course, quietly settle the inevitable large lawsuits that they have no hope of winning, and then ask for more funding.

      We're on the downhill slope now, and picking up speed.
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #4
        Not wanting to "spam" but given how few read every thread here and this might be something to consider in regard to this thread topic;

        Making Citizens

        How American Universities Teach Civics
        ...
        Abstract

        A new movement in American higher education aims to transform the teaching of civics. This report is a study of what that movement is, where it came from, and why Americans should be concerned.

        What we call the “New Civics” redefines civics as progressive political activism. Rooted in the radical program of the 1960s’ New Left, the New Civics presents itself as an up-to-date version of volunteerism and good works. Though camouflaged with soft rhetoric, the New Civics, properly understood, is an effort to repurpose higher education.

        The New Civics seeks above all to make students into enthusiastic supporters of the New Left’s dream of “fundamentally transforming” America. The transformation includes
        de-carbonizing the economy, massively redistributing wealth, intensifying identity group grievance, curtailing the free market, expanding government bureaucracy, elevating international “norms” over American Constitutional law, and disparaging our common history and ideals. New Civics advocates argue among themselves which of these transformations should take precedence, but they agree that America must be transformed by “systemic change” from an unjust, oppressive society to a society that embodies social justice.

        The New Civics hopes to accomplish this by teaching students that a good citizen is a radical activist, and it puts political activism at the center of everything that students do in college, including academic study, extra-curricular pursuits, and off-campus ventures.

        New Civics builds on “service-learning,” which is an effort to divert students from the classroom to vocational training as community activists. By rebranding itself as “civic engagement,” service-learning succeeded in capturing nearly all the funding that formerly supported the old civics. In practice this means that instead of teaching college students the foundations of law, liberty, and self-government, colleges teach students how to organize protests, occupy buildings, and stage demonstrations. These are indeed forms of “civic engagement,” but they are far from being a genuine substitute for learning how to be a full participant in our republic.

        New Civics has still further ambitions. Its proponents want to build it into every college class regardless of subject. The effort continues without so far drawing much critical attention from the public. This report aims to change that.

        In addition to our history of the New Civics movement and its breakthrough moment when it was endorsed by President Obama, we provide case studies of four universities: the University of Colorado, Boulder (CU-Boulder), Colorado State University in Fort Collins (CSU), the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley (UNC), and the University of Wyoming in Laramie (UW).

        We make four recommendations to state legislators across the country:
        1. Mandate a course in traditional American civics as a graduation requirement at all colleges and universities that receive public funding. If the institution itself is unwilling or unable to offer such a course, students must be permitted without penalty to meet the requirement by taking a qualified civics course at another institution.
        2. Establish a public body to set the guidelines for the required civics course, which should at a minimum teach the history, nature, and functions of our institutions of self-government, and which should aim to foster commitment to our form of self-government. The public body should also be charged with reviewing and approving civics textbooks to be used in these courses.
        3. Require that the traditional civics requirement be met only through classroom instruction. Service learning, civic engagement, or analogous extra-curricular activities will not be accepted as a substitute, supplement, or alternative.
        4. End funding for service-learning and civic engagement programs and bureaucracies.
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~

        https://www.nas.org/reports/making-c...cs/full-report
        Last edited by G David Bock; 14 Jul 20, 17:25. Reason: punctuation and highlighting
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
          Not wanting to "spam" but given how few read every thread here and this might be something to consider in regard to this thread topic;

          Making Citizens

          How American Universities Teach Civics
          ...
          Abstract

          A new movement in American higher education aims to transform the teaching of civics. This report is a study of what that movement is, where it came from, and why Americans should be concerned.

          What we call the “New Civics” redefines civics as progressive political activism. Rooted in the radical program of the 1960s’ New Left, the New Civics presents itself as an up-to-date version of volunteerism and good works. Though camouflaged with soft rhetoric, the New Civics, properly understood, is an effort to repurpose higher education.

          The New Civics seeks above all to make students into enthusiastic supporters of the New Left’s dream of “fundamentally transforming” America. The transformation includes de-carbonizing the economy, massively redistributing wealth, intensifying identity group grievance, curtailing the free market, expanding government bureaucracy, elevating international “norms” over American Constitutional law, and disparaging our common history and ideals. New Civics advocates argue among themselves which of these transformations should take precedence, but they agree that America must be transformed by “systemic change” from an unjust, oppressive society to a society that embodies social justice.

          The New Civics hopes to accomplish this by teaching students that a good citizen is a radical activist, and it puts political activism at the center of everything that students do in college, including academic study, extra-curricular pursuits, and off-campus ventures.

          New Civics builds on “service-learning,” which is an effort to divert students from the classroom to vocational training as community activists. By rebranding itself as “civic engagement,” service-learning succeeded in capturing nearly all the funding that formerly supported the old civics. In practice this means that instead of teaching college students the foundations of law, liberty, and self-government, colleges teach students how to organize protests, occupy buildings, and stage demonstrations. These are indeed forms of “civic engagement,” but they are far from being a genuine substitute for learning how to be a full participant in our republic.

          New Civics has still further ambitions. Its proponents want to build it into every college class regardless of subject. The effort continues without so far drawing much critical attention from the public. This report aims to change that.

          In addition to our history of the New Civics movement and its breakthrough moment when it was endorsed by President Obama, we provide case studies of four universities: the University of Colorado, Boulder (CU-Boulder), Colorado State University in Fort Collins (CSU), the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley (UNC), and the University of Wyoming in Laramie (UW).

          We make four recommendations to state legislators across the country:
          1. Mandate a course in traditional American civics as a graduation requirement at all colleges and universities that receive public funding. If the institution itself is unwilling or unable to offer such a course, students must be permitted without penalty to meet the requirement by taking a qualified civics course at another institution.
          2. Establish a public body to set the guidelines for the required civics course, which should at a minimum teach the history, nature, and functions of our institutions of self-government, and which should aim to foster commitment to our form of self-government. The public body should also be charged with reviewing and approving civics textbooks to be used in these courses.
          3. Require that the traditional civics requirement be met only through classroom instruction. Service learning, civic engagement, or analogous extra-curricular activities will not be accepted as a substitute, supplement, or alternative.
          4. End funding for service-learning and civic engagement programs and bureaucracies.


          https://www.nas.org/reports/making-c...cs/full-report
          "If a school refuses"...just cut all public finding. "Public funding" is gov-speak for taxes.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
            Three rather important cases in recent weeks disclosing how much power the Woke movement now has in North American universities and their ability to intimidate faculty and staff. Often, the only thing required is for someone to state they were 'offended' or felt 'unsafe' because of certain remarks in order for some professor or admin person to be fired or demoted.

            Case 1. Professor loses admin position for stating men cannot get pregnant, lesbians don’t have penises and/or that biological sex is real. In this case, it is difficult to determine which statement may have cost the professor her admin position, because she was never told the substance of the actual complaints, other than "her views on feminism were making students feel unsafe and there were concerns this was driving students away from choosing anthropology as a major".

            https://nationalpost.com/news/univer...iews-on-gender

            Case 2. Dean of Nursing at the University of Massachusetts, Leslie Neal-Boylan, fired for having the temerity to say in a circular to students, that "BLACK LIVES MATTER, but also, EVERYONE'S LIFE MATTERS". Apparently a horrific thing for a head of nursing to say. One person apparently found it upsetting, sending a tweet directed to the University of Massachusetts stating "the statement ‘all lives matter’ was uncalled for and shows the narrow minded people in lead positions. A sad day to be a nursing student at UML. Dean Leslie Neal-Boylan your words will not be forgotten". Within days, Leslie Neal-Boylan was fired, without even being allowed the opportunity to defend herself.

            https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...s-life-matters

            Case 3. UCLA professor put on leave for failing to grant a course extension to a student who claimed to be traumatised by what happened in Minneapolis. A petition was then established on Change.org to have him fired (currently 21,000+ signatories). Professor later put under police protection due to threats.

            https://www.theblaze.com/news/ucla-p...-floyd-protest
            https://www.change.org/p/ucla-fire-u...r-gordon-klein
            https://news.yahoo.com/suspended-ucl...031001190.html
            Having the "correct" views to get the appropriate position happens all the time. Many professors have been denied tenure as a result of their political and economic views. "Marxists" have a hard time creating a career in economics according to professor Wolfe, and radical pro-Palestinian Jewish professors have been denied tenure in political science departments after they were labeled as "self-hated" Jews.

            The problem is that university officials in a department are always concerned about attracting more candidates. So, conservative economists can always make the argument that marxist professors in economic departments do not create the required trust to attract more candidates to study economics. Such incentive to offer a marketable product and convince people to pay dozens of thousands of dollars to buy it requires people with an ideological profile that can "sell" effectively the academic product that is sold. And from that perspective, there are "correct" and "incorrect" attitudes and ideologies. I am not saying that this is how it should be. Universities must be places with a veryyyy wide range of ideologies, but as long as universities are also operating on market principles, certain ideologies will be preferable in certain departments for purely economic reasons.

            ps. These days the biggest issue is the economic destruction of foreign students in universities as a result of the CV and the federal irrational immigration policies
            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
              Not wanting to "spam" but given how few read every thread here and this might be something to consider in regard to this thread topic;

              Making Citizens

              How American Universities Teach Civics
              ...
              Abstract

              A new movement in American higher education aims to transform the teaching of civics. This report is a study of what that movement is, where it came from, and why Americans should be concerned.

              What we call the “New Civics” redefines civics as progressive political activism. Rooted in the radical program of the 1960s’ New Left, the New Civics presents itself as an up-to-date version of volunteerism and good works. Though camouflaged with soft rhetoric, the New Civics, properly understood, is an effort to repurpose higher education.

              The New Civics seeks above all to make students into enthusiastic supporters of the New Left’s dream of “fundamentally transforming” America. The transformation includes de-carbonizing the economy, massively redistributing wealth, intensifying identity group grievance, curtailing the free market, expanding government bureaucracy, elevating international “norms” over American Constitutional law, and disparaging our common history and ideals. New Civics advocates argue among themselves which of these transformations should take precedence, but they agree that America must be transformed by “systemic change” from an unjust, oppressive society to a society that embodies social justice.

              The New Civics hopes to accomplish this by teaching students that a good citizen is a radical activist, and it puts political activism at the center of everything that students do in college, including academic study, extra-curricular pursuits, and off-campus ventures.

              New Civics builds on “service-learning,” which is an effort to divert students from the classroom to vocational training as community activists. By rebranding itself as “civic engagement,” service-learning succeeded in capturing nearly all the funding that formerly supported the old civics. In practice this means that instead of teaching college students the foundations of law, liberty, and self-government, colleges teach students how to organize protests, occupy buildings, and stage demonstrations. These are indeed forms of “civic engagement,” but they are far from being a genuine substitute for learning how to be a full participant in our republic.

              New Civics has still further ambitions. Its proponents want to build it into every college class regardless of subject. The effort continues without so far drawing much critical attention from the public. This report aims to change that.

              In addition to our history of the New Civics movement and its breakthrough moment when it was endorsed by President Obama, we provide case studies of four universities: the University of Colorado, Boulder (CU-Boulder), Colorado State University in Fort Collins (CSU), the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley (UNC), and the University of Wyoming in Laramie (UW).

              We make four recommendations to state legislators across the country:
              1. Mandate a course in traditional American civics as a graduation requirement at all colleges and universities that receive public funding. If the institution itself is unwilling or unable to offer such a course, students must be permitted without penalty to meet the requirement by taking a qualified civics course at another institution.
              2. Establish a public body to set the guidelines for the required civics course, which should at a minimum teach the history, nature, and functions of our institutions of self-government, and which should aim to foster commitment to our form of self-government. The public body should also be charged with reviewing and approving civics textbooks to be used in these courses.
              3. Require that the traditional civics requirement be met only through classroom instruction. Service learning, civic engagement, or analogous extra-curricular activities will not be accepted as a substitute, supplement, or alternative.
              4. End funding for service-learning and civic engagement programs and bureaucracies.


              https://www.nas.org/reports/making-c...cs/full-report
              It sounds like they don't like the other side's version of indoctrination so they want their version of indoctrination.
              It also sounds very paranoid and seems to be jumping to some strange conclusion by assigning intent without evidence.

              How about a middle ground? There's plenty of empty space there in America as there's been very few people using it for a long time.
              "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
              validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
              "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post

                It sounds like they don't like the other side's version of indoctrination so they want their version of indoctrination.
                Some would have said the same in 1934 Germany regards the Nationalist Socialist changes to student "indoctrination" versus how such "indoctrination" was conducted in 1924 Germany.

                Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
                It also sounds very paranoid and seems to be jumping to some strange conclusion by assigning intent without evidence.
                This Report is @525 pages in the PDF version;
                https://www.nas.org/storage/app/medi...fullReport.pdf

                So I'm not about to reproduce the full content here. Not to mention forum rules prohibit such anyway. I merely provided a brief excerpt from the Abstract, but if one were to read further through they will find both "intent" and "evidence for intent" as part of the study.
                To further clarify, a couple more excerpts from the Preface;
                .....................
                .....................


                What is most new about the New Civics is that while it claims the name of civics, it is really a form of anti-civics. Civics in the traditional American sense meant learning about how our republic governs itself. The topics ranged from mastering simple facts, such as the branches of the federal government and the obligations of citizenship, to reflecting on the nature of Constitutional rights and the system of checks and balances that divide the states from the national government and the divisions of the national government from one another. A student who learns civics learns about voting, serving on juries, running for office, serving in the military, and all of the other key ways in which citizens take responsibility for their own government.

                The New Civics has very little to say about most of these matters. It focuses overwhelmingly on turning students into “activists.” Its largest preoccupation is getting students to engage in coordinated social action. Sometimes this involves political protest, but most commonly it involves volunteering for projects that promote progressive causes. At the University of Colorado at Boulder, for example, the New Civics includes such things as promoting dialogue between immigrants and native-born residents of Boulder County; marching in support of the United Farm Workers; and breaking down “gender binary” spaces in education.

                Whatever one might think of these activities in their own right, they are a considerable distance away from what Americans used to mean by the word “civics.” These sorts of activities are not something added to traditional civics instruction. They are presented as a complete and sufficient substitute for the traditional civics education.
                ...
                In issuing this report, the National Association of Scholars joins the growing number of critics who believe that some version of traditional civics needs to be restored to American education. This is a non-partisan concern. For America to function as a self-governing republic, Americans must possess a basic understanding of their government. That was one of the original purposes of public education and it has been the lodestar of higher education in our nation from the beginning.

                The New Civics has diverted us from this basic obligation.

                While many observers have expressed alarm about the disappearance of traditional civics education, very few have noticed that a primary cause of this disappearance has been the rise of the New Civics. This new mode of “civic” training is actively hostile to traditional civics, which it regards as a system of instruction that fosters loyalty to ideas and practices that are fundamentally unjust. The New Civics, claiming the mantle of the “social justice” movement, aims to sweep aside those old ideas and practices and replace them with something better.

                The Aims of This Study

                The deeper purpose of this report is to examine the replacement of traditional civics by New Civics. In this introduction, we give an overview of what the New Civics is and how it has muscled aside traditional civics. In the body of the report, we offer a deeper examination of the topic. Part One is a historical study of the rise of New Civics. Part Two consists of four case studies: the University of Colorado at Boulder, Colorado State University, the University of Northern Colorado, and the University of Wyoming. Part Three offers our assessments and recommendations.

                The New Civics is a national development, not something limited to the Rocky Mountain States. While it has been in the works for decades, its official moment of arrival might be dated to the publication in 2012 of a White House commissioned study, A Crucible Moment: College Learning & Democracy’s Future. The publication of A Crucible Moment raised several questions for the National Association of Scholars: To what extent has the New Civics has already taken hold in American higher education? What precisely is the New Civics? And what is a proper alternative for civics instruction in higher education?

                The first part of our answer to those questions was a forum in the fall 2012 issue of Academic Questions, which published critiques of A Crucible Moment from eminent scholars throughout the country, as well as their ideas for how to reform post-secondary civics education.2 This report is the second part of our answer.

                The National Association of Scholars (NAS) is a non-partisan advocacy organization that upholds the standards of a liberal arts education. We view the liberal arts, properly understood, as fostering intellectual freedom, the search for truth, and the promotion of virtuous citizenship. From our founding in 1987, the topic of how higher education informs American self-governance has been among our chief concerns. NAS pursues this concern in a variety of ways, one of which has been the publication of in-depth research reports on what colleges and universities actually do in carrying out their civic mission.

                This report thus follows in a long series of studies that have examined the public commitments and roles played by colleges and universities. Like our previous studies, it aims for depth and thoroughness—far more depth and thoroughness than typically is found in think tank-style studies. We believe our efforts to describe matters in such detail serve two important purposes. First, the search for the truth often requires the patience to gather and analyze a large body of facts. We believe that fair-minded thoroughness contributes more to the broader discussion than either anecdote or artificially narrow selection of data. Second, we describe matters in great detail because we believe in the value of context. Especially in describing long-term and complex phenomena, it is crucial to see how the various pieces come together—and where they fail to. Large-scale social and cultural developments have both internal consistencies and inconsistencies. Our studies aim to give due attention to both. Making Citizens is written in this spirit.

                Complications

                New Civics has appropriated the name of an older subject, but not the content of that subject or its basic orientation to the world. Instead of trying to prepare students for adult participation in the self-governance of the nation, the New Civics tries to prepare students to become social and political activists who are grounded in broad antagonism towards America’s founding principles and its republican ethos.

                But a casual observer of New Civics programs might well miss both the activist orientation and the antagonism. That’s for two reasons. First, the New Civics includes a great deal that is superficially wholesome. Second, the advocates of New Civics have adopted a camouflage vocabulary consisting of pleasant-sounding and often traditional terms. Taking these in turn:

                ............................
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                https://www.nas.org/reports/making-c...cs/full-report

                Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
                How about a middle ground? There's plenty of empty space there in America as there's been very few people using it for a long time.
                I'm assuming you are not referencing geographic "middle ground".

                If you are implying the political "middle ground", most objective studies/surveys/polls find about a quarter each of the population identifying with either the Left-Democrat or Right-Republican political parties/factions. That leaves about half our population in the "middle ground" which swings either way based on a number of factors and reasons. "Indoctrination" has a lot to do with how they will chose and swing.

                The report presented and cited here is one examining efforts to engage the "fundamental change" in the substance and nature of America(USA). No real coincidence that we see cited the efforts of the White House administration of a "community organizer" elected POTUS with a promised agenda to apply this vision of "Audacity of Hope" and pull a coupe' to turn our nation into a "Venezuela". = the publication in 2012 of a White House commissioned study, A Crucible Moment: College Learning & Democracy’s Future.
                Last edited by G David Bock; 15 Jul 20, 12:57. Reason: added highlights
                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                  Some would have said the same in 1934 Germany regards the Nationalist Socialist changes to student "indoctrination" versus how such "indoctrination" was conducted in 1924 Germany.



                  This Report is @525 pages in the PDF version;
                  https://www.nas.org/storage/app/medi...fullReport.pdf

                  So I'm not about to reproduce the full content here. Not to mention forum rules prohibit such anyway. I merely provided a brief excerpt from the Abstract, but if one were to read further through they will find both "intent" and "evidence for intent" as part of the study.
                  To further clarify, a couple more excerpts from the Preface;
                  .....................
                  .....................


                  What is most new about the New Civics is that while it claims the name of civics, it is really a form of anti-civics. Civics in the traditional American sense meant learning about how our republic governs itself. The topics ranged from mastering simple facts, such as the branches of the federal government and the obligations of citizenship, to reflecting on the nature of Constitutional rights and the system of checks and balances that divide the states from the national government and the divisions of the national government from one another. A student who learns civics learns about voting, serving on juries, running for office, serving in the military, and all of the other key ways in which citizens take responsibility for their own government.

                  The New Civics has very little to say about most of these matters. It focuses overwhelmingly on turning students into “activists.” Its largest preoccupation is getting students to engage in coordinated social action. Sometimes this involves political protest, but most commonly it involves volunteering for projects that promote progressive causes. At the University of Colorado at Boulder, for example, the New Civics includes such things as promoting dialogue between immigrants and native-born residents of Boulder County; marching in support of the United Farm Workers; and breaking down “gender binary” spaces in education.

                  Whatever one might think of these activities in their own right, they are a considerable distance away from what Americans used to mean by the word “civics.” These sorts of activities are not something added to traditional civics instruction. They are presented as a complete and sufficient substitute for the traditional civics education.
                  ...
                  In issuing this report, the National Association of Scholars joins the growing number of critics who believe that some version of traditional civics needs to be restored to American education. This is a non-partisan concern. For America to function as a self-governing republic, Americans must possess a basic understanding of their government. That was one of the original purposes of public education and it has been the lodestar of higher education in our nation from the beginning.

                  The New Civics has diverted us from this basic obligation.

                  While many observers have expressed alarm about the disappearance of traditional civics education, very few have noticed that a primary cause of this disappearance has been the rise of the New Civics. This new mode of “civic” training is actively hostile to traditional civics, which it regards as a system of instruction that fosters loyalty to ideas and practices that are fundamentally unjust. The New Civics, claiming the mantle of the “social justice” movement, aims to sweep aside those old ideas and practices and replace them with something better.

                  The Aims of This Study

                  The deeper purpose of this report is to examine the replacement of traditional civics by New Civics. In this introduction, we give an overview of what the New Civics is and how it has muscled aside traditional civics. In the body of the report, we offer a deeper examination of the topic. Part One is a historical study of the rise of New Civics. Part Two consists of four case studies: the University of Colorado at Boulder, Colorado State University, the University of Northern Colorado, and the University of Wyoming. Part Three offers our assessments and recommendations.

                  The New Civics is a national development, not something limited to the Rocky Mountain States. While it has been in the works for decades, its official moment of arrival might be dated to the publication in 2012 of a White House commissioned study, A Crucible Moment: College Learning & Democracy’s Future. The publication of A Crucible Moment raised several questions for the National Association of Scholars: To what extent has the New Civics has already taken hold in American higher education? What precisely is the New Civics? And what is a proper alternative for civics instruction in higher education?

                  The first part of our answer to those questions was a forum in the fall 2012 issue of Academic Questions, which published critiques of A Crucible Moment from eminent scholars throughout the country, as well as their ideas for how to reform post-secondary civics education.2 This report is the second part of our answer.

                  The National Association of Scholars (NAS) is a non-partisan advocacy organization that upholds the standards of a liberal arts education. We view the liberal arts, properly understood, as fostering intellectual freedom, the search for truth, and the promotion of virtuous citizenship. From our founding in 1987, the topic of how higher education informs American self-governance has been among our chief concerns. NAS pursues this concern in a variety of ways, one of which has been the publication of in-depth research reports on what colleges and universities actually do in carrying out their civic mission.

                  This report thus follows in a long series of studies that have examined the public commitments and roles played by colleges and universities. Like our previous studies, it aims for depth and thoroughness—far more depth and thoroughness than typically is found in think tank-style studies. We believe our efforts to describe matters in such detail serve two important purposes. First, the search for the truth often requires the patience to gather and analyze a large body of facts. We believe that fair-minded thoroughness contributes more to the broader discussion than either anecdote or artificially narrow selection of data. Second, we describe matters in great detail because we believe in the value of context. Especially in describing long-term and complex phenomena, it is crucial to see how the various pieces come together—and where they fail to. Large-scale social and cultural developments have both internal consistencies and inconsistencies. Our studies aim to give due attention to both. Making Citizens is written in this spirit.

                  [Bold and font color by me] Complications

                  New Civics has appropriated the name of an older subject, but not the content of that subject or its basic orientation to the world. Instead of trying to prepare students for adult participation in the self-governance of the nation, the New Civics tries to prepare students to become social and political activists who are grounded in broad antagonism towards America’s founding principles and its republican ethos.


                  But a casual observer of New Civics programs might well miss both the activist orientation and the antagonism. That’s for two reasons. First, the New Civics includes a great deal that is superficially wholesome. Second, the advocates of New Civics have adopted a camouflage vocabulary consisting of pleasant-sounding and often traditional terms. Taking these in turn:
                  ............................
                  ............................

                  https://www.nas.org/reports/making-c...cs/full-report




                  I'm assuming you are not referencing geographic "middle ground".

                  If you are implying the political "middle ground", most objective studies/surveys/polls find about a quarter each of the population identifying with either the Left-Democrat or Right-Republican political parties/factions. That leaves about half our population in the "middle ground" which swings either way based on a number of factors and reasons. "Indoctrination" has a lot to do with how they will chose and swing.

                  The report presented and cited here is one examining efforts to engage the "fundamental change" in the substance and nature of America(USA). No real coincidence that we see cited the efforts of the White House administration of a "community organizer" elected POTUS with a promised agenda to apply this vision of "Audacity of Hope" and pull a coupe' to turn our nation into a "Venezuela". = the publication in 2012 of a White House commissioned study, A Crucible Moment: College Learning & Democracy’s Future.
                  The "community organizer" in his signature policy of healthcare could not even produce a bold version with a public option and chose the compromise that was driven by Democrats of the party's right wing.

                  The only indoctrination I see here is of those people who try to claim that Obama was somebody who pushed the country to a radical new direction.

                  As for the "report," bypassing the fact that it comes from a conservative non-profit organization, and judging from the excerpts you posted, I do not see the point they make.

                  Traditional civics in the sense of learning how the government works is still part of the education. The issue is if this learning should or should not spark discussions about the deficiencies of the current structure and if new proposals , including bold and out of the box proposals must be part of civic or not. Simply accepting passively information about how things works is at the lower level of cognitive functions do not prepare people to join the society as adults. it prepares them to become sheep that accepts uncritically the established "ethos" .

                  Analyzing the information and making judgments or envisioning and debating alternative ways of government is part of the higher cognitive functions. It does not mean that every new proposal will be beneficial or that it shows a sign of intelligence by the person who makes such proposal. The mere act of engaging in more demanding cognitive functions does not make the stupid smart. But as long as there is a honest debate and clash of established ideas with new ones, even radical ones, such functions do help people develop autonomous thought and critical thinking. The key is to make sure that there IS such debate and proponents of BOTH the status quo and of "hope and change" can go at each other's positions.

                  The issue of trying to exclude the other side from the debate is not just an issue of the left. Religious educational institutions openly exercise their right to hire and fire people based on what these people believe or think about abortions and sex or gender. Economic departments are dominated by cheerleaders of the current capitalist economic system and so on...
                  Last edited by pamak; 14 Jul 20, 17:07.
                  My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Another excerpt to further content and context;
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                    Camouflage vocabulary. The world of New Civics is rife with familiar words used in non-familiar ways. Democracy and civic engagement in New Civic-speak do not mean what they mean in ordinary English. We will deal with many of these terms more extensively when they come up in context, but it will help the reader to start with a rough idea of double meanings of the key words.

                    A Dictionary of Deception

                    ACTIVE
                    ENGAGED IN POLITICAL ACTION, AS OPPOSED TO THE PURSUIT OF KNOWLEDGE.

                    ALLIES
                    OUTSIDE SUPPORTERS OF A GRIEVANCE GROUP.

                    AWARENESS
                    ENLIGHTENED ABOUT THE ESSENTIAL OPPRESSIVENESS OF AMERICAN SOCIETY, ALTHOUGH NOT YET “ACTIVE.”

                    CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
                    POLITICAL ACTIVISM ON BEHALF OF PROGRESSIVE CAUSES.

                    CIVIC ETHOS
                    DEFERENCE TO THE PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGY OF NEW CIVICS ACTIVISTS.

                    CIVIC LEARNING
                    LEARNING PROGRESSIVE DOCTRINES, AND THE POLITICAL TACTICS NEEDED TO FORWARD THEM.

                    COMMITMENT
                    LOYALTY TO AND ENTHUSIASTIC PARTICIPATION IN A SOCIAL JUSTICE CAUSE.

                    COMMUNITY
                    A GROUP FOR WHOM PROGRESSIVES CLAIM TO ACT, OFTEN PUTATIVELY DEFINED BY A SHARED HISTORY OF SUFFERING.

                    COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
                    MACHIAVELLIAN TACTICS TO INCREASE THE POWER OF THE RADICAL LEFT, FOLLOWING THE STRICTURES OF SAUL ALINSKY.

                    “Community organization” as a process refers to the Machiavellian tactics used by mid-twentieth-century radical Saul Alinsky to forward radical leftist goals. New Civics advocates use community organization tactics against the university itself, as they try to seize control of its administration and budget; they also train students to act as community organizers in the outside world. “Community organization” as a noun refers to a group founded by Alinskyite progressives, with Alinskyite aims. Community organization signifies the most intelligent and dangerous component of the progressive coalition.

                    CONSENSUS
                    A LOUDLY SHOUTED PROGRESSIVE OPINION, VERIFIED BY DENYING DISBELIEVERS THE CHANCE TO SPEAK.

                    Consensus means that everyone agrees. Progressives achieve the illusion of consensus by shouting their opinions, asserting that anyone who disagrees with them is evil, and preventing opponents from speaking—sometimes by denying them administrative permission to speak on a campus, sometimes literally by shouting them down. “Consensus” is also used as a false claim to authority, especially with reference to “scientific consensus.” Notably, “sustainability” advocates claim (falsely) that 97 percent of scientists believe that the Earth is undergoing manmade catastrophic global warming. Some scientists do, in fact, believe this, but the percentage is a fraction of the oft-repeated “97 percent.” The policy that follows from the 97 percent claim is government-forced replacement of fossil fuels, starting with coal, with expensive and unreliable “renewable sources” of energy. The advocates of consensus desire that nothing contrary to such scientific “consensus” should ever be taught in a university.

                    CRITICAL, CRITIQUE
                    DISMANTLING BELIEF IN THE TRADITIONS OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION AND AMERICAN CULTURE.

                    DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY
                    THOUGHTFUL, RATIONAL DISCUSSION OF POLITICAL ISSUES THAT ENDS UP WITH PROGRESSIVE CONCLUSIONS.

                    DEMOCRACY
                    PROGRESSIVE POLICIES ACHIEVED BY ARBITRARY RULE AND/OR THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE.

                    DIALOGUE
                    LECTURES BY PROGRESSIVE ACTIVISTS, INTENDED TO HARANGUE DISSIDENTS INTO SILENCE.

                    DIVERSITY
                    PROPAGANDA AND HIRING QUOTAS IN FAVOR OF MEMBERS OF THE PROGRESSIVE GRIEVANCE COALITION.
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    https://www.nas.org/reports/making-c...cs/full-report

                    Continued in next post...
                    Last edited by G David Bock; 14 Jul 20, 17:22.
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Camouflage vocabulary. .... Con't'd
                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                      EFFECTIVE
                      TIED TO A STABLE PROGRESSIVE ORGANIZATION.

                      ENGAGED CITIZENS
                      ENRAGED CITIZENS. COMMITTED ACTIVISTS.

                      EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING
                      WHATEVER IS LEARNED BY DOING AS OPPOSED TO READING, STUDYING, LISTENING, ETC.

                      GIVING BACK
                      EXPIATING UNEARNED PRIVILEGE BY SERVING A DESIGNATED GRIEVANCE GROUP.

                      GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
                      DISAFFECTION FROM AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IN FAVOR OF A NOTIONAL MEMBERSHIP IN A NON-EXISTENT GLOBAL STATE.

                      GRASSROOTS
                      PUTATIVELY NON-HIERARCHICAL PROGRESSIVE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS.

                      HIGH-IMPACT PRACTICES
                      SUCCESSFUL PROPAGANDA OR CONTROL OF STUDENTS.

                      INCLUSION
                      GRANTING PRIVILEGES AND FUNDING TO A GRIEVANCE-BASED IDENTITY GROUP.

                      INTERDEPENDENCE
                      SINCE EVERYONE NEEDS EVERYONE, EVERYONE MUST DO WHAT PROGRESSIVES WANT.

                      INTERSECTIONALITY
                      THE IDEA THAT EVERY COMPONENT OF THE PROGRESSIVE LEFT MUST SUPPORT ALL OTHER COMPONENTS OF THE PROGRESSIVE LEFT.

                      PERVASIVENESS
                      MAKING NEW CIVICS INESCAPABLE AT THE UNIVERSITY.

                      RECIPROCITY
                      CONTROL BY PROGRESSIVE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS.

                      SERVICE-LEARNING
                      FREE STUDENT LABOR FOR PROGRESSIVE ORGANIZATIONS; TRAINING TO BE A PROGRESSIVE ACTIVIST.

                      SOCIAL JUSTICE
                      PROGRESSIVE POLICIES JUSTIFIED BY THE PUTATIVE SUFFERINGS OF DESIGNATED VICTIM GROUPS.

                      SUSTAINABILITY
                      GOVERNMENTAL TAKEOVER OF THE ECONOMY TO PREVENT THE IMMINENT DESTRUCTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT.

                      TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY SKILLS
                      DIGITAL MEDIA SKILLS USED TO FORWARD THE PROGRESSIVE AGENDA.

                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                      A Crucible Moment?

                      The definitions we have sketched in the preceding section voice our distrust of the New Civics movement. Its declarations about its aims and its avowals about its methods can seldom be taken at face value. This isn’t a minor point. Civics in a well-governed republic has to be grounded on clear speaking and transparency. A movement that goes to elaborate lengths to present a false front to the public is not properly civics at all, no matter what it calls itself.

                      We began this study in the hope of finding out how far the New Civics had succeeded in becoming part of American colleges and universities. We came to a mixed answer. New Civics is present to some degree at almost all colleges and universities, but it is much more fully developed and institutionalized at some than it is at others. In our study, the University of Colorado at Boulder stands as our example of a university where New Civics has become dominant. But even at universities where New Civics has not attained such prominence, it is a force to be reckoned with. We show what that looks like at the University of Northern Colorado, Colorado State University, and the University of Wyoming.

                      The word “civics” suggests that students will learn about the structures and functions of government in a classroom. Some do, but a major finding of our study is that there has been a shift of gravity within universities. New Civics finds its most congenial campus home in the offices devoted to student activities, such as the dean or vice president for students, the office of residence life, and the centers for service-learning. Nearly every campus also has some faculty advocates for New Civics, but the movement did not grow out of the interests and wishes of mainstream faculty members. A partial exception to this is schools of education, where many faculty members are fond of New Civics conceits.

                      The positioning of New Civics in student services has a variety of implications.
                      .................
                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                      https://www.nas.org/reports/making-c...cs/full-report
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                        Camouflage vocabulary. .... Con't'd
                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                        EFFECTIVE
                        TIED TO A STABLE PROGRESSIVE ORGANIZATION.

                        ENGAGED CITIZENS
                        ENRAGED CITIZENS. COMMITTED ACTIVISTS.

                        EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING
                        WHATEVER IS LEARNED BY DOING AS OPPOSED TO READING, STUDYING, LISTENING, ETC.

                        GIVING BACK
                        EXPIATING UNEARNED PRIVILEGE BY SERVING A DESIGNATED GRIEVANCE GROUP.

                        GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
                        DISAFFECTION FROM AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IN FAVOR OF A NOTIONAL MEMBERSHIP IN A NON-EXISTENT GLOBAL STATE.

                        [B]GRASSROOTS [/B]
                        PUTATIVELY NON-HIERARCHICAL PROGRESSIVE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS.


                        HIGH-IMPACT PRACTICES
                        SUCCESSFUL PROPAGANDA OR CONTROL OF STUDENTS.

                        INCLUSION
                        GRANTING PRIVILEGES AND FUNDING TO A GRIEVANCE-BASED IDENTITY GROUP.

                        INTERDEPENDENCE
                        SINCE EVERYONE NEEDS EVERYONE, EVERYONE MUST DO WHAT PROGRESSIVES WANT.

                        INTERSECTIONALITY
                        THE IDEA THAT EVERY COMPONENT OF THE PROGRESSIVE LEFT MUST SUPPORT ALL OTHER COMPONENTS OF THE PROGRESSIVE LEFT.

                        PERVASIVENESS
                        MAKING NEW CIVICS INESCAPABLE AT THE UNIVERSITY.

                        RECIPROCITY
                        CONTROL BY PROGRESSIVE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS.

                        SERVICE-LEARNING
                        FREE STUDENT LABOR FOR PROGRESSIVE ORGANIZATIONS; TRAINING TO BE A PROGRESSIVE ACTIVIST.

                        SOCIAL JUSTICE
                        PROGRESSIVE POLICIES JUSTIFIED BY THE PUTATIVE SUFFERINGS OF DESIGNATED VICTIM GROUPS.

                        SUSTAINABILITY
                        GOVERNMENTAL TAKEOVER OF THE ECONOMY TO PREVENT THE IMMINENT DESTRUCTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT.

                        TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY SKILLS
                        DIGITAL MEDIA SKILLS USED TO FORWARD THE PROGRESSIVE AGENDA.

                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                        A Crucible Moment?

                        The definitions we have sketched in the preceding section voice our distrust of the New Civics movement. Its declarations about its aims and its avowals about its methods can seldom be taken at face value. This isn’t a minor point. Civics in a well-governed republic has to be grounded on clear speaking and transparency. A movement that goes to elaborate lengths to present a false front to the public is not properly civics at all, no matter what it calls itself.

                        We began this study in the hope of finding out how far the New Civics had succeeded in becoming part of American colleges and universities. We came to a mixed answer. New Civics is present to some degree at almost all colleges and universities, but it is much more fully developed and institutionalized at some than it is at others. In our study, the University of Colorado at Boulder stands as our example of a university where New Civics has become dominant. But even at universities where New Civics has not attained such prominence, it is a force to be reckoned with. We show what that looks like at the University of Northern Colorado, Colorado State University, and the University of Wyoming.

                        The word “civics” suggests that students will learn about the structures and functions of government in a classroom. Some do, but a major finding of our study is that there has been a shift of gravity within universities. New Civics finds its most congenial campus home in the offices devoted to student activities, such as the dean or vice president for students, the office of residence life, and the centers for service-learning. Nearly every campus also has some faculty advocates for New Civics, but the movement did not grow out of the interests and wishes of mainstream faculty members. A partial exception to this is schools of education, where many faculty members are fond of New Civics conceits.

                        The positioning of New Civics in student services has a variety of implications.
                        .................
                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                        https://www.nas.org/reports/making-c...cs/full-report
                        They try to claim that definitions which are commonly used by everybody have some secret liberal meaning. Ironically, their radical interpretations of how certain words are used undermines their own position.

                        I happened to recall a conversation we had not a very long time ago, where you said..

                        https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...41#post5070841

                        Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                        I'd like to see some documentation and proof of this Loonie-Left delusion.

                        The TEA Party in my county was grassroots, consisted of local members and citizens and funded out of our own pockets, none of which were deep.

                        The few public demonstrations we did have were bonded and insured, did not have us engaging in actions common to the regressive Left and "antifa" types; we did not block traffic, assault counter-protesters, riot in the streets, loot and pillage local stores and businesses, or any other uncivil actions.
                        Apparently, based on their claims, this is "camouflage vocabulary" for your participation in a "PUTATIVELY NON-HIERARCHICAL PROGRESSIVE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION"
                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by pamak View Post

                          They try to claim that definitions which are commonly used by everybody have some secret liberal meaning. Ironically, their radical interpretations of how certain words are used undermines their own position.

                          I happened to recall a conversation we had not a very long time ago, where you said..

                          https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...41#post5070841



                          Apparently, based on their claims, this is "camouflage vocabulary" for your participation in a "PUTATIVELY NON-HIERARCHICAL PROGRESSIVE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION"
                          Apparently context is lost upon you. They refer to usage in the newspeak of "New civics". Take "putatively" and "progressive" out of the definition and it allies in broader scale, and in my case.

                          Grasping at straws are we ???
                          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                            Apparently context is lost upon you. They refer to usage in the newspeak of "New civics". Take "putatively" and "progressive" out of the definition and it allies in broader scale, and in my case.

                            Grasping at straws are we ???
                            I see very well what they try to do: They try to argue that their ideological opponents are not supposed to use words that others can use to depict real grassroots organizations.

                            Progressive movements can have real grassroot organizations just like conservative ones. And such organizations can be described legitimately by the word "grassroots."

                            If one wants to accuse progressives of using "camouflage vocabulary" then it must be explained why such claim must be confined to progressives only.
                            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by pamak View Post

                              I see very well what they try to do: They try to argue that their ideological opponents are not supposed to use words that others can use to depict real grassroots organizations.

                              Progressive movements can have real grassroot organizations just like conservative ones. And such organizations can be described legitimately by the word "grassroots."

                              If one wants to accuse progressives of using "camouflage vocabulary" then it must be explained why such claim must be confined to progressives only.
                              I don't think you do see very well. They aren't saying "ideological opponents" can't use those words, just that often when used by the "new civics" and progressives they mean something other than what most of us think and use them for. Which was pointed out at the intro to the list ...

                              Connotation within context, "New Civics" speak and progressives speak use definitions other than Webster's.

                              Sort of like when Second Amendment advocates use they don't mean the "camouflage vocabulary" definition as shown above but are speaking about concealed carry licenses from one state being hnored and apply to other states, for one example.
                              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X