The problem with calling ourselves "Americans" isn't that it's insensitive to Chileans, Brazilians, Panamanians, and assorted indigenous tribes - though I guess it sort of is. The issue (and it's a VERY small one) is that "Americans" is needlessly vague. If you asked an Israeli his nationality and he answered "Asian", you wouldn't find the answer very helpful.
Of course, "American" is such common shorthand for "of or pertaining to the Unites States of America" that it's unlikely to confuse anyone. But is it really so hard to say "United States" when asked your nationality? Same number of syllables, and it conveys a humility that is often appreciated. Now, music/poetry/literature are a different story. Kate Smith would never have made it through "God Bless the Unites States of America" before the opening face-off.
The name of our country is the United States of America. So calling ourselves American is not wrong. If there was a country called Europa and they called themselves Europeans, would that be wrong?
Which actually makes no sense on this thread, seeing as the UNH primary policy is directly linked.
the guide explicitly states its purpose is to make community members think critically about language, not enforce a language code. This should be neither new nor alarming to anyone who has even dabbled in the social sciences. The article is just a silly "LIBERALS RUINING AMERICA" "PC IS BAD" piece of garbage.
I'll back off my last statement a bit. The piece itself isn't much of a hit piece, just a very carefully culled bunch of quotes designed to incite anger from certain groups.
The problem with calling ourselves "Americans" isn't that it's insensitive to Chileans, Brazilians, Panamanians, and assorted indigenous tribes - though I guess it sort of is. The issue (and it's a VERY small one) is that "Americans" is needlessly vague. If you asked an Israeli his nationality and he answered "Asian", you wouldn't find the answer very helpful.
Of course, "American" is such common shorthand for "of or pertaining to the Unites States of America" that it's unlikely to confuse anyone. But is it really so hard to say "United States" when asked your nationality? Same number of syllables, and it conveys a humility that is often appreciated. Now, music/poetry/literature are a different story. Kate Smith would never have made it through "God Bless the Unites States of America" before the opening face-off.
The name of our country is the United States of America. So calling ourselves American is not wrong. If there was a country called Europa and they called themselves Europeans, would that be wrong?
It doesn't exclude anyone.
There is a moon called Europa, so I guess Europeans are socialist aliens?
of 'micro-aggressions' on the part of the PC brigades and their State-ist allies, towards anyone they can victimize for their usual jobs rackets.
Like when a special ed functionary implied that my son 'would never drive a car and would always need help' (and thus their jobs gravy train goes on forever, as if he were a franchise to be split between them).
Talk about micro-aggressions and we can have a field day, but,
Nevermind, my son has twice the IQ of that 'chick' (see what I did there?) and we have twice the patience towards such 'aggressors '.
He will not only drive, but have a good career. one that will not depend on someone else suffering to justify the fed dollars flow.
Meanwhile, the same people that made the list can talk about:
"Those Folks" (poor whites)
"Bible and Gun Huggers" (Christians and poor whites again)
"Banksters" (as if all finance workers were criminals, instead of a few)
From the Independent Women’s Forum http://iwf.org/;-
The Ten Most Common Feminist Myths:
1. Myth: One in four women in college has been the victim of rape or attempted rape.
Fact: This mother of all factoids is based on a fallacious feminist study commissioned by Ms. magazine. The researcher, Mary Koss, hand-picked by hard-line feminist Gloria Steinem, acknowledges that 73 percent of the young women she counted as rape victims were not aware they had been raped. Forty-three percent of them were dating their “attacker” again.
Rape is a uniquely horrible crime. That is why we need sober and responsible research. Women will not be helped by hyperbole and hysteria. Truth is no enemy of compassion, and falsehood is no friend.
(Nara Schoenberg and Sam Roe, “The Making of an Epidemic,” Toledo Blade, October 10, 1993; and Neil Gilbert, “Examining the Facts: Advocacy Research Overstates the Incidence of Data and Acquaintance Rape,” Current Controversies in Family Violence eds. Richard Gelles and Donileen Loseke, Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications, 1993, pp.120-132; and Campus Crime and Security, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1997. *According to this study, campus police reported 1,310 forcible sex offenses on U.S. campuses in one year. That works out to an average of fewer than one rape per campus.)
2. Myth: Women earn 75 cents for every dollar a man earns.
Fact: The 75 cent figure is terribly misleading. This statistic is a snapshot of all current full-time workers. It does not consider relevant factors like length of time in the workplace, education, occupation, and number of hours worked per week. (The experience gap is particularly large between older men and women in the workplace.) When economists do the proper controls, the so-called gender wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.
(Essential reading: Women’s Figures: An Illustrated Guide to the Economic Progress of Women in America, by Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Christine Stolba, published by the Independent Women’s Forum and the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C. 2000.)
3. Myth: 30 percent of emergency room visits by women each year are the result of injuries from domestic violence.
Fact: This incendiary statistic is promoted by gender feminists whose primary goal seems to be to impugn men. Two responsible government studies report that the nationwide figure is closer to one percent. While these studies may have missed some cases of domestic violence, the 30% figure is a wild exaggeration.
(National Center for Health Statistics, National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1992 Emergency Department Summary , Hyattsville, Maryland, March 1997; and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Violence-Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments: Washington, D.C., August 1997.)
4. Myth: The phrase “rule of thumb” originated in a man’s right to beat his wife provided the stick was no wider than his thumb.
Fact: This is an urban legend that is still taken seriously by activist law professors and harassment workshoppers. The Oxford English Dictionary has more than twenty citations for phrase “rule of thumb” (the earliest from 1692), but not a single mention of beatings, sticks, or husbands and wives.
(For a definitive debunking of the hoax see Henry Ansgar Kelly, “Rule of Thumb and the Folklaw of the Husband’s Stick,” The Journal of Legal Education, September 1994.)
5. Myth: Women have been shortchanged in medical research.
Fact: The National Institutes of Health and drug companies routinely include women in clinical trials that test for effectiveness of medications. By 1979, over 90% of all NIH-funded trials included women. Beginning in 1985, when the NIH’s National Cancer Center began keeping track of specific cancer funding, it has annually spent more money on breast cancer than any other type of cancer. Currently, women represent over 60% of all subjects in NIH-funded clinical trails.
(Essential reading: Cathy Young and Sally Satel, “The Myth of Gender Bias in Medicine,” Washington, D.C.: The Women’s Freedom Network, 1997.)
6.Myth: Girls have been shortchanged in our gender-biased schools
Fact: No fair-minded person can review the education data and conclude that girls are the have-nots in our schools. Boys are slightly ahead of girls in math and science; girls are dramatically ahead in reading and writing. (The writing skills of 17-year-old boys are at the same level as 14-year- old girls.) Girls get better grades, they have higher aspirations, and they are more likely to go to college.
(See: Trends in Educational Equity of Girls & Women, Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Education, June 2000.)
7. Myth: “Our schools are training grounds for sexual harassment… boys are rarely punished, while girls are taught that it is their role to tolerate this humiliating conduct.”
(National Organization of Women, “Issue Report: Sexual Harassment,” April 1998.)
Fact: “Hostile Hallways,” is the best-known study of harassment in grades 8-11. It was commissioned by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in 1993, and is a favorite of many harassment experts. But this survey revealed that girls are doing almost as much harassing as the boys. According to the study, “85 percent of girls and 76 percent of boys surveyed say they have experienced unwanted and unwelcome sexual behavior that interferes with their lives.”
(Four scholars at the University of Michigan did a careful follow-up study of the AAUW data and concluded: “The majority of both genders (53%) described themselves as having been both victim and perpetrator of harassment — that is most students had been harassed and had harassed others.” And these researchers draw the right conclusion: “Our results led us to question the simple perpetrator-victim model…”)(See: American Education Research Journal, Summer 1996.)
8. Myth: Girls suffer a dramatic loss of self-esteem during adolescence.
Fact: This myth of the incredible shrinking girls was started by Carol Gilligan, professor of gender studies at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Gilligan has always enjoyed higher standing among feminist activists and journalists than among academic research psychologists. Scholars who follow the protocols of social science do not accept the reality of an adolescent “crisis” of confidence and “loss of voice.” In 1993, American Psychologist reported the new consensus among researchers in adolescent development: “It is now known that the majority of adolescents of both genders successfully negotiate this developmental period without any major psychological or emotional disorder [and] develop a positive sense of personal identity.”
(Anne C. Petersen et al. “Depression in Adolescence,” American Psychologist February 1993; see also, Daniel Offer, and Kimberly Schonert-Reichl, “Debunking the Myths of Adolescence: Findings from Recent Research,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, November 1992.)
9. Myth: Gender is a social construction.
Fact: While environment and socialization do play a significant role in human life, a growing body of research in neuroscience, endocrinology, and psychology over the past 40 years suggests there is a biological basis for many sex differences in aptitudes and preferences. In general, males have better spatial reasoning skills; females better verbal skills. Males are greater risk takers; females are more nurturing.
Of course, this does not mean that women should be prevented from pursuing their goals in any field they choose; what it does suggest is that we should not expect parity in all fields. More women than men will continue to want to stay at home with small children and pursue careers in fields like early childhood education or psychology; men will continue to be over-represented in fields like helicopter mechanics and hydraulic engineering.
Warning: Most gender scholars in our universities have degrees in fields like English or comparative literature–not biology or neuroscience. These self-appointed experts on sexuality are scientifically illiterate. They substitute dogma and propaganda for reasoned scholarship.
(For a review of recent findings on sex differences see a special issue of The Scientific American “Men: The Scientific Truth,” Fall 2000.)
10. Myth: Women’s Studies Departments empowered women and gave them a voice in the academy.
Fact: Women’s Studies empowered a small group of like-minded careerists. They have created an old-girl network that is far more elitist, narrow and closed than any of the old-boy networks they rail against. Vast numbers of moderate or dissident women scholars have been marginalized, excluded and silenced.
I guess the Women for Clarence Thomas still lives on...
I see many of the authors of the cited material have, shall we say, a sympathetic point of view with the group. However, most of the sources of the assertions being refuted are quite political as well.
One exception. The sources cited to counter Point (Myth) 3 are pretty damned apolitical, and lead me to seriously question it's validity.
I guess the Women for Clarence Thomas still lives on...
I find it more amazing that many women's groups have no problem with Bill Clinton. Compare his history critically with that of Clarence Thomas in what they have done in their relationships with women.(Note: I am not a Clarence Thomas fan and I thought Bill Clinton was a fairly good President).
I guess the Women for Clarence Thomas still lives on...
I find it more amazing that many women's groups have no problem with Bill Clinton. Compare his history critically with that of Clarence Thomas in what they have done in their relationships with women.(Note: I am not a Clarence Thomas fan and I thought Bill Clinton was a fairly good President).
I guess the Women for Clarence Thomas still lives on...
I find it more amazing that many women's groups have no problem with Bill Clinton. Compare his history critically with that of Clarence Thomas in what they have done in their relationships with women.(Note: I am not a Clarence Thomas fan and I thought Bill Clinton was a fairly good President).
I don't remember the group Women for Bill Clinton or their political activities. You do?
'The IWF originally grew out of a group called "Women for Clarence Thomas," formed to support Clarence Thomas, then a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, against allegations of sexual harassment.[3][4] It has vocally opposed the Violence Against Women Act.'
I guess the Women for Clarence Thomas still lives on...
I find it more amazing that many women's groups have no problem with Bill Clinton. Compare his history critically with that of Clarence Thomas in what they have done in their relationships with women.(Note: I am not a Clarence Thomas fan and I thought Bill Clinton was a fairly good President).
I don't remember the group Women for Bill Clinton or their political activities. You do?
I don't recall any women's group having a problem with Bill Clinton. Looking the other way was just as bad.
Here's an example. When you're on an international flight, and you fill in a customs form or immigration entry card with a field for "Nationality", what do you write? I write "USA". Not saying that writing "American" would be wrong, or even misleading. It's just less precise, and five letters longer.
I guess the Women for Clarence Thomas still lives on...
I find it more amazing that many women's groups have no problem with Bill Clinton. Compare his history critically with that of Clarence Thomas in what they have done in their relationships with women.(Note: I am not a Clarence Thomas fan and I thought Bill Clinton was a fairly good President).
I don't remember the group Women for Bill Clinton or their political activities. You do?
Don't be disingenuous. Womens groups did nothing about Clinton because he was a dem. But I think things are different now. With the campus rape uproar (real or not) people are not going to ignore that kind of thing.
who Alan Dershowitz called his most brilliant law student is stupid according to BBI posters.....
I understand the college grades of Kerry were somewhat l lower than that of Bush. Why did we send someone who could not even match the grades of such a stupid moron as Bush as our chief negotiator?
RE: RE: RE: RE: Wow, the Independent Women's Forum Â
I guess the Women for Clarence Thomas still lives on...
I find it more amazing that many women's groups have no problem with Bill Clinton. Compare his history critically with that of Clarence Thomas in what they have done in their relationships with women.(Note: I am not a Clarence Thomas fan and I thought Bill Clinton was a fairly good President).
I don't remember the group Women for Bill Clinton or their political activities. You do?
Don't be disingenuous. Womens groups did nothing about Clinton because he was a dem. But I think things are different now. With the campus rape uproar (real or not) people are not going to ignore that kind of thing.
I named the political group that changed its name that was the source of the top ten list above.
who Alan Dershowitz called his most brilliant law student is stupid according to BBI posters.....
Him being good at law doesn't disqualify him from being stupid.
Not to mention, what I wrote was that things coming out of their mouths were stupid. Read what I wrote and don't out words in my mouth.
Perhaps you could give an example? And just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it's stupid.
Well sure, this should be easy considering the subject. Here's a quote from Cruz from an interview a few months back.
Quote:
I read this morning a Newsweek article from the 1970s talking about global cooling. And it said the science is clear, it is overwhelming, we are in a major cooling period, and it's going to cause enormous problems worldwide. ... Now, the data proved to be not backing up that theory. So then all the advocates of global cooling suddenly shifted to global warming, and they advocated it's warming, and the solution interestingly enough was the exact same solution -- government control of the energy sector and every aspect of our lives.
but calling someone a gifted law student is an interesting compliment. Im sure that Dershowitz meant it as a compliment. And unlike most law professors, AD is not wholly unfamiliar with the concept of practicing law and doing lawyer things.
But that compliment just sticks in my craw (where is my craw again?). Law school is a massive waste of time. It does very little to train lawyers for their profession, and produces voluminous scholarship that practicing lawyers and judges ignore almost completely. Law school is essentially a $150k 3 year hurdle you have to pass before you can get onto the business of learning your trade; it is effectively protectionist regulation run amok. I would want a lot of compliments before being tabbed "most gifted law student".
but calling someone a gifted law student is an interesting compliment. Im sure that Dershowitz meant it as a compliment. And unlike most law professors, AD is not wholly unfamiliar with the concept of practicing law and doing lawyer things.
But that compliment just sticks in my craw (where is my craw again?). Law school is a massive waste of time. It does very little to train lawyers for their profession, and produces voluminous scholarship that practicing lawyers and judges ignore almost completely. Law school is essentially a $150k 3 year hurdle you have to pass before you can get onto the business of learning your trade; it is effectively protectionist regulation run amok. I would want a lot of compliments before being tabbed "most gifted law student".
All of law school is a massive waste of time? A lot of people have said to me the 3rd year is totally unnecessary, but all 3 years?
Ted Cruz is very smart. It's his ideas that are stupid. Â
of Republicans who think the earth is 2000 years old.
The dolts of society who we all used to laugh off have now managed to build a platform where they can spread their dumb-ass ideas nation wide.
Whats funny is for how much they hate each other there really is no difference between the fat girls on tumblr complaining about white male privilege and the red-necks posting their Obama memes on facebook all day.
Here's an example. When you're on an international flight, and you fill in a customs form or immigration entry card with a field for "Nationality", what do you write? I write "USA". Not saying that writing "American" would be wrong, or even misleading. It's just less precise, and five letters longer.
Do people actually do that?
I would think that almost everyone writes United States because it's a formal name on a formal document. I also think the majority some people here are smart enough to figure out when to call themselves American, which is decidedly casual, and when to say that they are from the US.
You're example strikes me as someone coming here and writing "English" on the custom form when asking for country of origin.
RE: Ted Cruz is very smart. It's his ideas that are stupid. Â
This is a comment I could argue with but one I think is not inappropriate. There's substance to it rather than being merely a schoolyard insult.
Most disagreements or even antipathy toward Cruz (and Cruz is just an example among many) are because people don't have the same world view and make a value judgment on that, as opposed to knowing or saying anything meaningful about his intellect or looks or personality.
His behavior in the Senate is counterproductive. On numerus occasions he demonstrated verry poor judgement in persuing tactics that ultimately failed to advance his causes. The antipathy that he raised actually may impeded his efforts and those of other supporters. That is a hallmark of poor intelligence. No matter what his law professor said, his actions are idiotic.
That he also stood to gain personally drops him into a catagory of selfish, narcisstic and/or egomaniacal.
To be clear, I like him because he is essentially incompetent, and I am not interested in seeing any of his causes succeed.
All of law school is a massive waste of time? A lot of people have said to me the 3rd year is totally unnecessary, but all 3 years?
Maybe 2 semesters, 3 at most, to get your feet wet on some legal concepts and develop the ability to read legal sources. So 1L year + a summer. Out in 12 months.
But even then I'd reconstruct the course work. And here I'm talking about the better schools (I went to NYU). Im not all that familiar with what is going on at lower ranked schools. Far too much time is spent reading heavily edited cases. It ignores the fact that a lot of lawyers dont deal with caselaw a ton, and the editing of cases renders them a poor tool. Far too much time is spent pontificating over close cases or whether decisions were correct.
Legal education is designed by academics to train the next generation of academics. However, 95+% of their students/customers will not go into academia, and would be better served by legal education that trains for the profession. It's like sending a basketball player to football camp. He might get some benefit from the athletic drills etc., but he would have been better off in basketball camp.
RE: RE: Ted Cruz is very smart. It's his ideas that are stupid. Â
This is a comment I could argue with but one I think is not inappropriate. There's substance to it rather than being merely a schoolyard insult.
Most disagreements or even antipathy toward Cruz (and Cruz is just an example among many) are because people don't have the same world view and make a value judgment on that, as opposed to knowing or saying anything meaningful about his intellect or looks or personality.
Thanks Bill, I generally try to put some substance in my insults. :)
But, we do agree that there is a difference between the intelligence personality that folks most often react to in these candidates and the ideas the person puts forth.
For example, it's totally fair to argue that Obama's ideas are dumb but it's very difficult to argue that he himself is.
who Alan Dershowitz called his most brilliant law student is stupid according to BBI posters.....
Him being good at law doesn't disqualify him from being stupid.
Not to mention, what I wrote was that things coming out of their mouths were stupid. Read what I wrote and don't out words in my mouth.
Perhaps you could give an example? And just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it's stupid.
Well sure, this should be easy considering the subject. Here's a quote from Cruz from an interview a few months back.
Quote:
I read this morning a Newsweek article from the 1970s talking about global cooling. And it said the science is clear, it is overwhelming, we are in a major cooling period, and it's going to cause enormous problems worldwide. ... Now, the data proved to be not backing up that theory. So then all the advocates of global cooling suddenly shifted to global warming, and they advocated it's warming, and the solution interestingly enough was the exact same solution -- government control of the energy sector and every aspect of our lives.
.
This is the man who has essentially been put in charge of NASA's budget, someone who doesn't have a rudimentary understanding if science. That quote took me 30 seconds to find, and there are plenty more like it, rest assured. And what the hell is this? Does this qualify as stupid enough for you? - ( New Window )
How is it stupid? He's talking about how the concerns changed from global cooling to global warming and to point out that the science is never settled.
His behavior in the Senate is counterproductive. On numerus occasions he demonstrated verry poor judgement in persuing tactics that ultimately failed to advance his causes. The antipathy that he raised actually may impeded his efforts and those of other supporters. That is a hallmark of poor intelligence. No matter what his law professor said, his actions are idiotic.
That he also stood to gain personally drops him into a catagory of selfish, narcisstic and/or egomaniacal.
To be clear, I like him because he is essentially incompetent, and I am not interested in seeing any of his causes succeed.
The Senate is a joke and it's not Cruz making it so. He is right that the McConnell led Senate is no different than the Reid led Senate. These people don't represent Americans, they represent themselves and their donors. Boehner is undergoing a similar challenge. Someone in DC finally stands up for principle and he's the one you attack?
How is it stupid? He's talking about how the concerns changed from global cooling to global warming and to point out that the science is never settled.
It's stupid because it willfully ignores all the evidence gathered and things learned since the 1970s.
His behavior in the Senate is counterproductive. On numerus occasions he demonstrated verry poor judgement in persuing tactics that ultimately failed to advance his causes. The antipathy that he raised actually may impeded his efforts and those of other supporters. That is a hallmark of poor intelligence. No matter what his law professor said, his actions are idiotic.
That he also stood to gain personally drops him into a catagory of selfish, narcisstic and/or egomaniacal.
To be clear, I like him because he is essentially incompetent, and I am not interested in seeing any of his causes succeed.
The Senate is a joke and it's not Cruz making it so. He is right that the McConnell led Senate is no different than the Reid led Senate. These people don't represent Americans, they represent themselves and their donors. Boehner is undergoing a similar challenge. Someone in DC finally stands up for principle and he's the one you attack?
Did you even bother to read what he wrote? Of course not. Ted Cruz's behavior on the Senate floor has been embarrassing and he deserves to be called out for it. But I guess he's just "standing up for principle".
How is it stupid? He's talking about how the concerns changed from global cooling to global warming and to point out that the science is never settled.
It's stupid because it willfully ignores all the evidence gathered and things learned since the 1970s.
And what have we learned in the past 20 years since GW was declared an emergency????
Why bother? If people cannot see that short-term temperature trends don't negate longer-term trends (that have been found since the 1980's), I don't know what to say.
At best, it's an ignorance of statistics and trends.
But, even more fun, these short-term trends still have tremendous impact.
How is it stupid? He's talking about how the concerns changed from global cooling to global warming and to point out that the science is never settled.
It's stupid because it willfully ignores all the evidence gathered and things learned since the 1970s.
Thank you. I really didn't think that was that difficult to understand.
His behavior in the Senate is counterproductive. On numerus occasions he demonstrated verry poor judgement in persuing tactics that ultimately failed to advance his causes. The antipathy that he raised actually may impeded his efforts and those of other supporters. That is a hallmark of poor intelligence. No matter what his law professor said, his actions are idiotic.
That he also stood to gain personally drops him into a catagory of selfish, narcisstic and/or egomaniacal.
To be clear, I like him because he is essentially incompetent, and I am not interested in seeing any of his causes succeed.
The Senate is a joke and it's not Cruz making it so. He is right that the McConnell led Senate is no different than the Reid led Senate. These people don't represent Americans, they represent themselves and their donors. Boehner is undergoing a similar challenge. Someone in DC finally stands up for principle and he's the one you attack?
Did you even bother to read what he wrote? Of course not. Ted Cruz's behavior on the Senate floor has been embarrassing and he deserves to be called out for it. But I guess he's just "standing up for principle".
I did read what he wrote, you didn't read what I wrote. The embarrassment is what the Senate and all of Congress has become. The only way to fix it is to challenge and expose it. Which is what Cruz has done. That is his cause. He's not going to accomplish that by putting up with the status quo.
Why bother? If people cannot see that short-term temperature trends don't negate longer-term trends (that have been found since the 1980's), I don't know what to say.
At best, it's an ignorance of statistics and trends.
But, even more fun, these short-term trends still have tremendous impact.
True, on all counts. Especially the 'why bother?' part.
Just to follow up on this story, UNH pulled the document Â
Of course, "American" is such common shorthand for "of or pertaining to the Unites States of America" that it's unlikely to confuse anyone. But is it really so hard to say "United States" when asked your nationality? Same number of syllables, and it conveys a humility that is often appreciated. Now, music/poetry/literature are a different story. Kate Smith would never have made it through "God Bless the Unites States of America" before the opening face-off.
The name of our country is the United States of America. So calling ourselves American is not wrong. If there was a country called Europa and they called themselves Europeans, would that be wrong?
It doesn't exclude anyone.
Problematic: negro, negroid, colored person, dark
Are there really a lot of people at universities in 2015 that need to be told not to call African-Americans negros or darkies?
You just know they were sitting around the table, writing this shit, and someone said, "Well, we have to mention black people. Don't we?"
Quote:
big breitbart interactive
Which actually makes no sense on this thread, seeing as the UNH primary policy is directly linked.
the guide explicitly states its purpose is to make community members think critically about language, not enforce a language code. This should be neither new nor alarming to anyone who has even dabbled in the social sciences. The article is just a silly "LIBERALS RUINING AMERICA" "PC IS BAD" piece of garbage.
Quote:
The problem with calling ourselves "Americans" isn't that it's insensitive to Chileans, Brazilians, Panamanians, and assorted indigenous tribes - though I guess it sort of is. The issue (and it's a VERY small one) is that "Americans" is needlessly vague. If you asked an Israeli his nationality and he answered "Asian", you wouldn't find the answer very helpful.
Of course, "American" is such common shorthand for "of or pertaining to the Unites States of America" that it's unlikely to confuse anyone. But is it really so hard to say "United States" when asked your nationality? Same number of syllables, and it conveys a humility that is often appreciated. Now, music/poetry/literature are a different story. Kate Smith would never have made it through "God Bless the Unites States of America" before the opening face-off.
The name of our country is the United States of America. So calling ourselves American is not wrong. If there was a country called Europa and they called themselves Europeans, would that be wrong?
It doesn't exclude anyone.
There is a moon called Europa, so I guess Europeans are socialist aliens?
Like when a special ed functionary implied that my son 'would never drive a car and would always need help' (and thus their jobs gravy train goes on forever, as if he were a franchise to be split between them).
Talk about micro-aggressions and we can have a field day, but,
Nevermind, my son has twice the IQ of that 'chick' (see what I did there?) and we have twice the patience towards such 'aggressors '.
He will not only drive, but have a good career. one that will not depend on someone else suffering to justify the fed dollars flow.
Meanwhile, the same people that made the list can talk about:
"Those Folks" (poor whites)
"Bible and Gun Huggers" (Christians and poor whites again)
"Banksters" (as if all finance workers were criminals, instead of a few)
and so forth, and nobody calls THEM out.
ha
‘The Ten Most Common Feminist Myths’
From the Independent Women’s Forum http://iwf.org/;-
The Ten Most Common Feminist Myths:
1. Myth: One in four women in college has been the victim of rape or attempted rape.
Fact: This mother of all factoids is based on a fallacious feminist study commissioned by Ms. magazine. The researcher, Mary Koss, hand-picked by hard-line feminist Gloria Steinem, acknowledges that 73 percent of the young women she counted as rape victims were not aware they had been raped. Forty-three percent of them were dating their “attacker” again.
Rape is a uniquely horrible crime. That is why we need sober and responsible research. Women will not be helped by hyperbole and hysteria. Truth is no enemy of compassion, and falsehood is no friend.
(Nara Schoenberg and Sam Roe, “The Making of an Epidemic,” Toledo Blade, October 10, 1993; and Neil Gilbert, “Examining the Facts: Advocacy Research Overstates the Incidence of Data and Acquaintance Rape,” Current Controversies in Family Violence eds. Richard Gelles and Donileen Loseke, Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications, 1993, pp.120-132; and Campus Crime and Security, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1997. *According to this study, campus police reported 1,310 forcible sex offenses on U.S. campuses in one year. That works out to an average of fewer than one rape per campus.)
2. Myth: Women earn 75 cents for every dollar a man earns.
Fact: The 75 cent figure is terribly misleading. This statistic is a snapshot of all current full-time workers. It does not consider relevant factors like length of time in the workplace, education, occupation, and number of hours worked per week. (The experience gap is particularly large between older men and women in the workplace.) When economists do the proper controls, the so-called gender wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.
(Essential reading: Women’s Figures: An Illustrated Guide to the Economic Progress of Women in America, by Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Christine Stolba, published by the Independent Women’s Forum and the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C. 2000.)
3. Myth: 30 percent of emergency room visits by women each year are the result of injuries from domestic violence.
Fact: This incendiary statistic is promoted by gender feminists whose primary goal seems to be to impugn men. Two responsible government studies report that the nationwide figure is closer to one percent. While these studies may have missed some cases of domestic violence, the 30% figure is a wild exaggeration.
(National Center for Health Statistics, National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1992 Emergency Department Summary , Hyattsville, Maryland, March 1997; and U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Violence-Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments: Washington, D.C., August 1997.)
4. Myth: The phrase “rule of thumb” originated in a man’s right to beat his wife provided the stick was no wider than his thumb.
Fact: This is an urban legend that is still taken seriously by activist law professors and harassment workshoppers. The Oxford English Dictionary has more than twenty citations for phrase “rule of thumb” (the earliest from 1692), but not a single mention of beatings, sticks, or husbands and wives.
(For a definitive debunking of the hoax see Henry Ansgar Kelly, “Rule of Thumb and the Folklaw of the Husband’s Stick,” The Journal of Legal Education, September 1994.)
5. Myth: Women have been shortchanged in medical research.
Fact: The National Institutes of Health and drug companies routinely include women in clinical trials that test for effectiveness of medications. By 1979, over 90% of all NIH-funded trials included women. Beginning in 1985, when the NIH’s National Cancer Center began keeping track of specific cancer funding, it has annually spent more money on breast cancer than any other type of cancer. Currently, women represent over 60% of all subjects in NIH-funded clinical trails.
(Essential reading: Cathy Young and Sally Satel, “The Myth of Gender Bias in Medicine,” Washington, D.C.: The Women’s Freedom Network, 1997.)
6.Myth: Girls have been shortchanged in our gender-biased schools
Fact: No fair-minded person can review the education data and conclude that girls are the have-nots in our schools. Boys are slightly ahead of girls in math and science; girls are dramatically ahead in reading and writing. (The writing skills of 17-year-old boys are at the same level as 14-year- old girls.) Girls get better grades, they have higher aspirations, and they are more likely to go to college.
(See: Trends in Educational Equity of Girls & Women, Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Education, June 2000.)
7. Myth: “Our schools are training grounds for sexual harassment… boys are rarely punished, while girls are taught that it is their role to tolerate this humiliating conduct.”
(National Organization of Women, “Issue Report: Sexual Harassment,” April 1998.)
Fact: “Hostile Hallways,” is the best-known study of harassment in grades 8-11. It was commissioned by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in 1993, and is a favorite of many harassment experts. But this survey revealed that girls are doing almost as much harassing as the boys. According to the study, “85 percent of girls and 76 percent of boys surveyed say they have experienced unwanted and unwelcome sexual behavior that interferes with their lives.”
(Four scholars at the University of Michigan did a careful follow-up study of the AAUW data and concluded: “The majority of both genders (53%) described themselves as having been both victim and perpetrator of harassment — that is most students had been harassed and had harassed others.” And these researchers draw the right conclusion: “Our results led us to question the simple perpetrator-victim model…”)(See: American Education Research Journal, Summer 1996.)
8. Myth: Girls suffer a dramatic loss of self-esteem during adolescence.
Fact: This myth of the incredible shrinking girls was started by Carol Gilligan, professor of gender studies at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Gilligan has always enjoyed higher standing among feminist activists and journalists than among academic research psychologists. Scholars who follow the protocols of social science do not accept the reality of an adolescent “crisis” of confidence and “loss of voice.” In 1993, American Psychologist reported the new consensus among researchers in adolescent development: “It is now known that the majority of adolescents of both genders successfully negotiate this developmental period without any major psychological or emotional disorder [and] develop a positive sense of personal identity.”
(Anne C. Petersen et al. “Depression in Adolescence,” American Psychologist February 1993; see also, Daniel Offer, and Kimberly Schonert-Reichl, “Debunking the Myths of Adolescence: Findings from Recent Research,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, November 1992.)
9. Myth: Gender is a social construction.
Fact: While environment and socialization do play a significant role in human life, a growing body of research in neuroscience, endocrinology, and psychology over the past 40 years suggests there is a biological basis for many sex differences in aptitudes and preferences. In general, males have better spatial reasoning skills; females better verbal skills. Males are greater risk takers; females are more nurturing.
Of course, this does not mean that women should be prevented from pursuing their goals in any field they choose; what it does suggest is that we should not expect parity in all fields. More women than men will continue to want to stay at home with small children and pursue careers in fields like early childhood education or psychology; men will continue to be over-represented in fields like helicopter mechanics and hydraulic engineering.
Warning: Most gender scholars in our universities have degrees in fields like English or comparative literature–not biology or neuroscience. These self-appointed experts on sexuality are scientifically illiterate. They substitute dogma and propaganda for reasoned scholarship.
(For a review of recent findings on sex differences see a special issue of The Scientific American “Men: The Scientific Truth,” Fall 2000.)
10. Myth: Women’s Studies Departments empowered women and gave them a voice in the academy.
Fact: Women’s Studies empowered a small group of like-minded careerists. They have created an old-girl network that is far more elitist, narrow and closed than any of the old-boy networks they rail against. Vast numbers of moderate or dissident women scholars have been marginalized, excluded and silenced.
Even if what they are saying sounds like it is straight from the mind of a 12 year old!!! Muhricah!!!
LOLOLOLOL, I hope you are kidding right?
I see many of the authors of the cited material have, shall we say, a sympathetic point of view with the group. However, most of the sources of the assertions being refuted are quite political as well.
One exception. The sources cited to counter Point (Myth) 3 are pretty damned apolitical, and lead me to seriously question it's validity.
Quote:
Preferred: Black or African American
Problematic: negro, negroid, colored person, dark
Quote:
speaking their minds, and not being politically correct.
Even if what they are saying sounds like it is straight from the mind of a 12 year old!!! Muhricah!!!
LOLOLOLOL, I hope you are kidding right?
It doesn't matter if you "speak your mind" if everything that comes out is a bunch of stupidity.
Quote:
I guess the Women for Clarence Thomas still lives on...
I find it more amazing that many women's groups have no problem with Bill Clinton. Compare his history critically with that of Clarence Thomas in what they have done in their relationships with women.(Note: I am not a Clarence Thomas fan and I thought Bill Clinton was a fairly good President).
It's all about the ideology.
Quote:
I guess the Women for Clarence Thomas still lives on...
I find it more amazing that many women's groups have no problem with Bill Clinton. Compare his history critically with that of Clarence Thomas in what they have done in their relationships with women.(Note: I am not a Clarence Thomas fan and I thought Bill Clinton was a fairly good President).
I don't remember the group Women for Bill Clinton or their political activities. You do?
Quote:
In comment 12390949 schabadoo said:
Quote:
I guess the Women for Clarence Thomas still lives on...
I find it more amazing that many women's groups have no problem with Bill Clinton. Compare his history critically with that of Clarence Thomas in what they have done in their relationships with women.(Note: I am not a Clarence Thomas fan and I thought Bill Clinton was a fairly good President).
I don't remember the group Women for Bill Clinton or their political activities. You do?
Him being good at law doesn't disqualify him from being stupid.
Quote:
who Alan Dershowitz called his most brilliant law student is stupid according to BBI posters.....
Him being good at law doesn't disqualify him from being stupid.
Not to mention, what I wrote was that things coming out of their mouths were stupid. Read what I wrote and don't out words in my mouth.
Quote:
In comment 12390949 schabadoo said:
Quote:
I guess the Women for Clarence Thomas still lives on...
I find it more amazing that many women's groups have no problem with Bill Clinton. Compare his history critically with that of Clarence Thomas in what they have done in their relationships with women.(Note: I am not a Clarence Thomas fan and I thought Bill Clinton was a fairly good President).
I don't remember the group Women for Bill Clinton or their political activities. You do?
Don't be disingenuous. Womens groups did nothing about Clinton because he was a dem. But I think things are different now. With the campus rape uproar (real or not) people are not going to ignore that kind of thing.
Quote:
In comment 12391049 buford said:
Quote:
who Alan Dershowitz called his most brilliant law student is stupid according to BBI posters.....
Him being good at law doesn't disqualify him from being stupid.
Not to mention, what I wrote was that things coming out of their mouths were stupid. Read what I wrote and don't out words in my mouth.
Perhaps you could give an example? And just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it's stupid.
Quote:
In comment 12391007 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12390949 schabadoo said:
Quote:
I guess the Women for Clarence Thomas still lives on...
I find it more amazing that many women's groups have no problem with Bill Clinton. Compare his history critically with that of Clarence Thomas in what they have done in their relationships with women.(Note: I am not a Clarence Thomas fan and I thought Bill Clinton was a fairly good President).
I don't remember the group Women for Bill Clinton or their political activities. You do?
Don't be disingenuous. Womens groups did nothing about Clinton because he was a dem. But I think things are different now. With the campus rape uproar (real or not) people are not going to ignore that kind of thing.
I named the political group that changed its name that was the source of the top ten list above.
On-topic and everything, unlike your post.
Quote:
In comment 12391093 732NYG said:
Quote:
In comment 12391049 buford said:
Quote:
who Alan Dershowitz called his most brilliant law student is stupid according to BBI posters.....
Him being good at law doesn't disqualify him from being stupid.
Not to mention, what I wrote was that things coming out of their mouths were stupid. Read what I wrote and don't out words in my mouth.
Perhaps you could give an example? And just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it's stupid.
Well sure, this should be easy considering the subject. Here's a quote from Cruz from an interview a few months back.
This is the man who has essentially been put in charge of NASA's budget, someone who doesn't have a rudimentary understanding if science. That quote took me 30 seconds to find, and there are plenty more like it, rest assured.
And what the hell is this? Does this qualify as stupid enough for you? - ( New Window )
But that compliment just sticks in my craw (where is my craw again?). Law school is a massive waste of time. It does very little to train lawyers for their profession, and produces voluminous scholarship that practicing lawyers and judges ignore almost completely. Law school is essentially a $150k 3 year hurdle you have to pass before you can get onto the business of learning your trade; it is effectively protectionist regulation run amok. I would want a lot of compliments before being tabbed "most gifted law student".
But that compliment just sticks in my craw (where is my craw again?). Law school is a massive waste of time. It does very little to train lawyers for their profession, and produces voluminous scholarship that practicing lawyers and judges ignore almost completely. Law school is essentially a $150k 3 year hurdle you have to pass before you can get onto the business of learning your trade; it is effectively protectionist regulation run amok. I would want a lot of compliments before being tabbed "most gifted law student".
All of law school is a massive waste of time? A lot of people have said to me the 3rd year is totally unnecessary, but all 3 years?
The dolts of society who we all used to laugh off have now managed to build a platform where they can spread their dumb-ass ideas nation wide.
Whats funny is for how much they hate each other there really is no difference between the fat girls on tumblr complaining about white male privilege and the red-necks posting their Obama memes on facebook all day.
Do people actually do that?
I would think that almost everyone writes United States because it's a formal name on a formal document. I also think the majority some people here are smart enough to figure out when to call themselves American, which is decidedly casual, and when to say that they are from the US.
You're example strikes me as someone coming here and writing "English" on the custom form when asking for country of origin.
This is a comment I could argue with but one I think is not inappropriate. There's substance to it rather than being merely a schoolyard insult.
Most disagreements or even antipathy toward Cruz (and Cruz is just an example among many) are because people don't have the same world view and make a value judgment on that, as opposed to knowing or saying anything meaningful about his intellect or looks or personality.
That he also stood to gain personally drops him into a catagory of selfish, narcisstic and/or egomaniacal.
To be clear, I like him because he is essentially incompetent, and I am not interested in seeing any of his causes succeed.
Maybe 2 semesters, 3 at most, to get your feet wet on some legal concepts and develop the ability to read legal sources. So 1L year + a summer. Out in 12 months.
But even then I'd reconstruct the course work. And here I'm talking about the better schools (I went to NYU). Im not all that familiar with what is going on at lower ranked schools. Far too much time is spent reading heavily edited cases. It ignores the fact that a lot of lawyers dont deal with caselaw a ton, and the editing of cases renders them a poor tool. Far too much time is spent pontificating over close cases or whether decisions were correct.
Legal education is designed by academics to train the next generation of academics. However, 95+% of their students/customers will not go into academia, and would be better served by legal education that trains for the profession. It's like sending a basketball player to football camp. He might get some benefit from the athletic drills etc., but he would have been better off in basketball camp.
Quote:
.
This is a comment I could argue with but one I think is not inappropriate. There's substance to it rather than being merely a schoolyard insult.
Most disagreements or even antipathy toward Cruz (and Cruz is just an example among many) are because people don't have the same world view and make a value judgment on that, as opposed to knowing or saying anything meaningful about his intellect or looks or personality.
Thanks Bill, I generally try to put some substance in my insults. :)
But, we do agree that there is a difference between the intelligence personality that folks most often react to in these candidates and the ideas the person puts forth.
For example, it's totally fair to argue that Obama's ideas are dumb but it's very difficult to argue that he himself is.
Quote:
In comment 12391101 732NYG said:
Quote:
In comment 12391093 732NYG said:
Quote:
In comment 12391049 buford said:
Quote:
who Alan Dershowitz called his most brilliant law student is stupid according to BBI posters.....
Him being good at law doesn't disqualify him from being stupid.
Not to mention, what I wrote was that things coming out of their mouths were stupid. Read what I wrote and don't out words in my mouth.
Perhaps you could give an example? And just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it's stupid.
Well sure, this should be easy considering the subject. Here's a quote from Cruz from an interview a few months back.
Quote:
I read this morning a Newsweek article from the 1970s talking about global cooling. And it said the science is clear, it is overwhelming, we are in a major cooling period, and it's going to cause enormous problems worldwide. ... Now, the data proved to be not backing up that theory. So then all the advocates of global cooling suddenly shifted to global warming, and they advocated it's warming, and the solution interestingly enough was the exact same solution -- government control of the energy sector and every aspect of our lives.
.
This is the man who has essentially been put in charge of NASA's budget, someone who doesn't have a rudimentary understanding if science. That quote took me 30 seconds to find, and there are plenty more like it, rest assured. And what the hell is this? Does this qualify as stupid enough for you? - ( New Window )
How is it stupid? He's talking about how the concerns changed from global cooling to global warming and to point out that the science is never settled.
That he also stood to gain personally drops him into a catagory of selfish, narcisstic and/or egomaniacal.
To be clear, I like him because he is essentially incompetent, and I am not interested in seeing any of his causes succeed.
The Senate is a joke and it's not Cruz making it so. He is right that the McConnell led Senate is no different than the Reid led Senate. These people don't represent Americans, they represent themselves and their donors. Boehner is undergoing a similar challenge. Someone in DC finally stands up for principle and he's the one you attack?
How is it stupid? He's talking about how the concerns changed from global cooling to global warming and to point out that the science is never settled.
It's stupid because it willfully ignores all the evidence gathered and things learned since the 1970s.
Quote:
His behavior in the Senate is counterproductive. On numerus occasions he demonstrated verry poor judgement in persuing tactics that ultimately failed to advance his causes. The antipathy that he raised actually may impeded his efforts and those of other supporters. That is a hallmark of poor intelligence. No matter what his law professor said, his actions are idiotic.
That he also stood to gain personally drops him into a catagory of selfish, narcisstic and/or egomaniacal.
To be clear, I like him because he is essentially incompetent, and I am not interested in seeing any of his causes succeed.
The Senate is a joke and it's not Cruz making it so. He is right that the McConnell led Senate is no different than the Reid led Senate. These people don't represent Americans, they represent themselves and their donors. Boehner is undergoing a similar challenge. Someone in DC finally stands up for principle and he's the one you attack?
Did you even bother to read what he wrote? Of course not. Ted Cruz's behavior on the Senate floor has been embarrassing and he deserves to be called out for it. But I guess he's just "standing up for principle".
Quote:
...
How is it stupid? He's talking about how the concerns changed from global cooling to global warming and to point out that the science is never settled.
It's stupid because it willfully ignores all the evidence gathered and things learned since the 1970s.
And what have we learned in the past 20 years since GW was declared an emergency????
At best, it's an ignorance of statistics and trends.
But, even more fun, these short-term trends still have tremendous impact.
Quote:
...
How is it stupid? He's talking about how the concerns changed from global cooling to global warming and to point out that the science is never settled.
It's stupid because it willfully ignores all the evidence gathered and things learned since the 1970s.
Thank you. I really didn't think that was that difficult to understand.
Quote:
In comment 12391447 WideRight said:
Quote:
His behavior in the Senate is counterproductive. On numerus occasions he demonstrated verry poor judgement in persuing tactics that ultimately failed to advance his causes. The antipathy that he raised actually may impeded his efforts and those of other supporters. That is a hallmark of poor intelligence. No matter what his law professor said, his actions are idiotic.
That he also stood to gain personally drops him into a catagory of selfish, narcisstic and/or egomaniacal.
To be clear, I like him because he is essentially incompetent, and I am not interested in seeing any of his causes succeed.
The Senate is a joke and it's not Cruz making it so. He is right that the McConnell led Senate is no different than the Reid led Senate. These people don't represent Americans, they represent themselves and their donors. Boehner is undergoing a similar challenge. Someone in DC finally stands up for principle and he's the one you attack?
Did you even bother to read what he wrote? Of course not. Ted Cruz's behavior on the Senate floor has been embarrassing and he deserves to be called out for it. But I guess he's just "standing up for principle".
I did read what he wrote, you didn't read what I wrote. The embarrassment is what the Senate and all of Congress has become. The only way to fix it is to challenge and expose it. Which is what Cruz has done. That is his cause. He's not going to accomplish that by putting up with the status quo.
At best, it's an ignorance of statistics and trends.
But, even more fun, these short-term trends still have tremendous impact.
True, on all counts. Especially the 'why bother?' part.