Wednesday morning links

The student newspaper defending "The Problem of Whiteness" is the Daily Cardinal, not the Badger Herald. The Badger Herald tend to be a Democrat newspaper; the Daily Cardinal is harder left.

#2 James the lesser (Link) on 2017-01-04 09:00 (Reply)

"Columbia University Students Support FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION, Want Planned Parenthood to FUND"

Remember when liberals (including stoic arch-protector of women, Teddy Kennedy) were tearing their hair out over Clarence Thomas and what he allegedly did to Anita Hill? Good times!

#3 Bill Carson on 2017-01-04 09:21 (Reply)

It's time to end the non-profit scam. Remove their special rights and generous tax status and let them function under the same laws everyone else does. They have turned "Philanthropy" into a four letter word. Most of them are political and few of them spend enough on true Philanthropic endeavors.

#4 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-01-04 10:16 (Reply)

That 4-letter word would be SCAM.

#4.1 Sam L. on 2017-01-04 12:27 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Columbia University Students Support FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION, Want Planned Parenthood to FUND

Gee whiz. They say students support "female genital mutilation", but the first question is about something called "clerodectomy", not "female genital mutilation". In the second interview, the guy thinks it has something to do with IEDs and admits to not knowing much about the topic. What the interview shows is that the interviewer doesn't know how to pronounce the clitoridectomy, and that there is a lot of ignorance on the subject.

#5 Zachriel on 2017-01-04 10:35 (Reply)

Please define "clerodectomy" or correct the spelling. Google found nothing similar. Possibly you spelled it incorrectly.

In any case, several of the questions were whether they supported female circumcision which is female genital mutilation.

#5.1 mudbug on 2017-01-04 11:12 (Reply)

mudbug: Please define "clerodectomy" or correct the spelling.

That's the whole point. Geller says they are asking about "female genital mutilation", but the very first question is about "clerodectomy", which isn't even a word!

#5.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-04 11:34 (Reply)

The first question was the only time that word was used and the students answering the question understood it to mean "female circumcision" and they were in favor of Planned Parenthood funding them. If you had watched the rest of the video or read the rest of my question, you would know that other questions referred to "female circumcision."

#5.1.1.1 mudbug on 2017-01-04 12:05 (Reply)

mudbug: The first question was the only time that word was used and the students answering the question understood it to mean "female circumcision" and they were in favor of Planned Parenthood funding them.

Right. But the claim is that they were being asked about "female genital mutilation". There is a lot of ignorance on the topic, which is clear, but the video is intended to mislead, not enlighten.

#5.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-04 12:10 (Reply)

Taking your interpretation, the video did enlighten - it exposed how ignorant students at one of the most prestigious universities in the US are.

I suspect that several of them didn't care what the subject was. If it was a cultural thing, they should be allowed to follow their culture. After all, all cultures are equal, right? In fact at least one of the girls who answered seemed to have a pretty good grasp of the topic and she was pretty wishy-washy on whether Planned Parenthood should pay for it.

#5.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2017-01-04 12:19 (Reply)

mudbug: Taking your interpretation, the video did enlighten - it exposed how ignorant students at one of the most prestigious universities in the US are.

It reveals ignorance in the students, and an intention to manipulate and deceive by the videographers.

mudbug: If it was a cultural thing, they should be allowed to follow their culture.

More than likely if the procedure were described, and they were informed that it was a procedure that was often forced on young girls, then their views would be more clearly depicted. Gee whiz, if they even used the term they said they were surveying about, "female genital mutiliation", the results would almost certainly be different. But as we said, their purpose wasn't to enlighten but to manipulate and deceive.

By the way, clitoriectomy has been practiced in the West as a "medical cure" for masturbation and promiscuity in women. It's also found in some traditional African cultures, and is believed to have originated before Islam.

#5.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-04 12:30 (Reply)

Somewhere in the internet is a video of an African witch doctor performing a clitorectomy with a piece of broken glass. The young girl is held down by family members and given no pain medication. There is also reference in the video to examples where the "victim" died from bleeding that the witch doctor was unable to stop. I do not understand where common sense goes when social or religious pressures forces parents to do this to their children. I cannot help but wonder why the child, once they grow up, doesn't kill their father or mother in their sleep for committing this act.

#5.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-01-04 15:40 (Reply)

I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on this, because of the outrageous nature of the claim.

but the interviewer specifically says "female circumcision".

you'd have to be either a stone cold moron or a lying fraud if you say you don't know exactly what that means.

which one are you?

is there any pro-islam bullshit outrage you people won't gleefully defend?

#5.2 Will Bithers on 2017-01-04 15:38 (Reply)

Will Bithers: but the interviewer specifically says "female circumcision".

In the first interview, the term was "clerodectomy", whatever that is supposed to mean. Geller's claim is that it is a survey about "female genital mutilation", but that is not the term used in the survey, which was clearly devised to mislead.

Will Bithers: you'd have to be either a stone cold moron or a lying fraud if you say you don't know exactly what that means.

Or simply ignorant, which has already been discussed, but you seemed to miss.

Will Bithers: is there any pro-islam bullshit outrage you people won't gleefully defend?

Hmm. We're not sure why you are getting through our spam-filter, as you are an admitted troll. We'll check with our administrator.

#5.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-04 16:10 (Reply)

no, you lying fraud, the words "female circumcision" are spoken clearly. have some iota of honesty.

holy shi'ite you are beyond obscene.

#5.2.1.1 Will Bithers on 2017-01-04 19:02 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Washington Post Admits Its 'Russians Hacked A US Utility' Story Was 'Fake News'

That conflates poor reporting with fake news.

#6 Zachriel on 2017-01-04 10:36 (Reply)

Close enough for government work!

#6.1 Sam L. on 2017-01-04 12:33 (Reply)

QUOTE:

John Podesta fell for a phishing scam. Let's not start another Cold War over that.

Agreed. The best way to end the problem is a unified front against foreign meddling in U.S. politics. However, the President Elect actually encouraged the Russians to leak hacked emails, and has rejected the findings of U.S. intelligence without even being briefed on the matter.

#7 Zachriel on 2017-01-04 10:43 (Reply)

Azch is back.

Barry rejected Roosia's legitimacy as a threat in his debate with Mittens. No way they were smart enough to perform this act of war. Admittedly, the Rooskies would like to take credit for exposing our government and how it works. I don't know and you don't either. Kinda like that climate thingy.

Your babe, Hill, is gonna be at the coronation; whatcha thinks about that? Class act for sure.

Thank you for showing up; it's 90% of life, ya know?--I thought we'd lost ya. I like your stuff; it shows a lot of original thought and insight.

Conflate.

#7.1 tennesseered on 2017-01-04 10:58 (Reply)

tennesseered: Barry rejected Roosia's legitimacy as a threat in his debate with Mittens.

No. He rejected that Russia was the "biggest geopolitical threat facing America." Russian interference can be easily contained with a unified response. There are far graver threat to the U.S. In any case, none of this justifies Trump encouraging the Russians to leak hacked emails.

#7.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-04 11:37 (Reply)

Did you hold these views when it was Obama meddling in the Israeli elections?

#7.2 mudbug on 2017-01-04 11:03 (Reply)

bug, I must confess my ignorance as to the details of the elections in the Promised Land. I am sure someone will be along shortly to enlighten me. However, I will say that I have been opposed to just about anything B. Obama has done in the past eight years--Barry should have blamed his tampering on the ex-USSR--whether was true or not would not have mattered--the people would have known it was a diminutive white prevarication as his labia oris were in motion.

Free elections for everyone is my motto. Wouldn't have done any good to meddle in the elections in Roosia--everybody votes for the same guy every time. 100% majority. Hard to beat that. I understand that Putin did not have to campaign very hard and even spent less $$$ than the Prez-Elect. Lotta flyover counties in the Great Soviet.

Excuse me, I see your Q was for Azch.

#7.2.1 tennesseered on 2017-01-04 11:21 (Reply)

fantastic that wikileaks leaked info stolen by a phishing scam (grade 1997 AOL) from the DNC about how it was planning to steal the election.

you people are totally inept.

#7.3 Will Bithers on 2017-01-04 15:14 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Did you hold these views when it was Obama meddling in the Israeli elections?

What happened is that money was provided to a group, One Voice, to advance a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. This was legal under both U.S. and Israeli law. Once the program ended, One Voice deployed some of the same infrastructure in the political campaign. This was allowed under the rules put in place by the State Department at that time. A bipartisan Senate subcommittee determined that this was not appropriate, concluding that State should institute stronger policies to prevent a recurrence.

Now, compare to our original statement about a "unified front" when addressing such problems.

#8 Zachriel on 2017-01-04 11:18 (Reply)

That's what happened but that doesn't answer my question. The Obama administration tried to influence the election of the Prime Minister in an allied country. Presumably, if you are against foreign meddling in US elections (and you - who knows which one or all of you - are not even American) you would be against the US meddling in other country's elections.

Did you hold those views when Obama tried to influence Israeli elections. It really is a simple question.

#8.1 mudbug on 2017-01-04 11:42 (Reply)

mudbug: The Obama administration tried to influence the election of the Prime Minister in an allied country.

That is incorrect. The bipartisan Senate subcommittee found no wrongdoing, that none of the money was directly used for political purposes, but that poor controls allowed the infrastructure (such as email lists) to be redeployed. They recommended policy changes to prevent a recurrence.

mudbug: Presumably, if you are against foreign meddling in US elections (and you - who knows which one or all of you - are not even American) you would be against the US meddling in other country's elections.

Of course, which is why we support the bipartisan conclusion that better safeguards are needed.

mudbug: Did you hold those views when Obama tried to influence Israeli elections.

You pose a loaded question which conflates intentional wrongdoing with poor controls.

Our view is that the U.S. should not meddle in Israeli elections, intentionally or otherwise. And our view is that the Russians should refrain from breaking U.S. privacy laws, and should refrain from then leaking hacked information to interfere with U.S. elections.

#8.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-04 11:57 (Reply)

Z: Our view is that the U.S. should not meddle in Israeli elections

Thank you. I agree.

#8.1.1.1 mudbug on 2017-01-04 12:07 (Reply)

Additionally, our view is that all Americans should reject Russian meddling in their elections as an attack on their sovereignty, and the President Elect Trump was mistaken to encourage the Russians to leak illegally hacked emails.

#8.1.2 Zachriel on 2017-01-04 11:59 (Reply)

Z: Americans should reject Russian meddling in their elections

I do.

Z: President Elect Trump was mistaken to encourage the Russians to leak illegally hacked emails.

Some people can't tell a joke when they hear it. In the first place, nobody knew the Russians had them. If they did have them and they gave them to the FBI, who was looking for them, would that have been a bad thing?

#8.1.2.1 mudbug on 2017-01-04 12:13 (Reply)

mudbug: Some people can't tell a joke when they hear it.

Not so plausible deniability. Trump lies incessantly, and truth is becoming just a distant memory.

mudbug: If they did have them and they gave them to the FBI, who was looking for them, would that have been a bad thing?

The FBI already had access to the vast majority of emails, most of which were private. Yes, encouraging the leaking of hacked private communications of your political rivals is a bad thing.

#8.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-04 12:17 (Reply)

Z: Not so plausible deniability. Trump lies incessantly, and truth is becoming just a distant memory.

Since we are talking about Hillary's emails, can you cite one example when Hillary told the truth about her email server, the devices she used, or the emails on that server?

She claimed that these emails were about wedding plans and yoga lessons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkdJKU4Ia-k

#8.1.2.1.1.1 mudbug on 2017-01-04 12:31 (Reply)

mudbug: She claimed that these emails were about wedding plans and yoga lessons

And a lot of them were. So? The vast majority of the emails were innocuous, or showed a person conscientious about her duties, emails that never seem to draw much attention. She provided the emails to her attorneys with instructions to send the work emails to State. The process they used was incomplete, but most of the remaining emails were recovered from her server.

None of this justifies Russian hacking and leaking devised to interfere in the U.S. election, or Trump's encouragement of the same.

#8.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-04 12:36 (Reply)

So let me see if I have this right: The Democrats are upset because someone hacked the Democrats and exposed the fact that they were trying to interfere in the elections and did prevent Sanders from having a fair election. No one can prove who it was that hacked and the only person in the world who would know who it was has clearly stated it was not the Russians but someone in the Democrat hierarchy who was very upset with the illegal actions he was seeing in his own party. But the Democrats have come up with the meme that it was hacked by the Russians and will offer zero evidence of this. However all involved agree that in fact whoever hacked the Democrats did not hack the election or change the election.

So why do we keep saying that the Russians hacked the election?

#8.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-01-05 10:19 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: The Democrats are upset because someone hacked the Democrats and exposed the fact that they were trying to interfere in the elections and did prevent Sanders from having a fair election.

The DNC is a private organization, and can run their party as they choose. That they were leaning for Clinton is no more a secret than that the RNC was leaning against Trump. In any case, Sanders had a fair chance. He just didn't get enough votes.

GoneWithTheWind: No one can prove who it was that hacked

Which is why no one can ever be sent to jail for hacking.

GoneWithTheWind: But the Democrats have come up with the meme that it was hacked by the Russians and will offer zero evidence of this.

The U.S. Intelligence Community has determined it was the Russians, and this has been confirmed by independent cybersecurity experts. While they can't release all details of their investigation to the public, the U.S. Intelligence Community will make a report in the next few days outlining the evidence.

GoneWithTheWind: However all involved agree that in fact whoever hacked the Democrats did not hack the election or change the election.

You can't say it had no effect on the election. The initial leaks resulted in the resignation of the head of the DNC during the Democratic Convention.

#8.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-05 11:09 (Reply)

For lightning info I like this site.

http://en.blitzortung.org/live_lightning_maps.php

#9 Bodie on 2017-01-04 12:17 (Reply)

UW-Madison: I trust those who identify as men will avoid this "Men's Project".

"How Elites Became...": They done themselves in.

#10 Sam L. on 2017-01-04 12:37 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, January 4. 2017

Wednesday morning links