Tuesday, February 24, 2009

IF THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS MEANT TO PROTECT SPEECH THAT IS NICE, MAIN STREAM AND UNCONTROVERSIAL IT WOULD HARDLY BE NECESSARY


http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper859/stills/tl80x2g0.jpg
Dr. Mike S. Adams
Professor of Criminology
University of North Carolina
Wilmington
MIKE ADAMS is a criminology professor at the UniveADAM is a criminologyf at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and is a regular columnist for Townhallcsof North Carolina Wilmington and is a reula columnist Monday, February 23, 2009
Mike S. Adams :: Townhall.com Columnist
An Apology to Convenience Store Clerks Everywhere
by Mike S. Adams


Over the past several years, I’ve written over 500 nationally published columns. Many of these columns have lampooned academic leftists for their blatant hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. But, regrettably, just last Wednesday, I did something that undermines my credibility in addressing such issues. So in today’s column I wish to offer a sincere apology to my colleagues at UNC-Wilmington, not to mention convenience store clerks all across America.

At about noon on February 18th I was sent an email under the subject line “Osama Bin Laden Found!” Naturally, I was very excited and opened the email without hesitation. The body of the email indicated that a picture of Bin Laden was included in an attachment. I opened the attachment and saw a picture of Bin Laden sitting behind a cash register. The photo had been doctored to portray him as a convenience store clerk wearing a “7-11” vest. It was obviously a joke. Indeed, it was a cruel, racist and highly demeaning joke directed towards Americans of Middle Eastern extraction.

The very fact that I laughed at the attached picture was bad. But then I did something even worse: At 12:38 p.m. (EST), I forwarded the picture to every member of my department.

My poor judgment created a predictable outcry among members of the Department of Sociology and Criminology at UNC-Wilmington. If no members of our faculty were of Middle Eastern descent, the action of forwarding the racist picture would have been tasteless and inappropriate. But the fact that we do have faculty members of Middle Eastern descent – among them junior faculty who are less able to speak out against faculty racism – renders my action in forwarding the picture utterly inexcusable.

So for this I offer an unequivocal apology. My apology extends not just to faculty members I may have offended. It also extends to convenience store clerks everywhere who may have felt they were unjustly connected to terrorism. Finally, it extends to everyone of Middle Eastern descent who may have been offended by my inappropriate actions.

In the past, I have been critical of my university for a number of racist actions, including, but not limited to, the following:

*Printing and distributing a student activity calendar with a picture of a monkey wearing corn rows. This picture made a racist connection between black men and monkeys.

*Printing and disseminating posters of Secretary of State Rice and General Powell enclosed in cages holding bunches of bananas. These pictures, which were distributed by the Women’s Center to advertise an event for a feminist group (The Guerilla Girls), also made a racist connection between blacks and monkeys.

*Hiring a black man (Brent Staples) to give a speech on racial sensitivity after writing a book in which he bragged about chasing white people down the street and screaming into their “bleached out faces.” This was not racist to whites, but to blacks, because Staples did it in the context of faking an intention to rob the whites. This made a racist connection between black men and the violent crime of robbery.

For years, I have been holding myself to a higher standard than the liberal racists at my university. But, as of last week, I have relinquished any right to claim moral superiority or to hold myself out as an enforcer of moral consistency.

I fully expect that someone in our university community, whether of Middle Eastern descent or not, will soon file a charge of hostile environment racial harassment. If I am found guilty of such a charge I will immediately offer my resignation from the faculty of UNC-Wilmington.

I also very deeply regret any harm I have caused to the conservative movement.

Thank you for listening.
______________________________

Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Mike S. Adams :: Townhall.com Columnist
May the Fleas of 1000 Camels Infest Your Speech Code
by Mike S. Adams

I once had a dog named Jake that I liked very much. He was a well-behaved dog. When I asked him to sit, he would sit. When I asked him to shake, he would shake. When I asked him to stay, he would stay. Because he was so eager for praise and approval, it was easy to control his behavior. That old dog was a lot like the liberals who read my columns.

Because I am very good at predicting the behavior of liberals, I did a very risky thing yesterday by taking credit for an email I did not actually send. It was all part of a little experiment on tolerance and diversity, which has yielded results much like I had predicted.

Those who read yesterday’s column read my spoof apology for an email I claimed I had sent to the Department of Sociology and Criminology at UNC-Wilmington. The email, sent under the subject line “Bin Laden Found!”, had a picture attached which showed the terrorist behind a cash register wearing a “7-11” vest. The responses to my apology were predictable. Here are a few of the highlights:

“You are not a conservative, you are a rude and insensitive bigot.”

“You should resign from your position as a professor immediately. Don’t wait for a conviction for hate speech.”

“You are a complete embarrassment to academia.”

“I hope Al Quada [sic] bombs your office.”

“You are an arrogant bigot.”

“I bet you’re not sorry you fraud. You just don’t want to lose your job.”

“What a childish bigot you are. You’ll get what you deserve. Finally.”

“You are a predicably [sic] racist Republican. Please pardon any redundancy.”

Of course, these are not all of the angry emails I got. But they do summarize the general sentiments of my numerous liberal readers – people who come back to my columns constantly because they are addicted to being angry. And now that I’m about to deliver the punch line of my little joke their anger is about to reach unprecedented heights.

For those who haven’t yet figured it out, I was not the person who sent the racially insensitive email to the entire department. It was actually sent by a self-proclaimed liberal and atheist who, get this, teaches a university course in race relations. And, after sending the email to the entire department, no one (myself included) responded with a denunciation. The reasons for the silence are twofold:

1. The lone conservative on the mailing list recognizes that the First Amendment protects speech that is controversial and inflammatory. If the First Amendment was meant to protect speech that is main stream and uncontroversial it would hardly be necessary.

2. The over two dozen liberals on the email list believe in the selective application of the concept of hate speech. Specifically, they only apply it to speakers they hate such as conservatives and Christians and, of course, conservative Christians. They really have no concern for the groups they claim to be protecting from offense. In other words, hate speech is an objectively meaningless concept created by ideological bigots who are incapable of defending their ideas without government intervention. That is why the same people who support the discriminatory application of speech codes also support the “fairness” doctrine.

The whole problem of speech codes could be solved if we could just find a way to make liberals happy. But that would be harder than finding Osama Bin Laden in a convenience store in New Jersey. So I think we should sue the enforcers of these codes when it is necessary to do so. And we should ridicule them even when it isn’t.

____________________


Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro
is not eligible to be President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five
of the United States Constitution regardless of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago,the moon)
because he was not born of TWO PARENTS
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth. His father was a citizen/subject
of Kenya/Great Britain.
Check it out:

http://www.TheObamaFile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

No comments:

Post a Comment