Mark your calendars - Thursday, February 25th, 2015 - Milo will be coming to Bucknell University. It will be free and open admissions, no ticket required.
He will be speaking in Trout Auditorium starting at 7pm. See map below for the location of Trout Auditorium.
Milo Yiannopoulos is a journalist, broadcaster and satirist who appears regularly on television and radio discussing society, media, politics and technology. He is a senior editor at Breitbart News, a Los Angeles-based conservative news service. Milo has written extensively for the Telegraph and his writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Times, WIRED, the Observer, the Spectator, Attitude and many other places.
RSVP to the Facebook event:
Mark your calendars - Thursday, February 18th, 2015 - Dinesh D'Souza will be coming to Bucknell University. It will be free and open admissions, no ticket required.
He will be speaking in Trout Auditorium starting at 7pm. See map below for the location of Trout Auditorium.
Watch we he had to say last time he was here:
He will be bringing some copies of his new book, Stealing America: What My Experience with Criminal Gangs Taught Me about Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party
RSVP to the Facebook event:
Maggie Fischer | firstname.lastname@example.org
On principle, I try to avoid posting on Facebook about my political beliefs. Like many, I never much wanted to be called a bigot on my own profile page, and thus have often thought of politics, current events, etc., to be too volatile of subjects to post about.
Recently, I broke my social media silence to show my support for a controversial article written in The Odyssey by a Bucknell student. The article, titled “Why I Hate The Word Feminist,” discussed the student’s dislike for the word “feminism” and many of extreme ideas the author found it connotes, such as the “Free The Nipple Campaign.” And dare I say it, the author of the article...was female.
I feel that today’s feminist movement, third wave feminism, goes beyond campaigning for equality to the point where it begins to demean members of other genders, as found on the feminist t-shirt saying “Shut up! I wear heels bigger than your d**k.” Why should I support a current movement that at its core, fights for equality, but in its practice does the opposite?
In expressing this on Facebook, I received unnecessarily rude comments telling me that, by expressing my opinion, I was “isolating myself from a movement that is doing nothing but attempting to protect my rights as both a woman and as a person.” If that is so, why is the feminist movement not fighting for my right to express my opinion? I was told that I was “transphobic,” though I mentioned nothing of the sort, and instead was showing my support of equality and was specifically fighting for people not to be demeaned because of their gender.
"My gender should never pre-determine the validity of my political beliefs"
If I thought the feminist movement today truly fought for equality, my radical opinion would have been met with feminists responses like “Though I may disagree, I appreciate your courage to voice your opinion, as many women today feel like society and men demand they be silent.”
Whether you believe it or not, it is possible for us females (those biologically female and those who identify as such) to dislike the current feminist movement. Just as we can differ from what society dictates and become scientists and engineers, we can hold political beliefs that differ from what, seemingly, is expected of us. Just because I am a woman does not mean I have to fight for liberal beliefs.
Nobody should ever be personally attacked based on their opinion, something I think we can all agree on. Why should that change when gender comes into play? Why is it right for women to call other women “ill-informed” for having differing political ideologies? My gender should never pre-determine the validity of my political beliefs, and the feminist movement should do nothing other than support that.
Nick Paray | email@example.com
College students across America are “feeling the Bern” as the primaries for the 2016 election approach. The self-described Democratic-socialist senator from Vermont has gained waves of support since his campaign announcement this May.
Much of his support seems to be centralized in the youngest voting demographic, college students. Buzzwords like “free college,” “decent paying jobs,” “strong middle class,” “reforming Wall-Street,” and not to mention the plethora of social issues, all seem to resonate with this demographic.
His general support rests on his likeability, strong platform, and the fact that he’s not Hillary Clinton. Despite high initial support, Clinton’s favorability has steadily decreased by over a third, in the wake of the scandals with Benghazi and her emails. Sanders is the more approachable of the two frontrunners; he seems compassionate and benevolent, and he’s gaining headway in the race because of that.
According to Bucknell first-year and Bernie Sanders supporter Alexis Brito, what attracts him to Sanders is “his socialist rooted platform for economic and social change.” Brito believes that free public college will be a catalyst for bringing the lower class out of poverty, by providing them with educational opportunities, leading to higher paying jobs. He also believes that Sanders will give minorities a voice, given his extensive history with championing civil rights. What attracts him most to Sanders is his authentic personality, and many of the Keynesian economic programs designed to help minorities and the poor break out of the cycle of poverty.
When asked how the government would pay for these programs, he responded that, to his knowledge, raising taxes on big business and the rich, and cutting military spending would pay for these programs. This also seems to be the only response from Sanders supporters and even Sanders himself, and they like to leave it at that, without delving into the logistics of the funding.
Adding up all the programs and promises, Sanders proposed plan would cost taxpayers $18 trillion over a ten-year period. This number has been thrown out in the media quite often with some calling it absurd, given the current debt climate, and others touting its potential ability to save the taxpayers money in the long run.
"The despotism of a majority can be as oppressive as a single authoritarian."
Members of Sander’s staff have so far substantively outlined a tax increase that would account for $6.5 trillion over the ten-year period. This leaves $11.5 trillion unaccounted for, though an aide for Sanders said additional tax proposals would pay for some, or all, of the health care plan.
These comments seem ambiguous, and they are, because simply taxing the rich and cutting military spending cannot pay for this plan, as much as his campaign would like voters to believe.
In the hypothetical, cutting all military spending and taxing all earning above $1 million at a 100 percent rate, would only bring in $12 trillion over ten years, still $6 trillion away from the necessary funding.
A more detailed plan may be released from Sanders in the future, but as of now, this plan seems like a fantasy, with all facts and economic factors pointing against the possibility of funding these ambitious programs.
Spending aside, many of these issues in Sander’s platform undoubtedly need to be addressed. Student loans and college tuition have increased to enormous levels, placing considerable burdens on students and their parents to pay for college; the economic disparity between the wealthy and the poor is beginning to squeeze the middle class out of existence; and, the healthcare system requires immediate attention to ensure sustainability.
Endless spending and government programs, however, does not solve these problems. The government needs to put the power back in the hands of the people and give them a chance to succeed—to succeed on their own.
The close ties between government and big business, through lobbying or other ventures, provides a recipe for disaster, and is not true capitalism. Promoting small business, not big business, will allow the middle class to redevelop and provide a more sustainable economic system.
Rather than straying to the progressive policies that so many countries have endeavored to, America must stand strong and fight for the values that made this country great. Democratic Socialism doesn’t align with the essence of America, because the despotism of a majority can be as oppressive as a single authoritarian.
Madison Cooney | firstname.lastname@example.org
Every time one of the horrible school shootings happens across our country, citizens and politicians everywhere start calling for stricter gun control. But why? What will stricter gun control law actually do? And really what would they fix anyway?
Those who want to do bad things will find a way to do them regardless of if they are allowed or not. The best current example of this is marijuana sales.
We all know that the selling of marijuana is illegal in a majority of states save, for example, Colorado. Nevertheless, people in other states still sell marijuana and it is still consumed. If a person is truly seeking something or wants to do something, they are going to do it regardless of if it is legal or not.
One of the biggest problems I have with gun control being increased is that we currently do not enforce many of the laws that are already in place.
Again, people are so concerned with school shootings and cite them as one of the main reasons that America needs stricter gun control. However, there is already a law in place since the early 90’s called the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA). So someone carrying a gun on school property is already breaking the law, and could go to prison for five years simply for carrying a loaded gun within a half mile of school property. Despite this, we still see school shootings happen on average about once a week.
How are you going to fix that by just making more laws? People have broken laws since the beginning of time (Adam and Eve anyone?) so why would they stop now?
The honest truth is that making more laws to regulate guns is not the answer to fixing America’s problems with shootings, and I believe it would actually make things worse. By making stricter gun control laws America may actually prevent bystanders from stopping a situation before it gets worse.
In Chicago earlier this year, an Uber driver with a concealed carry permit shot and wounded a gunman. In Philadelphia earlier in 2015, a man in a barbershop opened fire on the customers and barbers until another customer with a concealed carry permit shot the shooter. I could go on in this way for a while, but these are just two examples of well-known cases.
"WHILE [POLITICIANS] ARGUE, MORE PEOPLE DIE AND NOTHING GETS FIXED."
The good guy having a gun in bad situations can be a great thing and by advocating for stricter gun control you eliminate that. The bad guy will continue to carry out his plan regardless of what the law is, but the good guy will abide by the law. So by having stricter gun control, America would limit the chances of a bad situation being impeded by the good guy with the gun.
No matter how many laws get made, shootings are still going to happen. I am not in any way saying that these mass shootings are not a problem because they are, but stricter gun control is simply not the answer.
I don’t have an answer for this problem in any way, but developing one should be a top priority for most politicians. However, almost all of them want to just argue about stricter laws.
While they argue, more people die and nothing gets fixed. Maybe the answer is giving some type of mental health screenings before purchasing guns. Or maybe the answer is parents with guns needing to teach their children appropriate safety techniques. Or maybe there is not an answer.
The only thing I am positive about is that stricter gun control laws are not it; they will not fix this for America.
The argument everyone has heard - that I happen to agree with - is that guns do not kill people; people kill people. To not agree with this statement, you would have to be in denial or lack the ability to reason.
If I put a loaded gun outside my house in the middle of the day when my family is coming home for lunch, with the mailman delivering our mail and the neighbor watering her flowers, the loaded gun will not all of a sudden start killing all of us.
We would only die if someone picked up the gun and started to shoot at us. No matter which way you twist and turn this argument, one thing is clear: the people holding the guns are the things that are doing the killing.
I believe that no matter what, taking away my rights to own a gun is morally wrong, and I will not stand for it. Some people argue that if citizens of our country acted better, then we would not need guns, which I wholeheartedly agree with. The unfortunate reality is that there are, and always will be, bad people.
For me, as a 5’4”, 110 pound woman, to feel safe living alone, I will carry a gun. I know there are bad people, and I need to be able to protect myself. By taking away my right to carry, you would be taking away my right to feel safe, and the ability to defend myself.
Before any laws in this country are changed, I believe that we need to enforce the laws we already have, instead of preventing people like me from having the right to protect themselves. The deal with gun control is that America needs to stop trying to take away its law-abiding citizens’ right to feel safe.
Justin Pinard | email@example.com
Perhaps the biggest point of discussion about the first of six Democratic presidential primary debates was how rigged and laughable it seemed to be.
The five big contenders fighting for the spot of Democratic presidential nominee took to the stage on Wednesday, October 14th, in the first of six planned debates – compared to the Republicans’ twelve – to showcase the track records and policy positions of the five candidates. Since the debate, however, two of the candidates – former Virginia Senator Jim Webb and former Rhode Island Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee – have already dropped out. The reasons for this are many: from consistently low polling numbers to accusations of blatant bias that have been leveled against CNN and even the Democratic National Committee itself. Frankly, the whole debate was one big farce.
The debate started off with the five candidates – including Senator Bernie Sanders, Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Governor Martin O’Malley – introducing themselves. As if that wasn’t enough of a bore, Clinton immediately dodged Anderson Cooper’s question, “will you do anything to get elected?” by describing herself vaguely as “a progressive who likes to get things done.”
This was followed by Sanders’ typical response to a question related to his socialist identity and policies: basically, Scandinavia is awesome! “We should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway.” Maybe we could, if our population was 5 million (and not 320 million) and 85% blond-haired, blue-eyed Caucasians (and not the most ethnically mixed Western nation in the world). Perhaps it would also be possible if we relied almost entirely on Sweden for defense, allowing us to spend most of our budget on welfare and other social programs.
The next great crux of the debate came to guns – great! Now we can see just how anti-2nd Amendment some of the candidates are – oh, or you can attack the NRA for no reason. That’s a great stance too.
Eventually, after Webb became frustrated with being asked the fewest questions, Clinton was asked about her e-mails – but was suddenly defended by Sanders, who, being a socialist, obviously speaks for all Americans. He declared that “the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn e-mails.” In radical left-wing echo chambers, perhaps. I myself, however, tend to like to know if presidential candidates are actually liars and potentially law-breakers.
She similarly refused to answer a related question from Chafee – interestingly making herself look more defensive than if she had simply answered it in a confident manner. But everyone applauded her anyway, so that’s fine.
Then, possibly the most important question of the night: do black lives matter, or do all lives matter? It seems the Democratic candidates, save Webb, are all interested in pandering by all declaring that “black lives matter”. What ever happened to “the people” or the egalitarian principles the United States was founded on? With total respect to the “BLM” movement, all the Democratic candidates seem to be able to do is talk only about specific groups (be it “the middle class”, “Wall Street”, women, or some other distinct group of Americans), only seeking to further divide rather than unite. Either way, the question and its associated answers seem to be the most blatant pandering of the whole debate – and the most unnecessary, as well.
The last jaw-dropping question of the whole debate asked how each candidate’s presidency wouldn’t simply be “Obama’s third term”. Sanders, Webb, Chafee, and O’Malley all basically echoed one another in vague statements about “fighting for the middle class” and the like (with Sanders tacking on how electing him will somehow be a “revolution”) – but Clinton didn’t even try to hide why she thinks she’s the best candidate. “I think being the first woman president would be quite a change,” she said proudly. Apparently, pandering to one gender over the other is not only acceptable; it’s the only qualifier for being the leader of the country with the largest economy and military in the world. Who knew that would be the most important factor in choosing the leader of a meritocracy?
With the Democratic field now just limited to Clinton, Sanders, and O’Malley, it will take a miracle if the next five debates don’t just come down to the three (probably soon-to-be two) candidates pandering to the Democratic party’s base instead of actually trying to bring Americans together and end the divisive political bickering that has been so prevalent for years now. Either way, it will definitely take a huge amount of commitment to last through any more Democratic presidential debates for this election cycle.
Zach Persing | firstname.lastname@example.org
Early last month the House Freedom Caucus, a group of approximately 40 conservatives (the Caucus doesn’t publish an official roster) forced House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to drop out of the House Speakership race by supporting other candidates and denying McCarthy the 218 votes necessary to win the election. Almost immediately after McCarthy dropped out the Freedom Caucus received immense criticism from both less conservative Republicans and the mainstream media.
Rep. Peter King (R-NY) said that the Freedom Caucus was doing “the stuff that goes on in banana republics.” Furthermore, Steve Benen of MSNBC stated that the Freedom Caucus was causing “chaos.”
Despite the near universal criticism of the Freedom Caucus, caucus members should be commended for their fight against McCarthy for one simple reason, the fight against McCarthy was rooted in the principle of democracy.
The primary reason that the Freedom Caucus was criticized for blocking McCarthy is that he was widely viewed as next in line for the Speakership. However, in reality, the notion that someone should be awarded the third most powerful position in American government based on seniority alone is utter lunacy.
The speakership should be decided by a democratic vote, if a majority of the House does not think that a person is fit to serve as speaker then that person should not be able to serve as speaker! Furthermore, the primary reason that members of the Freedom Caucus refused to support McCarthy is that he failed to pledge he would run the House in a democratic manner by returning to regular order.
Under former Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) the House abandoned regular order, the process by which bills are drafted and voted on in committees and then move to the floor. Under Boehner, almost all very important legislation went through the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee, also known as the Speaker’s Committee, is controlled by the Speaker and party leadership.
To be clear, this article is not an endorsement of the man who was eventually elected Speaker, Paul D. Ryan (R-WI). I don’t claim to know whether he will be an effective and unifying leader or not.
That being said, I am cautiously optimistic. Ryan has pledged that he will in fact return the House to regular order. Furthermore, Ryan was elected in a truly democratic fashion. There was a considerable amount of debate and negation prior to the vote. We have the Freedom Caucus to thank for that.
Alf Seiwers | email@example.com
“See something, say something” is important good advice with regard to reporting incidents of bias on campus in Bucknell’s new reporting system.
But can someone file a bias-incident report against the whole university for its ideological culture?
At Bucknell, 74 percent of faculty are registered Democrats, 70 percent identify as liberal or “far left.” Only 6 percent are registered Republicans, only 9 percent identify as conservative, and 0 percent are “far right.” That’s according to a report in The Bucknellian on 9/11/15, with figures for party registration taken from Union County records.
The same report cited survey data indicating that student political views are far more evenly spread.
But the decidedly un-diverse snapshot of faculty at Bucknell spotlights an invisible elephant on campus: Political diversity is not a category recognized by university policy. While diversity of thought is recognized, it is not strongly evident within the faculty overall when it comes to political orientation.
“People tend to search for evidence that will confirm their existing beliefs while also ignoring or downplaying disconfirming evidence,” warns the summary of a new study of academic bias by social scientists writing in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
Social scientists have even used the acronym WEIRD to describe this type of academic bias: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic (the latter in the generic sense but apparently at Bucknell potentially in the partisan sense as well).
Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University’s Stern School of Business, summarizes in this way the above-mentioned study of psychology on campuses nationwide, which he co-authored:
“Before the 1990s, academic psychology only LEANED left. Liberals and Democrats outnumbered Conservatives and Republican by 4 to 1 or less. But as the ‘greatest generation’ retired in the 1990s and was replaced by baby boomers, the ratio skyrocketed to something more like 12 to 1. In just 20 years. Few psychologists realize just how quickly or completely the field has become a political monoculture….
“The lack of diversity causes problems for the scientific process primarily in areas related to the political concerns of the Left – areas such as race, gender, stereotyping, environmentalism, power, and inequality – as well as in areas where conservatives themselves are studied, such as in moral and political psychology.”
One solution, Haidt and his team argue, is classifying political diversity as an explicit goal in university diversity policy. That’s something that Bucknell has not yet done but should.
Elizabethtown College political scientist April Kelly-Woessner in another 2015 study found that “young people are less politically tolerant than their parents’ generation and that this marks a clear reversal of the trends observed by social scientists for the past 60 years.”
What does she argue is lost in this lack of campus political diversity? “Listening to viewpoints that contradict our own makes us more tolerant. In this way, the lack of ideological diversity in higher education contributes to intolerance, especially among leftist students.”
George Yancey, a University of North Texas sociologist, recently has called this “education dogma.”p
“The conclusions drawn from those with education dogma are not necessarily the natural conclusions one must draw with more knowledge gained from academic study,” he wrote. “Instead higher education occurs in a specific social institution that promotes certain subcultural values and beliefs. Participants in these institutions are expected to accept these values and beliefs without question. These beliefs are not the result of gaining more facts but instead are the dogmatic adaptation of certain social values provided to them by this subculture…. [not] looking for more information to make accurate assessments, but simply look to affirm previously accepted beliefs…..The dissenters are seen as having nothing of value to say and it becomes permissible to dehumanize them.”
Among a dozen or more education dogmas of secular higher education listed by Yancey (which he claims should be critically argued), are: “Religious freedom is not as important as acceptance of sexual minorities,” “Society would generally be better if traditional religion disappeared,” and “Political conservatives are either greedy manipulators exploiting the marginalized or sincere dupes voting against their own economic interests.”
He adds that it’s not problematic that students on campuses hold such beliefs, but it is a problem when “they are unable to entertain alternative perspectives,” to understand “there are arguments opposing these statements that are not tied to evil motivations.” Instead, alternative views become excuses for “stigmatizing and silencing the heretic,” and for not engaging those with different world views through critical thinking skills.
Because what Yancey calls “education dogma” functions in para-religious ways, it’s not surprising that it hurts religious diversity, which indeed is a specifically protected area of diversity on our campus. Bucknell prohibits religious bias and harassment and specifically promotes religious diversity. Yet the faculty political monoculture arguably encourages secular privilege, given today’s American tendency for liberal politics to be identified with secularism.
No faculty or student diversity education program of which I’m aware at Bucknell addresses the twinned issues of political diversity and secular privilege on campus.
When a staff member of color a couple years ago told how student believers felt marginalized and ridiculed on campus by both faculty and peers, an administrator responded: “Maybe such students should consider going to a bible college.”
A believing student of color described struggling with suicidal feelings at Bucknell because of the weight of continual pressure from secular privilege on campus. Should he have just been told to leave? Or should “believers need not apply” be a stated Admissions policy?
It seems an issue in hiring and retention of staff. When a leading candidate of color for an administrative position here was turned down, some faculty opposed to the hiring said it was because of his religious beliefs, while agreeing that it was best to say it was for other reasons. When an administrator of color was forced out of a campus position, it was called a situation of “not being a good fit,” but the religious beliefs that were a major source of dislike directed against the staffer were not discussed.
All of which is not even to mention openly degrading or condescending comments about religion, and potential ostracism, faced by faculty and staff of faith on campus regularly. Or the acceptable campus discourse of ridiculing the beliefs held by many local people, often of lower socioeconomic and educational status, who nonetheless fill positions on campus that support the faculty’s work.
With the backdrop of massive persecution of religious communities globally, especially Christians, which has affected Bucknell international students directly, the recent hate-crime shooting of Christian students at Umpqua College in Oregon reminds us in tragic microcosm of how secular American campuses are not immune from harmful bias of all types.
The intersectionality of political monoculture and privilege is rich. But it usually goes unrecognized here, because it’s too much a part of our institutional culture. Our university, in a small town in central Pennsylvania, easily acts as an echo chamber for its own faculty monoculture, even provincially so by comparison with other American institutions of higher education of a similar bent. Historically, as a Baptist city on a hill, it seemed for the most part to ignore the plight of the nearby coal country that helped generate our region’s wealth, but whose residents were of different faiths than Bucknell’s.
Bucknell’s history of established White Anglo-Saxon liberal Protestantism, which became closely allied to secular liberal faith in American progress in the early-twentieth-century progressive era, proved a good incubator for today’s academic monoculture.
Doug Sturm, the late professor of Religion and Political Science, who did much to develop a campus ethos of social justice from Bucknell’s liberal American Protestant roots, wrote in his Solidarity and Suffering that “creative expression” must be a pillar of social justice: “Individuals and groups should be empowered to give free play to their sensibilities and inspirations in diverse forms, cultural and organizational. This principle stands opposed to ‘cultural imperialism,’ the sometimes but not always subtle subjugation of the Otherness of the Other through the ‘gaze’ or normality and assumptions of respectability.”
Following Sturm’s wise prescription, the Bucknell ethos of a liberal education should take care not to become a parody of itself. We don’t need to become unintentionally yet one more source of “subjugation” and “cultural imperialism,” a new variant of Western neoliberal neocolonialism. Rather, in our academic culture we should exemplify that to which certainly all the faculty aspire: “We Do Diversity.”
Tom Ciccotta | firstname.lastname@example.org
I once had a professor who said that F. Scott Fitzgerald claimed “the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” He stood there in front of us, believing that he was the living embodiment of Fitzgerald’s claim, while I rolled my eyes somewhere in the back of the classroom.
Through discussion and engagement with exclusively leftist literature, we were forced to conclude that despite the Obama presidency, America was still an inherently racist country. Opposing ideas were never presented in the classroom. My desire to include Thomas Sowell, an African-American economist and prolific writer on race from Stanford University, in the course’s open-ended final project on personal identity, was met with quick rejection from the professor.
We are engaged in an intellectual war. Many of our professors are merely ideologues who live comfortably with the knowledge that their life’s purpose is to create mirrors of themselves that will go out into the world and change it in their image. When Ben Carson gave the commencement address at the University in 2010, several faculty members turned their backs to the speaker. Why do those who are tasked with molding us into critical thinkers so willingly reject intellectual diversity and opposing ideas? Ironically, when the resulting world descends into chaos and corruption, instead of blaming themselves, the same professors will believe that it’s because they haven’t yet done enough.
“Maybe you can start to get how your privilege oppresses people and why you need to be aware of your privilege so you don’t continue to sound like the classist and racist bigot you have presented yourself as,” one of the University’s most prominent left-wing student leaders said to me in a debate over tuition-free college. This might have been an attempt to get me to shut up and go away, but in reality it just added fuel to my fire.
The sole tactic of progressives on this campus in debate is to dismiss the speaker by attacking his or her credibility, rather than considering the merits of the argument. This ends now. This is why “opposing ideas” presented in the classroom are rarely two truly conflicting ideas. To me, this points to the weakness of their positions. Bias in many ways is inevitable and appropriate, but the silencing of opposing ideas through aggression, personal attacks, and control of curriculum and discussion only speaks to the fear that progressive ideas will be challenged and defeated. No idea is unworthy of discussion on the University campus.
A recent campus study revealed that there is a significant conservative student population on campus. So where are you? Let’s band together and demand our campus progressives in the faculty and student body to actually act on their self-proclaimed virtues of tolerance and diversity.
“The Marxians pretend that what their inner voice proclaims is history’s self-revelation. If other people do not hear this voice, it is only a proof that they are not chosen. It is insolence that those groping in darkness dare to contradict the inspired ones. Decency should impel them to creep into a corner and keep silent,” Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises said.
Silence isn’t an option. They will hear us soon.
*Originally appeared in the Oct 23rd edition of The Bucknellian
Alexander Gao/The Bucknellian
Ethan Wise | email@example.com
On October 1st, 2015, 70 to 80 people gathered in The LC Forum to listen to Fox News Chief Washington Correspondent, James Rosen. This was the culmination of just over a year’s work of attempting to get schedules to line up, and appropriate funding to come through.
Rosen spoke about his experience as a journalist, and opened the evening with some light jokes about tenured faculty and how he once had a provost ask him, “Do you know the difference between the tenured faculty at my university and terrorists?”
He continued the story, “You can negotiate with terrorists.”
Rosen then discussed how the evening’s talk would be non-partisan, or at least bi-partisan, stating, “I aim to dazzle you with the raw animal magnetism of a Mitch McConnell, and the razer-sharp linear logic of Joe Biden.”
The talk then turned to the 2016 presidential election, discussing the Democratic candidates, where Rosen lightheartedly joked about whether Bernie Sanders would “[follow] the logical…conclusions of his socialist principals, [and] will be evenly distributing [his recent fundraising] amongst Martin O’Malley and Lincoln Chaffey.”
Rosen then moved to the GOP candidates, saying, “On the Republican side, we have Donald Trump, who continues the kind, soft, gentle, unifying campaign that has been his hallmark so far.”
“It promises to be a fun season” Rosen concluded, after briefly discussing Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina.
The evening then shifted to a slightly more serious topic of national security and foreign affairs. He touched on the likes of Russia in Syria, Saudi Arabia in Yemen, and Iran in Iraq. “It’s a mess,” remarked Rosen.
“We see of course, with the Iran nuclear deal, an attempt to square a certain circle. To take a regime, which for 25 years has lied and cheated and deceived the international community with respect to the parameters of its nuclear program…and attempt to subject such a beast to the constraints of…arms control verification.”
He then discussed the rise of non-state actors, like ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), which is a relatively new phenomenon. “It’s not been clear to me that the Obama Administration has been prepared to recon fully with it” Rosen said. “Administration officials have been very open in saying that ISIS is going endure beyond President Obama’s term; it’s going to be a problem for the next President of the United States as well.”
Rosen continued by remarking on how Russia, supposedly one of our “allies” who helped negotiate the Iran nuclear deal, has just hosted General Qasem Soleimani, who is the head of the Quds Force of the Iran Revolutionary Guard. Soleimani has direct connections to terrorist groups in the Middle East and is credited with killing Americans using improvised explosive devices during the Iraq war.
Existing United Nations sanctions, which Russia is a party to, prohibits such travel of Soleimani outside of Iran. Rosen pointed out the irony that Russia is “supposed to be one of the countries that helps us guarantee that Iran lives up to the nuclear deal.” He concluded “…It’s not chuckle-worthy.”
Rosen then remarked about the time he once became the number one trending subject on Twitter. He took a picture of the trending topics, so that one day he can show his kids, who are eight and five.
He was referring to when the Washington Post reported in May of 2013, that four years prior the FBI secretly submitted a search warrant application to a federal judge. This allowed the FBI to go through his personal email and phone records – including his home, cell, his parents’ phone, and all work phones, which amounted to “20 different phone lines.”
All of this was done without notifying Rosen, who was unaware of the activity until The Post reported it.
The warrant “declared…James Rosen to be a criminal co-conspirator, with [his] alleged source inside the State Department.” It revolved around reporting Rosen was doing for Fox on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.
“It is the first time in modern history that the federal government has designated a reporter ‘a criminal’ for doing his job. In all of Watergate, throughout the Pentagon Papers, President Richard Nixon, and his aids…never designated a reporter a criminal.”
He was even labeled a flight risk. Rosen pointed out the irony in that label, since during the effective time of the warrant, he traveled abroad with Defense Sec Robert Gates and Sec of State John Kerry for over a week. “Such was the fraud in this case” Rosen said.
Finishing up the night, Rosen moved more generally to his time at Fox, saying “I’ve had the privilege of reporting for Fox News for 17 years now. My first day on the job was February 22, 1999 – raise your hands if you were alive at the time…all right that’s depressing…”
He’s covered the White House, State Department, and the Supreme Court, interviewed Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Supreme Court Justices. He’s been to all 50 states, 40 countries and, written two books. His second book “Cheney One on One: A Candid Conversation with America’s Most Controversial Statesman,” was just released this November.
“…Good reporters are obsessed, with and by, a completely self-imposed delusional construct that normal people….don’t even pay ten seconds attention to, called the record of our time. We care about the record of our time.”