Advertisements

Category Archives: schools and campuses

Does this crazy bitch get paid for this?

A couple of weeks ago, I was walking to the office from the metro, when I saw a tiny little creature sprawled on the sidewalk next to a tall tree in LaFayette Park. It was a tiny black squirrel baby, and he was teetering around on his tiny little squirrel legs, apparently still too young to run around. I assessed he had fallen out of the tree, or was pushed out by his siblings.

I stopped.

He stumbled over to me and just sat in front of me.

I bent down to stroke his soft little back, and he didn’t run away.

I wasn’t sure what to do, so I called DC animal control, because I was afraid inattentive humans, whether walking with their noses in their phones or riding their bikes would run the tiny little guy over. The nice man on the other end of the line was probably amused at my near-panicked concern about this teeny creature, and told me to pick him up and place him near the tree out of the way of pedestrians and bikes. (Yes, I assumed the squirrel’s gender, and in my head I named him George)

While I was on the phone with animal control, George decided to clumsily climb onto my foot and play with the buckle on my shoe! George was obviously a very brave baby squirrel.

This is George. He looks much bigger in this photo than he actually was. He was roughly the size of my palm.

After hanging up with animal control, I scooped George up into my hands and carried him to the tree, away from uncaring humans and speeding bicyclists. George sat in my cupped hands and made little squeaky squirrel noises. He sniffed me and may have taken a tiny little nibble of my thumb. He didn’t break the skin; I think he was just trying to figure out what I was. I looked closely at George’s tiny little face, resisted the urge to take him to the office with me wrapped in my suit jacket, and placed him next to the tree.

George was a black squirrel, or an eastern fox squirrel, apparently native to eastern and southeastern United States.

I never considered George’s color, nor what he ate. I thought about bringing him some nuts. I know we have all kinds of squirrels in LaFayette Park, including ginger, grey, and black ones. He looks grey-ish in this photo, but he actually was a little black critter.

But apparently, I should have noticed, because eastern fox squirrels are ostensibly the victims of RACISM! The media is apparently biased against black squirrels!

How do I know this? Because some bored, attention-seeking, perpetually aggrieved sow of an “associate professor” (emphasis mine) at California State Polytechnic University says so, and has done an entire research paper on the topic! No, I’m not kidding. I wish I was. Get a load at this word salad.

Drawing on feminist food studies and feminist posthumanist theories of intersectionality and performativity, this article draws out the implications of a feminist posthumanist politics of consumption for animal geography and feminist geography.

[…]

By juxtaposing feminist posthumanist theories and feminist food studies scholarship this article demonstrates how eastern fox squirrels: (1) are subjected to gendered, racialized, and speciesist thinking as a result of their feeding/eating practices, their unique and unfixed spatial arrangements in the greater Los Angeles region, and the western, modernist human frame through which humans interpret these actions (Deckha 2012; Hovorka 2015; Lloro-Bidart 2016) and (2) ontologically defy society’s boundedness as they demand the freedom to eat whatever they choose in the city.

This is how far the Covenant of the Chafed Cunt is willing to dig to find offense, racism, marginalization, and other “evidence” of just how depraved our society is. This “professor” dug through 18 months’ worth of news articles, blogs, government publications, and other sources to find evidence for her contention that eastern fox squirrels are the victims of RAAAAACISM in California, when viewed through the feminist lens.  She claims that because most of the popular news articles maligned these little guys for their feeding habits, she figured she’d focus her lens of feminist rage on this particular issue.

…eastern fox squirrels’ consumption of bird eggs and baby birds and mammals has similarly made them the target of conservationists in southern CA. In this case, instead of ‘concerns about cruelty’ related to the killing of animals for food becoming ‘a vehicle for ethnocentrism and even imperialism,’ (Kim 2015, 83), such concerns become a vehicle for conservationists to displace their own concerns about species loss in the greater Los Angeles region onto the eastern fox squirrel.

[…]

These connections between the eastern fox squirrel’s eating of ‘everything’ and the fecundity of the [nonnative] squirrel resonate with what Subramaniam calls the ‘oversexed female’ narrative, where ‘[f]oreign women are typically associated with superfertility – reproduction gone amuck’ (2001, 31).

In other words, this perpetually aggrieved, constantly searching for offense, word vomit spewing bobblehead is claiming her funhouse mirror feminist telescope is showing her that poor eastern fox squirrels are being discriminated against on the West Coast.

In the process she disgorges SJW buzzwords such as “intersectionality,” “feminism,” “power,” “ethnocentrism,” and “resistance” in order to show how our views of fat women color Angelinos’ views of darker squirrels… because they’re gendered, racialized, and speciesist… or something.

Really. Is this freak pickle getting paid to spew this shit?

Interesting note: I wanted to see what else this creature has spewed, but her social media and her website have all mysteriously disappeared.

Advertisements

Dear Jacob Dorman – Don’t let the door hit ya in the ass!

If you haven’t heard already (because the drama queen was very public about his decision, so people would ostensibly realize what a loss he was to the school) associate professor of history and American studies at the University of Kansas Jacob Dorman has tendered his resignation, because he got his mangina chafed at the state’s decision to allow concealed carry on campus. Because, you see, Dorman believes his cowardice, inability to control his bladder, and utter disdain for human rights should trump others’ right to defend himself. Additionally, Dorman believes other professors are just like him – pusillanimous dick brains, who apparently don’t understand this nation’s history, despite having taught it for a decade, as he reminds us in his resignation letter – will leave institutions of higher learning in droves.

In practical terms, concealed carry has proven to be a failure. Campus shootings have become all too frequent, and arming students has done nothing to quell active shooter situations because students do not have the training to effectively combat shooters and rightly fear becoming identified as suspects themselves.

It’s typical of a panty-shitting coward to start his claims with misleading information. He claims concealed carry has been a failure, which is a disingenuous assertion since most colleges and universities ban concealed carry on campus, and overall crime on college campuses, including those that allow concealed carry, is minuscule. In 2015 Texas became just the eighth state to allow concealed carry weapons on college campuses. Arkansas and Georgia in 2017 passed legislation to allow students and faculty to carry guns on college campuses. And given the misinformation vomited forth by Bloomberg-funded anti-rights groups about school shootings was debunked in 2014, Dorman’s claims are mendacious at best.

But maybe Dorman was claiming that concealed carry does not deter violence writ large. Could that be?

But beyond the fact that concealed carry does not deter gun violence, the citizens and elected representatives of Kansas must recognize that this is a small state, and in order to run a premier university, which is necessary for the health and wealth of the state, it must recruit professors from out of state.

Yep, that’s what Dorman is claiming, and that makes him look like a biased, uninformed douche tool, given the amount of evidence to the contrary. In fact, there have not been any problems with campus concealed carry in states that allow it. But hey, Dorman, don’t let that stop your froth-flecked histrionics! They’re effective kabuki theater for anyone ignorant enough about the issue and determined enough to fall for your hysterical rhetoric.

Fact is, Dorman thinks very highly of himself. He’s obviously quite the social justice warrior, as a student in his 300-level history class who rated Dorman only average, and noted, “I liked the course but I wish we had covered more and that it wasn’t focused only on race,” and he thinks that jamming the university full of progtards like himself is a desirable goal.

Recruiting the best trained professors necessarily means recruiting from coastal areas and progressive college towns where most people do not believe that randomly arming untrained students is a proper exercise of the Second Amendment’s protection of a well-regulated militia.

Boy, for someone who is supposed to be teaching history, Dorman is certainly illiterate and ignorant of what the Second Amendment actually says. I’ve referred to Roy Copperud – an acknowledged language expert – who definitively analyzed the text of the Second Amendment, and who shredded Dorman’s spurious claims, in multiple blog posts.

[Copperud:] “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb ‘shall’). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

[…]

[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”

[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”

But maybe Dorman should take a grammar class before bloviating on the meaning of text he quite obviously does not comprehend, because this obviously illiterate fuck monkey is teaching impressionable students American history, when he has obvious issues even comprehending the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, and that’s just no bueno. Probably a good thing he’s bidding the university a fond farewell.

And I won’t even address the incredibly tone-deaf, arrogant, supercilious claim that the “best trained professors” only come from progtard ranks where everyone is as ignorant as he is on the meaning of 27 little words, written in plain English!

Moving on, Dorman engages in some interesting projection when it comes to students carrying firearms. As a matter of fact, he essentially denigrates and demeans anyone in his class who may choose to carry a tool of self defense as someone apt to use their firearm in anger, someone untrained, and someone not in control of their temper. Further, he degrades adults who choose to exercise their rights as people intolerant of others views, when numerous events over the past few years have shown exactly the opposite to be true. Remember Yale? Remember Mizzou? Remember TrigglyPuff? Remember Berkeley?

Moreover, we discuss sensitive and highly charged topics in my classroom, concerning anti-religious bias, racism, sexism, classism and many other indexes of oppression and discrimination. Students need to be able to express themselves respectfully and freely, and they cannot do so about heated topics if they know that fellow students are armed and that an argument could easily be lethal. Guns in the classroom will have a chilling effect on free speech and hinder the university’s mission to facilitate dialogue across lines of division. That stifling of dialogue will hurt all students, including the ones with guns in their pockets.

You know what has a “chilling effect” on free speech, you self-important, clue-deficient, bloviating, shit gurgler? The threat of being fired, expelled or otherwise sanctioned for expressing an opinion with which the leftist Snowflake brigade disagrees.

You know what has a “chilling effect” on free speech, you narcissistic assbag? The open and public effort to hire only “progressives,” to teach at universities while working to shut out any professor whose views you find disagreeable.

You know what has a “chilling effect” on free speech, you smug, insulated twat blister? Drowning out dissenting speech and threatening violence to silence speakers with whose views you may not agree!

Trained, responsible adults, who are known to have very low incidents of criminal activity carrying tools of self defense in your classrooms should be the least of your worries! But since you’re a quivering, flapping mangina, you’re solely focused on the presence of an “evil” tool which may or may not be present in your classroom (you’ll never know, asshat – much like you’ll never know if someone is illegally carrying a concealed firearm), rather than the environment in today’s colleges, which you help perpetuate, and which insulates students from dissenting views and allows you to publicly urinate on those with whom you disagree with impunity.

Kansas faces a very clear choice: does it want excellent universities with world class faculty, or does it want to create an exodus of faculty like myself who have options to teach in states that ban weapons in classrooms?

Yes, Kansas does face a very clear choice. Does it want professors on campus who, like Dorman, are intent on casting aspersions on the very students whose views claims to want to protect, but who obviously only cares about those views with which he happens to agree? Does it want professors who can’t even comprehend plain English (or alternately, intentionally misinterpret it to fit their views)?

Please, Dorman, take your options to teach elsewhere! Go away, and take your gaggle of insipid, cunt-chafed snowflakes with you!

You are the problem. You and your howling, perpetually outraged, spineless ilk are what stifles free speech on today’s campuses.

The University of Kansas should consider itself lucky to be rid of you.

Ya Wanna Know Why You’re a FAIL?

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting and short article about today’s college seniors, the job market, and their prospects in it. It’s a brief piece that details the results of a survey of employers and college seniors applying for jobs after graduation that highlights just how disparate their views of the applicants are.

More than 60% of employers in the survey said applicants ought to be more familiar with the company and industry, and must ask better questions in interviews. Plus, those employers say, three out of four applicants fail to send thank-you notes after interviews.

The mismatch extends to hard skills, too. Engineering, business and computer science majors are in highest demand, with at least two-thirds of employers seeking graduates in those fields, according to NACE. But fewer than half of the students surveyed by iCIMS majored in those subjects.

College seniors feel good about their prospects: more than 90% of the students surveyed by iCIMS reported feeling confident about their interview skills. They also expect to earn over $53,000 in their first job, compared with average salary of $45,000 that recruiters expect to pay for those positions.

You have to wonder why students seem to be doing little to no market research. As I mentioned in a previous post, we have snowflakes who are incapable of functioning in the real world, because to their utter shock, that degree in feminist puppetry with a minor in tribal interpretive dance didn’t translate into a six-figure income job!

You know what employers want?

They want skills that will help the company produce and make profit.

They want skills that will allow the workplace to function and the business to create value.

They want someone with an understanding of how business and finance work.

They want someone with communications and people skills. That means someone who will respect the right of others to have dissenting views to their own, and who won’t be a chronic complainer about perceived slights and offenses at the office. Those things tend to impact morale.

They want someone who brings value to the table, but also realizes they have a lot to learn and is willing to learn it.

They want someone who understands that having graduated college doesn’t make them experts on anything – it mostly makes them newbs with some book smarts.

Look, I may come across as an uber bitch online, but I also understand this type of attitude won’t fly in all situations. No, I don’t curse up a storm at work, although depending on the frustrations of the day, some sort of F-bomb will fly out of my mouth on occasion. I know what I don’t know, even though I have a Master’s Degree and *mumblegrumble* years of experience, and I listen intently and take notes in meetings and briefings. I am certainly NOT entitled to a raise or a promotion, unless and until I prove myself worthy.

The snowflakes of today seem to be convinced that not only should they do what they love (I would never discourage that), but that they should get paid for it regardless of whether or not an employer needs skills in pussy hat knitting.

Today’s parents and high schools are doing young people a disservice by encouraging them to consider themselves and their needs superior to the employers’.

We hear the “do what you love” mantra coming from parents and educators on a regular basis, without any regard for the market and its demands. And because of this we have a bunch of kids who are graduating college with skills employers generally don’t value or want, but we found the curriculum exciting and fascinating. Exciting and fascinating is great, but it’s not going to pay the bills if there’s no demand.

Additionally, kids are being released into the world with an bloated sense of self-importance. What they want matters. Their opinion counts more than anyone’s. They’re important. They’re special. They’re entitled to the best. That kind of attitude translates to an unwillingness to consider what it is that actual employers seek, and what the market for their skills looks like. When you’ve been told your entire life that the only thing that matters is what you desire, you lack the ability to comprehend that there’s a whole world out there that may or may not match your needs and desires, and you can’t imagine why in the world what you love won’t pay the bills.

You want to be an artist? Great, be an artist. The world needs talented and creative people. But if you’re assuming that employers need your “Booger in Snowfall” wall art, and you are amazed why the green snot you placed on a white canvass won’t get you into an engineering or accounting job, you have no further to look than the nearest mirror. Study what you love, but be realistic about the job market, do your research, and have a fallback skill you can use while you’re creating that “Booger in Snowfall” masterpiece!

And then there’s the interview… Oh man!

In the survey two-thirds of employers noted that the applicant didn’t even bother sending a note thanking them for their time. Hate to tell you this, folks, but these are managers. They’re busy people, who have money to offer you for your skills, and who have taken the time out of their busy day to talk to you and perhaps offer you an opportunity. They’re not there to sell themselves to you, but quite the opposite. They are there to see if you – out of the hundreds of applicants for what may be a decent-paying, fascinating step in the door to an exciting career – might be a good fit. And yes, they offer money, benefits, and sometimes even catering, personal training, and beanbag chairs in exchange for the skills you bring to the table. They’ve got a ton of applicants who are competing for that position, so it would behoove you to 1) put your best foot forward, and 2) thank them for their time.

Research the job and about the company. Asking informed questions about the work, and not just about how much vacation time you’ll get and what your holiday bonus will look like, tells the employer that you’re interested in the actual… you know… work! It tells them you cared enough to do your homework, that you understand their mission, and that you are willing to learn to do the job right.

And ferpetessake, wear a damn suit!

I once interviewed a guy who came in wearing khaki slacks that looked like he had just dragged them out of the laundry basket, a pink polo, and a wrinkled grey jacket. No tie. No energy. He mumbled his words, had no idea what our agency did, and didn’t even bother updating his resume with his most current job, even though we found out he had been working in a “new” position for a year and never bothered updating his CV with his current experience.

He also didn’t bother tailoring his experience to the kind of work we did, so we would know he had something to offer despite the fact that his actual work wasn’t a match.

“I noted that your office works on *insert issue here*. While I realize my previous experience and education aren’t an exact match, let me tell you how my schooling and the previous work I have done can actually be an asset in this environment!”

That tells me the applicant at least understands the mission of the office, and can think out of the box how his or her experience will help advance it.

In other words, no one owes you a job. No one owes you a huge salary out of the gate. Temper your expectations, and remember, you are the applicant. It’s up to you to prove yourself, and in order to do that, you need to do some work.

Failure to do so will more likely than not have you working the fast food counter.

Newsflash: Millennials Aren’t Ready for Real Life

I gotta wonder why anyone would consider this news. Apparently, snowflake millennials are having trouble existing on their own, so they wind up quitting school and living in mom and dad’s basement, and NBC is right on top of that exclusive!

In 2015, one-third or about 24 million young adults, ranging from 18 to 34, lived with their parents, according to the report.

“Living in an independent household is expensive and the ability to do so hinges, in part, on young adults’ economic resources as well as the costs of rent and home-ownership,” the report stated.

While 81 percent of those who live at home are either working or going to school, one in four between 25 to 34 are “idle, meaning they are not in school and do not work” the report stated.

You know what I did while going to school full time at Johns Hopkins? I also worked full time in a retail store. I started at minimum wage, and worked my way up to assistant store manager. Eventually, I became a bartender and waitress. Tips were good. I worked every night, studied at work when I could, and picked up 10-12 hour shifts at the restaurant on the weekends. No, I didn’t get much sleep during those days, but I also didn’t expect to have a lavish lifestyle. I ate at work when I could. I lived with my significant other at the time, and our weekly food budget bought us basics – some frozen vegetables, some meat, milk, and cereal. I brought home leftovers when possible. My parents gave us a couple of old pieces of furniture. A mattress and box spring, which we placed on the floor, an old, rickety table for two with two chairs, an old ottoman which acted as a couch, and an old television set. I did my homework on an old word processor on a cardboard box that acted as a desk.

My dad co-signed for a used car. I had a car payment and insurance. I paid them. It wasn’t a great car. It was a practical one.

After I left college, I realized that I hadn’t learned skills applicable in the real world. I bartended for a while, but ultimately decided to enlist in the Army, where I learned a marketable skill and gained the experience I needed to eventually get a job in the private sector.

My son is in the Army Reserves. He gets a monthly paycheck as long as he goes to drill. He pays for his car and his insurance. Before joining his unit, he had what was called a job. He worked at Starbucks, and while I helped when I could, I was in dire economic straits myself thanks to the fiasco with hell tenants two years ago, so he did with what he had.

Yes, the job market is different, but you know what? Snowflakes need to learn to adjust and stop expecting that they will immediately get hired into a corner office with a six-figure salary. Yes, it’s a different work environment, and they need to figure out not only what they want to do, but what the market is offering.

Guess what, snowflake! That degree in gender studies isn’t going to translate into a well-paying job once you leave the cozy cocoon of academia.

That thesis you wrote in cishetero oppression of indigenous pygmies in the Seychelles isn’t going to get you very far in today’s job market.

You need ingenuity. You need flexibility. You need the ability to reason, not just blame the world for not handing you what you think you deserve.

Colleges and universities are definitely not preparing students for the real world. They’re giving class credit for “activism” (read: skipping school to protest perpetual grievances that underscore their impression that nothing is ever their fault, and that their specialness should be recognized and honored by all). They’re providing endless validation to whining harpies, who are interminably offended about the world not genuflecting before their inadequacies and legitimizing complaints about alleged “mistreatment” at the hands of oh-so-evil professors who had the unmitigated gall to demand class attendance for grades!

They’re pumping out witless, entitled, unprepared, whining ass cakes, who lack self awareness and are overflowing with supercilious, gratuitous arrogance, and who wonder why no one will hire them.

Maybe that’s a big part of the reason why millennials are having a rough time?

Or maybe they just like their parents basements.

Sex toys in school?

I think this story tells us volumes about the principal of Trinity Lutheran School in Racine, as well as the pastor and the school board – certainly more than it tells us about the kid implicated in this sordid tale.

Here’s the BLUF.

Kid gets permission to sell water snake wigglies at school.

In case you’re unfamiliar, they’re plastic toys – bags essentially – filled with water and sometimes confetti or glitter that are wiggly and hard to hold. They’re fun little toys. I’m sure at least some of us have played with them in our youth.

Sexually repressed, possibly mentally unstable principal accuses 12-year-old child of selling “sex toys” in school, and apparently yells at her at a basketball game for selling them evil,perverted sex toys.

Child is suspended for three days.

Father goes on a crusade (pun fully intended) to clear his daughter’s name, as well he should.

 

…the principal at Trinity Lutheran School accused the student of selling what she thought were sex toys.

The school’s pastor, David Gehne, said this issue already went before the school board, which sided with the principal.

Seriously, WHAT???

Now, look. I suppose anything can be used as a sex toy these days if you’re ambitious enough. There are enough inventive perverts out there to make hardware stores mean something completely different. Apparently this principal, this pastor, and this school board have some… uh… predilections (alternately, the lot of them is incredibly inexperienced and probably dull as shit in bed), if they’re considering something specifically designed to be difficult to hold on to as a sex toy.

But to ruin a kid’s administrative record with a disciplinary action, because of inexperience, personal perversions, or just plain ignorance? That’s just a no!

The school has also doubled down on the stupid and blamed students for “sexualizing” these toys, claiming this was disruptive to learning.

They claim they tried to shut down the sale of these evil sex toys water wigglies.

They claim the student had no permission to sell these toys.

Oh, and parents complained, because their kids, being kids and all, were snortling childishly at these toys, because PENIS!

So a kid who ostensibly got permission from a teacher to sell these fun little stress-relieving toys was punished because a) 12 year old kids were being 12 year old kids b) some idiot parents were disturbed that their 12 year old kids were being 12 year old kids, and c) because the principal, the pastor, and the school board are closet pervs, who think anything remotely phallus shaped is shameful! Freud would be so proud!

Add this to the zero tolerance extra stupid, I guess. So grateful my kids are all grown up!

%d bloggers like this: