Tag Archives: pledge

Why the Obama Loyalty Oath Teacher Rocks

Obama_Dear Leader

The right-wing blogosphere has been a-twitter with the news that some associate prof at a community college (like that’s a real college) gave students a pledge sheet to swear eternal loyalty and fidelity to Dear Leader during… a math class.

For those of you who thought liberals ran the social science and humanities, but refrained from math and the hard sciences because, well, they’re hard, don’t worry — lefty academics have those fields covered too. Just in case one of you pesky right-wingers thought about infiltrating gemology or cartography or something boring like that.

The teacher was immediately persuaded to take a leave of absence without pay. She should be given a medal.

You see, the teacher actually had the guts to make clear something that had been unwritten since the 1960s: if you don’t toe the Democrat line, your grade ain’t gonna be just fine. Call it transparency, which is more than the Obama administration ever achieved.

But let’s not get carried away. It’s not like 90-95% of professors vote Democrat, right?

So this loyalty oath should be appreciated by those on both the right and left. It gives one a clear idea of what a professor actually thinks about your politics. If you’re a lefty, skip the readings, show up for half the classes, kick back in class, and expect to get extra credit for making a snide remark about Sarah Palin’s retard baby.

Oh, right. Grade inflation’s a figment of my imagination. Forgot.

If you’re a righty, prepare to take a monk-like vow of silence for at least four years (god love you if you go to graduate school), keep your mouth shut for fear you might be outed as an advocate of icky things like the Constitution or personal responsibility, and get a shrink on speed dial for Zoloft refills.

One ugly and memorable example provides context. Sitting in a doctoral-level class on Marx & Marxism (had to find out what all the killing and poverty was about), it was discovered by the rabidly left-wing prof that one of the wet-behind-the-ears students was writing for a conservative blog. The professor “outed” him triumphantly in class and harassed him mercilessly the rest of the semester. Because you know — compassion.

This was far from the only such experience at my university. Nasty withdrawal letters were posted on college websites explaining that the faculty was essentially “fascist,” completely rigid in its leftwing ideology, and the student was dropping out before she likely snapped and set fire to the place.

What was the problem? Lack of truth in advertising. There aren’t colleges or universities anymore in the United States. There are radical leftist think tanks. You don’t go to grad school to study social science but socialist science. And you’re not escaping the fools just because you are taking something as innocuous as math. Because socialist math dictates two plus two equals five.

So thank you, Associate Professor Sharon Sweet, for showing some guts and finally putting out your real classroom requirements. Vote for Obama and pass. Vote for the other side and fail. That’s open-mindedness, tolerance, and diversity, all wrapped up into a smiley-fascist blood pact to the country’s chief golfer and celebrity schmoozer. The head narcissist wouldn’t have it any other way.

Note: The author went to a community college and was just kidding about that line.

Obama Admits to Affair with Rosie O'Donnell: why you should read more than the headline

What’s in a headline?  In this day and age, a lot.  Internet, smart phones, Twitter, Facebook- all of these world-changing advances have also left us with a shortened attention span.  Web magazines and iPads have begun to replace the traditional forms of print media.  For many, the headline of a story and perhaps the first paragraph is all they will read.  “Headline readers” rarely dig into the meat of an article, let alone take any time to investigate the claims made in the body of the text itself.  Journalists and opinion writers struggle with this phenomenon. A headline should grab a reader’s attention, but should it do so dishonestly?

A friend who despises the “social conservatives” in the GOP primary race sent me a blog post recently.  The title – “Three GOP Candidates Sign Pledge to Investigate LGBT Community” .  How alarming! My friend was making the point that social conservatives are crazy, and here is a blog that has revealed the true depth of their depravity! It was certainly a disturbing headline, but my citizen journalist brain knew better than to trust that.  I read the entire post.  I wanted proof. Here it is, beginning to end:

Get ready for another round of McCarthyism. Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Santorum have all signed a pledge to form a commission to investigate the LGBT community if elected President.

This pledge was created by the National Organization For Marriage, and they have a history of extreme views against homosexuals and anyone who votes to extend marriage rights to them.

The pledge reads as follows.

I, [candidate name], pledge to the American people that if elected President, I will:

[…] establish a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed.

In other words, the extreme right wing is going to persecute homosexuals on a whole new level if they have power after the 2012 Election. Homosexuals and supporters of marriage equality will be intimidated, interrogated, and stripped of their right to speak freely. The religious right wing has been allowed to push their un-American and unconstitutional agenda for far too long. Americans must push back. If we continue to do nothing, we could all be persecuted by this fanatical group. -Stephen D. Foster, Jr.

Mr. Foster’s headline was based on quite a few shoddily built bridges.  Of course this pledge said nothing about investigating homosexuals, throwing them in jail or stealing away gay people in the middle of the night to imprison and torture.  Foster’s first bridge is built on the fact that the pledge was developed by the National Organization for Marriage.  His opinion is that they hate homosexuals because they advocate for traditional marriage.  So it wouldn’t matter what the wording of the pledge was, simply signing it makes you a hate-monger.

Foster’s second bridge to nowhere connecting homophobia to the candidates comes when he takes the phrase “investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed” for their views and opinions to mean homosexuals everywhere will be thrown into dank, dark dungeons never to be heard from again. His language is so alarmist and desperate its laughable.  Is this reporting?  The pledge does advocate the desire to protect the very first amendment rights Mr. Foster so desperately decries will be stripped from the homosexual community.  He may not realize that advocates of traditional marriage have been threatened, had their personal voting and financial records released and have been specifically targeted.  When citizens are specifically targeted and threatened for holding opinions, that is a threat to all Americans.  NOM feels strongly about protecting that right, and that sentiment should be supported by all Americans, regardless of opinion. If Foster was so terrified homosexuals losing their freedom of speech he might rethink this entire piece.

Regardless of Foster’s personal sentiments and the candidate’s own positions on the issue, the point is that his headline was not only misleading and alarmist, it was false.  My bone of contention is not with his opinion but with his false reporting.  Personal opinions of gay marriage notwithstanding, the pledge used no strong language, inappropriate terms or hateful rhetoric. Foster “proves” it is hateful simply by saying so.  He caps his post with a dire warning: “...we could all be persecuted by this fanatical group“.  As a blogger, I find Foster’s  dishonest attempt to garner readership despicable.  If you are going to report, report the facts as they stand.  Give your opinion in the body of the post, of course.  However, don’t lead with a headline that sets up a lie, then use your opinion as proof of that lie.  Its tacky.  Unfortunately, the Stephen Foster’s of this world count on the short attention span of modern Americans. They count on the hope that most readers won’t read beyond the headline, or bother to investigate arbitrary claims made by opinion bloggers.