Amerika, zemlja velika

[jms_uk]

Inace, izgleda da se ubica ubio kad su ga saterali u cosak. 

 

Upucao se, ali je jos ziv.

[Weenie Pooh]

Virginia TV reporter, photographer killed in shooting during live interview

 

u spojleru snimak ubistva

 

jebotebog

 

Obrisali. Jel' bio onaj televizijski ili first-person?

[Krošek]

imate na liveleaku te stvari

 

liveleak.        com/view?i=f3f_1440595157

Edited August 26, 2015 by Krošek

[Prospero]

Ima na Blicu snimak iz POV ubice, sa sve pucnjavom.

[jms_uk]

Upucao se, ali je jos ziv.

 

Potvrdjeno da je umro.

[Eraserhead]

Potvrdjeno da je umro.

Steta. Inace cesto idem do Smith Mountain Lake gde se ovo sve dogodilo. In-laws imaju kucu tamo. Divno mesto.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Eraserhead

[Prospero]

 

The Coddling of the American Mind

 

In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like. Here’s why that’s disastrous for education—and mental health.

 

 

 

Something strange is happening at America’s colleges and universities. A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense. Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law—or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress. In February, Laura Kipnis, a professor at Northwestern University, wrote an essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education describing a new campus politics of sexual paranoia—and was then subjected to a long investigation after students who were offended by the article and by a tweet she’d sent filed Title IX complaints against her. In June, a professor protecting himself with a pseudonym wrote an essay for Vox describing how gingerly he now has to teach. “I’m a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me,” the headline said. A number of popular comedians, including Chris Rock, have stopped performing on college campuses (see Caitlin Flanagan’s article in this month’s issue). Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke.

 

Two terms have risen quickly from obscurity into common campus parlance. Microaggressions are small actions or word choices that seem on their face to have no malicious intent but that are thought of as a kind of violence nonetheless. For example, by some campus guidelines, it is a microaggression to ask an Asian American or Latino American “Where were you born?,” because this implies that he or she is not a real American. Trigger warnings are alerts that professors are expected to issue if something in a course might cause a strong emotional response. For example, some students have called for warnings that Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart describes racial violence and that F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby portrays misogyny and physical abuse, so that students who have been previously victimized by racism or domestic violence can choose to avoid these works, which they believe might “trigger” a recurrence of past trauma.

 

Some recent campus actions border on the surreal. In April, at Brandeis University, the Asian American student association sought to raise awareness of microaggressions against Asians through an installation on the steps of an academic hall. The installation gave examples of microaggressions such as “Aren’t you supposed to be good at math?” and “I’m colorblind! I don’t see race.” But a backlash arose among other Asian American students, who felt that the display itself was a microaggression. The association removed the installation, and its president wrote an e-mail to the entire student body apologizing to anyone who was “triggered or hurt by the content of the microaggressions.”

 

This new climate is slowly being institutionalized, and is affecting what can be said in the classroom, even as a basis for discussion. During the 2014–15 school year, for instance, the deans and department chairs at the 10 University of California system schools were presented by administrators at faculty leader-training sessions with examples of microaggressions. The list of offensive statements included: “America is the land of opportunity” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”

 

The press has typically described these developments as a resurgence of political correctness. That’s partly right, although there are important differences between what’s happening now and what happened in the 1980s and ’90s. That movement sought to restrict speech (specifically hate speech aimed at marginalized groups), but it also challenged the literary, philosophical, and historical canon, seeking to widen it by including more-diverse perspectives. The current movement is largely about emotional well-being. More than the last, it presumes an extraordinary fragility of the collegiate psyche, and therefore elevates the goal of protecting students from psychological harm. The ultimate aim, it seems, is to turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse.

 

We have been studying this development for a while now, with rising alarm. (Greg Lukianoff is a constitutional lawyer and the president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which defends free speech and academic freedom on campus, and has advocated for students and faculty involved in many of the incidents this article describes; Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist who studies the American culture wars. The stories of how we each came to this subject can be read here.) The dangers that these trends pose to scholarship and to the quality of American universities are significant; we could write a whole essay detailing them. But in this essay we focus on a different question: What are the effects of this new protectiveness on the students themselves? Does it benefit the people it is supposed to help? What exactly are students learning when they spend four years or more in a community that polices unintentional slights, places warning labels on works of classic literature, and in many other ways conveys the sense that words can be forms of violence that require strict control by campus authorities, who are expected to act as both protectors and prosecutors?

 

There’s a saying common in education circles: Don’t teach students what to think; teach them how to think. The idea goes back at least as far as Socrates. Today, what we call the Socratic method is a way of teaching that fosters critical thinking, in part by encouraging students to question their own unexamined beliefs, as well as the received wisdom of those around them. Such questioning sometimes leads to discomfort, and even to anger, on the way to understanding.

 

But vindictive protectiveness teaches students to think in a very different way. It prepares them poorly for professional life, which often demands intellectual engagement with people and ideas one might find uncongenial or wrong. The harm may be more immediate, too. A campus culture devoted to policing speech and punishing speakers is likely to engender patterns of thought that are surprisingly similar to those long identified by cognitive behavioral therapists as causes of depression and anxiety. The new protectiveness may be teaching students to think pathologically.
...

 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

 

 

Rečima Žižeka, studenti su dosadni idioti.

[hazard]

To je ta post-moderna post-liberalna potpuna pizdekizacija društva.

 

Kada pročitam ovako nešto, malo mi postane jasnije zašto se levičari poput Fernua lože na žestoke momke s asfalta i zakon ulice.

 

 

[Gandalf]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/28/vester-flanagan-poster-boy-for-leftist-microaggression-culture

[WTF]

Da je bio beo bio bi samo "mentally ill" ili "mentally imbalanced", ovako...

[Prospero]

Kako je krenulo, na kraju može dobiti federalnu krivičnu prijavu ako se neki tužilac baš uskurči:

 

Clinton wrote, sent classified e-mails on private server

The Washington Post
Carol D. Leonnig and Rosalind S. Helderman
5 hrs ago

While she was secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote and sent at least six e-mails using her private server that contained what government officials now say is classified information, according to thousands of e-mails released by the State Department.

Although government officials deemed the e-mails classified after Clinton left office, they could complicate her efforts to move beyond the political fallout from the controversy. They suggest that her role in distributing sensitive material via her private e-mail system went beyond receiving notes written by others, and appears to contradict earlier public statements in which she denied sending or receiving e-mails containing classified information.

The classified e-mails, contained in thousands of pages of electronic correspondence that the State Department has released, stood out because of the heavy markings blocking out sentences and, in some cases, entire messages.

The State Department officials who redacted the material cited national security as the reason for blocking it from public view.

Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, was one of about four dozen State Department officials whose e-mails were redacted because of national security concerns, according to a Washington Post review. Those officials included top aides such as Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills, some of whom would be likely to fill out senior roles in a Clinton administration. All told, 188 of the e-mails the State Department has released contain classified material.

The extent of the redactions in e-mails sent by Clinton and others, including ambassadors and career Foreign Service officers, points to a broader pattern that has alarmed intelligence officials in which sensitive information has been circulated on non-secure systems. Another worry is that Clinton aides further spread sensitive information by forwarding government e-mails to Clinton’s private account.

But it also highlights concerns raised by Clinton and her supporters that identifying classified material can be a confusing process, and well-meaning public officials reviewing the same material could come to different conclusions as to its classification level.

Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server has become an issue for her campaign.

The intelligence community’s inspector general had previously identified four e-mails out of a sample of 40 that had been sent on her server and contained classified information, including two that involved top-secret information. In those cases, however, people who have reviewed the e-mails said that Clinton did not write them.

The FBI is investigating whether Clinton’s e-mail setup may have compromised national security information. Officials have said that Clinton is not a target of the inquiry.

Nick Merrill, a Clinton campaign spokesman, said the heavy redactions in some of Clinton’s e-mails had been expected.

“This has been the case in previous releases and may well be the case in subsequent ones,” he said. “It is not surprising given the sheer volume of intelligence community lawyers now involved in the review of these e-mails.”

Merrill pointed to “competing assessments among the various agencies about what should and shouldn’t be redacted.”

State Department spokesman John Kirby said that “classification is not always a black-and-white, binary judgment. Responsible people can draw different conclusions.”

But the presence of classified information in e-mails Clinton wrote appears to contradict her assurances that she sent no such material.

“I have said repeatedly that I did not send nor receive classified material, and I’m very confident that when this entire process plays out that will be understood by the everyone,” she said last week during a Democratic Party meeting in Minneapolis. She said that government officials may now be making different determinations after the fact, but “it does not change the fact that I did not send, nor receive, material marked classified.”

In December 2014, Clinton turned over to the State Department more than 30,000 e-mails she had sent and received during her tenure as secretary. The agency is reviewing and preparing them for public release. A judge has ordered the department to release the e-mails on a rolling basis, completing the process by January. The State Department said Monday that it has released about 25 percent of the archive.

The sensitivity of the redacted information in Clinton’s e-mails is not publicly known. Government officials who have seen some of the correspondence say the conversations are generally benign. Some discuss classified programs or topics that have become well-known through public reporting, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe classified information.

One e-mail Clinton wrote in October 2009 was addressed to former senator George J. Mitchell (D-Maine), who was a special envoy for peace in the Middle East. The entire message, as released by the State Department, is blacked out and tagged with a designation noting that the information was classified. The only part now public is Clinton’s opening: “George . . . .”

Another note went from Clinton to Melanne Verveer, who was ambassador for global women’s issues, on Dec. 9, 2010. It was entirely withheld from release. The subject line reads, “Re: latest . . .,” with the rest redacted, making it impossible to discern the topic of the exchange.

Like other e-mails, it was withheld based on State Department reviewers’ conclusion that it contained “foreign government information” and “foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.”

The e-mails offer hints that Clinton aides were attuned to the need to handle some information with care in more secure settings.

Sullivan e-mailed Clinton a day before Christmas Eve in 2010, for instance, referring to “some interesting reports from the Pal side” that had been passed along from a State Department diplomat, presumably referring to Palestinians. Sullivan suggested a discussion “if you have a moment to talk secure.”

Some of the classified e-mails were written by top aides, as well.

Sullivan in a December 2010 note described for Clinton the results of two phone calls — one in which Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s representative to the United Nations, called a top State Department official. The details provided by Sullivan, a campaign adviser widely considered a potential national security adviser if Clinton is elected, were withheld from public view.

In several exchanges, Verveer forwarded Clinton accounts of confidential reports from Foreign Service officers giving updates from their posts. She shared long notes from the U.S. ambassador to Bangladesh describing what he learned in a private dinner with senior officials in that country amid a major embezzlement scandal. Most of those messages were redacted.

“Maybe more than you want to know,” Verveer writes Clinton in one note titled, “Re: dinner with Gowher.” The reference is to Gowher Rizvi, international affairs adviser to Bangladesh’s prime minister.

Verveer, now the director of a women’s institute at Georgetown University, did not respond to messages seeking comment.

 

[WTF]

Jesus built my AR-15.  It's a love affair.  Mainly Jesus and my AR-15.

 

[akibono]

Već par dana je aktelna priča o nekom nepoznatom 'snajperisti' koji nasumično puca po autoputu u Arizoni, Feniks i okolina... 'Organi' traže, još ništa nisu našli. 

Odmah se organizovalo naoružano građanstvo - pojavila se ekipa nabildovanih, tetoviranih, obučenih komplet u crno, i naravno naoružanih do zuba, zovu se "Bolt Force", patroliraju noću i traže napadača - a ovaj im je vođa!  :ziga:

 

[jms_uk]

Sta mu je sa ocima?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[akibono]

Sta mu je sa ocima?

 

nosi šef specijalna 'munjasta' sočiva, jer to su "The eyes of Bolt"   

 

 

https://nebula.wsimg.com/da80c0c6c84cc72729cb0f336c9eea9d?AccessKeyId=40A114BD41F31CB964E0&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

 

 

mogu samo da mislim kako je kad te ovako ko vampir presretne noću...

 

imaju i sajt i fejsbuk i sve, usput ih snimile i silne televizije... vreme je da dobiju svoj rijaliti program, uz dozvolu za ubijanje 

https://www.boltforce.com/photos.html