PDA

View Full Version : Chapter 639: Conclusion - Mike Adams calls it quits. >=^(



PoliCon
05-12-2010, 11:18 PM
As you are surfing the Internet this morning, I am in a car driving west somewhere between the Appalachian and Rocky Mountains. The particular column you are reading right now is the 639th I have written since I became a columnist for Townhall in September of 2003. It will also be my last.

My first column for Townhall was called “NAMBLA: Coming to a Campus Near You.” In that column, I argued that the diversity movement had gained such momentum – ironically, from not being subjected to competing ideas – that it would not be long before pedophilia was accepted and actively promoted on our nation’s campuses – all in the name of “tolerance” and “diversity.” That time has now arrived.

My most recent column included a revealing email exchange with a university administrator. Careless readers of that column considered it to be somewhat mundane and unenlightening – perhaps even petty. The more careful readers noticed that, in one of the administrator’s emails, she included a quote by James Baldwin, which said “If you fall in love with a boy, you fall in love with a boy. The fact that many Americans consider it a disease says more about them than it does about homosexuality.”

Of course, when Baldwin made that statement he was not a “boy.” He was a grown man suggesting that pedophilia is not a disease but, instead, that opposition to pedophilia is a disease. I disagree. That’s why I’m a follower of Jesus, rather than a follower of Baldwin or Muhammad.

Several readers who picked up on that quotation asked a rather pointed question: “Is your university so caught up in moral relativism that it has lost its capacity to condemn pedophilia?” The answer: “You don’t know the half of it.”

Regular readers of my column recall an incident last year when the Faculty Senate passed a resolution to support the First Amendment rights of a feminist who wished to place nude pictures of little girls (pre and post-pubescent) in the lobby of the university library.

Regular readers of my column also recall an incident at another UNC campus involving a 34-year old man who was convicted of possessing child porn – including pictures of eight-year-olds being raped and sodomized. After admitting to the felony child porn convictions – right on his application, mind you - he was still admitted to UNC-Greensboro. They even hired him to work in the Office of Student Life where he worked to get a porn star hired to speak about “safe sodomy.” The day after she spoke the College Republicans were denied funding for my speech. I was deemed “too offensive” even though I wasn’t talking about sodomy.

But the story I’m breaking today takes the cake. During my First Amendment lawsuit against UNC-Wilmington, my attorneys discovered a series of emails, which began with an accusation of “transphobia” leveled against me by a group called the Gender Mutiny Collective. This was in response to two columns I wrote - “Diversity and Perversity at my Little University” and “The Old Rugged Cross-Dresser.”

For those who don’t already know, the Gender Mutiny Collective is a group of transgendered anarchists. They support violence as a means of eradicating the oppression of transgendered people. One of their recruiting manuals quotes their president as saying “I don’t trust a boy unless he knows how to suck a good (rhymes with “clock.”).

When the Gender Mutiny Collective demanded an investigation of me – to determine whether I was transmitting “transphobia” in the classroom - the university had two options. They could: a) support the First Amendment rights of their faculty member, or b) support the rights of transgendered anarchist pedophiles to be perpetually un-offended.

So the university sided with the transgendered anarchist pedophiles and conducted an investigation. The investigation found no evidence of the transmission of “transphobia” in my classroom – nor did any consensus emerge as to what exactly constitutes “transphobia.”

CONTINUED (http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2010/05/12/chapter_639_conclusion?page=2)

Gingersnap
05-13-2010, 10:08 AM
I'm betting that's he relocating to a more normal academic setting (if that's possible) and filing his columns with somebody else. He should come out here. If Ward Churchill has free speech, Adams should get some too. ;)

PoliCon
05-13-2010, 10:43 AM
I'm betting that's he relocating to a more normal academic setting (if that's possible) and filing his columns with somebody else. He should come out here. If Ward Churchill has free speech, Adams should get some too. ;)

Why would he abandon Townhall? They're not the problem.

noonwitch
05-13-2010, 10:56 AM
He is radically misinterpreting James Baldwin's statement. Of course, Baldwin wasn't a boy when he said it. He was using the term boy to refer to young love, like grown hetero man would refer to his first love as a girl.

Gingersnap
05-13-2010, 11:22 AM
He is radically misinterpreting James Baldwin's statement. Of course, Baldwin wasn't a boy when he said it. He was using the term boy to refer to young love, like grown hetero man would refer to his first love as a girl.

He wasn't a boy when he went for a 17 year old guy, either. ;)

noonwitch
05-13-2010, 11:28 AM
He wasn't a boy when he went for a 17 year old guy, either. ;)


17 is over the age of consent in my state, where that age is 16.

fettpett
05-13-2010, 11:40 AM
17 is over the age of consent in my state, where that age is 16.

i've heard conflicting things about AoC in MI. is it 16 if the bf/gf is 18 or just straight AoC 16?

linda22003
05-13-2010, 12:00 PM
"Regular readers of my column recall an incident last year when the Faculty Senate passed a resolution to support the First Amendment rights of a feminist who wished to place nude pictures of little girls (pre and post-pubescent) in the lobby of the university library."

I'm not sure what he's referring to here, but if it's the "Century Project" he's way off base. However, it looks like that wouldn't be a first, for him. I have no idea who he is, but hope he enjoys his new ventures.

http://www.thecenturyproject.com/newsite/html/project/photos.html

Gingersnap
05-13-2010, 12:00 PM
17 is over the age of consent in my state, where that age is 16.

I'll bet it wasn't in the 1940s.

noonwitch
05-13-2010, 01:52 PM
i've heard conflicting things about AoC in MI. is it 16 if the bf/gf is 18 or just straight AoC 16?



It's 16 for boys and girls. It's 18 if the perp is a parent, uncle, teacher, etc.

MrsSmith
05-13-2010, 11:31 PM
"Regular readers of my column recall an incident last year when the Faculty Senate passed a resolution to support the First Amendment rights of a feminist who wished to place nude pictures of little girls (pre and post-pubescent) in the lobby of the university library."

I'm not sure what he's referring to here, but if it's the "Century Project" he's way off base. However, it looks like that wouldn't be a first, for him. I have no idea who he is, but hope he enjoys his new ventures.

http://www.thecenturyproject.com/newsite/html/project/photos.html

Until the latest moronic judge's decision limiting free speech rights (yet again), Mike Adams wrote entertaining columns about the hypocrisy and leftist slant to all things on campus. As the wife of a conservative college instructor, I can vouch for Dr. Adams' facts. Universities are full of authority figures that have as little regard for the rights of conservative students as some of our more moronic judges. It never ceases to amaze me how leftists are so consistent about denying exactly the rights our founders took such pains to win and preserve. Absolute filth, flag-burning, anti-Christian "art" and nude protests are all "protected free speech." But political columns, advertisements, and prayers are not.

PoliCon
05-13-2010, 11:57 PM
"Regular readers of my column recall an incident last year when the Faculty Senate passed a resolution to support the First Amendment rights of a feminist who wished to place nude pictures of little girls (pre and post-pubescent) in the lobby of the university library."

I'm not sure what he's referring to here, but if it's the "Century Project" he's way off base. However, it looks like that wouldn't be a first, for him. I have no idea who he is, but hope he enjoys his new ventures.

http://www.thecenturyproject.com/newsite/html/project/photos.html

Way off base how? Your link clearly shows young girls in the nude . . . and I don't see why those photos are necessary myself. Way too much gets to hide under the cover of the label ART which is just not art. I can why he would have objections to that display - I for one would not want it casually displayed somewhere were people would be forced to view those photos against their will. I'm not saying people should not be allowed to see them - only that people should not be forced to see them. Putting them in the lobby of the library is forcing people to view them.

MrsSmith
05-14-2010, 09:31 AM
Way off base how? Your link clearly shows young girls in the nude . . . and I don't see why those photos are necessary myself. Way too much gets to hide under the cover of the label ART which is just not art. I can why he would have objections to that display - I for one would not want it casually displayed somewhere were people would be forced to view those photos against their will. I'm not saying people should not be allowed to see them - only that people should not be forced to see them. Putting them in the lobby of the library is forcing people to view them.

After looking through that link, I'd agree that it is child porn... AND vomit-inducing. "Protected free speech," I suppose...unlike the column that criticized it. :mad:

MrsSmith
05-14-2010, 09:32 AM
"Regular readers of my column recall an incident last year when the Faculty Senate passed a resolution to support the First Amendment rights of a feminist who wished to place nude pictures of little girls (pre and post-pubescent) in the lobby of the university library."

I'm not sure what he's referring to here, but if it's the "Century Project" he's way off base. However, it looks like that wouldn't be a first, for him. I have no idea who he is, but hope he enjoys his new ventures.

http://www.thecenturyproject.com/newsite/html/project/photos.html
If you can't see the problem with protecting this crap while denying a professor's right to criticize it, you have a major gap in your head.

linda22003
05-14-2010, 09:35 AM
After looking through that link, I'd agree that it is child porn... AND vomit-inducing. "Protected free speech," I suppose...unlike the column that criticized it. :mad:

I think criticizing it is fine. I think seeing it as porn says a lot more about you than about the photographer.

MrsSmith
05-14-2010, 09:39 AM
I think criticizing it is fine. I think seeing it as porn says a lot more about you than about the photographer.

Yeah, it says that I think naked kids shouldn't be displayed for pervs to see...while the photographer has no problem with the idea that the pics could well inspired someone's "jollies."

Your attitude says a lot about you, too. As the mother and grandmother of beautiful little girls, I wouldn't want anyone with your attitude around them.

linda22003
05-14-2010, 09:58 AM
Yeah, it says that I think naked kids shouldn't be displayed for pervs to see...while the photographer has no problem with the idea that the pics could well inspired someone's "jollies."

Your attitude says a lot about you, too. As the mother and grandmother of beautiful little girls, I wouldn't want anyone with your attitude around them.

Don't worry. We're not likely to meet. :D

linda22003
05-14-2010, 10:00 AM
In the same vein, you'll be very relieved to hear that the Attorney General of Virginia has covered up the naked boobies on the state seal. :p

FlaGator
05-14-2010, 11:06 AM
I think criticizing it is fine. I think seeing it as porn says a lot more about you than about the photographer.

Just for the record, my work firewall blocks that site as being one that contains pornographic material.

linda22003
05-14-2010, 11:23 AM
Just for the record, my work firewall blocks that site as being one that contains pornographic material.

So does mine - and yet, my work machine let me onto that site with no problem. Your firewall is a prude. :p

Rockntractor
05-14-2010, 11:40 AM
I'm disappointed in you Linda, I kid around with you a lot but this really surprises me.

linda22003
05-14-2010, 12:23 PM
I'm disappointed in you Linda, I kid around with you a lot but this really surprises me.

I do not see anything pornographic in the images. I think it's in the eye and mind of the beholder in this case. Someone who "gets off" on looking at little kids is probably going to see something in those pictures that I don't, but I would suggest the problem is in that person, in a big way.

If you want to talk shocking, try that brazen Julia Margaret Cameron(1815-1879), who often photographed her (and friends') children in the nude, often in fantasy settings:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MmRVVROy-Jo/ShwBSPlo2CI/AAAAAAAADAE/gxI5PfHTgNM/s400/Julia+Margaret+Cameron6.jpg

She's considered a pioneer of photography, not a pornographer.

Rockntractor
05-14-2010, 12:36 PM
I do not see anything pornographic in the images. I think it's in the eye and mind of the beholder in this case. Someone who "gets off" on looking at little kids is probably going to see something in those pictures that I don't, but I would suggest the problem is in that person, in a big way.

If you want to talk shocking, try that brazen Julia Margaret Cameron(1815-1879), who often photographed her (and friends') children in the nude, often in fantasy settings:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MmRVVROy-Jo/ShwBSPlo2CI/AAAAAAAADAE/gxI5PfHTgNM/s400/Julia+Margaret+Cameron6.jpg

She's considered a pioneer of photography, not a pornographer.

I didn't go look at them because I didn't want record of going to the site. I am no prude, socially I am probably too liberal. I feel that a line needs to be drawn between adulthood and childhood, even if the intent was not pornographic, we are flirting with disaster allowing this line to be crossed. In todays society we see increasing damage every day because of children being taken advantage of.

linda22003
05-14-2010, 12:54 PM
Oh, okay. So you're not letting the fact that you didn't see the pictures stop you from commenting on them. :cool:

noonwitch
05-14-2010, 03:39 PM
I do not see anything pornographic in the images. I think it's in the eye and mind of the beholder in this case. Someone who "gets off" on looking at little kids is probably going to see something in those pictures that I don't, but I would suggest the problem is in that person, in a big way.

If you want to talk shocking, try that brazen Julia Margaret Cameron(1815-1879), who often photographed her (and friends') children in the nude, often in fantasy settings:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MmRVVROy-Jo/ShwBSPlo2CI/AAAAAAAADAE/gxI5PfHTgNM/s400/Julia+Margaret+Cameron6.jpg

She's considered a pioneer of photography, not a pornographer.



That's a beautiful photograph.

I also thought that Annie Leibowitz's photos of Miley Cyrus for Vanity Fair were beautiful, when a lot of people condemned them as child pornography (although all critical body parts were covered).


If we start defining porn as anything that gets a physical reaction by men, well, we might as well start wearing the burkas now.

Wei Wu Wei
05-14-2010, 05:30 PM
Children cannot consent to sex, any sex with children is RAPE. Rape is absolutely and totally illegal and suggesting that anyone (besides rapists obviously) support it is nuts. Protecting gays or transexuals or any other adults who want to have consenting sex is a-ok with me.

Rape is not. World of difference, supporting gay rights or the idea that what adults do in their own bedroom is their OWN BUSINESS is a fairly liberaterian idea, but it does not connect or lead to child abuse / rape.

Wei Wu Wei
05-14-2010, 05:37 PM
If you can't see the problem with protecting this crap while denying a professor's right to criticize it, you have a major gap in your head.

People should be totally free to criticize whatever they like and express their view.

However, any image of a nude human being under a certain age is not child porn.

How many parents have pictures of their children in the bathtub or home videos of junior running through the house naked with his mom trying to keep the towel on him?

Nudity does NOT equal sex.

Pornography, child or otherwise, has an explicit SEXUAL content to it. Sexual positions, performing sexual acts, this is pornography. A person standing in their natural nude state is not sexual.

I think people who are so reactionary, thinking that any and all images of a nude young person is pornography should do a little soul-searching. If you see a child without clothes and your immediate reaction is that it is sexually explicit and it needs to be locked away where no one can see it...well...let's just say you're being a little excessive.

Rockntractor
05-14-2010, 05:40 PM
Oh, okay. So you're not letting the fact that you didn't see the pictures stop you from commenting on them. :cool:

When it comes to minor children I don't care if they are beautiful and artistic or erotic, photographs should not be taken of them naked and exposed in public as art. I don't have to view the pictures to form this opinion.
I have no problem with adult nude photography.

Gingersnap
05-14-2010, 05:45 PM
Mike Adams has had much, much more to say about higher education than his views on an exhibit. His criticism of the inherent political bias in university settings is instantly understandable to any non-student. Mr. Snaps works in higher ed and problems of overt bias in class content, degree programs, thesis evaluation, and teacher morale are well known. Adams shines a light on what few people outside of academy understand.

The decision on his case actually has really wide implications for all other academics and it has them alarmed.

MrsSmith
05-14-2010, 08:48 PM
People should be totally free to criticize whatever they like and express their view.

However, any image of a nude human being under a certain age is not child porn.

How many parents have pictures of their children in the bathtub or home videos of junior running through the house naked with his mom trying to keep the towel on him?

Nudity does NOT equal sex.

Pornography, child or otherwise, has an explicit SEXUAL content to it. Sexual positions, performing sexual acts, this is pornography. A person standing in their natural nude state is not sexual.

I think people who are so reactionary, thinking that any and all images of a nude young person is pornography should do a little soul-searching. If you see a child without clothes and your immediate reaction is that it is sexually explicit and it needs to be locked away where no one can see it...well...let's just say you're being a little excessive.
I agree, nudity is not automatically porn, nor is every image of a naked child porn. However, full frontal images of naked children, blown up to poster size, and posted on the wall for every "joe blow" to see...that is out of bounds. Regardless of the opinions of the "too-cool-to-be-a prude" sect, there are many in every human society that do actually get their jollies from little kids. Only an idiot would think it's ok to post those specific pictures where that type of person could "enjoy" them.

And I stick with my original statement...anyone who thinks it's just fine to splash those photos around public places had better stay away from MY little girls.