It isn’t only Rick Santorum’s stunning primary wins in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri and a rousing CPAC speech that have caught headlines this week. The former Pennsylvania senator also raised some eyebrows on Thursday when he said that he has “concerns about women in front-line combat.” His comments, which were taken to be sexist by some, were later clarified — but the controversy surrounding them is still swirling. “I want to create every opportunity for women to be able to serve this country, and they do so in an amazing and wonderful way and they’re a great addition — and they have been for a long time — to the armed services of our country,” Santorum said in an interview with CNN’s John King on Thursday. But what came next is what stunned critics. “But I do have concerns about women in front-line combat, I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission, because of other types of emotions that are involved,” he said . “It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat, and I think that’s probably not in the best interest of men, women or the mission.” Watch these comments, below: Critics saw these statements as saying that women are too emotional to engage in front-line combat. But on Friday, Santorum attempted to clarify his statements, saying that they were more focused upon men and their emotions than they were women. “When you have men and women together in combat, I think there’s — men have emotions when you see a woman in harm’s way,” he told NBC’s Ann Curry on “Today.” “I think it’s something that’s natural, that’s very much in our culture to be protective, and that was my concern.” Santorum went on to decry the notion that he was saying women are too emotional. “I’ve never raised that as a concern,” he proclaimed . “No, the issue is — and certainly one that has been talked about for a long, long time — is how men would react to seeing women in harm’s way, or potentially being injured or in a vulnerable position, and not being concerned about accomplishing the mission.” Watch him make these clarifications, below: In an interview with ABC News, he also claimed that he wasn’t slamming women. “I was talking about men’s emotional issues; not women,” he said . “I mean, there’s a lot of issues. That’s just one of them.” Here’s the ABC interview: video platform video management video solutions video player Santorum also mentioned women’s physical strength in his original arguments on Thursday against their serving in increased roles on the front lines. His arguments, though, focused mainly on the lack of transportation assistance women could give, due to less strength, to injured men — something that didn’t ignite critics’ interest as much as his “emotion” comments did.
See the article here:
Was Santorum Really Bashing Female Soldiers’ Emotions? He Clarifies
I saw the video the other day. And now here’s some of the controversy, ” LeBron James won’t apologize for tweet on Griffin’s dunk .” Also, ” Tweet from Miami Heat’s LeBron James about Blake Griffin on the mark despite Kendrick Perkins’ rant .”
Read more:
Blake Griffin Monster Dunk Controversy
Pamela posted the original essay at the center of the controversy, ” DR. SUBRAMANIAM SWAMY: ‘HOW TO WIPE OUT ISLAMIC TERROR’ .” ‘ And now at Boston Globe , ” Pushed out of Harvard, professor returns fire: Dismissal stirs debate over free speech “: Subramanian Swamy is an outspoken man. That is what got him into trouble last July. While teaching economics at the Harvard University summer school, he penned a sharply worded column for a newspaper in India, where he is a prominent right-wing politician. Many readers thought his proposals would deny Muslims basic rights and incite riots. Some 40 Harvard professors called for his dismissal. But the furor died down, or appeared to, after Harvard’s president, Drew Faust, defended Swamy’s right to free speech as “central to the mission of a university.’’ The economics department invited him back for another summer. Swamy heard nothing else from Harvard. Then, a few weeks ago, he checked his e-mail and learned – from a Google Alert for his name – that his colleagues had fired him anyway. Encouraged by a private note from the summer school’s dean, professors who opposed Swamy came to a faculty meeting where summer classes were to be approved. The process is usually a rubber-stamp affair, but the professors argued so passionately that Swamy’s courses were voted off the slate. No one told Swamy about the meeting. Now, the case has devolved into an imbroglio about hate speech and academic freedom. The professors who led the charge against Swamy are buried in angry e-mails from his supporters in India. Others are torn, despising both Swamy’s column and the way he was relieved of his duties. Faust is in an awkward spot: She is scheduled to visit India in January. And the usually outspoken Swamy – who has made few public comments on the issue, save a few Twitter postings – is finally firing back. “I was surprised Harvard would do this, given that the president’s office said free speech was sacred,’’ he said in an interview. “The people who cut me out are leftists who have nothing to do with economics. There’s no allegation that in my class I said anything offensive. There’s no allegation that it has affected my research. It’s almost like the Spanish Inquisition – they didn’t give me a chance.’’ The professor may indeed be controversial, but the reaction by the Harvard faculty is totalitarian. But read the whole thing, at the link .
Read this article:
Subramanian Swamy Hits Back at Terror-Coddling Harvard Professors Who Got Him Fired
At New York Times , ” New Speculation on Climate-Change E-Mails “: For two years, the mystery has endured: who set out to undercut climate scientists by publishing more than 1,000 of their private e-mails on the Internet? The original e-mails, released in 2009 on the eve of a high-stakes United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen, sowed doubts about the scientists’ research and integrity and galvanized skeptics who challenge the scientific consensus that global warming is under way. It set off six separate official inquiries, all of which cleared the researchers of scientific misconduct. Then the controversy receded. Yet recently, speculation about the identity of the person who leaked the messages has surged with the release of new e-mails and signs that a police inquiry is under way in Britain. In November, just before another major international climate conference opened, this time in Durban, South Africa, another round of e-mails between the scientists were distributed online. Like those released in 2009, they were part of a trove taken from a computer server at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England; as before, the e-mail hijacker alerted the public to the e-mails in comments posted on various blogs. But November’s leaker left additional clues behind as well. Not much — an encrypted file and a note ending in what seemed to be a taunt — but enough to revive fervent speculation about what sort of person might be behind the stunt. The note, somewhat cryptic, seemed to suggest that efforts to fight global warming siphoned money from worthy causes like fighting poverty. “Every day nearly 16,000 children die from hunger and related causes,” it said. Then the note’s author seemed to dangle a challenge for hackers and programmers, saying that even though he was releasing 5,000 e-mails, “The rest, some 220,000, are encrypted for various reasons.” “We are not planning to publicly release the pass phrase,” the note added coyly. The stunt was enough to jump-start a police investigation that had long seemed dormant. A thrilling whodunit. Continue reading . IMAGE CREDIT : iMaksim .
Go here to read the rest:
Who Leaked Climate-Change E-Mails?
One of the better, more concise discussions I’ve read on this, at Counterpoint , ” From the Editors: On the Controversy of John Mearsheimer ” (via Instapundit ). And from Pejman Yousefzadeh, ” It Is Time for John Mearsheimer to Go .” I wrote on this here: ” The Tragedy of John Mearsheimer .”
Follow this link:
More on the John Mearsheimer Anti-Semitism Controversy
One of the better, more concise discussions I’ve read on this, at Counterpoint , ” From the Editors: On the Controversy of John Mearsheimer ” (via Instapundit ). And from Pejman Yousefzadeh, ” It Is Time for John Mearsheimer to Go .” I wrote on this here: ” The Tragedy of John Mearsheimer .”
Read the original post:
More on the John Mearsheimer Anti-Semitism Controversy
**Written by Doug Powers Add two states to the Obamacare waiver denial list that already includes Delaware and N. Dakota. Hey, not everybody can with the Lucky Lottery. From The Hill : The decision could rekindle the controversy over the waiver process, as the two states that were turned down, Indiana and Louisiana, have Republican governors. GOP leaders at the state level have been extremely critical of the healthcare law and the requirements that it imposes on states. The Department of Health and Human Services said Indiana and Louisiana do not need an adjustment from the health law’s medical loss ratio. That provision requires insurers to spend at least 80 percent of premiums on medical care or offer rebates to their customers starting next year. Don’t assume too quickly that “GOP guvs = no state waiver,” because Nevada, Wisconsin, Maine and Iowa have gotten waivers, and they have GOP Governors. It’s possible the administration’s goal with these state waivers isn’t to punish or not punish political opponents as much as attempting to avoid making the economy even worse too soon — after all, there’s an election just around the corner. As a result, they’ll approve some waivers and deny just enough to avoid making it a de facto blanket admission that Obamacare is a horrible idea, especially with the Supreme Court readying to hear the case. The real red flag isn’t who was denied or approved, but that states are clamoring for waivers at all from something that purportedly will improve the quality of everyone’s life. If it’s this painful on the front end, what’s it going to be like at the back end? Probably like most back ends. The wording in some of the waiver discussions is even disturbing: Consumer Watchdog wrote in public comments urging HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to reject the application. “As the MLR regulations make clear, there must be a credible threat to the stability of the individual marketplace in order to grant a waiver. Indiana has demonstrated no such threat.” When it sounds like there’s a fine line between implementing an “affordable” health insurance law and deciphering chatter preceding an economic terrorist attack, something’s not going to end well. In a related story, a remote corner of the Pacific just got to be a more attractive place to do business: Guam had also applied for a waiver, but HHS determined the U.S. territory’s insurers were so small they don’t have to comply with the new rules. Or so small there’s not enough power and money there to waste time trying to control… yet. **Written by Doug Powers Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
Continue reading here:
2 States Denied Obamacare Waivers
**Written by Doug Powers Remember when Hillary Clinton was a guest on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and when she came out the band played Carrie Underwood’s “Before He Cheats”? Me neither, because it never happened and won’t ever happen. But the rules of what’s appropriate aren’t politically uniform in the world of “entertainment,” which is why Michele Bachmann is now wanting an apology from NBC : Republican candidate Michele Bachmann addressed the controversy surrounding her appearance on ‘Late Night With Jimmy Fallon’ this week, saying if what happened to her had happened to the First Lady, heads would have rolled. When Bachmann was introduced on the Fallon’s show Monday, Fallon’s house band, the Roots, played Fishbone’s song ‘Lyin’ Ass Bitch.’ Fallon has since apologized , and while Bachmann said she accepts the comedian’s apology, she thinks NBC should apologize as well. “If that had been Michelle Obama, who’d come out on the stage, and if that song had been played for Michelle Obama, I have no doubt that NBC would have apologized to her and likely they would have fired the drummer, or at least suspended him,” she told Fox News. If Fallon’s band had done that to Michelle Obama (as if), is there much doubt that Brian Roberts would have seen to public floggings of all offending parties and apologized by asking Comcast/NBC employees to double their DNC donations this election cycle? Imagine the outrage if it was another guest. Below I took an ABC News story and replaced “Michele Bachmann” with the name of a different public figure: ***** The drummer for the house band on “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon” apologized sort of for his decision to play ”Lyin’ Ass Bitch” when Rep. Nancy Pelosi appeared on the talk show Monday night. “The performance was a tongue-in-cheek and spur of the moment decision. The show was not aware of it and I feel bad if her feelings were hurt. That was not my intention,” Ahmir “Questlove” Thompson said in a statement. As Pelosi, congresswoman and former Speaker of the House, walked across the stage to sit next to Fallon Monday night, house band the Roots played a refrain from the song written by Fishbone. Though the lyrics refer to a woman as a “slut trash can bitch,” the band sang the “la, la, la” of the refrain. ***** Fallon’s house band would be lucky to be able to get a gig leading an OWS drum circle by now if it had happened that way. Possible topic for discussion: Are GOP politicians chumps for going on these shows and subjecting themselves to mockery — be it overt or relatively subliminal — from an industry that is overwhelmingly liberal, or is it a necessary way to reach voters these days and they just need to have a thick skin, a thorough knowledge of contemporary “music” and a healthy repertoire of comeback lines at the ready? **Written by Doug Powers Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
Link:
Michele Bachmann: By Now, Michelle Obama Would Have Gotten an Apology From NBC
Asks Alan Dershowitz, at the Hudson Institute (via Blazing Cat Fur ). I’m still amazed by this controversy , and Dershowitz makes a powerful case against these book endorsements, which “represent a dangerous step toward legitimizing anti-Semitic rhetoric on university campuses.”
Read the original here:
Why Are John Mearsheimer and Richard Falk Endorsing a Blatantly Anti-Semitic Book?
The fact that limelight lawyer Gloria Allred has scheduled a press conference for Monday afternoon to put forward another Herman Cain accuser means little for now. But you know whose day this really wrecks? The two-bit version of Gloria Allred who’s been trying to make this scandal his from the beginning: Joel P. Bennett . He’s the Washington-based employment attorney fronting as the Anita Hill in the controversy (for the sake of justice). If you’ve been following the story, you know he’s been more available to the press than a Kardashian funeral. He wanted to be a star. But now that Allred is throwing in, he can pack up his things and head home. Maybe next scandal.
Read the rest here:
The real victim of a new Herman Cain accuser: Joel P. Bennett’s stardom
