Californians are paying for a tinpot dictator to be a Professor of students. Joseph Palermo, a teacher at Cal State Sacramento is a Totalitarian, no different from Castro, Putin or any historic despot. It is his view that unless you agree with his worldview, you should not be allowed to be heard. To Palermo, the First Amendment does not exist. Imagine what he tells his students if he tells the President of the United States to shut up?
““If Trump and his cohort believe the science of global warming is bogus then they shouldn’t be allowed to use the science of the Internet for their Twitter accounts, the science of global positioning for their drones, or the science of nuclear power for their weaponry.”
Professor Palermo teaches history, and in addition to The HuffPo he contributes to the LA Progressive in which he was quite concerned that “With Trump’s Victory Republicans Gain Unchecked Power.”
It’s also where he’s written lines like “This whole frigging election felt at times like the prolonged public lynching of the nation’s first black president.”
No wonder students no longer feel safe on campus—as long as professor are opposed to free speech, no one is safe. How do you stop this? The college does not renew his contract—in the meantime, students find another professor. Seriously, would you want an open totalitarian teaching your kids? California—home of totalitarians on campus and in government. Feel safe?
U.S. Republican presidential candidate businessman Donald Trump speaks at a veteran’s rally in Des Moines, Iowa January 28, 2016. REUTERS/Rick Wilking – RTX24HM9
Cal State prof: Trump shouldn’t be allowed on Twitter due to his climate change views
Dave Huber, The College Fix, 12/31/16
In a recent piece in The Huffington Post, California State University, Sacramento’s Joseph Palermo argues that because Donald Trump “rejects the science of climate change,” he shouldn’t be permitted to make use of science in other realms.
“I’ve always believed that people who dismiss science in one area shouldn’t be able to benefit from science in others,” he writes.
“If Trump and his cohort believe the science of global warming is bogus then they shouldn’t be allowed to use the science of the Internet for their Twitter accounts, the science of global positioning for their drones, or the science of nuclear power for their weaponry.”
Professor Palermo teaches history, and in addition to The HuffPo he contributes to the LA Progressive in which he was quite concerned that “With Trump’s Victory Republicans Gain Unchecked Power.”
It’s also where he’s written lines like “This whole frigging election felt at times like the prolonged public lynching of the nation’s first black president.”
We’re now entering a period where the U.S. military’s 22nd Century weapons technology is in the hands of those whose mentality hasn’t really left the Bronze Age. Say what you will about the deficiencies among the Democratic leadership (and there are many), at least the Democrats are trying to remain in the fact-based world and accept the validity of scientific inquiry.
“The challenge to authority that science presents,” writes Shawn Otto in The War on Science (2016), “is one of the many reasons why it has flourished in free, democratic societies, and why those same societies have fallen when they have turned their backs on the freedom science requires in favor of authoritarianism.” (p. 52)
Climate change is real. Facts matter. Ketchup is not a “vegetable side dish.” Nuclear missiles are not “peace keepers.” Sending prisoners to be tortured in foreign lands is not “extraordinary rendition.” African-American youths are not “super-predators.” Torture is not “enhanced interrogation.” The estate tax is not a “death tax.” War is not peace. Freedom is not slavery. Ignorance is not strength.
Here’s a few more the prof may have have forgotten:
— that an unborn child is not “just a clump of cells” … or a “potential” person
— that biological sex is not a “misconception”
— that overpopulation is not a problem
— that DDT can be used safely
— that genetically modified foods are not dangerous
— that new technology such as “fracking” is not a hazard to the environment.
How many Democrats/progressives should be forbidden from using technology if they subscribe to any (or all) of the above … among others?
About Stephen Frank
Speak Your Mind