Saturday, November 17, 2018

Less Than 1 In 280 Who Apply Get Student Loan Forgiveness




By Professor Doom

      Around 50,000,000 people have student loans (more official numbers are like 45,000,000, but I dispute their accounting methods). The bulk of these people have taken these loans in exchange for worthless college credits, while perhaps 20% actually managed to get a degree, with the value of such a degree varying from $0 to, well, something more than that (weighted towards the low end).

      Because the loans didn’t get anything to help pay off the loan, people are trapped: you can’t escape a student loan through bankruptcy. So, you have to pay off the loan. But you can’t pay off the loan, so it gets bigger…and of course you can’t pay off the bigger loan, either.

       Maybe “loan forgiveness” is the answer? There is a host of such programs, but the big one was created in 2007:

…the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, which George W. Bush signed into law in 2007. Under that program, certain public servants—including teachers—who have made 120 qualifying payments on their loans can have their slates wiped clean. The program only counts payments after October 1, 2007, meaning no one was eligible to apply for loan forgiveness until late last year. 


     “120 qualifying payments” means you need to make your monthly loan payment without fail, for ten straight years—gee, if you could do that, you probably don’t really need forgiveness. But, the rules are clear enough. Let’s take a look at one person’s journey to get forgiveness, to give some insight into how hard it is to achieve:

In 2001, Bradford graduated from Central Washington University with a master's degree in history. At the time, he owed about $17,000 in student loans, 


     That’s a small loan by today’s standards…maybe he’ll catch a break with forgiveness? As per the requirements, he goes to teach at the right kind of school:


… teachers who've been at low-income schools for at least five years to have up to $17,500 of their student loan debts forgiven. More than 75 percent of the students in Yakima live in poverty, and Bradford has been teaching there for more than 13 years. He currently teaches social studies to incarcerated students at the juvenile detention center. He's precisely the sort of graduate the program is supposed to help.


      So, the guy’s a saint, he’s doing everything right, and devoted to honorable work. What happened?

But he found he had started his education about a month too early to qualify.


     Oops! Gosh, those technical details are rough. The man didn’t give up, though, and tried another program:

The program only counts payments after October 1, 2007, meaning no one was eligible to apply for loan forgiveness until late last year. Bradford waited a few months, then applied. He was denied on the grounds that he hadn't made enough qualifying payments.


     Qualifying payments? What? It’s not enough that you make payments, only certain payments qualify:

…the only loan repayment plans that qualify are income-driven. Bradford's plan is graduated, meaning it goes up over time but does not change based on his earnings. So again, a program that theoretically exists to help people like him doesn't actually do them any good at all.


       The gentle reader should understand there’s a very significant government bureaucracy dedicated to student loan forgiveness…but it seems like they are far more dedicated to denying forgiveness than anything else. Does anyone make it through the endless minefields?

Through the end of June, more than 28,000 borrowers have applied for loan forgiveness under the PSLF program. Of them, precisely 96 borrowers have had their applications approved,…

--emphasis added.


       Even if exactly 100 borrowers were approved, well, that’s 1 in 280 applicants…and we're not at that level. You are nearly 30 times more likely to get lung cancer than qualify for loan forgiveness. At least we don’t have a government bureaucracy to give people lung cancer, so there’s that.

      Keep in mind, this guy had a loan comparable to a car loan, which most folks can pay off in less than a decade. After his many years of payments, what’s he down to?

Bradford received a letter informing him he's eligible to apply. But he's not sure if it's even worth trying. "I know I'm going to be rejected again," he says. Plus, Bradford only has about $5,000 left to repay. At this point, he and his wife might just pay it off and "be done with it."


     Not to sound cavalier, but paying it off makes much more sense than continue to jump through government hoops in an attempt to get those last few thousand forgiven.

      I feel the need to point out the anecdote above is nearly ideal, and still he got nowhere. Millions of people with student loans were assigned those loans fraudulently, either via fly-by-night schools which had no interest in education, or even by state schools who sacrificed quantify over quality, bloating the size of the campus while doing very little to help all the new kids in the classes.

      I know my blog is insignificant, but I do wish there was a way to at least get the message out about “student loan forgiveness” programs because they quite obviously don’t work.





Wednesday, November 14, 2018

Give Scientific Evidence Men, Women Are Different = BANNED, De-Published




By Professor Doom

     “But there are no peer reviewed papers disputing global warming.”

      20ish years ago, when global warming was being crammed down our throats every day, the above was often cited as “proof” that climate warming was real. Climategate 1.0 exposed the reason for the lack of such studies was because pressure was being placed on journals not to publish such studies.

“95% of published research on this drug shows it to be quite effective.”


     In a similar vein, medical research, even “peer reviewed” research, is a little suspect, especially when statistics are given in a vacuum. Yes, the published research might overwhelmingly show a drug is effective, but…studies which get results are vastly more likely to get published. A study which says “the drug does nothing” just isn’t as likely to be worth the trouble of publishing. So, you can have 20 studies which shows a drug worked, 19 of which get published (and believe you me, the drug companies can influence this decision). You can also have 100 studies showing the drug is useless, and only one of those gets published through sheer luck.

    The end result? 83% of studies show the drug is useless (i.e., 100 of 120 studies), but all a reader can glean from looking at journals is that, yes, 95% of published studies say the drug works. You better believe this can warp decision making.

     Much of higher ed has been infested with a demented ideology. A big part of the dogma of the ideology is “men and women are exactly the same (unless it’s a woman making the accusation, because women are always perfectly correct about that).” 

Perhaps my adding the parenthetical clarification was gratuitous, but the fact remains that these ideologues simply cannot abide any facts which conflict with ideology. Since ideology can’t be changed, what to do about those pesky facts?


       The title is actually a pretty good summary, but the first paragraph clarifies:

The European nuclear research center known as CERN has banned Professor Alessandro Strumia of Pisa University after he gave a slide presentation at a conference that discussed male/female differences in career outcomes in the field of physics.


     Physics is one of those fields where gender differences are obvious to anyone with eyeballs (perhaps “bodybuilding” is the only field where it’s even more obvious there are differences between males and females). The vast bulk of grad students in physics are male, and by extension the vast bulk of Ph.D.s in Physics are held by males.

       Trouble is, the ideology demands you only hire males if there are no females available…and this situation comes up very quickly in Physics. Rather than adjust the ideology to allow for reality, the push has been to make it easier for a female to get a Ph.D. in Physics.


Professor Strumia’s presentation — which is archived here — was removed from CERN’s website, and the center issued a statement calling it “highly offensive” and “unacceptable.”


      Ok, so the paper is “offensive” and “unacceptable.” Um, that’s not saying the paper is false. They’re not banning this guy because his science is bad…they’re banning him because they don’t like the truths he revealed.

Professor Strumia criticized the “mainstream” theory — i.e., that the lack of equality (“symmetry”) between men and women in the field of physics is due to sexist bias — calling it “cultural Marxism.” He cited evidence that, in attempting to create greater opportunities for women, the field has in recent years begun discriminating against male scientists. He cited research showing that apparently natural differences between men and women’s interests “play a critical role in gendered occupational choices and gender disparity in the STEM fields.”


     There he goes with facts and data, damn his hide.

By the way, I was tipped to this story by a Ph.D. physicist who wishes to remain anonymous. Heretics everywhere fear the Inquisition.


      Much like with global warming, scientists get the message that speaking out against the ideology will have repercussions more than powerful enough to end a career. We probably should ask questions when even Physics fears to point out obvious features of the real world…it’s what Physics is supposed to do, after all.

      This squelching of knowledge is not a one-time event:




      The above discusses something even more monstrous: the paper was published, then retroactively un-published due to complaints. This has never happened before, for good reason: the author’s research is officially damned. Had the paper been rejected, they could try to publish the knowledge elsewhere, or simply release it to the ‘net for free. But by publishing/unpublishing, the research is effectively buried.

       It’s worse than the Memory Hole—the information cannot even be replicated accidentally, as that would lead to a copyright issue and re-burying. This. Is. Obscene.

      What horrible thing did the paper report?

In the highly controversial area of human intelligence, the ‘Greater Male Variability Hypothesis’ (GMVH) asserts that there are more idiots and more geniuses among men than among women. Darwin’s research on evolution in the nineteenth century found that, although there are many exceptions for specific traits and species, there is generally more variability in males than in females of the same species throughout the animal kingdom.


     The above concept has been known for years, the paper simply addressed WHY this is the case.

“In pretty much everything, males have greater variance. So, if you meet a moron, you’ve most likely met a male. I could equivalently say that if you meet a genius, you’ve most like met a male, but I cannot say that because it’s sexist, even if just as true.”

--The above is how I address GMVH in my statistics courses.


     So, the researchers put together a paper addressing why we see what we see with our own eyeballs every day. A controversial topic, to be sure, but a mathematics journal editor decided it was worthwhile:

“I am happy to stir up controversy and few topics generate more than this one. After the Middlebury fracas, in which none of the protestors had read the book they were protesting, we could make a real contribution here by insisting that all views be heard, and providing links to them.”

--of course they never read the book, ideology requires ignorance of “alternative” facts.


    After the paper was accepted came a long list of pre-emptive attacks. One huge standout:

…the National Science Foundation wrote to Sergei requesting that acknowledgment of NSF funding be removed from our paper with immediate effect. I was astonished. I had never before heard of the NSF requesting removal of acknowledgement of funding for any reason. On the contrary, they are usually delighted to have public recognition of their support for science.


     Wow, the NSF is officially terrified of learning facts which run counter to ideology. How can one not be skeptical of science under these circumstances?

      So, years from now, when ideologues chant how there is no peer reviewed published work saying there’s a difference between males and females…I ask the gentle reader to recall that the reason for this has nothing to do with the lack of publications.

(For what it's worth, I write many blog posts weeks in advance; it's been days since I've been up to anything beyond a quick note.)



Sunday, November 11, 2018

So...Broward County. Again.

Just a quick post as I recover from a long week of chemo.

I've mentioned many times my issue with "mainstream" media isn't the deceptions, if not outright lies...I acknowledge that, perhaps, from some point of view, they might think they're presenting something which is at least arguably the truth in some way.

No, my big problem is their consistent error of omission. Consider that really strange school shooting, which brought that kid (son of FBI agent and CNN executive) to the forefront to advance the Democrat gun control agenda. Where did it happen?

Broward County, Florida.

Now consider those strange mail non-bombs, where supposedly a bunch of anti-Trump people were targeted with nonfunctional mail bombs, supposedly by a pro-Trump guy (though the evidence on that is shaky at best). Where was that guy/patsy found, whose actions tried to advance the Democrat agenda?

Broward County, Florida.

And now we've got a big election fraud scandal, with political power in the balance. And, where is the scandal most glaring?

Broward County, Florida.

Coincidence? Sure, it's possible, but it really seems like someone in mainstream media would go "hmm, we sure do consistently have a problem in this one county, maybe we could do some investigative reporting to highlight how it's not simply in the same place, but the same people seem to be involved as well?"

Instead, we get nothing.

Now, pretty much every "alternative" news source has been flamingly branded as "alt right" or "Nazi" or whatever but...I assure the gentle reader, something's not right about our current system of media.

Just sayin'.


Saturday, November 10, 2018

Professor Defends Woman…University Forces Sexual Harassment Training On Him




By Professor Doom


     “Excuse me professor, but can you write me a letter of reference?”


     Every semester, one student, sometimes more, will ask me for a letter of reference. Even with large classes, I still have standout students, and so if I can remember even a little about the student, I do so, presenting what I know in as favorable a light as honesty allows.

    There have been a few times where I’ve had students ask me for character references for court proceedings, and, again, if I feel I can honestly contribute, I do so.

       Never once has it occurred to me that my university may punish me for honestly trying to help my students, but apparently this is a thing now:



     The issue here really isn’t the professor’s actions, or even the university per se. The problem is the university has an entire fiefdom filled with Vice Presidents of Troublemaking, eager to justify their cushy jobs by seeking out someone who might cross an invisible (and undefined) line, and punish them.

      So, let’s see what “crime” professor Fischler committed:

Fischler's former student, Kristie Torbick, is a high school guidance counselor in her 30s. She was arrested for allegedly having sex with a 14-year-old student. She pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to serve between two-and-a-half and five years in prison.
Before Torbick plead guilty, her defense team asked Fischler if he would be willing to submit a letter testifying to Torbick's good behavior in his class. Fischler did so. He did not address the allegation—to do so would be inappropriate. He merely testified to her excellent "performance as a student." He essentially played the role of a character witness.

      Wow, I’ve dodged some bullets, I see, as I’ve done the “character witness” thing a few times as well. Harmless enough, right? Fischler actually got off light:

The university declined to re-hire one teacher for defending Torbick,…


     You can literally lose your job over providing an honest opinion in a court case. How chilling will this be for future students asking for even a little help? Fischler was higher up the food chain, and so not as easily dismissed. So, not fired, but punishment will be meted out:

Administrators at Plymouth State University in New Hampshire are forcing an education professor to undergo sexual harassment training.


     Does anyone else think there’s a bit of overreach here? The “training” will come from the Title IX fiefdom on campus. While Title IX was supposed to be about preventing the cover-ups of sex crimes on campus, it also addresses a wide range of issues, such as spending on various college sports, and, apparently, the squelching of free speech.

       I clarify: the professor here merely submitted a written statement to the court system regarding one of his students from years in the past; in no way did his actions impact anyone on campus, or education in any form. He did not lie, he did not violate any agreement with the university…he simply provided a letter of reference for someone the university decided they did not like.

        And he’s being punished for it, while at least one other faculty lost his job. A few comments indicate how the general public still doesn’t “get” what’s happening on many of our campuses:

This is a state university. They cannot discriminate against someone for testifying in a court. If they could, the government could fire any employee who testified to something they didn't like.


     I remind the reader, it took nearly 20 years before an open academic fraud at state university UNC was finally established as fact, even with thousands of students partaking in that fraud. Moreover, UNC paid no penalty, and no administrator who took part in the cover-up lost his or her job.

     So…yeah, in theory, if the professor here wants to fight, he could spend a decade or two, along with hundreds of thousands of dollars, trying to convince the university they’ve overstepped their bounds…or he just suck up 8 hours (I’m guessing, could be quite a bit less or more) of mandatory sexual harassment training. I completely respect his decision not to fight here.

       But my point remains: there will be a chilling effect on other faculty, who at the very least will be reluctant to help students out, since no matter how honestly they do so, the faculty will be risking their career with every letter.

This is more than about a professor's right to engage in free speech. This is about the government's ability to deprive anyone of employment or a benefit because they testify for the defense in a trial. That is a big deal.


     This comment is closer to the mark, although we’re not yet at the point where our government does this (much). We are, however, at the point where our campuses, a great source of expert witnesses in trials, do clearly have the power to deprive defendants of those experts.

       Right now it’s just character references, but what’s to stop this from progressing further?





Wednesday, November 7, 2018

Study: Conservatives Silencing Themselves On Campus




By Professor Doom

     On many campuses, the political bias is massive, to the point that a student could easily spend all four years on campus without hearing any “conservative” opinions, much less meeting an actual conservative professor.

     Trouble is, despite what our legacy media keeps screaming at us, lots of people have conservative views. This includes devout followers of Christian faiths (they exist, honest, despite the media downplay in the face of the many, many, churches you can see with your own eyes as you drive through any city), as well as people who dared to put an ‘R’ on their political affiliation.

     This group includes many of our young adults, our kids heading off to college. How are they to act when they set foot on a campus which considers them little more than knuckle-dragging monsters?


       This is a serious study, so allow me to focus mostly on the abstract:

A political mismatch between professors and a large swath of the student population has been widely documented. This mismatch is salient within sociology, where left-leaning politics are mainstream and institutionalized.

     Yeah, no kidding. Much like my first link in today’s post the mismatch is extreme. By “institutionalized” the authors are referring to the fact that this mismatch cannot change: institutions have rigged the game at the hiring level, so conservative faculty simply cannot get into the institutions anymore.

Further, extant research indicates that this political mismatch leads students outside of the left-leaning mainstream to perceive that their professors are politically biased… 

     “leads…to perceive…politically biased”? Seriously? This is not a perception, it’s heavily documented fact. It’s why anti-communists, pro-heterosexuals, and Christians all receive very biased, hostile, treatment on campus, while the “not conservative” people get basically a free pass on everything. I grant that this particular bias isn’t the focus on the paper, so let’s move on:
In response, this study analyzes survey data from a diverse sample of undergraduate students enrolled in sociology courses…

      While sociology isn’t the most hard-core topic on campus, it does have some things to say of relevance. Thus, most student are as obligated to take sociology courses as they are mathematics courses; the sample here is restricted to surveys of students in sociology courses, but that’s not much of a bias. I took two such courses as an undergraduate, even though I was a mathematics major.
      And what kind of results did the study yield?

Our results suggest that religiosity affects perceptions of and reactions to professors’ biases through increased skepticism towards science…


      Well, one would expect religiosity to affect perception, and it’s good the paper acknowledged the professor bias in sociology but…”increased skepticism towards science”? What? I remind the reader that many “scientific” studies cannot be replicated, fundamentally violating the core concept of the scientific method, and that, moreover, fields like sociology are particularly vulnerable to having wide swaths of their beliefs not being replicable.

     It’s…scary that the religious are being targeted for their skepticism here, when seriously any rational person, aware of what’s currently going on, should be skeptical of “the latest scientific findings.”

     A few more thing were buried in the study but not in the abstract:

“Student learning is derailed when students perceive a need to censor their beliefs or write on an exam what they think a professor wants to hear. That is not a positive learning experience, or really a learning experience at all,” 


     Hmm, the students “perceive” a need to censor their beliefs? Surely the researchers know that when conservative speakers come on campus, protesters threatening physical violence to such speakers are quite common? To call this a “perception” is as inadequate as saying humans “perceive a need” to inhale oxygen.

       I can’t help but suspect the authors of the study are dancing around an obvious problem here, as they consistently use language to spin things to represent the problem is the students, and not the atmosphere on many campuses.



…suggests that professors could go out of their way to acknowledge politically divergent theories during class, and to create a welcoming environment for diverse viewpoints.

     Well, that’s good advice. Too bad the hiring committees make it certain professors holding “politically divergent” theories aren’t allowed on campuses. It’s quite well known that the “convergent” faculty aren’t going to address those other theories beyond sneering condescension—otherwise they wouldn’t be converged, after all.
     Still recovering, so another short post.



Sunday, November 4, 2018

Yale Survey Lets Us Look At Our Future Leaders




By Professor Doom

     Ah, “The Ivy League.” The phrase justifiably conjures up romanticized notions of the best and brightest, the future shapers of the world. Now, I’ve had a few friends go there, and even have a few colleagues working there, so my own notions are stained with dark smears of “reality,” but the fact remains: throughout the history of this country, our political leaders are quite commonly chosen from Ivy League graduates, so it’s reasonable to believe that, yes, the people going there today will be political factors in the decades to come.

      A recent survey of incoming Yale freshmen gives a nice snapshot of our political leadership in the future. Yes, there are other Ivy League schools, but I assure the gentle reader they all draw from the same pool of top candidates, and all have very similar guidelines for who they accept…take Yale as a template for what our leadership will look like in a few decades, and weep.

       In terms of racial demographics, 46% of new students are Caucasians, with 18% being Asians. It’s so weird that anyone who stands up and says “America won’t be a white country soon” is denounced as a Nazi RACIST, but it’s clear the Ivy League understands simple mathematical reality, and is hedging their bets. Perhaps this isn’t weep-worthy, but our top schools didn’t become top schools, and stay such for centuries, by making bad decisions or failing to understand how the world works.

Yale’s class of 2022 is one of the most diverse in University history, with a record 47 percent of the class made up by U.S. citizens or permanent residents who identify themselves as members of a minority ethnic or racial group, according to public University figures.


      Wait…more than half of Yale’s incoming class aren’t citizens or permanent residents. The top schools of this country feel that it’s no longer worth their while to spend most of their time educating the citizens of this country. Still not worth a weep? Perhaps I’m just misreading that. Let’s continue…

Female respondents outnumbered male respondents by nearly 9 percentage points.


      The above is hardly restricted to the Ivy League, as many schools have a strong majority of females to males in their student body. The difference of course is it’s clear Yale believes that future political power in this country will be held by females, particularly non-white females who aren’t citizens. Perhaps I’m just worrying too much here?

Around three-fourths of those surveyed identified as straight, while nearly 5 percent identify as gay and just over 9 percent as bisexual or transsexual. Three percent opted not to answer, and the remaining 8 percent identified as asexual, ace spectrum or questioning their sexual orientation.


     Now this is disturbing. In the “normal” population, some 95% of the people are hetero; transsexuals (more commonly called transgender today, and very different than bisexual, incidentally) generally run less than 1% of the population.

     But at Yale, typical heterosexuals are grossly under-represented, while the trans/bi population is over represented by a factor of 25. Where’s the outrage? Where’s the call to end this? Where are the scholarships just for heterosexuals?  I could go on, but our future leaders, very likely to be over-representing tiny sexual minorities, are, even if heterosexual, going to leave Yale with a distorted view of just how common the various sexual “protected classes” are.

An overwhelming number of survey respondents said they felt extremely positive about their high school experience: Slightly over 80 percent rated their last four years as “good” or “very good.”


     This is interesting; I loathed my high school experience, mostly because attacks by bullies were an every-other-day affair. Even without the constant fear and harassment, I doubt I would have liked high school much.

      Our future leaders, however, think our school system is wonderful. Even though all data says our schools are failing in ever more unprecedented ways, you can’t look at the above and suspect for one moment our leaders will have even a tiny inclination to change things. The system worked great for them, after all. And so expect the next generation to be damned to the same public school system that harmed most of this generation.

       Still not weeping? More, then:

Nearly three-fourths of respondents identify as “very liberal” or “somewhat liberal.” While just over 16 percent said they were centrist, and almost 9 percent somewhat “conservative,” slightly less than 2 percent of respondents identified as “very conservative.”


     One of the most disturbing quirks of our supposed “two party” system is we have many “RINO”s, Republicans-In-Name-Only, who are actually Democrats despite what it says on the ballot. The takeaway? We don’t have enough conservatives in our country to “man” the Republican party. Our Ivy League schools have around 5 times as many transgender people as “very conservative” people.

     How might that affect the future of politics in this country?

      Why do these schools rant about how great they are at diversity, and then go out of their way to have conservative representation far, far, below what it is in reality? Why am I so alone in asking these types of questions?

     I’m still recovering, so a short essay for today but…it’s a puzzle why this publicly available data can’t be used to make very reasonable projections about the future of this country.



Friday, November 2, 2018

Mention Alex Jones on Twitter? No College For You!




By Professor Doom

    Years ago, on Seinfeld, there was a character called the Soup Nazi. He made delicous soup, but was very particular to whom he would sell it. If that person stepped out of line, then the Soup Nazi would shout “No soup for you!” and that person’s hopes of a cup of soup literally dried up and blew away forever. Even though the Soup Nazi was a businessman, he would self-destructively lose customers who violated his own restrictive policies.

     Now, Seinfeld was a comedy show, and the characters there were often quite wacky, if not outright crazy like the Soup Nazi. It’s often suggested that Liberalism, in its current usage of the word as synonymous with Leftism, is a mental disorder. Many of our institutions of higher education are run by Leftists. Can their actions be fairly compared to the insanity of the Soup Nazi?



     For those not in the know, Alex Jones heads a news site called Infowars (www.infowars.com). He is bombastic, loud, and excitable. He occasionally got a few stories wrong, in my opinion. That said, he’s an important source of information, because he would cover the many, many, stories our “various” mainstream news would simply ignore (more accurately, lie about by “error of omission”), and moreover ignore with a silence that I often find deafening, although perhaps they all just consistently randomly deemed his stories just not worth covering.

      I was hardly alone in finding him a useful part of any diet of news information; he generally was watched by more people than CNN.

      And overnight, he was simultaneously un-personed, kicked off of all social media platforms which “randomly” decided to do so with near simultaneity. We probably should ask some long, hard, questions about why these “independent” organizations keep on moving and shifting directions with the coherency of a school of fish.

      Anyway, he was un-personed.

      And a prospective college student, just for mentioning the guy, nearly lost his admittance to college. Now, a typical student represents $100,000 or more to the school, so getting rid of that student for this “bad” behavior, shouting “No college for you!” is every bit as insane, if not more so, than the Soup Nazi.

      For what it’s worth, I know of other places/institutions, similarly taken over by the Leftist insanity (at the risk of repeating myself), where the members have found themselves subject to sanctions for “behavior” far outside the purview of the places/institutions, but I digress.

     Another lost his scholarship over a Facebook message about the 2016 election.


      These guys have been throwing a tantrum about that election for nigh 2 years now. I write this close to the November elections…I wonder how dangerously childish their behavior will be if they lose those as well. Heck, I wonder how dangerously childish they’ll be if they win…either way I, and I suspect most rational people, are concerned about these lunatics, whose behavior is, indeed, very consistent with the Nazis they think they’re punching.

Many universities are hiring monitoring companies that comb the social media lives of applicants, even going so far as to spy on their search histories and internet activity.


      No link to the above assertion is provided, but if our schools can hire $400,000 a year Diversity Kommissars who do nothing but stoke racial tension, I find the above assertion easy to believe. Please keep in mind the student loan scam pays for all this.

Shear shared a story about one client of his, a 17-year-old who was asked in his college admission interview why he followed Alex Jones on Twitter…The teen had never liked or retweeted any of Jones’s content – his “transgression” was merely following the conspiracy theorist on Twitter, 



     Keep the above in mind. I remember a Hillary supporter friend who claimed to be Libertarian, who was furious with me for not sharing his views. I explained to him that Hillary promised that if she were president, she would attack Iran, which should, fundamentally, make her an impossible candidate for a Libertarian to vote for.
 
     He had no idea she’d ever said anything like that. I then explained other things about Hillary, things which mainstream media never covered…he knew none of those things either.

      Now consider this kid, who nearly lost his chance at college for merely following a news source covering topics mainstream media somehow all miss. A little worrisome, perhaps? Luckily the kid has a good lawyer…but not every student has such.

      My tech-savvy friends have been warning me I need to get off social media like Facebook ASAP, and I’ve been considering it. For now, I need the connections as I try to navigate the cancer ordeal, but perhaps after that I’ll simply walk away…or wheel away, as the case may be.