Page 1 of 2
Posted on May 31 at 8:28 a.m.
The point is, it's no that he distributed material on a list serve. "If Martin Luther King were alive on this day of January 19, 2009, there is no doubt that he would be condemning the Israeli aggression against Gaza along with U.S. military and political support for Israeli war crimes, or that he would be standing shoulder to shoulder with the Palestinians. "
These are Robinson's words taken from the academic freedom website. Sure, one could agree MLK would condemn Israel, but wouldn't he also condemn Palestinians to some extent? But to write that MLK would be standing shoulder to shoulder with Palestinians is a bit of a stretch. In my opinion, if this "assignment" was meant to be open discussion and debate, his statement could be perceived as inflammatory, offensive, and biased. It sure doesn't sound supportive for students to "debate" or discuss pro - Israel.
On Panel Defends Robinson
Posted on May 29 at 11:03 a.m.
Hmmm? That's all it takes to be a professor at UCSB? Send out a bunch of blog information, passively scatter in some opinion, and design it without any sense of dialogue format and structure and call it teaching at a higher level? Sounds like BS and hidden agendas to me. This isn't about Academic Freedom, it's about the email Robinson wrote that was offensive. One would hope having a PhD would include having a sense cultural proficiency for the diverse student population in the classroom. Robinson could have made this go away with a quick apology to the students, but maybe that's too far above a him.
Posted on January 19 at 9:07 a.m.
I think most of us understand the connection Atkins tried to make with Caufman's testimony. Not sure if it is paid testimony or not, but that kind of liberal interpretation of brain activity spells big T-R-O-U-B-L-E if used judiciously. I am shocked it was even allowed.
I also don't think the punishment fits the crime. I can only guess what a youth detention facility looks like and the culture of inmates. I sense the prison teen culture would give Juarez props for his act and perpetuate the gang mentality, us vs. them. I might be wrong, but I have images of teens laying around all day, doing nothing.
I don't see the adult prison life changing and the inmates treating him any differently. I think prisoners have as much right to cable tv as any of us. I'm sure working is voluntary. Hard labor? Make them work for their cell and food? Unless my perception is wrong, I don't see too many role models looking after him. In fact, my sense is that unless he is given exceptional counseling and kept away from the mainstream, he will become a more hardened gangster. He will develop survival skills by aligning to whichever group accepts him. If this is the case, I certainly would not feel any satisfaction or any safer knowing this kid will walk out in 14 years. Bottom line, he will get 3 hots and a cot, be protected, and wait out his term.
On Juarez Sentenced to 17 Years in State Prison
Posted on December 2 at 10:09 p.m.
Stay on topic boys.
On Parking Lot Assault
Posted on December 2 at 6:09 p.m.
In the Know, with all due respect, you should consider changing your moniker..you missed my point by at least a mile. You are assuming the "victim" was not charged, whereas I feel there should be a charge and accountability for returning, not notifying law enforcement, and re-kindling the fight. To put it plainly, the "victim" has accountability as well, to whatever extent he/she was involved (how's that for non biased). The article states/implies, the "victim" went back after a previous altercation and struck FIRST...let's ponder that...at what point would you suggest he aggressor be re-categorized as a victim? Had he/she not returned, this never would've happened. An assault at the least, plus other minor misdemeanors should be considered.
Posted on December 2 at 7:36 a.m.
I'm just making an observation..
Posted on December 1 at 8:48 p.m.
Just to preface, I am totally against any kind of violence, and feel badly about people getting beat up to the point of hospitalization, but I find it interesting how the rules are changing about keeping certain identities confidential. Tea Fire suspects, now this? So why do the police publicize Zavala's name and not the victim? And why is Zavala not referred to as a victim, because he is from Vegas? Why is that relevant in this article? Is the "victim" from SB? Call me crazy, but if someone, aka the "victim", returns to a fight with a group no less, without contacting the police, and then initiates another fight/riot by hitting someone in the back of the head first, isn't it appropriate to self-defend? Was the "victim" charged with any crime? How does the Indy get away with this kind of reporting?
It sounds like the "victim" was looking for a little payback and picked the wrong guy, why else would he return with a group and without contacting law enforcement? I guess if you're not from Santa Barbara, you lose your rights.
Posted on November 18 at 8:31 p.m.
I'd be interested to know why their names aren't released, whereas any other suspects' names are released for lesser crimes. What's the diff here? Seems a bit duplicitous.
On Tea Fire Cause Is Determined
Posted on November 15 at 8:10 a.m.
There were plenty of news vans driving around the Good Land. It was a farce and a nuisance.
On Tea Fire Update
Posted on November 13 at 9:33 p.m.
On First Official Tea Fire Press Release