Snowflake Alert: Emory Students FLIP Over Pro-Trump Sidewalk Chalk

“It is our duty to fight for our freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love each other and support each other. We have nothing to lose but our chains,” is a real quote from a real college sophomore regarding a chalk drawing.

Seeing "Trump" written in sidewalk chalk was so very offensive to some little Emory snowflakes that they promptly engaged their peers in intellectual debate lost their freaking minds and marched into the university president's office. What was in these chalk drawings? Um, "Trump" and "Trump 2016."

One writer, who was on Emory's campus at the time, said "It was absolutely intended to intimidate everyone, and it worked." "It was like a cross burning," he said, about the thing that was precisely 0% like a cross burning. Emory is a private school and does have rules about where people are allowed to chalk, because bureaucracy sucks the fun out of everything. Still - the grievances of the Snowflakes have nothing to do with sidewalk chalk and everything to do with a mentality that tells them "I'm so tolerant and everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler."

The student government appropriated "emergency funds" for events that counter the message which made people feel "threatened," proving once and for all that student government is hot garb and none of these people should ever be allowed to be in charge of anything.

I'm sort of hoping that more pro-Trump chalking pops up on campuses across America - just to watch the left wing crowd lose their minds. Do I know any Atlantans who would be willing to don a "Make America Great Again" hat and take a little stroll through Emory's campus? Do it. Film it.


Well done, Emory snowflakes, you played yourselves: Your little hissy fit, and ensuing media attention, is pretty much an in-kind donation to Donald Trump. His supporters contend that PC culture has gone too far, and now you're a perfect case-in-point.

Forgot About Che

We need to talk about the weird photos of President Obama in Cuba. First up, this one: The President of the United States, and the Secretary of State, standing in front of a giant Che Guevara mural.

President Obama has an advance team that is supposed to scope out his itinerary and make sure things like this don't happen. HOW did they miss this? Everybody recognizes Che Guevara's face, thanks to those dumb hipster t-shirts. And if you paid attention in school, or have ever googled "Che," you know he was a violent terrorist, a murderer, and a racist. This stuff is not a secret. So - there is no excuse to have the President of the United States stand in front of that mural.

The Cuban "honor guard" is an...interesting touch.

Then, Obama sat down with Raul Castro and two very shiny flags. The Cuban government seems to have hosted this event in a leftover set from Jurassic World. Cuba faces food shortages all the time, but at least there is no shortage of decorative ferns.

And then there was...whatever the hell this is.

Is every flag in Cuba made out of polyester?

What we learn from this image is: President Obama is probably capable of dunking on Raul Castro. I want to see it happen - that's at least one way POTUS could redeem himself on this trip.

For a trip that is kind of one giant photo op, you'd think they'd be better at arranging the optics along the way.

Hulk Hogan vs. Gawker: Media Ethics on Trial

The #HulkVsGawk trial is what happens when you combine a world-famous WWE actor/wrestler, a popular gossip site, and a sex tape. And then you drop this mess into a Florida courtroom, and let the public watch on a free live stream.

Gawker published a video of Hulk Hogan with the then-wife of Hogan's friend Bubba the Love Sponge, a Tampa radio personality (did I mention this is all taking place in Florida?) Hogan, whose real name is Terry Bollea, claims that the tape was recorded without his knowledge or consent. He is suing Gawker for the damage he alleges was done to him by their publishing of the tape.

Photo via People

This trial is capturing the public's attention for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that the people involved are hilarious. The plaintiff fist-bumps his lawyers! Gawker witnesses have had to explain their crude inside jokes in front of a judge and jury! Last summer, Terry Bollea got a judge's permission to appear in court wearing his "dress bandanna." Who on earth wears a dress bandanna? And who on earth cares enough about said item to go before a judge and request formal permission to wear it in a court of law? Florida, you slay me.

This all goes to the larger issue that it's hard to tell where Terry Bollea stops and Hulk Hogan begins. I'm not defending either one of them here. He has previously come under fire for racist comments, and at the time the tape was made, he was married.

In this case, Bollea's character doesn't matter. The question at the center of this is: What counts as news?

Gawker is trying to give their answer, and as someone who studies media ethics, the answer is frightening.

• Former Gawker editor A.J. Daulerio said that the video was "newsworthy" because the person involved in it is famous. He didn't talk about whether or not Bollea consented to being filmed OR having that film distributed - just because the tape existed, Daulerio believes he had permission to make it available to the world.
• When asked when a celebrity sex tape would not be worthy, he said that only if it were of a child under the age of 4.
• One Gawker Media employee said that, if she was making this decision over again, she would still post the tape.
• Internal chat transcripts between Gawker employees show them gleefully talking about how many page views their Hulk Hogan post brought them, along with a post of topless photos taken of Duchess Kate Middleton (also taken without her knowledge or consent).

The jury still has to make their decision, but the evidence looks damning to Gawker's case. Preemptive congratulations to Hulk Hogan on his acquisition of Gawker Media. Good luck cleaning it up.

Nancy Reagan Dies at 94, Washington Post is Rude About It

By now, you've surely heard that First Lady Nancy Reagan passed away this morning at the age of 94. She is remembered as an icon of American political culture, a loyal adviser to her husband, and an advocate for anti-drug campaigns and Alzheimer's research.

There is much that can be said about Nancy Reagan, and plenty of people (with far greater historical perspective than mine) are saying it.

Then, there's the Washington Post. Oh, WaPo, you really messed up.

The Washington Post's obituary for Nancy Reagan was...scathing? It's weird to describe a news obituary that way, but it seems apt here. Take a look at this lede:

Ouch. Sure, Mrs. Reagan was controversial at times. But "controversy" isn't the defining characteristic of her life (nor is astrology). The public liked her: Nancy Reagan appeared 16 times on Gallup's list of "Top 10 Most Admired Women."

You wouldn't know it, though, if all you read about her today is the Washington Post.

This quote from a 1992 memoir might very well be true, but it's not the whole truth. Considering that Patti Davis and her mother "remained close in recent years," couldn't WaPo have found a newer quote? Instead, they capture Nancy Reagan's relationship with her daughter as it was 24 years ago. This is not how their story ended - but it's how WaPo chooses to memorialize it.

This is not the only example of how the Washington Post highlighted controversy and reduced the reconciliation to parentheses or a side note. Check out this description of the White House China controversy:

The "ostentation" and the steep price tag comes first. "No public money was spent" is relegated to the next paragraph. Nancy Reagan fundraised on her own, from private individuals, and got something done. It cost taxpayers nothing. It shouldn't have been a controversy at the time, and reviving it now seems utterly pointless - since no harm was done in the first place.

The article notes that Nancy Reagan's critics called her "Queen Nancy," an interesting historical note about perceptions of first ladies by the public. But on the day someone dies, to bring up the name that they were teased with, just seems tasteless.

Again, here the writer talks about Nancy Reagan not for who she was and what she accomplished, but for how other people talked about her:

She concentrated on her husband when he gave speeches? The horror! In what world is this some kind of a problem?

This is a news article, not a family-placed obituary. But like any news article, it should have been a comprehensive look at the event at hand. Instead, it makes one want to ask the writer, "What did Nancy Reagan ever do to you?"

I'm not calling on them to take the piece down. They are a private organization, and the right to a free press is crucially important. So, too, is our right to call them out when they commit the ethical violation of allowing a person's legacy to be determined only by her critics. Instead, we should remember Nancy Reagan for being famously graceful - at least one news outlet would do well to learn from her example.