Three academics conducted what they call a "grievance studies" experiment. They wrote fake papers on ridiculous subjects and submitted them to prominent academic journals in fields that study gender, race, and sexuality. They did this to "expose a political corruption that has taken hold of the universities," say the hoaxers in a video which documented the process. John Stossel interviewed James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian who, along with Helen Pluckrose, sent so-called research papers to 20 journals. They were surprised when seven papers were accepted. One claimed that "dog humping incidents at dog parks" can be taken as "evidence of rape culture." It was honored as "excellent scholarship." Another paper rewrote a section of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf as intersectional feminism. Stossel assumed that the journals would apologize for publishing nonsense and question the quality of their scholarship. But instead they criticized the the hoaxers, complaining that they "engaged in flawed and unethical research." Of course, that was the point of the hoax. Boghossian is unapologetic, telling Stossel the hoax shows "scholarship in these disciplines is utterly corrupted … they have placed an agenda before the truth." When Stossel suggests, "maybe you are just conservative hacks looking to defend your white privilege." Lindsay replied "I've never voted for a Republican in my life." Boghossian added, "Nor have I." Stossel says what upsets him is that after the hoax "no university said 'we're not gonna use these journals' and no editor publicly said, 'we have to raise our standards.'" Instead, Portland State University began disciplinary procedures against Boghossian. The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.

California's High-Speed Rail Disaster Is a 'Shot Across the Bow for the Green New Deal'

Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/7FpYA_Nk-G4

ReasonTV

Published on Mar 1, 2019

"The real battle in the Democratic Party is between reality and fantasy," says Chapman University's Joel Kotkin. Former Gov. Jerry Brown was a steadfast supporter of the California's bullet-train boondoggle despite cost overruns, lawsuits, and a lack of private support. But in his first State of the State Address, current Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that he would scale back the project. "He's spit in Jerry Brown's eye," says Joel Kotkin, a fellow in urban studies at Chapman University. Gov. Newsom says he'll push forward with one portion of the high-speed rail line—the stretch running from Bakersfield to Merced, or span of about 175 miles. But neither city is a big job center, and it's not a heavily traveled route. "This is the ultimate train to nowhere," says Kotkin. He says that backers of the Green New Deal, a plan that would crisscross the country with new bullet trains, should take notice. "The real battle in the Democratic Party is between reality and fantasy. And this was a big win for reality," says Kotkin. "Is any other state going to be as stupid as we are?" Produced by Paul Detrick.

Stossel: Sugar’s Sweetheart Deal.

Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/hCTE_vhTERM

ReasonTV

Published on Feb 26, 2019

Sugar subsidies are welfare for the rich. They cost consumers billions a year.

The U.S. sugar program is "Stalin-style price controls," Ross Marchand of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance tells John Stossel. The U.S. government uses a complex system of loans, domestic quotas, and limits on how much sugar we can import. The goal is to control the price of sugar. Stossel calls it "welfare for the rich." Economists say the program costs consumers billions a year. And yet the sugar industry makes videos that say "it costs taxpayers nothing." Economist Vincent H. Smith writes that the "Stalinist-style," supply control, "substantially increases U.S. prices–on average U.S. sugar prices are about twice as high as world prices." Yet politicians from sugar-producing states defend the program. "It basically allows our sugar industry to compete with other countries that are heavily subsidized by their home countries," Senator Marco Rubio said in an interview with Fox News. Stossel takes Rubio's claim to Marchand, "It's only fair to our sugar producers who don't get subsidized, who can't compete with these subsidized countries." Marchand replies, "Is it fair for customers to pay double the world rate for sugar? Is it fair for taxpayers to have to bail out a handful of super rich super-connected sugar processors? No." Ryan Weston, representing the Sugarcane Growers, goes on TV programs and says, "we are a no cost program, no cost to the taxpayer." "That's absolutely bogus, taxpayers do pay the cost," retorts Marchand. When sugar prices drop, "Government will buy sugar from the sugar processors and sell it to ethanol producers at a below market rate. Who's paying the difference? Who's footing the bill? U.S. taxpayers." Why aren't people upset with these crony capitalists? In a video produced by Learn Liberty, Economist Diana Thomas explains that the U.S. sugar program cost each of us "about $10 more on sugar products a year. So we don't even notice it." But sugar producers will lobby hard for their special deal because "each American sugar farmer made roughly $3 million dollars a year extra." The people who do notice the price controls most are candy makers. According to an Iowa University study, 20,000 American jobs a year are lost because of high sugar prices. Marchand says, "there is one candy cane producer left in Ohio. That's absolutely ridiculous. And look at all those jobs." Stossel challenges Marchand by saying that it's probably good that we eat less sugar and candy. Marchand replies, "the fact that sugar is in everything means that healthy and unhealthy products alike are going to cost more." The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.

Newt Gingrich talks to Sean Hannity.

Sources and Acknowledgements-

John Stossel-

--------- Subscribe to my YouTube channel: http://youtube.com/johnstossel Like me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JohnStossel/ Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/johnstossel ---------

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From ReasonTV-

Subscribe to our YouTube channel: http://youtube.com/reasontv Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magaz... Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reason Subscribe to our podcast at Apple Podcasts: https://goo.gl/az3a7a Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

HELP ACU SPREAD THE WORD!

Please send to friends, post on Facebook, twitter, etc…

Over 3,000 commercial free archived shows are available on our podcast site here.

Ways to subscribe to the American Conservative University Podcast

Click here to subscribe via iTunes

Click here to subscribe via RSS

You can also subscribe via Stitcher

You can also subscribe via SoundCloud

If you like this episode head on over to iTunes and kindly leave us a rating, a review and subscribe! People find us through our good reviews.

FEEDBACK + PROMOTION

You can ask your questions, make comments, submit ideas for shows and lots more. Let your voice be heard.

Download our FREE iOS App.

Download our FREE Android App.

Email us at americanconservativeuniversity@americanconservativeuniversity.com

Guests

Newt Gingrich

Fighting Big Tech, The Left Destroying Electoral College, Huge Shift Against Abortion, Asset Seizure, Newt Gingrich and John Stossel.

American Conservative University

Guests

Twitter Mentions