Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 9/14/17: Reed College…Fired For Mentioning Grits?…Stupid Protests…The DNC Lies To Democrats…And The Times Clarifies Its Double Standards

Hi there!

1 There is another one of those hybrid ethics stories coming out of Oregon. Cross oppressive political correctness with racial-offense hypersensitivity with Lena Dunham-like totalitarian-minded progressives itching to report “wrong-thinkers” to authorities with organizations punishing individuals for private speech they did not intend to make public and what monstrosity do you get?

This: a white conductor and festival artistic director fired by a music festival after he was overheard talking to a black friend in a fake Southern accent and saying, “Do you want some grits?” or words to that effect.

I’m not going to explain in any detail what and who are unethical in this fiasco, because I shouldn’t have to. Halls is a victim. The woman who reported him after eavesdropping is worse than merely unethical: she is an evil-doer, someone who sets out to hurt other people to feel powerful. She either never heard of the Golden Rule or doesn’t accept it. (Maybe she IS Lena Dunham!) The festival’s conduct is unfair, uncaring, cowardly and irresponsible. It deserves to have its artists boycott the festival in support for Halls, but since artists tend to be leftists of the knee-jerk variety, addicted to virtue-signaling and with the depth of analysis exhibited by the typical dachshund, I wouldn’t expect any colleagial  support if I were the conductor.

If you have functioning ethics alarms, it will be obvious that the episode was disgusting and unjust, and why. If the festival’s conduct  makes sense to you, then I’m afraid you’re hopelessly corrupted.

2. Morning Warm-Up may yet morph into “stories that are so irritating I can’t stand writing full posts about them.” Take this one, for example: at small liberal arts school Reed College,  a mandatory humanities course on ancient Mediterranean civilizations was canceled after student protesters kept  interrupting the class to protest “Eurocentrism.” Western culture has been, like it or accept it or not, the beacon of world civilization, and even those who (idiotically) choose to deride or reject it need to understand the history and forces that brought us to where we are today—where we are today being a time when weak and incompetent college administers refuse to assert the indispensable fact that students are there to learn, not dictate to their elders.

My favorite part of this story: to accommodate protesters, the Reed administration agreed to allow adverse students to stand surrounding lecturers in the course. “The general understanding was that the protesters would be allowed to continue as long as they didn’t interfere in the lecture period”…as if forcing lecturers to teach under such circumstances isn’t inherently interfering, as well as intimidating to the teachers and other students.

Colleges and universities that cannot respond more effectively and professionally to such unethical bullying by extremists don’t deserve to exist at all. If you don’t want to learn about Western civilization, go to another school, probably in California. If you disrupt the learning experience of other students, you should be expelled.

3.  Someone signed me up for e-mails from the Democratic National Committee. It’s the worst junk-mail imaginable, but occasionally receiving it is enlightening, as in “Wow! The party has sunk to even more depraved levels than I imagined possible.” From my mailbox (NOTE: This is actually the version from Powerline, because I can’t seem to transfer mine, being inept at screenshots)…

It’s difficult to lie much more blatantly than this in an e-mail:

a) The Supreme Court is not in session, and thus not issuing “rulings.”

b) The Court issued an order yesterday in Abbott v. Perez, a case involving Texas redistricting, saying only this:

The application for stay presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted, and it is ordered that the order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, case No. SA-11-CV-360, entered August 24, 2017, is stayed pending the timely filing and disposition of an appeal to this Court.

c) In other words, the Court isn’t ruling on the merits of the case in any way. As is the usual course, it is staying a lower courts order that is being appealed to SCOTUS, pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of the case.

d) Justice Gorsuch is no more the deciding vote than any other justice who voted for the stay. Justice Alito is the logical one to hold accountable, since he proposed the stay to the court. Calling him and the President “bigots” is just gutter politics.

d) Misidentifying the stay, and worse, informing gullible party members that it is “allowing racial gerrymandering in Texas” is beyond irresponsible, dishonest and incompetent, it is intentionally inflammatory.

When I checked around the web to research this despicable “alert,” I discovered that lawyer John Hinderaker had received the same e-mail, and was properly incensed. He concluded his post on the subject thusly:

“It has been a long time since I have been a fan of the Democratic Party. But the hate speech to which the Democrats–not a few renegade party members, but the Democratic Party itself–now resort, is utterly beyond the pale. The leaders of the Democratic Party must understand that the wild charges they fling against people like Neil Gorsuch are not just false, but crazy. But they don’t care: power is their sole object. We are living through a sad epoch in the history of our republic.”

4. Most protests, I’d say more than 90%, are pokes in the eye or primal screams that use bumper-sticker generalities and half-truths at best, reducing civic discourse to its lowed and crudest denominators. Exhibit A: Colin Kaepernick. Exhibit B: the protesters at Fenway Park last night who dropped this over the Green Monster in the  4th inning of yesterday’s game:

To be fair, it should be observed that Red Sox owner John Henry begged for such a disruption by calling for former Sox owner—and savior of the franchise—Tom Yawkey to be dis-honored because he wasn’t as enlightened about race as today’s social justice warriors who had the benefit of an extra forty years  of enlightenment, experience and history. The approximately 36,000 fans who paid to see a baseball game and not be assaulted by grandstanding jerks (technically they were in the Monster seats, not the grandstands) did not ask for incoherent political lectures, however.

The fans and their banner were ejected from the park. Good.

5. Yesterday the New York Times ran a front page story about how U.S. government responses to major storms had improves greatly, based on the evidence of Harvey and Irma. Guess whose name didn’t appear anywhere in the 1600 word story. Come on, guess. Trump. When Katrina caused death and chaos, the news media flayed President Bush, though it was clear even then that the main culprits were New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco.  When the response to Superstorm Sandy was botched, criticism of President Obama was muted and nearly non-existent. Now the response to not one but two major hurricanes has been rapid and competent, but the President of the United States is deemed not worthy of mention, much less praise.

Got that? If a storm response is inadequate, the Republican President is to blame, but the Democratic President isn’t. If the storm response is effective, then the Republican President had nothing to do with it. Requiring a bit more clarification: would the latter be true of any Republican, or just Donald Trump? Recall that his wearing a “USA” hat while visiting the Houston was deemed worthy of attack in the Times, but the fact that few people dies than expected had nothing to do with his administration at all.

95 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Arts & Entertainment, Education, Government & Politics, Humor and Satire, Journalism & Media, language, Leadership, Race, U.S. Society, Workplace

95 responses to “Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 9/14/17: Reed College…Fired For Mentioning Grits?…Stupid Protests…The DNC Lies To Democrats…And The Times Clarifies Its Double Standards

  1. I hope the rapper “lynching” a white kid in a music video makes the next Warm-Up, with thorough condemnation of the parents allowing their kid to be part of that.

    Also: Chris Cillizza’s tweet:

    “The @TODAYshow did Ted Cruz porn video and Seattle mayor resignation in its first 10 minutes. Banner day for politicians!”

    Where “Ted Cruz porn video” is actually “Cruz staffer liked a porno via his official twitter” AND “Seattle mayor resignation” is actually “accused child molesting mayor resigns”

  2. #5) Sunday evening we had news on and the anchors were all commenting how the reactions to Irma and Harvey *were* superior, due to ALL the improvements made SINCE Katrina, in the years between Katrina and Harvey…hint hint, “This isn’t Trump’s victory, this is Obama’s, BUT WE AREN’T ACTUALLY SAYING THAT!!!!”

    • valkygrrl

      Objectively, GWB’s FEMA appointment and subsequent reaction, heck of a job, were a mistake. Jobs as political rewards are a tradition, matching people you want to reward with a job that fits their history in some way is preferred though. I don’t say that to dig on Bush, he’s retired and no longer my problem. I mention it to set the stage.

      Katrina and the less than perfect response were a wakeup call and they did start trying to improve for the rest of the Bush years, that’s to his credit. Obama did the same, he had the benefit of hindsight and now we have Trump. Don’t discount those post-Katrina improvements and i won’t discount the fact that Trump hasn’t decided to destroy those improvements.

      Two major hurricanes in as many weeks and to his credit FEMA seems to be on the ball, but he as well has the benefit of hindsight. Too soon to know how it’ll all shake out, reports this morning are that FEMA’s showing up in Florida with their disaster gear and clean water, so yay.

      Is it Trump’s win? Partly, and he did something good this morning. He spoke in public, he gave other people credit, he answered questions, and he did it without talking about himself and how wonderful he thinks he is (a victory for the American People.) And partly it’s eight years of Obama and a few of Bush working to make FEMA effective. And mostly it’s the people at FEMA who are doing their jobs with no–as of today–major screwups.

      • “Don’t discount those post-Katrina improvements”

        Someone did that?

        ” and i won’t discount the fact that Trump hasn’t decided to destroy those improvements.”

        This is what partisan shill magnanimity looks like.

        • valkygrrl

          Look at what’s happened to the EPA. Clearly he doesn’t mind turning an agency to shite to give a political favor.

          • valkygrrl wrote, “Look at what’s happened to the EPA. Clearly he doesn’t mind turning an agency to shite to give a political favor.”

            What the heck are you talking about?

          • Glenn Logan

            Well, the EPA was shite before Trump. Let’s just get that right. If it’s shite after him, it’s no worse off.

          • Matthew B

            This isn’t a parallel situation.

            Scott Pruitt isn’t a favor appointment, it is a very targeted appointment. What is happening to the EPA isn’t incompetence, it is by design. Hardly a parallel to FEMA. Bush didn’t set out to reform the FEMA in Bush’s image of what FEMA should be.

            • FEMA was always, always, always a dumping ground for political donor and allies, regardless of skill or experience. Bush’s just happened to be worse than most, and unlucky enough to be exposed by events.

        • Chris

          valky: ” and i won’t discount the fact that Trump hasn’t decided to destroy those improvements.”

          tex: This is what partisan shill magnanimity looks like.

          No, it’s what reality looks like.

          • I won’t discount the fact that Chris hasn’t decided to molest those children in his classroom.

            • Chris

              Inappropriate comment, and not analogous. As valky and Matthew have already pointed out, Trump is purposefully dismantling the EPA; valky was right to give Trump credit for not similarly dismantling FEMA.

              • It’s inappropriate to acknowledge that you haven’t decided to do evil?

                Because that’s exactly what valky’s crap comment is.

                You’re now being disingenuous. Best bet at this point is acknowledge you shouldn’t have said anything and that valky was just being a political hack.

                • Chris

                  Oh for god’s sake. It isn’t inappropriate to acknowledge that someone hasn’t decided to do an evil thing when that same person has already done a very similar evil thing!

                  Valky’s comment was appropriate and made sense because Trump is intentionally dismantling the EPA. Your response, in that context, implies that there are children out there I’ve decided to molest.

                  But please, keep clutching your pearls and pretending like you just *simply can’t imagine* why anyone would ever criticize Trump.

                  • EPA and FEMA are analogous?

                    That’s a burdensome proof for you to accomplish. But I’m sure you’ll try.

                    No, valky has a few pet agencies and one of them was modified by the President in a way valky can’t stand. So valky lost his mind.

                    My analogy is fine. It’s ugly. But then again valky’s inane comment wasintentio ally ugly too. I was hoping by using an equally absurd comment you’d snap out of it. Yet here you are digging deeper.

                    • Chris

                      EPA and FEMA are analogous?

                      Yes, you idiot.

                      That’s a burdensome proof for you to accomplish. But I’m sure you’ll try.

                      I really don’t need to do that.

                      No, valky has a few pet agencies and one of them was modified by the President in a way valky can’t stand. So valky lost his mind.

                      No rational person would read that comment as valky “losing his mind.” You are the one hysterically overreacting here, and behaving like a hostile jackass.

                      My analogy is fine. It’s ugly. But then again valky’s inane comment wasintentio ally ugly too. I was hoping by using an equally absurd comment you’d snap out of it. Yet here you are digging deeper.

                      Let the record show that Tex has now stated that dismantling a federal agency is equivalent to molesting children. But sure, valky and I are the hysterical ones.

                    • You haven’t accomplished anything, I really hope you’ll realize that soon. Valky’s comment was obviously nasty and intentionally spiteful. There was nothing reasonable about his comment. Only you seem to think it made sense. But then again you’ve been addled since November 8th, so it’s understandable.

                      My comment to wake you up is still perfectly analogous *in form* you mental midget. You do teach English, right?

                      But it’s safe to assume you quietly acknowledge your lack of an argument here since you’re resorting to hysterics.

                      It is amusing if not embarrassing though. Please stop.

                    • Chris

                      I typed something that actually *was* a nasty comment, then deleted it out of respect for Jack.

                      But no, holding Trump accountable for dismantling the EPA while being grateful he hasn’t dismantled FEMA still isn’t a nasty comment, and is perfectly reasonable. You haven’t marshaled any argument against it, and you seem to think its my job to prove that it’s fair. I’m not sure why.

                      But you really should apologize for the child molester crack, which actually was nasty.

                    • No, I’ll pass on apologizing. I never called you a child molester by the same logic that Trump never “dismantled” FEMA like he “dismantled” the EPA.

                      Now, if you want to acknowledge precisely the insinuations buried in valky’s original comment, which you desperately pretend aren’t there, I may soften my stance on my nasty comment. But, by your standard, there’s been no insult.

                      Since I know you know the problem, I feel silly explaining this to you, but you seem to insist in this act of yours-

                      It’s obviously a mean spirited comment by valky because the wording clearly indicates Trump’s ‘nefarious’ plan to destroy the wonderful FEMA, he just hasn’t done it yet, but we know, WE KNOW he’s a right dastard and the destruction of FEMA is his next evil move to make.

                      Now, stop faking this charade of yours.

                    • Chris

                      It’s obviously a mean spirited comment by valky because the wording clearly indicates Trump’s ‘nefarious’ plan to destroy the wonderful FEMA, he just hasn’t done it yet, but we know, WE KNOW he’s a right dastard and the destruction of FEMA is his next evil move to make.

                      You won’t believe me because you’ve already decided I’m a disingenuous liar, but this interpretation never even occurred to me.

                      When I read valky’s statement “Don’t discount those post-Katrina improvements and i won’t discount the fact that Trump hasn’t decided to destroy those improvements,” I immediately thought, “Oh, you mean like he decided to destroy the EPA.” Valky’s follow-up comment seems to confirm that interpretation.

                      Of course, I could be wrong, and valky could clarify that he really believes Trump has a dastardly plan to dismantle FEMA. But I think my interpretation–“He hasn’t decided to destroy these improvements like he’s destroyed others” is not only more charitable, but more reasonable, and I think you’re choosing to hallucinate meanings that aren’t there because those meanings conform to your view of eeeevil liberals who are so mean to po’ embattled Trump. (Why, sometimes we even interpret his statements in the worst light possible while ignoring more charitable and rational ones! What kind of fucking monsters DO that?!)

                    • Whatever you need to sleep at night. I’m sure valky can confirm your suspicions *now*. My original analysis is correct.

                      Have your last word.

                  • “But please, keep clutching your pearls and pretending like you just *simply can’t imagine* why anyone would ever criticize Trump.”

                    Giggle.

                    That’s the tactic now?

                    Calling out valky’s nasty comment is the same as being incredulous that someone would criticize Trump.

                    Hardly. And that’s a weak strategy.

                    Do better than this.

                    • Chris

                      Valky’s comment wasn’t in any way “nasty.” It was a fair criticism given Trump’s dismantling of the EPA. That you perceive a fair critique of Trump as a “nasty comment” proves my point. That you think his comment was in any way equivalent to suggesting that someone is a child molester shows that you have taken leave of your senses entirely as a result of your crippling anti-anti-Trump bias.

                    • Keep playing stupid. I know you know valky’s comment was constructed that way to be specifically nasty. But, keep circling the wagons. You don’t have much left to lose here in terms of credibility anyway.

                    • Chris

                      It was constructed to be *critical.*

                      Do you perceive all critiques of Trump as “nasty?” If not, what made this one so out of line to you? Explain it; it is not self-evident.

                    • Repeating a dumb angle of attack doesn’t make it less dumb. In fact, having been called on how dumb the attack is, makes your repetition even stupider. I think this sidebar is concluded.

                      You’ve been called out on your weak try at equating a comment about pure partisan spite as condemning “fair” criticism. You’re an imbecile.

                      Thanks for this

                  • Chris wrote, “It isn’t inappropriate to acknowledge that someone hasn’t decided to do an evil thing when that same person has already done a very similar evil thing!”

                    Do tell; what is this “similar evil thing” that this same person had done?

                    • Fortunately for rational thinking intellignet people, making changes in the EPA doesn’t actually equate to destroy”,
                      “dismantle”
                      , or “evil”, those words have their own unique connotations. Political hacks improperly use these kinds of words to intentionally ginn up faux outrage based emotional fear in the minds of their ignorant ideological counteparts and start arguments with intelligent people that oppose their intellectually dishonest crap; this is what political attack dogs do.

                      Remember all of Obama’s change propaganda rhetoric;

                      “Change” versus “More of the Same”, “Vote for Change”, “Change We Can Believe In”, “Our Time for Change”, “It’s about Time. It’s about Change”, “Stand for Change”, “Organize for Change”, “We are the change we’ve been looking for. Change can’t happen without you.”, “I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . I’m asking you to believe in yours.”, “A leader who can deliver change”, “Change in America doesn’t start from the top down. It starts from the bottom up.”

                      The big change that happened during the Obama administration is that Obama’s eight years turned the political left into a bunch of whiny, irrational, bias makes you stupid, political attack dogs.

                      Obama was correct when he said that “change in America doesn’t start from the top down. It starts from the bottom up”; that’s exactly how Trump got elected.

                    • Chris

                      Reminder: you initially used the word “evil” when you believed valky had accused Trump of planning to dismantle FEMA in the same way he’s dismantled the EPA.

                      Why is dismantling FEMA evil while dismantling the EPA is not? You never did explain this.

                    • Chris

                      No one ever claimed that changing something is always the same as dismantling it, so your comment is pretty non-reaponsive. But yes, Trump is dismantling the EPA, not just changing it. I can educate you on this topic if you’d like.

                    • Chris wrote, “No one ever claimed that changing something is always the same as dismantling it…”

                      I didn’t say “always” you incorrigible ignorant asshole!

                      Trump makes changes to the EPA and you call it dismantling the EPA; so yes, you are claiming that changing the EPA is dismantling it; own it!

                    • incorrigible ignorant asshole!

                      Come on. Restraint.

                    • <… Trump is dismantling the EPA, not just changing it. I can educate you on this topic if you’d like.

                      I would like to hear your perspective on what Trump is doing to the EPA, Chris. No snark, and not a trap.

                    • Chris

                      I’m claiming that these particular changes count as dismantling. Obviously. If you object, you could always explain why instead of making ridiculous semantic arguments.

                    • There are solid reasons to argue for the dismantling of much of the US’s regulatory structure as unconstitutional lawmaking, rife with abuse, and guaranteed to be abused. The EPA is just one of many.

                    • Chris wrote, “I’m claiming that these particular changes count as dismantling. Obviously.”

                      Now that we’ve got that out of the way, I can chalk this previous statement of yours where you said that “no one ever claimed that changing something is… the same as dismantling it…” as about as close as you can get to a lie without actually being a lie.

                      Chris wrote, “If you object, you could always explain why instead of making ridiculous semantic arguments.”

                      I did explain why I objected and disagreed with your statements; I was very specific and very blunt, is it possible that you somehow miss it? In addition; I am not the one making the claim that making changes is the same as dismantling, you are, I have nothing to explain in that regard.

                      Let me see if I fully understand this little “argument” you presented, “If you object, you could always explain why instead of making ridiculous semantic arguments.”; you seem to think that you can imply or say that I’ve written things that I didn’t write – thus putting words in my mouth, plus you write things that are barefaced false and when I point out these things your interpretation is my argument is a “ridiculous semantic argument”? That’s some pretty pungent Liberal Magical Thinking.

                    • Chris

                      That may well be, Jack. Sad that the potentially more interesting conversation over the ethics of dismantling such agencies was lost in yet another cycle of misrepresentations and recriminations.

                    • Chris

                      You seem determined to miss the point. Let me see if I can clarify for you, despite your determination to misrepresent me:

                      –Not all changes to an institution are efforts to dismantle that institution.
                      –Some changes to an institution are efforts to dismantle that institution.
                      –Trump’s changes to the EPA are efforts to dismantle the EPA.

                      What part of this argument remains unclear to you? What part of this argument could you not have at the very least inferred from my previous comments?

                      Now if you believe Trump’s changes to the EPA don’t count as efforts to dismantle it, object to that and explain why. Or you could just ask me to explain further why I believe these changes are attempts to dismantle the institution. But please don’t waste any more of our time on the weird semantic games you often play. They are unbelievably boring.

                    • Chris wrote, “Now if you believe Trump’s changes to the EPA don’t count as efforts to dismantle it, object to that and explain why.”

                      I haven’t made any claims about the EPA to support, not even one; however as usual, you are making claims and not supporting them.

                      Here are some facts Chris: you have posted 13 comments in this little subthread. Within those thirteen comments, you have stated or implied that Trump has/is destroying/dismantling the EPA 11 times and not once have you produced any facts to back up your regurgitating claim – nothing!

                      It’s time for Chris to put up or shut up.

                      Here is your challenge Chris: Since there must be loads of examples of how Trump is dismantling the EPA, pick three of the most egregious examples and devote one short paragraph to each and in your own words to tell us what evil things Trump has done and how it is dismantling the EPA.

                      Now Chris, don’t go plagiarizing a bunch of opinions from others and present them as your own, this EPA stuff must be quite prominent in your mind for you to be pushing this claim as much as you are. This should be quick and easy for an English teacher to produce.

                    • Chris

                      Thank you for finally addressing my argument, Zoltar, even though you have decided to do so in the shittiest manner possible.

                      I won’t be completing your little homework assignment, as you have no authority to tell me what you do. I will, however, provide a brief list of things Trump has done in his attempts dismantle the EPA, things that you are surely already aware of if you have bothered to stay even a little bit informed on the topic; if not, Google is your friend:

                      1. Nominating aggressive EPA-hater Scott Pruitt to run the agency
                      2. Rolling back numerous environmental regulations, including clean water provisions
                      3. Proposing a budget cut for the EPA of 31%, the largest proposed cut to any agency, along with proposing to eliminate over 50 EPA programs
                      4. Banning the EPA from posting updates alerting the public to important environmental issues on social media

                      None of this is surprising, as Trump explicitly pledged to dismantle the EPA during his campaign, saying “We are going to get rid of it in almost every form.”

                      Perhaps you agree that the EPA should be dismantled. If so, then say so. But denying that Trump is trying to do this is absurd. He told you he was going to do it, and while he will likely be unsuccessful (number 3 faced opposition even from Republicans, and ultimately only a 6% budget cut was approved), it is simply a fact that Trump is trying to dismantle the EPA. Not even Trump denies it; I hope you won’t attempt to.

                    • Chris wrote, “Thank you for finally addressing my argument, Zoltar, even though you have decided to do so in the shittiest manner possible.”

                      Stop your whining!

                      Chris wrote, “I won’t be completing your little homework assignment…”

                      Intellectual coward.

                      Chris wrote, “…you have no authority to tell me what you do.”

                      Really Chris, you sound like a 6 year old!

                      Chris wrote, “1. Nominating aggressive EPA-hater Scott Pruitt to run the agency.”

                      How is this dismantling the EPA?

                      Chris wrote, “2. Rolling back numerous environmental regulations, including clean water provisions.”

                      How is this dismantling the EPA?

                    • Chris wrote, “3. Proposing a budget cut for the EPA of 31%, the largest proposed cut to any agency, along with proposing to eliminate over 50 EPA programs”

                      Proposals? Really Chris, are you that ignorant? How is this actually dismantling the EPA? They can propose any damn thing they want.

                      Chris wrote, “4. Banning the EPA from posting updates alerting the public to important environmental issues on social media”

                      The EPA has no damn business being on social media, it’s excessive waste. How is this dismantling the EPA?

                      Chris wrote, “denying that Trump is trying to do this is absurd.”,
                      “it is simply a fact that Trump is trying to dismantle the EPA”

                      Like a true blue leftist political hack; you’re moving the goal post.

                      Trying and doing are two entirely different things you hack; you’ve been saying that Trump IS dismantling the EPA not Trump is trying to dismantle the EPA. Semantics makes a hell of a difference for those that actually comprehend the written word.

                      I asked you to prove that Trump has/is dismantling the EPA not to prove that Trump is “trying” to dismantle the EPA. I’m not as ignorant as you appear.

                      I worked for a company for a number of years that cut its operating budget by eliminating things within that company that were bogged down with illogical excessive redundancies causing huge cost overruns, they cut their annual budget by over 40%; guess what genius, although a few people that were doing duplicated jobs lost their jobs, the company was not dismantled.

                      What you unjustly call dismantling is actually cutting the crap from an obsessively intrusive regulatory structure that was setup in a manner that will and does abuse those being regulated.

                      Your argument that Trump has/is dismantling the EPA is nothing but bull shit, that’s why you tried an intellectually dishonest tactic of moving the goal post. How’d that idiotic partisan hack tactic work for you Chris?

              • Chris wrote, “Inappropriate comment, and not analogous.”

                Context you idiot, context!

                • Chris

                  The context doesn’t make it OK, Z, and I already explained why it is not analogous even in form. Valky’s comment was based on the fact that Trump has decided to dismantle other government agencies. Tex’s comment, therefore, implies that I have previously decided to molest children and just haven’t done it this time.

                  But I accept that he didn’t intend this meaning; he misunderstood valky’s comment as a result of his own bias and didn’t believe valky’s clarification, so he was unaware of the implication he was making.

                  • Chris your bias makes you stupid has clearly gotten the best of you.

                    Texagg04’s initial evaluation “partisan shill magnanimity” of valkygrrl’s absurd statement “and i won’t discount the fact that Trump hasn’t decided to destroy those improvements was spot on regardless of all the useless crap you’ve written to try and contradict it. Also; Texagg04’s statement “I won’t discount the fact that Chris hasn’t decided to molest those children in his classroom.” to ring your I’m being stupid bell, was full appropriate, you’re just too ignorant to comprehend it properly.

                    The best I can tell is that you’re a flagrant hypocrite and so partisan ignorant that you recognize your own hypocrisy; plus, your continued comprehension challenged replies trying to prove that which did not exist makes you look like an ignorant English teacher.

                    With comprehension skills like yours, God help your unwitting English students.

                    • Chris

                      I spent a lot of time explaining both valky’s statement and my own, and your reply does not contain a single counter-argument against any of it; just personal insults.

                      Much like how Tex spent an hour on intentionally inflammatory statements and insults before he even explained his own (erroneous) interpretation of valky’s comment, you don’t seem to feel the need to explain your points or engage in any actual exchange of ideas; you seem to think it’s enough to proclaim that you are self-evidently better than me.

                      I have to say: the two of you constantly seem more interested in turning exchanges with me into dominance/humiliation rituals than in actually trying to understand what I’m saying or where I’m coming from, and by doing this you are making this blog a shittier place to be.

                    • Steve-O-in-NJ

                      Jesus Christ. Threads like this are among the reasons I post less these days than I used to. Jack called for restraint, but restraint also includes knowing when to stop as what not to say. This whole exchange went on long past the point of generating any kind of light, and just kept on generating heat. Jack pointed out that rarely do real life conversations reach the point they do online because face to fact the Golden Rule kicks in and stops us from overreaching. I remember also pointing out that real life conversations can reach the point where you irritate the other person into busting you one in the grill, or he irritates you to the point where you haul off and slug him. Usually if we’re wise we stop before it gets that far in life.

                      Honestly, Chris, I can think of about a half dozen threads on this blog where you have continued a discussion long after it should have stopped, because everything of value was already said and there was no value in continuing it, mostly because you just had to have the last word or you just couldn’t accept that you weren’t going to change another adult’s mind. You are one liberal, albeit a mouthy one, of maybe five, dealing with seven to ten conservatives, all older and more experienced than you, who you are never going to convince that you are the smartest guy in the room, and who are getting frankly sick of you trying and irritated that you aren’t getting the message.

                      On other social media you would have long ago been dropped or blocked, and this is from someone who almost never blocks on social media unless someone directly threatens him. In life you would long ago at the mildest been told to leave whatever gathering you were attending and it would have been made clear that you were never going to be invited back. At the strongest, particularly if you kept on not taking the hint and getting mouthy instead, someone would have hit you in the mouth and broken your jaw, and the consequences be damned.

                      You accuse Zoltar and Tex of making this blog a shittier place to be, but 1. no one is putting a gun to your head and making you stay, and 2. physician, heal thyself.

                    • Steve-O-in-NJ,
                      I don’t know if anyone else has noticed that these long sub threads with Chris are almost never about the topic that started the sub thread or the topic of the blog post, they’re almost always a deflection beat into the ground by Chris until someone rhetorically puts and end to it.

                      I have an old Army buddy that helped me focus on identifying rhetorical patterns from online commenters, I’m a novice compared to him; that said, I don’t know if others have been able to pick up on the trolling patterns that Chris uses around here to drag conversations into dark places; make no mistake, it’s intentional and it is a repetitive pattern. Some of his favorite tools of the trade are deflect, be obtuse, play the victim, make unprovable partisan claims, shift the goalposts when challenged, use indirect insults to inspire direct insults from others, claim the side of reality, intentionally misrepresent others, etc. This little sub thread is a pretty good example of trolling by Chris. I think it’s quite clear that Chris is a leftist internet troll; he wants to disrupt and he’s actually good at it. It’s getting very difficult to believe that anything Chris writes is truthful.

                      I loosely equate Chris’ rhetorical patterns to what I used to see regularly when I was a bouncer in the late 70’s; drunken biker fools trolling around the bar slinging verbal fallacies at others trying to instigate fights, at some point the drunk verbally takes on someone who doesn’t take their verbal crap and returns the favor; the drunken fool has found their patsy and starts swinging, at that point in time the one not willing to take the crap and/or the bouncers have to be prepared to put down the drunk. Eventually the drunk always sinks themself with their actions much like partisan internet trolls do when they trap themselves with their own words. The difference between saying what needs to be said to ring the bell of an online troll and doing what needs to be done to a drunken fool in a bar is when you’re online the action is considered uncivil, in a bar it’s considered maintaining civility.

                      I am by no means perfect, I have my faults, and none of what I wrote above is trying to rationalize away my faults or errors in judgement.

  3. Other Bill

    I see. So now we’re smearing dachsunds, Mr. Marshall? Most all of ours have been much more intelligent than the average college administrator. And a heck of a lot more fun to be around. Maybe you could say the college administrators have no more analytical skills than a low grad artichoke.

  4. Steve-O-in-NJ

    1. This is nothing new. It’s just another way for busybodies to poke their noses into other people’s business and for the beta people to try to play hero. Stick to the VA Arts festival, any festival that includes one of the world’s three greatest military tattoos can’t be all bad.

    2. When the colleges are run by folks who probably still remember their greatest achievements as being when they were either high as kites or committing low level terrorism a la Bill Ayers, it should come as no surprise that there is almost no disciplinary process in place for those who remind them of those great days “when we were all reaching out for a cause and asking questions no one had asked.”

    3. Of course it’s inflammatory, the Democratic Party and the left generally have done very well this year by starting moral panics. Why stop now?

    4. No, lower and cruder were the folks who under cover of night defaced the statue of Columbus in Central Park, the statue of Francis Scott Key in Baltimore, and BEHEADED the statue of St. Junipero Sierra in Santa Barbara. This nation is getting closer and closer to having a full-on terrorist underground a la Ireland in the early 1900s. Stuff like Krappernick, who is guess WILL sit this season out (awwww, what a pity) and this stupid banner are the least of it. Kudos to the Fenway Park people for tossing them out, though, on the West Coast they’d be just fine.

    5. This comes as no surprise either. The mainstream media see it as their job to build up the left and tear the right down. Surely you recall that in the time following the initial victories in Afghanistan and Iraq, as Gaddafi backed off from being an international troublemaker and Assad the younger withdrew from Lebanon there were multiple articles pushing the point that these apparent great achievements were not the result of GWB’s sharp reminder to the world of what the US can do when provoked (i.e. put 5 aircraft carriers off your coast), but rather due to years and years of efforts by diplomats under Bill Clinton’s State Department.

    But we went over a lot of this a few months ago at the beginning of the year – the media were going to attack Trump on ever angle possible and minimize any achievements, and that’s just what they did. If we go on to defeat ISIS once and for all you might hear praise for Central Command and maybe grudging praise for Mattis, but you will also hear minimizing talk about how ISIS was a house of cards and ready to come down anyway, thanks to Obama’s unflinching efforts against them starting 3 years ago. Need I remind you of how Obama received a ton of praise for getting bin Laden while almost ten years of intelligence work, seven of them under GWB, was completely ignored?

    • luckyesteeyoreman

      On your #4, Steve-O, I have wondered what signs people in the stadium crowds are holding up during the times QB Colin K and his like-minded “protesters” are doing their thing. Plus, I have considered making my own counter-protest sign to hold up. The first version I thought of, is too crude for me to share here. Another version, I imagine as saying something like: “O say does that brain-mangled Colin Kaepernick still kneel…”

  5. #3) We haven’t had a good argument about gerrymandering lately. Which is a perennial problem. I’m just not certain how severe the problem actually is *in general*, though several districts ARE ridiculous. And I’m not certain the problem is specifically *gerrymandering* or if gerrymandering is merely a clumsy solution to a different problem.

        • Sorry for the size of the images, I hoped they would have formatted smaller.

          • luckyesteeyoreman

            Well, bingo on the point: “That isn’t representative AT ALL.”

            • luckyesteeyoreman

              Sorry, unclear: Tex, I don’t mean your example and illustrations are not representative. I mean: “a population of 325 million and only 435 representatives” is not representative AT ALL.

              • It’s really crap. We complain that money is too much of a problem in politics, that only the fabulously wealthy can “buy” the time, attention and advocacy of their Representative.

                That’s true, to a degree.

                So, how do we make representatives “cost” less to interact with or even cost less to become and thereby open the field up truly to the “common man”?

                Flood the market.

                I don’t care how big the House of Representatives gets. Make it Representative again.

                I think this would also do wonders for the polarization of the nation.

                Oh, and give the Senate back to the States, where it belongs.

    • luckyesteeyoreman

      What irritates me about the “gerrymandering” is that it’s a no-win, always.

      If minorities are accorded their own districts, NOPE! That is segregation, and that is RACIST.

      If districts are created with “diversity” according to proportional numbers of various races, NOPE! That “dilutes power,” and that is RACIST, too.

      The continual struggle over it all tempts me to support a system that apportions numbers of legislators according to the at-large vote in a state (or country): 48% vote Republican, 48% vote Democrat, 2% vote “Other,” then those become the percentages of legislators from those parties. From there, let the voters decide if they’re being represented or not, and if their pet parties are really paying attention to them or not.

      • Because racial identity politics, especially centered around grievance mongering and redistribution incentivizing, (ahem Left, ahem), is crap.

        And it’s unhealthy and unproductive to make arguments in support of anything other than: “Your race shouldn’t matter and it won’t stop mattering until we starting acting like it doesn’t matter. Now, if it’s your political views that matter, then it shouldn’t matter if a handful of one ethnicity is in the district of another ethnicity, it simply shouldn’t matter…because it isn’t about making sure a particular group reaps a material whirlwind based on group identity.”

      • “The continual struggle over it all tempts me to support a system that apportions numbers of legislators according to the at-large vote in a state (or country): 48% vote Republican, 48% vote Democrat, 2% vote “Other,” then those become the percentages of legislators from those parties. From there, let the voters decide if they’re being represented or not, and if their pet parties are really paying attention to them or not.”

        Where the whole nation were considered as a block, and BEFORE individuals were selected as representatives, but *empty seats* were granted to each party proportionally, I think would be terrible. It would tend to break down ALL the regional and ideological nuances, the 60 million Republicans across the board and 60 million Democrats across the board would elect a vast swath of representatives that would look like lock step ideological clones of each other, as the majority “flavor” of Republican would be able to sweep in that “flavor” of Republican into each seat.

        I don’t think that’s useful.

    • Matthew B

      The crazy part about gerrymandering enforcement is that it is only bad if it causes divisions along racial lines. In that case, the courts have decided that it violates the voting rights act and they put their legislative robes on for the day and over-ride state legislatures. Otherwise, they haven’t come up with a reason giving them that power so they sit it out.

      I live in a very gerrymandered district. The district goes 70 miles N/S but at some points is only a few hundred feet wide so they can bypass the suburbs and give us a mostly rural district with 1/3 of the urban core of the largest city in the state. Without that careful crafting, it would be an overwhelming R district.

  6. 2- “Eurocentrism.”

    “Western culture has been, like it or accept it or not, the beacon of world civilization, and even those who (idiotically) choose to deride or reject it need to understand the history and forces that brought us to where we are today”

    While many believe the Mother Gaia is on the Highway to Hell, downhill with a strong tailwind, a historical perspective (the last 200 years) shows things aren’t so awful bad, and were a whole lot worse.

    EVIL White Europeans, and gad fersakin’ Western culture, are not solely responsible for the following (Chris will quickly point this out), they had a hand in it.

    1. In 1820, 90% of the world population lived in extreme poverty vs. only 10% today.

    2. In 1820, 83% of the world population had not attained any education vs. 14% today.

    3. In 1820, 88% of the world population was illiterate vs. only 15% today.

    4. In 1820, 99% of the world population was not living in a democracy vs. 44% today.

    5. In 1820, none of the world population was vaccinated against diphtheria, whooping cough, and tetanus vs. 86% today.

    6. In 1820, 43% of the world’s children died before age five vs. only 4% today.

    https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts/

  7. #1 Matthew Halls should sue the pants off of the University of Oregon, the Oregon Bach Festival, and the ignorant Social Justice Warrior woman for Defamation of Character; I believe this is a clear case of slander which HAS damaged Mr. Halls career!

    Until these social justice warriors and their ignorant sheep followers get dragged into court and have to give up millions of dollars, this shit is not going to stop!

    • Edward

      It appears Matthew has settled already with the UO for 90K with these terms.

      “Under the terms of the settlement, which the UO released in response to a media request, Halls agreed not to sue the UO, and both parties agreed to make no “negative or disparaging” written or oral statements about each other, publicly or privately, in “any medium.””

      http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/35956880-75/university-of-oregon-agrees-to-pay-matthew-halls-90000-halls-agrees-not-to-disparage-uo.html.csp

      • 1. 90k to be branded a grits racist. I dunno—I might not accept that.
        2. Just because he sells his right to disparage the hell out of these assholes doesn’t mean we have to follow his lead.

        • Other Bill

          90K was probably all they were contractually obligated to pay him. They probably had outs in their contract after each season or something like that. Smart man. Work where he’s appreciated.

      • That is an terrible settlement!

        I might have consider a settlement if the offer had been between 5 and 10 million dollars and included a very public apology acknowledging that Halls words had been taken completely out of context, the comments were not racist, and his contract with the University had been unjustly terminated as a result of the false accusation.

        Why didn’t the University give Halls some kind of recourse to prove his innocence before terminating a contract or reverse their unjust termination after they found out that the accusations were completely false? The University of Oregon and that ignorant social justice warrior should be publicly smeared!

  8. #2. This is yet another example of actual FEAR of the increasing power social justice warriors. Social justice warriors are being empowered by these fearful reactions to their increasing social power; this is going to get much, much worse!

  9. #3. The DNC lies? This is shocking! Such a surprising turn of events…

    …oh wait……

    This is the result of the programming in the Liberal/Progressive reeducation chambers. 😉

    You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.

  10. #4. That’s the stupidity Social Justice Warriors shining through. Never understate the power of stupidity; genius has limitations, stupidity does not. If we could fabricate small power generating windmills to harness what blows over the heads of stupid people, we could shut down every coal fired power plant on the planet.

  11. #5. Here’s what the world looks like through the eyes of New York Times partisan sheep, If the New York Times doesn’t print it, then it must not be true and of course the New York Times has shown us that If a Conservative thinks or utters a thought, it’s wrong; there ends critical thinking for the political left.

  12. Glenn Logan

    Some more interesting information about the University of Oregon’s termination of Matthew Halls. The letter sent to him advising him of his contract termination for the Bach Festival also advised him UO was ceasing discussion of another contract with the UO School of Music. Then, this cryptic paragraph:

    I would be happy to discuss with you appropriate statements that explain why our Contract is being terminated. For example, it may be appropriate for the parties to issue statement that explain the contract is ending because both parties determined it was best for you and the Bach Festival to move in different directions.

    I have to say, more mealy-mouthed weasel-words have never before assailed my vision. I would’ve sued them for that paragraph alone, if for no other reason, just to drag them through an ugly publicity fight.

  13. Wayne

    Joseph Goebels is alive and well and living in Oregon.

  14. #1. My initial thought at reading this story in a different venue than you did, Jack, was that this couldn’t possibly be an accurate representation of events. I still hope not (it does seem odd that Halls would agree to that buy-out if there weren’t something we don’t know), but I fear the reporting is true. If so, the officials who fired Mr. Halls are unconscionably inept, arrogant, lazy, unethical, incompetent, condescending, and ultimately dishonest.

    I do disagree with you, though, about the woman who reported the incident. I don’t think she’s (necessarily) a evil-doer. She might reasonably believe, even as I do despite knowing of a lot of cases that run counter to my (general) conclusion, that even a university administrator isn’t going to do something so profoundly stupid as to fire someone over an overheard remark without conducting an honest and thorough investigation. She’s an idiot, in all probability, but not evil… rather, she’s a pathological do-gooder. They’re scarier.

    #2. I had a doctoral minor in Classics (Greek history and literature); my first post-doctoral job offer was to teach a couple sections a semester of Eastern Civilizations. So I think I kind of get the arguments on both sides. I do think it’s strange that a course on Greece and the Mediterranean world is the only specifically required course at Reed. Still,
    the way to avoid this “Eurocentric” course is easy: don’t go to Reed. It’s not like they keep that requirement secret, after all.

    I’d add this. No one comes into my classroom without my permission: that permission extends only to registered students, a department chair or accreditor who has a legitimate reason to evaluate my teaching, maybe a prospective student. No one else. And there’s a clause I’m actually required to include on my syllabus that forbids disruptive behavior; I decide what qualifies as “disruptive” in my classroom. Protesters come into my classroom and I call the university police. If they don’t respond, my next call is to my lawyer, because my academic freedom is being violated.

    #3. As neither a lawyer nor a Constitutional scholar, I can understand getting confused about the difference between a ruling and an order. And the obvious extension of the Gorsuch-as-deciding-vote argument is that had Mitch McConnell not been an irresponsible ass and played politics, we’d have had Garland instead of Gorsuch, and he’d have voted the “correct” way because he was an Obama appointee, after all. (For the record, I do think Mitch McConnell is an irresponsible ass, And the de facto result of the stay is that we in Texas are going to have another election with gerrymandered districts. None of this makes misrepresenting the order legitimate.)

    • “she’s a pathological do-gooder. They’re scarier.”

      Ya think? C. S. Lewis would heartily agree:

      “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

      “It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

      “The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” (bolds mine)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s