Comment Of The Day: “Yes, Catherine Gregory Should Be Fired”

Well, this is depressing. Is it too pessimistic? I think so. I hope so.

I wish I knew so.

Here is Michael R.’s Comment of the Day, a trenchant and timely analysis of the underlying factors that culminated in the post, Yes, Catherine Gregory Should Be Fired:

The current Democratic college faculty, journalists, and politicians have shown how dangerous the political correctness of the 80’s and 90’s was. They are the product of that philosophy embraced by the Left and the Democratic Party. People disputed how bad it was at the time, but now we see the true effects of excusing it, ignoring it, and Democrats still voting for the Left. Let’s not pretend they all just became unhinged recently because of Trump’s election. They have been this way for a long time, it is just that people excused it or denied it. Even today, every single person I know who is a Democrat STILL denies the mainstream media has a liberal bias. Why wouldn’t they, it is the same media we had 10 years ago. All the news coverage of George W. Bush was just as unreliable as the current coverage of Trump, they just weren’t as blatant as they are now (remember Dan Rather, remember the NYT and CBS fake news story on election day about weapons of mass destruction?).

In 10 years, hate speech will be illegal and hate speech will be anything the Left doesn’t like. Roughly 60% of college students, in survey after survey, already think it is illegal to express opinions they don’t like. Since about half of college students are Democrats, it suggests that ~100% of the future Democratic voters, representatives, governors, Presidents, and judges, will view it as illegal.

As a product of the public schools, I was required to be left-leaning when I entered college. Once there, however, I saw the true nature of the philosophy of the Left and the Democratic party. I saw forced racial privileges, forced segregation, hatred of the US and all it stands for, hatred of freedom and democracy, hatred of Christianity, and the love of totalitarianism as the philosophy of the Left and the Democratic Party. I haven’t really seen them change since. They haven’t changed since Trump’s election, they have been that way for a long time. If you didn’t see it, you were blind.

I know some people will take issue with me equating the Left with the Democratic Party, but seriously, do you think Antifa are Republicans? Not all Democrats are antidemocratic totalitarian fanatics, but enough are that support of the Democratic Party has eroded our freedoms and eroded the very principles of democracy in this country. You didn’t see Republicans declare outright rebellion against the elected government when Barack Obama was elected, did you? Why isn’t the call to #Resist the current elected government considered rebellion, especially when in violent, mob form as we have seen?

41 thoughts on “Comment Of The Day: “Yes, Catherine Gregory Should Be Fired”

  1. Yep, the universities have turned into indoctrination factories for the left. Even in high schools do we see Howard Zinn’s “People’s History” being used for the same purpose. Students being kicked out of a campus coffee shop for wearing “Make America Great” caps! Ridiculous and totalitarian.

  2. Very discomforting. I am not sure if I am as pessimistic as Michael but after having to leave my career in a community college setting because I could no longer tolerate the intolerance of ideas, I get his point.

    What is comforting is that we live in a republic of many soveriegn states. Bastions of far left thought will remain in the provinces of the coastal communities and it will take a great deal of time to indoctrinate the flyover states.

    As life becomes intolerable to those with fair minds and an innate sense of autonomy they will migrate to states with larger populations of similar cultural imperatives. If in 10 years Michael’s world begins to materialize we should expect to see an exodus of rational beings from the current seats of cultural elitism to areas more tolerant of rugged individualism.

    The south may in fact rise again because it is the south and midwest that are the areas of industrial might today. Those states will be the last to convert. Unlike the economy in the 19th century the southern states today have more manufacturing and productive capacity than its northern neighbors. Northern states have replaced arable land with designer malls, protected spaces and massive suburban residential communities.

    So, if the end is near for the truly tolerant and intolerant college graduates displace rational thought, I wonder how will all those cultural studies students feed, clothe, and warm themselves when they create such a schism in society that causes the rational thinking states decide to secede from the current union.

  3. I hate to see that even some on the right have embraced the idea of “hate crime” (thought crime) when they’ve seen opportunities to beat a member of the “opposition” with it. Never mind emulating China or N. Korea, people now can be (and have been) fined or even jailed in Australia and Britain for expressing a nonthreatening, but unpopular, thought in public or on social media.

    I can only hope that such efforts in the US will not reach those levels, or will be met with enough non-compliance (as certain firearms laws are now being met) to push them back.

    • A hate crime isn’t a thought crime, it’s an actual crime motivated by bigotry. It makes sense to charge hate crimes more harshly than other crimes, as if someone commits a crime against someone because of their identity, they are a threat to that entire identity group, not just against that one person. Hate crimes are really a form of terrorism, and are meant to terrorize.

      This is separate from “hate speech,” which should never be illegal in the United States, or anywhere.

        • That article is terrible. Let me go through point by point:

          Last week in Chicago, a white special-needs teenager was held captive by four black youths. The victim was bound, gagged, tortured, forced to drink toilet water, partially scalped, and subject to racially and politically motivated verbal abuse. The perpetrators streamed portions of their violent savagery on Facebook. After the victim escaped from his assailants and was found on the streets by a police officer, a Chicago police commander initially said he was unsure whether the attack constituted a hate crime — as if that distinction might calibrate the crime’s viciousness. President Obama was likewise initially hesitant to label this cruelty as a racially motivated hate crime — which was odd given the president’s prior readiness to jump into and editorialize about racially charged cases such as those of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates and Trayvon Martin.

          The end of this third paragraph literally doesn’t make any sense. Obama did not call either the Gate case or Martin case “hate crimes.” Nor did he “label them” as “racially motivated,” though he did indicate that they could have been. This portion thus loosely translates to “It’s weird that Obama didn’t immediately label this a hate crime, when he also didn’t immediately label these other events as hate crimes!”

          This is typical of Victor David Hansen’s sloppy and misleading rhetoric.

          Yet it is hard to imagine what additional outrages the Chicago youths might have had to commit to warrant hate-crime status. After public outcry, Chicago prosecutors — along with Obama — confirmed that the attack did indeed, in their opinion, qualify as a “hate crime.”

          Wait. So…what’s the problem? That they waited until an investigation was completed to declare it a hate crime? Isn’t that what they should be doing?

          It seems like Hansen has spent these first four paragraphs trying to critique some sort of double standard…but he has absolutely failed to establish that such a double standard exists. He hasn’t shown any examples of police or Obama declaring a hate crime a hate crime any earlier than in this case. Nor does he do so for the rest of the article.

          Many in the media still sought to downplay that classification. “I don’t think it’s evil,” editorialized CNN anchor Don Lemon, who instead attributed the violence to the offenders’ problematic upbringing.

          Lemon is an idiot, but Hansen still hasn’t shown a double standard. He didn’t even show that Lemon didn’t call this a hate crime. Even if Lemon didn’t, or has declared anti-black hate crimes “evil” but not this one, well…see above, re: idiot. None of this explains why hate crime laws shouldn’t exist; this isn’t even about the law at this point in the article, just one idiot’s opinion.

          What are the lessons from all the verbal gymnastics concerning “hate crimes”? Sadly, we are learning that the labeling of hate crimes has become so politicized and ill-defined that the entire concept is unworkable. The idea of identifying hate crimes gained currency in the 1980s, when reformers wanted lighter penalties for most criminal offenses but also wished to increase punishment for criminal acts that were deemed racist, sexist, or homophobic. So hate crimes emerged as new enhancements to criminal punishment, as a way to tack on stiffer penalties for affronts to liberal society at large. The rationale for designating hate crimes relied on force multipliers in criminal sentencing — such as premeditation that can make murder a first-degree offense. But after years of confusion, how do we consistently and fairly define perceptions of bias or hate as a catalyst for criminal violence?

          This is where Hansen should show that the legal definition is flawed and “unworkable.” Needless to say, he doesn’t do that.

          After all, crimes such as murder and rape are already savage and brutal by nature. Is the killer who shouts bigoted epithets more dangerous to society than the quiet sadist who first tortures his murder victim without comment?

          Yes. They are inflicting terror on a particular community. This is a political act, and thus a terrorist act. (Like I’ve said, I’d be OK with just collapsing hate crime laws into existing anti-terrorism laws. But that’s not the argument Hansen or any other conservatives I’m aware of are making.)

          It can be dangerous to redefine a single criminal act as a hate crime against society, given the incentives for manipulation and political distortion. Recently there arose a spate of reported fake hate crimes in which supposed victims complained that their race or religion earned them violent responses from bigots, suggesting a post-election epidemic of intolerance. Authorities often found that the victims had concocted their stories, either to enhance their political agendas and their own sense of victimization, or simply to win attention and perhaps compensation. Again, who or what defines a hate crime?

          The law defines a hate crime. Hansen still hasn’t shown any examples of the law getting it wrong. The hoaxes were revealed as hoaxes. And the fact that some people will make false reports doesn’t prove we shouldn’t have laws against that thing. He hasn’t shown that the false reports of hate crimes are more prominent false reports of other crimes. The recent spate of hoaxes seems driven more by political polarization than anything else.

          Progressives originally envisioned hate-crime legislation as focusing mostly on a white majority that presumably had a monopoly on prejudice. When fanatical Army Major Nidal Hasan in 2009 slaughtered non-Muslim soldiers at Fort Hood — shouting “Allahu Akbar!” (“God is great”) as he mowed down his victims — was that a religiously driven hate crime? The politically correct Pentagon thought not. Instead, it labeled Hasan’s murderous rampage as “workplace violence.”

          This was wrong, though my understanding was that this was driven more by money than by politics. This is the one example he gives of the law getting it wrong.

          Progressives originally envisioned hate-crime legislation as focusing mostly on a white majority that presumably had a monopoly on prejudice. But FBI hate-crime statistics show that African-Americans commit a disproportionately large share of hate crimes.

          And they’re being punished for it…so what’s the problem?

          The media usually associate religious hate crimes with offenses against Muslims, and warn against endemic “Islamophobia.” Yet statistically, Jews, not Muslims, are the far more frequent victims of religious hate crimes.

          So…change the media perception. The ADL often points out that Jews are frequent targets of hate crimes; they don’t argue to get rid of the designation.

          Americans can now reasonably wonder whether a reported hate crime might have been staged. In November, for example, a black church in Mississippi was spray-painted with “Vote Trump” graffiti and set afire. Nearly two months later, authorities charged a disgruntled African-American parishioner, not a supposed white supremacist, with the arson.

          Again, the law worked.

          Sometimes hate-crime status is added to a crime not on the basis of clearly evident prejudice but based on the race of the offender and victim, as the political spin that follows the crime seeks to make larger indictments against society.

          He provides no evidence to support this claim at all.

          In our hypersensitive and litigious society, too many agendas have warped the once-noble idea of hate-crime legislation. It has become a fossilized relic of the 1980s that was well-intended, became incoherent and politicized — and now should be scrapped.

          Man, that article was poorly supported.

      • Chris, are you saying that violent offenses committed by some against conservative speakers should be treated as hate crimes?

        • I assume so—how could he not?
          “Hate crimes” are a legal and ethical abomination, and yes, they are a form of thought crime, as the penalties for the exact same act can increase according to what the perp was thinking at the time. This was transparent virtue-signalling before we used that uesful term, and a way for Democrats to suck up to its constituent tribes while calling principled opposition of “hate crimes” as a concept bigots. Naturally, most Republicans caved and let the various bills go through. This slipped down the slope to hate speech, of course, since in criminalized opinions, including bigotry but also any position the left cared to call bigotry to suppress it.

          The first major anti-Hate crime laws on EA is here.

          • Wow, that was a pretty good evisceration of hate crime laws! Who IS that guy?
            Just read my own post from six years ago, and was duly impressed…here’s the money section, but I do recommend reading the whole thing…

            The resulting laws are inherently anti-democratic, by their very existence declaring that one human being’s death or serious injury at the hands of lawless brutes is of more concern to society than another’s, because that human being belongs to a special, special class that it is especially wrong to hate. Most of the people who applaud such laws usually hate plenty, of course, but it is virtuous hate, since in their world view it is only right to hate Republicans and successful entrepreneurs and conservatives and Fox News and fundamentalist Christians and global warming skeptics and Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. Other people’s hate, however is criminal. Add in the element of that bad, senseless hate to an old-fashioned murder, and you have an extra-bad murder.

            This ignores that fact that, much as the word and thought and opinion censors would prefer otherwise, it isn’t illegal to hate in America; in fact, hate is constitutionally protected, along with the speech that expresses it. Criminalizing hate is really criminalizing thought, which is the modus operandi of depots, not republics. It also ignores the irony that in attempting to create Martin Luther King’s society in which a citizen is judged by the content of his character, we are crafting a criminal justice system that measures the worth of the victim by whether the hate he inspired was deemed worthy of special condemnation. Hate a Jew, Asian or transgendered American enough to put him in a coma, and you’re in big trouble. Send someone to intensive care because he or she is fat, or too pretty, or stuck up, or rich, or a Tea Party member, or a birther, or a Giants fan, and it’s just not as big a deal.

            Does that make sense?

            No, it doesn’t, and didn’t, and won’t.

            • Oh it makes sense, it’s just wrong. It works in the workplace too. Go easy on the black who’s consistently late, go easy on the woman who regularly leaves early, go easy on the gay guy who is a little emo, or you could find yourself in big trouble. Load the white guy up, though, and cut him no slack of any kind, because he isn’t a member of a protected class and has no recourse.

            • Jack, an attack on a fundamentalist Christian because they are a fundamentalist Christian is legally a hate crime. I think there may also be states where it is a hate crime to attack someone for being fat, rich, or a Tea Party member; if there aren’t, there should be.

                • I’m not following. What crime did Occupy Wall Street commit against the rich?

                  Most criminals don’t commit crimes against someone because of their identity group. Even if we expanded the definition to include those examples, we’re still talking about a pretty small subset of crimes. “I stole from him because he had a lot of money and I wanted it” is separate from “I stole from him because the capitalist dogs should fear the proletariat,” and should be treated differently.

                  • Hate is not a crime, that’s all. The property crime OW engaged is was specifically aimed at expressing hate for “the 1%”..wy shouldnt that hateful motivation magnify the seriousness of the underlying crime?

                    The point is that “hate crime” has no integrity. Hate matters when the group being hated is accorded special status, for political, and cynical, reasons. Otherwise, it doesn’t count. Hate is an emotion. It should be irrelevant in the law.

                    • What is there to address? Terrorism is charged on the basis of purpose, as with the crime of inciting a riot. Terrorists don’t necessarily act out of hate. It also is, as with hate crimes, superfluous. If the 9-11 bombers acted because they hated the twin towers architecture, would it make the 2000+ less dead? Would the crime be different? The punishment more lenient>

                    • You’re not following. Terrorism doesn’t require hate. It aims to spread fear. Serial killers like the Zodiac also aim to spread fear. Serial killing isn’t a hate crime.

                    • @Jack:
                      Jack: “Terrorism doesn’t require hate.”

                      Also, contrary to what Chris claims, the reverse is also true. A “hate crime” doesn’t necessarily require any intent “…to terrorize the community”. In fact. I would venture to suppose that most “hate crimes” these days occur with little to no thought beyond the desire to do immediate violence against the victim.

          • “Hate crimes” are a legal and ethical abomination, and yes, they are a form of thought crime, as the penalties for the exact same act can increase according to what the perp was thinking at the time.

            This is the case with many crimes, as you know.

              • Giving Chris the benefit of the doubt, I assume he means crimes where sentencing takes into consideration sadism or cruelty. But those are actions, not thought, and motives are not opinions.

                • I may be in error and jumping the gun on my quick reply, but I vaguely remember Chris making a similar sounding argument ages ago and it ended up being him arguing that the difference in some manslaughter charges boiled down to whether or not the killer intended to kill meant that we charge differently based on what the accused was thinking about the victim. He then projected that onto a justification for charging hate crimes differently.

                  Maybe it wasn’t him who made that argument, in which case, I made assumptions I shouldn’t have. But I know someone did, on these forums, make that argument in a discussion about hate crime laws.

                    • Your memory is a really weird combo of encyclopedic and selective.

                      You have a point about the difference between intent and motive. But when I made the terrorism comparison, you said this:

                      We punish them more harshly, because, though their attacks may only kill a handful, their *intent* is to harm the entire nation in order to compel the nation to come into line with their views.

                      To which I replied:

                      hate crimes often are committed with the intent to harm entire communities in order to spread fear among those communities. They are often intended to compel others to come into line with their views.

                      As far as I can tell you never rebutted this.

                      I’d be comfortable abandoning the designation of “hate crime” and just calling such crimes terrorism. How about you?

                    • Terrorism specifically targets the community with the intent to change a community’s political will. The direct victims of terrorism are often tangential to the intent to cow the entire community into submission.

                      Targetting a black person because they are black is divorced from any greater message to the black community. So no, hate crimes, for the conduct they currently cover are not “terrorism”.

                    • Targetting a black person because they are black is divorced from any greater message to the black community.

                      I don’t see how that’s possible. If you target a black person because they’re black, the message to the black community is “Any of you could be next.” This is obvious.

                    • The object of terrorism is not to say “any of you could be next”. The object of terrorism is to change the political objectives of the targeted group. “Hate Crime” (in the many ways it is used), does not.

      • @Chris:
        C: “A hate crime isn’t a thought crime…”

        Of course it is. “Hate”, in spite of some slang usage, isn’t a physical action, it’s an emotion; it “exists” as a thought.

        C: “This is separate from “hate speech,” which should never be illegal in the United States, or anywhere.”

        If “hate speech” isn’t illegal (and I agree it shouldn’t be), why should an action following it then suddenly reverse that status and make the speech (or the thought behind it) subject to penalty?

        Jack had pretty much covered everything else by the time I got back around to this…busy day on my end.

  4. I believe that antifa is misdirected. If they are against fascism then they are against socialism. Fascism was created by Giovanni Gentile who was also a minister in Mussulini’s government. Why the conservatives ignore the dangers of letting the left get away with these seemingly trivial distortions which contribute to the radicaliation of the left. To this end a good start would be to publish the retractions and apologies of the newspapers on one web site. When foreign papers repeat the false news they do not, as a rule, report the retractions.

  5. Alinsky and his current followers of the Left have correctly counted on decent, rational people to be polite, deferential, and even welcoming, as their incremental brand of totalitarianism tramples rights in the names of countless contrived victim groups “suffering” under liberty and capitalism.

  6. Political correctness was already in place when I got to college in the late 1980s, and this was at a Catholic college that was still somewhat conservative compared to the rest of higher education. There were pro-life groups and Republicans, but the feminists and far-left pacifists proliferated by the dozens. Gay groups had not yet arrived, in fact it was still dangerous to be “out.” There was a heavy layer of political correctness imposed on most aspects of academic life, including writing, with some professors giving severe grade penalties or even automatic failing grades for failure to use “his or her,” “he or she” and so on EVERY time a generic pronoun was called for.

    There was a military presence of both the Navy and the Air Force, mostly just students like others who had made a deal with the government to get college paid for, however their presence came in for more criticism than it probably merited from student and faculty alike who just didn’t like the institution. Some dressed it up with religious rhetoric, but it all boiled down to “we don’t like the military.” Of course when the Gulf War came all kinds of crap happened – teach-ins, protests, some low-level vandalism. I wonder if the fact that the actual fighting didn’t take off until January might have muted the student response, since protesting outside in a New England winter is unpleasant.

    I think a lot of the indoctrination question might have been well encapsulated in a classmate of mine, who was actually the second-highest ranked English major in the class. It was he who wrote endless letters to the school newspaper about this or that liberal position. It was he who said that the ROTC students should forego wearing their uniforms outside of actual drill once the Gulf War started, to avoid triggering the pacifist students. It was also he who was dragged from blocking an abortion clinic entrance and drew a night in jail, coming out saying the prisoners were all nice people and the guards were “little Hitlers.”

    Well, the number one English major came from a more practical family, and joined the Chicago Fire Department, thinking it would give him more time to write since firemen work 24 hours on, 72 off. It did, but eventually he found there was more demand for putting out fires than putting out articles and poems and he is now on the cusp of becoming a battalion chief. The number three English major, although she was liberal, was also practical. She became an attorney and is now representing the Fortune 500. Guess who went on to get a Ph.D. in English and is now teaching the next generation of students, suffusing his teaching with a generous portion of liberal politics and unworkable ideals on nonviolence? Bullseye. Guess who was also one of the first on his campus to embrace Black Lives Matter and Me Too before they were cool? Guess who also wrote reams and reams of naked opinion advocating for a change of mascot at our alma mater, comparing “Crusaders” to “Inquisitors” or “head crushers?” Exactly right.

    Academia has always been a place where the pure in ideas gather and ordinary folks go for a time hoping to take some workable portion of those ideas away. However, when those pure ideas start to become bad ideas, it should come as no surprise that those who go to take part of them come away with bad ones. Garbage in, garbage out.

  7. “Well, this is depressing. Is it too pessimistic? I think so. I hope so.”

    That’s a forlorn hope, Jack. The American academy is a disaster. It’s completely run and dominated by a second generation of Herbert Marcuse radical lefties. I think colleges and universities need to be blown up so we can start over. It’s a tragedy.

    • I think we have Vietnam to thank for this – everybody looking to hide from Vietnam decided to extend their student deferments, got a Ph.D. in English or Sociology or another relatively easy subject, and took over.

  8. Second try…

    Excellent comment, Michael R – your first five sentences hooked me.

    I believe it is possible, but not likely, that the college and university environments will change, shifting to more left-skeptical and less right-dismissive. I try to picture the society that will live on after I am gone – if it can be called living – with so many cyber-dependent, “cloud-educated” “scholars” and “leaders” who are so ideologically, politically, and emotionally homogenized and “shit-togethered” – but who are utterly worthless as captains of industry, commerce, finance, or of the kind of ethically behaving humanity capable of what I will call “sustainable community.”

    I wish I could picture something better growing out of what is. But I can’t.

    The united nation we might have once known has become ripe, low-hanging, irresistible fruit for rising totalitarian despots (and their rising stooges and tools, thanks to a ruined “education” system) to exploit, subvert, consume, ruin, divide, disrupt, render powerless, dissolve, and enable for takeover (or at least, enable for protracted factional warfare, and I do mean the most brutal imaginable warfare) by, and under the aegis of, external hegemonic powers. My children’s and grandchildren’s choices will be limited to which totalitarians seem to promise them the best chance at survival. Only a pervasive, indefatigably determined, resilient, well-organized, brilliantly (and fortuitously) led, and most resourceful (and most forceful) resistance to ALL known and suspected totalitarian “leaders,” groups, external supply chains to same, and “activists” enabling and facilitating same, can halt the hegemony and exploitation, then act to restore hope for re-uniting diverse factions and restoring sustainable community. Odds are against restoration of “good” order from chaos, though.

    • For what it’s worth, in my own filing system, I titled the above after a modern Ebenezer Scrooge dream: “Ghosts of The Revolution future – educated derelicts become the insane powers-that-be in an asylum-nation.”

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.