Good Morning AGAIN!
My OTHER favorite hymn when I’m feeling blue..
3. If I were the producer of Saturday Night Live…I would strongly push the show to do what satirical shows are supposed to do: make fun of everyone. It is just good business, as well as comedic integrity: make everyone watch to see who gets skewered. But no: despite the over-abundance of potential and indeed near mandatory targets of parody and mockery, SNL took sides—the same one it has been taking now, virtually exclusively, for years. There was no Spartacus sketch, despite the preening of the absurd Cory Booker, and a skit that virtually writes itself. Lindsay Graham was cruelly mocked, but not Kirsten Gillibrand, nor Diane Feinstein. Ah, but Senator Susan Collins, who made a brave, clear, invaluable speech about her choice–women get choices, I hear—to buck the #MeToo bullies and lynch mobs and confirm Brett Kavanaugh, was mocked for THAT last night, aan portrayed as weak dupe. Yet despite the mannered, baby-talking, confused presentation by Blasey-Ford, whom I would deem a satirist’s dream, the show’s writers didn’t have the guts to touch her.
4. Speaking of jokes…Georgetown prof C. Christine Fair, who the college thinks can be trusted to be neutral and fair to white men in her classroom despite her racist and violent tweets, had an explanation after her Twitter account was suspended. She had written, you will recall,
“Look at [this] chorus of entitled white men. All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine? Yes.”
Come on! Don’t you get the joke? She was kidding! Fair told the Washington Post, whose reporter didn’t have the integrity to respond, “How stupid do you think I am?”…
“Maybe this was not my most eloquent attempt,” Fair said. “And I will certainly concede I was attempting to make people feel uncomfortable,” but “this idea I’m somehow calling for actual violence is preposterous.”
Gee, why can’t white supremacists and racists excuse their “jokes” the same way?
The Post’s writer, however, completely accepts Fair’s alibi, and impugns anyone who took offense at it as “extreme right wing.” Read the article.
Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!
5. Anyone want to trade a hamburger for my undergrad degree? Harvard, which ever since feminist social justice warrior Drew Faust took over as President, has been obsessed with political correctness and “diversity” while, as the decision in a block-buster discrimination lawsuit will soon reveal, systematically discriminating against Asian-Americans. It also enforces rules differently against male and female students, and is pretty much a hypocritical disgrace for a prestigious university (though still better than Yale.)
Now another lawsuit makes a strong case that Harvard Law School illegally favors minorities and women in staffing its Law Review. Here’s my favorite part:
…Harvard Law School has established a “Policy on Discrimination,” which declares that “[i]t is unlawful, and a violation of HLS rules, for any HLS student organization to discriminate in violation of the Law School’s Non Discriminatory Policy.” See https://bit.ly/2LqcXUv (last visited on October 6, 2018) (attached as Exhibit 4).
20. Harvard Law School’s Non-Discrimination Policy, in turn, provides that: Harvard Law School does not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital or parental status, disability, source of income, or status as a veteran in admission to, access to, treatment in, or employment in its programs and activities. The Law School has instituted these policies and certain procedures to ensure a safe and non-discriminatory environment and to meet legal requirements, including Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. All employers using the facilities and services of the career services offices must comply with these policies and procedures. Harvard Law School makes one exception to this policy. Under threat of loss of funding to the University resulting from the Solomon Amendment, the Law School has suspended the application of its non-discrimination policy to military recruiters. This exception to our policy does not in any way reflect acceptance of, or agreement with, discriminatory hiring practices. See https://bit.ly/2LlJ9YU (last visited on October 6, 2018) (attached as Exhibit 5).
21. Harvard Law School is not enforcing its Non-Discrimination Policy against the Harvard Law Review, even though it claims to require all HLS student organizations
to comply with it. Instead, Harvard Law School and Harvard University have allowed these discriminatory membership-selection and article-selection practices to
continue—even though they violate the clear and unambiguous text of Title VI and Title IX, as well as the Law School’s own non-discrimination policy.
Note that Betsey DeVos, as Secretary of Education, is named as a co-defendant.