1. “Boy, he’s strict!”* Novak Djokovic, the top seeded player, defaulted from the United States Open after the ball he hit toward the back of the court in frustration hit a line judge in the neck. This violated the Grand Slam rule book’s “physical abuse” provision, which states that players “shall not at any time physically abuse any official, opponent, spectator or other person within the precincts of the tournament site.” The fine for this is to $20,000 for each violation of this rule, with the possibility of even more if it is deemed a “major offense.” In a statement, the United States Tennis Association said: “In accordance with the Grand Slam rule book, following his actions of intentionally hitting a ball dangerously or recklessly within the court or hitting a ball with negligent disregard of the consequences, the U.S. Open tournament referee defaulted Novak Djokovic from the 2020 U.S. Open. Because he was defaulted, Djokovic will lose all ranking points earned at the U.S. Open and will be fined the prize money won at the tournament in addition to any or all fines levied with respect to the offending incident.”
As I read it, if the ball bounced back and missed the line judge, the rule wouldn’t apply. If it did hit the judge, even though the result was unintentional, then the player gets the full penalty. What a moronic rule! I guess they’ve never heard of moral luck in the tennis world. Either it should be a serious offense to slam the ball anywhere on the court in anger whether someone is hurt or not, or it should be a violation to intentionally harm and official. The rules is incompetent and unethical.
Naturally, none of the stories about the episode point this out.
2. Oh no! Not this again! Seventh grader Isaiah Elliott of the Grand Mountain School just south of Colorado Springs, Colorado, was attending on online art class when a teacher saw Isaiah’s toy gun, a neon green and black plastic “weapon” with an orange tip, and the words “Zombie Hunter” printed on the side. The teacher, an idiot, hysteric and bully, notified the school principal, and Isaiah was suspended for five days. The school also called the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office to conduct a welfare check on the boy without calling his parents first. Here’s the toy:
This is even more idiotic than this story, which was discussed here in June, about the kid whose teacher called the cops on him because she saw his BB gun.
The teacher should be fired and the principal should be fired. Isiah’s parents appear to be raising hell. Good. They would be terrible and irresponsible parents if they didn’t. There is an ethical duty to confront this creeping state child abuse and indoctrination.
3. Why is this complicated? George Washington University announced Black history professor Jessica Krug will not be teaching her classes this semester, in light of her public admission that she has been pretending to be black most of her life and her entire career. “Many of you understandably have many questions in the wake of the Medium post by GW faculty member Jessica Krug,” read an announcement from M. Brian Blake, the GW provost and executive vice president for academic affairs, and Paul Wahlbeck, dean of the Columbian College of Arts and Sciences. “While the university reviews this situation, Dr. Krug will not be teaching her classes this semester. We want to acknowledge the pain this situation has caused for many in our community and recognize that many students, faculty, staff and alumni are hurting.”
Wait, what has to be investigated? The school knows all it needs to know, and Krug must be fired. She has forfeited the trust of the school and its students forever, and besides that, there is the tiny problem that she is insane.
Some of the discussions on line have been jaw-dropping. “Isn’t firing her for not being black racial discrimination?” It’s academic fraud, you dolts; race isn’t the issue, lying is.
4. This is ironic. A story is trending on social media that CNN’s Jake Tapper “personally intervened in a tight congressional race and told Sean Parnell not to challenge a vulnerable Democrat, but to primary a Republican in a safe GOP district and leave Tapper’s Democrat friend, Rep. Conor Lamb, alone. Breitbart wrote (of course this story came from Breitbart):
Jake Tapper tried to convince Republican Sean Parnell to run in a different congressional district than in Pennsylvania’s 17th, where he is currently challenging Democrat Rep. Conor Lamb (D-PA)… “Jake knows exactly what he is doing here,” a source familiar with Tapper’s activities told Breitbart News. “This is a swing district in a swing state — Jake knows that Sean can bring out voters that might otherwise stay home but if they come out, they’re voting for Trump. Those votes could deliver the state and the election to Trump. This is nothing short of a CNN anchor interfering in a national election.”
What is the source for this story? “Sources familiar with Tapper’s actions”–unnamed sources! Hmmm, that reminds me of something, something that just happened. What is it? It’s right on the tip of my tongue! This also sounds familiar:
Tapper denies it, but this story has a ring of truth to it…“Tapper is a former Democrat staffer in PA,” the senior national GOP campaign staffer said. “He is a former staffer for the Brady Campaign for Gun Control. Now he is a reporter at CNN who is supposedly unbiased, but he’s still a Democrat operative at heart. By attempting to bully a star Republican recruit out of his race, which would in effect help Democrat Conor Lamb and bolster Pelosi’s chances of keeping the House, Jake has officially given up on journalism in exchange for Democrat activism. If CNN actually cares about ethical journalism, Tapper will face consequences from them.”
Now all we need is for Fox News to talk to the same anonymous sources Breitbart did, and the damning story about Tapper will be “corroborated” —just like the Atlantic’s story about President Trump!
________________________
*Cultural literacy quiz! Source?
Ethics Alarms 
4–Reminds me of a CLASSIC BB coach Bobby Knight quote:
“If I said 65 percent of the people in this (media) room had sexual relations with a sheep, would that be coming from an unnamed source?
RE: Krug.
I am interested to know if Krug would have been hired to teach those classes had she not lied about her race.
This goes to the crux of the argument that black actors can play any role where the actors skin tone or race is not material to the story or why African American professors can teach European history.
Termination for lying makes sense but not hiring a white or Asian professor to teach Black studies or a male to teach gender studies courses is flat out bigotry. The only safety college is to afford a student is that which allows them to learn from their mistakes. It is not a place where one race or gender can a demand race or gender specific environment.
3. Is why Talcum X will never come clean.
We all know he’s white. The parents listed on his birth certificate are white, forms that were filled out up and until a certain point of his life are all filled out with the “white” box checked when race is asked, and pictures of him as a child are a stark contracts to the heavily made up current reality. But unlike Dolezal or Krug, who when faced with the truth, admitted it, or simply announced it, King concocted a story that his white mother cucked his white father with a black man. Faced with exactly the same offers Lieawatha was for free 23 And Me service, King has declined, saying that the offer was intensive… As if calling your mom a whore isn’t.
Even if, and this is a massive if, King had a heart to heart with his mom, and she admitted her infidelity, so they got a private DNA test done and he’s actually right on his heritage….King has put on the affectations of a hard-done by black person. Google his childhood pictures, they’re out there. If life as a black man is just so gosh darn hard, and his life experience was just so bad on account of his blackness, King could spend 20 minutes a day not playing with his trimmer and giving himself a culturally appropriated haircut and look very much like me.
No, there was a social currency in the circles he ran in to look like that, and that social currency has not run out. Meanwhile, there as a massive disincentive to tell the truth now; That shitty cover story is the only differentiation between himself and Dolezal. And a brother needs to eat.
Sean King wouldn’t take that test or reveal the results if he did. His “Blackness” is his only source of credibility. Without it, he is just not that impressive or interesting.
I do find it amusing that he, like E. Warren, are perfectly willing to destroy their families for the own gains. He calls his mother unfaithful with another man who was Black. Warren declared that her grandparents were racists because they didn’t like her mother’s Native American/Cherokee heritage. Shameless fools all of them.
jvb
Warren was worse. King might, might, believe what he says, either because his mother told him so or because he did take a DNA test…. There’s no universe where Warren’s grandparents were ostracized because of an interracial marriage because there *was* no interracial marriage.
I agree with that.
jvb
1. I think the rule that applies is “Abuse of Balls” which damn well better be taken seriously.
Cultural literacy quiz: Gene Wilder’s character said those words or something similar in Blazing Saddles, when one of the bad guys was shot for chewing gum in line.
DINGDINGDINGDING!!!
The gun story is why punitive damages exist. That school district should give the family enough money to send him to the private school of their choice.
The kid is Black.
The report by the school to the Sheriff was that he was threatening students and teachers with a gun.
The Elliotts said their son was traumatized by deputies telling the 12-year-old his behavior could’ve led to criminal charges and might in the future if he were to do something similar again.
“He was in tears when the cops came. He was just in tears. He was scared. We all were scared. I literally was scared for his life,” said Curtis Elliot, fearful that deputies might overreact to having the school principal tell them a young Black boy was potentially armed with a gun.
I should add that the Police here acted in a thoroughly professional manner. Sensible. Sane, even. Reasonable.
I remind everyone that at least one Black kid of the same age has been shot dead by “Police” within 2 seconds of their arrival in different but similar circumstances.. Scare quotes around “police” intentional.
I don’t think telling the kid he could be charged for his actions and he might be in the future was sane or reasonable. There is no law (in my state) against kids playing with toy guns. There is no law against a child having a toy gun in their own home. What ‘charges’ was the officer talking about?
Relevant points:
(1) They were told upfront that this was probably a toy gun.
(2) They did need to go if they just got a report from the school that a child was handling a gun while unsupervised, but this wasn’t the case.
(2) The police went to the school and viewed the footage, clearly showing that this was a toy. They obviously didn’t feel this was an emergency, or they would not have gone to get the footage first.
There was no need to go to the child’s house. They knew it was a toy. They knew no laws had been broken. This was just straight-up intimidation by the police to enforce the idea that the school gets to dictate your actions 24/7.
I agree with Michael. I supervised law enforcement officers for thirty years. I resent the police being used, (and allowing themselves to be used) by the schools (among others) to push agendas that have nothing to do with actual public safety or law enforcement. I was always suspicious of such “third party” complaints to the police, because I have seen the facts get inflated and distorted in the re-telling dozens if not hundreds of times. (Gosh, the stories I could tell you about this, and the many disasters that nearly resulted.) Once the officers reviewed the video and knew the actual facts and true nature of the complaint. they could have followed up with the parents to inform them of the complaint and get them involved. Based on the facts presented, I would have been uncomfortable with any “welfare check” or certainly any direct meeting with the child sans parents in confrontational circumstances.
I know that the El Paso County, CO, Sheriff’s Office had a good reputation when I was working, and I would have thought them better than this.
I thought about the issues you raised, before you raised them.
I decided that the police were justified.
Why? Because, being Black, there was a strong chance he *could* be charged. Because prudent parents of highly melanotic kids give them “the talk”.Always obey the police, even if they are violating your civil rights. Always be polite and respectful, even if they are yelling abuse and profanities. Do not resist when they start beating you. Do not answer back. Do not insist on your “Constitutional Rights”. Wait till the courtroom to do that, if you make it there alive.
That won’t guarantee you’ll leave the encounter alive, but it highly biasses the odds. Those police who have had a bad day, are fuelled with roid rage, or whose partner just got shot by some low life little scrote and are in no mood to tolerate any crap from another one probably won’t be triggered into homicidal rage. Probably.
Add all those highly professional law enforcement officers who don’t do that stuff, at worst not reporting it lest they be ostracised and fired, and the odds are actually pretty good.
But it was good advice by the police, reflecting reality rather than theory, and in the child’s best interests.
Be fair–I assume you mean the shooting of Tamir Rice in Cleveland. The circumstances weren’t similar in any way:
1. The officers didn’t know he was a child because the dispatcher left out that crucial detail (the caller to 911 had said he was probably kid and the gun was probably a toy, neither of which were relayed) He was an adult size 12-year-old in winter clothing.
2. He was in a public place, not his own home.
3. Rice’s toy gun was not self-evidently a toy, and he had removed the orange tip.
4. The cop who shot him violated procedures, and shouldn’t have been on the force, since his record indicated that he was untrustworthy.
5. There is no evidence that race played a part in the shooting.
Bullets flying all over the Internet is dangerous.
I read he was black, and left it out. The school’s action was indefensible whatever color he was.
I had made up my opinion of the incident before I figured out the race. I assumed he was white until that point. When I figured out he was black, the only thing that changed was that my estimate of the odds of the lawsuit being successful and the amount of the payout went up.
(3) I don’t understand why she should be fired. If someone pretended to be heterosexual most of their life for professional reasons and then came out as a homosexual, no one would be demanding that the person be fired for lying. There would be a good many organizations fighting to make sure the person received no punishment, no firing, and no criticism. In fact, the media would probably insist that the person be heralded as a hero for being so brave. This woman works in a field where it is almost impossible to be successful unless you are black. It must have been horrible for her to have to come out of the closet on this. Think of it this way, she is just white. It isn’t like she was secretly a Republican all these years. THAT would be a firing offense.
Not a good analogy. One’s sexual preferences are private, and nobody’s business. If someone chooses to use them as an employment asset, then the result is the same. A professor teaching Gay studies using the lie that he or she is gay should be fired too. Nobody asks about one’s sexual proclivities in an employment application. In addition, there have long been negative consequences of being openly gay in some parts of society; avoiding open declarations in a professional setting is defensible. Posing as another race is misrepresentation and material.
I thought the end part conveyed that this was mostly sarcastic. So much of the grievance studies fields just seems to be fabricated that I don’t see what the problem is with fabricating their race. So much pandering to the crowd done and called ‘stunning and brave’, that why not this? I assume she hasn’t been fired because people are waiting to be told if this is ‘offensive’ or ‘stunning and brave’. No one knows anymore. Nothing makes sense, you just have to be told what it is.
However, race should be no different than sexual orientation on a job application, but it is. Many homosexuals pretended to be heterosexual for professional reasons for many years. They knew that they would not have been hired or would have been fired if people knew they were homosexuals. They did it for survival. You could argue the same is true of being white today. How many people are saying they won’t hire anyone who is white? How many are saying whites need to quit their jobs so a ‘diverse’ person can take their place? How many universities insist on addressing the problem of ‘whiteness’? With such societal attitudes, how is a white professor pretending to be black to fit in that much different from a homosexual in years past pretending to be a heterosexual trying to fit in?
https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/2/17070624/google-youtube-wilberg-recruiter-hiring-reverse-discrimination-lawsuit
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8513727/Actors-writers-producers-warn-reverse-racism-film-industry.html
https://african.wisc.edu/courses/african-405-the-problem-of-whiteness/
https://thefederalist.com/2017/08/02/trinity-college-reinstates-professor-said-white-people-fing-die/
1. If the tennis authorities want to outlaw the player from hitting the ball hard in frustration or anger then I see a lot of problems. In between points the player often hits the ball to the back of the court towards the ball kids to save time. This should remain legal.
So where should they draw the line? If every time a ball was hit hard was illegal then how hard is too hard? How is the umpire able to tell when it is too hard? Or do they make it illegal to hit the ball too close to anyone? Then how close is too close? I foresee a lot of arguing John McEnroe style if it’s left to the umpires judgement. But one thing is obvious, the player should not be able to whack the ball hard at a linesperson.
Sometimes when I was a kid I would throw things in frustration, to let off steam, or in anger. But I still had enough self control to make sure that what I threw was not breakable, did not hit anything breakable, or if it hit anyone (usually my brother) then it was something very soft that couldn’t hurt him. When Novak Djokovic hit that ball then all he had to do was aim make sure it didn’t hit anyone just like when a couple games earlier he made sure he hit it into something unbreakable.
The issues is that he hit the ball in frustration after losing a point, game, or whatever, and the ball hit the ball retriever person in the head. Yes, tennis balls are softer than baseballs or golf balls, but being hit in the head after a cannon shot by a player like Djokovic is going to hurt like hell. If, in the course of a serve or return, a ball retrieval person, line judge or other official had been smacked by the ball, there would not have been an issue or a fine.
jvb
A linesperson during a point is concentrating on the ball so if the ball comes in her direction then they can dodge out of the way or at least try to protect their most vulnerable areas. No-one can concentrate one hundred per cent of the time so between points they stop concentrating and should be able to rely on being safe from being hard hit by any balls.
Also, the ball was not a cannon shot, it went straight from Novak’s racket to the woman’s throat.
The teacher should be fired and the principle should be fired.
Sounds as if principles had already been dispensed with at that school, by both teacher and principal.
(Even Jove nods)
On the plus side, I don’t make that typo nearly as often as I used to…