Juneteenth is our first, and one hopes, last DEI holiday. The idea of having national holidays contrived to celebrate particular racial, ethnic and gender groups in an outburst of white male guilt is anti-American to the core and profoundly offensive. True, Rationalization #22 (“There are worse things.”) provides some solace; the holiday is hardly the worst thing that the national freakout over a drug-addicted black thug resisting arrest in Minneapolis and running into the wrong cop inflicted on the U.S. But the year Biden’s autopen established it, 2021, speaks volumes.
Meanwhile….
1. Arnold Schwarzenegger, an ethics miscreant in so many ways, approached Ethics Hero status on “The View” recently, as the woke, Trump Deranged ladies tried to egg him into criticizing President Trump’s illegal immigration enforcement policies. Ahnahld wouldn’t cooperate. “I’m so proud and happy that I was embraced by the American people like that,” Schwarzenegger said, regarding his experience as a legal immigrant from Austria. “I mean, imagine. I came over here at the age of 21. With absolutely nothing. And then to create a career like that. I mean, in no other country in the world could you do that.” Every achievement in his life, from bodybuilding to acting to becoming governor, the movie star said, happened “because of America..this is the greatest country in the world and this is the land of opportunity.” The former California Governor (and the last Republican) said he has been chosen to give the keynote speech at Mount Vernon for America’s 250th anniversary celebration, where new—-legal, of course—citizens will be sworn in. I guess President Trump is willing to let bygones be bygones after his “feud” with Schwarzenegger, and recognizes one of the great immigrant success stories in memory. “But the key thing also is at the same time that we got to do things legal. That is the important thing, you know?,” said Arnold.
No, they don’t know.
2. Speaking of “The View,” arguably the smartest of this “news show’s” dim-bulb panel, Whoopie Goldberg, made the unhinged assertion that living in the United States was no better than living in Iran. Even the rest of her colleagues couldn’t handle that one. “I think it’s very different to live in the United States in 2025 than it is in Iran,” Farah Griffin said, stating the obvious. Griffin’s an idiot, but not that much of an idiot. “Not if you’re black,” Goldberg said. ABC allows this bigoted, ignorant woman to have a daily platform to make its viewers dumber. It is broadcast negligence abd malpractice.
3. Everyone saw this coming decades ago. Nobody was willing to act, and now Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to block cost-savings in both programs. The Social Security and Medicare Trustees released their annual reports yesterday, again sounding alarms over the precarious financial states of Social Security and Medicare.. The Trustees project that both the Social Security retirement trust fund and the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund are 8 years from insolvency. Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund will deplete its reserves by 2033,and the same year will see Social Security’s Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund become insolvent, maybe a year later if we’re lucky.
4. Of course they did… Axis news media and my Facebook friends are reporting that the Trump administration cut the government-funded suicide hotline. Those monsters! In fact, it was the special LGBTQ sub-hotline that was cut, a superfluous add-on by the Biden Administration to suck up to one of its core constituencies. Reasons for suicide can be sliced as thin as we choose: alcoholics, veterans, the chronically ill, bullied teenagers, drug addicts, police officers and artists all have elevated suicide rates. Casper, Wyoming has an unusually high suicide rate. Should there be a separate hot line for each of these? (It’s a rhetorical question…)
5. Nah, progressives support free speech! What would give you the idea that they didn’t? Well, this: Bluesky, the Twitter/X social media platform that people flee too when they don’t want mean conservatives pointing out their fake facts, bias, totalitarian tendencies and terrible reasoning skills, suspended the account of the Vice President of the United States after J.D. Vance made three posts. Here’s part of what he posted, regharding the recent SCOTUS decision upholding a state law prohibiting giving puberty blockers to children:
“[Justice Thomas, who wrote the majority 6-3 decision] argues that many of our so-called ‘experts’ have used bad arguments and substandard science to push experimental therapies on our youth. I might add that many of those scientists are receiving substantial resources from big pharma to push these medicines on kids. What do you think?”
Immediately, Vance was attacked. How dare he post a non-conforming opinion? Fred Guttenberg called Vance a “sewer dwelling douche” and ordered him back “to sewer-dwelling X.” Others called for Vance to be cyber-bullied off the platform. “This actually is a place for intelligent discourse,” wrote another angry Woker. ” But no one is interested in the verbal diarrhea of a morally bankrupt bootlicking eyeliner-wearing maga mouthpiece…no offense to you personally.” Bluesky then suspended the account about 15 minutes after it was launched. Then, realizing that the episode revealed to all what it really is, the platform restored the Veep’s posting privileges. Too late!
“Engagement went from great convos on many topics, to agree with me or you are a nazi fascist,” Cuban wote on Bluesky before the Vance incident “We are forcing posts to X.”
Gee, ya think?
[And good night, Curmie, wherever you are!]
Ethics Alarms 
Re: No. 1.
Oh, The View Scolds did not like Arnold’s comments. No, they did not. They were apoplectic to the point of hyperventilating. One host actually kept placing her hand on his arm, trying to get his attention (would that be considered womansplaining?). I especially liked when Arnold said that if you are a guest in someone’s house, you behave yourself and honor the host and the host’s rules. Joy Behar’s head imploded.
Arnold, if he is anything, is grateful to the nation that allowed him pursue the things he wanted and gain tremendous success. In what other country could a 21 year old Austrian immigrant go from pennies in this pocket to governor of the fourth largest economy in the world? Good on him for not taking their bait.
Oh, and for Goldberg to state that blacks living in the US are worse off than Iranians under the mullahs is beyond stupid. This, coming from an actor with slightly above-average acting skills who earns gobs of cash simply for sitting at the end of a table ponticficating about things she does not understand, takes some gall. What a buffoon.
jvb
#4 – It is something of an open question on why Wyoming has a higher suicide rate than the national average. We’re supposed to be hardy, rugged, self-reliant, no-nonsense cowboys capable of handling high winds, extreme temperatures, and endless open spaces populated by antelope and sagebrush. Some suggest that very stereotype stigmatizes seeking help for mental health issues, and so such issues tend to go untreated. There’s also the thought that low population density leads to greater loneliness, or the fact that most of us are Denver Bronco fans. (I did find out from our stint in Ohio that Browns fans have it much worse. MUCH worse.)
One of the questions we could ask is whether there are fundamental differences between a depressed, lonely rancher with a rifle and a transwoman with a bunch of pills. For the immediate crisis, the only question is: “Do you intend to kill yourself?” Help can be properly assigned later on, but in that moment of crisis, I can’t imagine that the demographic or the reason is important, just the cry for help itself.
As a historical note, Casper, WY was named after Caspar Collins, son of William Collins (for whom Ft. Collins, Colorado is named). He was killed in battle at Platte Bridge Station at the age of 20 in 1865. This was the culmination of a summer offensive by the combined might of the Lakota Sioux and Cheyenne tribes. The fell on the fort with a force of over 3,000 men, overwhelming the 120 men of the United States Army defending the fort. Among the 28 US casualties was poor young Caspar, and to honor him, the US troops decided to rename the fort after him. However, there was already a fort named Collins, so they used his first name: Fort Caspar. Unfortunately, the fort was burned to the ground some years later, and when it was rebuilt, and the city grew around it, they misspelled Caspar’s name, using an “e” to end up as “Casper”. A statue made in honor of Caspar Collins, alas, also used a photograph that incorrectly identified one of the men (who were infantry) as Caspar (who was cavalry). So, the town of my birth misspelled the name of the man for whom it was named, and used someone else’s face for his statue.
Interesting story. I wonder when someone calls the suicide hotline if you need some understanding of circumstances. Could a cowboy or farmer from Wyoming call and be helped by a city slicker? Could a LGBTQ suicidal person be helped be a farmer?
There’s a pretty strong correlation between elevation and suicide rate. One prevailing theory is that the lower oxygen in the blood results in less serotonin production in the brain.
Of course, since the high elevation areas also tend to be pretty conservative politically, many people reject this hypothesis and would rather blame it on politics.
I for one am thankful that Biden made June 19 an annual holiday. It is the anniversary day of my now successful 42 year marriage. I look forward to June 19 as a day of celebration for myself, my wife Paula, and the two sons we begot.
After The View ceases to persist, I would not be surprised if our beloved Whoopie pulls a Jake Tapper and declares that she isn’t really the angry, bitter, and deranged character she portrayed. “It was all an act you see, just theatre – for ratings and my big paycheck.” She may see this as providing a smoother reentry into the gatherings of genteel society.
I don’t make up the news; I just report it…🤠
Juneteenth is our first, and one hopes, last DEI holiday. The idea of having national holidays contrived to celebrate particular racial, ethnic and gender groups in an outburst of white male guilt is anti-American to the core and profoundly offensive.
Well I don’t think the holiday is meant to celebrate one group, it’s meant to celebrate the end of slavery in America and the expansion of freedom. Which is something every American should celebrate.
Independence Day celebrates political freedom (only for white people of course); Veterans Day honors military service; Martin Luther King Jr. Day recognizes the civil-rights movement. Each highlights an aspect of the American story….Juneteenth fits that pattern
I think it’s a weird thing to be bothered by.
Oh, I don’t agree at all. It was the date the last state learned that slavery had been abolished, sort of, by the Union winning the Civil War. It is the very essence of contrived. The 4th of July celebrates the developments that led to the end of slavery, and it’s a national holiday affecting every American. By what logic is Texas getting the word of the end of the Civil War worthy of a holiday? It was the 13th Amendment (Dec. 9, 1865) that really ended slavery. The date was neither given significance in most history books, nor had actual significance to the other states. The actual end of the Civil War (April 9, 1965) would be a justified national holiday. That “Juneteenth” only became an issue after the Black Lives Matter rioting taints it permanently as a pay-off, in my view.
I’m much less bothered by the date that people chose to celebrate (which they’ve been doing almost since the original date) and much more bothered that the name “Juneteenth” has overshadowed the original name of Jubilee Day (a historical allusion), or other alternate names like Emancipation Day or Freedom Day, which are more descriptive. Saying “Juneteenth” makes me sound like I couldn’t be bothered to pronounce the month and day separately, like “Julourth, American Independence Day.” It’s hard for me to take the name seriously.
That aside, I agree with Chris. The abolishment of slavery is the fruition of those developments that started with the Declaration of Independence. The United States became a more ethical country by applying its founding principles more equally than before. That major and difficult step forward benefitted all of us in the present. It’s a milestone worthy of celebration in its own right.
Thanks for agreeing. Yea the name sucks ha. I just think it’s like “old white man yelling at a cloud” nonsense to be annoyed with the celebration. Sure BLM was/is annoying/unethical…but also irrelevant to the celebration.
I agree. The final event freeing the last slaves in America is an important event. (Plus it counters the narrative of the 1619 Project by showing that the story of the United States is a persistent process of eradicating racial injustice.)
having said that, I regularly acknowledged Juneteenth before it became a national holiday. As a national holiday, I don’t care much for it. It was a cynical attempt to appease people for cheap political purposes.
but, I agree with Jack, the date of the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment would be a suitable alternative.
It should be acknowledged in some way.
-Jut
It was the date the last state learned that slavery had been abolished, sort of, by the Union winning the Civil War. It is the very essence of contrived.
Well it was more than that, it’s when General Granger read the order in Galveston and brought 2000 Union troops to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation. So it’s not contrived at all.
The 4th of July celebrates the developments that led to the end of slavery, and it’s a national holiday affecting every American.
Not sure what that means but July 4th we still had slavery so it’s not tied to emancipation at all.
By what logic is Texas getting the word of the end of the Civil War worthy of a holiday?
Same reason Thanksgiving began as a New England holiday and was not proclaimed nationally until Lincoln’s 1863 order. Also, that’s because that’s where the celebration started. Texans had parades, barbecues, etc to celebrate. Then Texas made it a holiday in 1979.
It was the 13th Amendment (Dec. 9, 1865) that really ended slavery.
But no one celebrates this and only in spirit. it would be strange to make that a holiday while ignoring the actual date that emancipated slaves would celebrate.
The actual end of the Civil War (April 9, 1965) would be a justified national holiday. That “Juneteenth” only became an issue after the Black Lives Matter rioting taints it permanently as a pay-off, in my view.
Appomattox did not actually deliver freedom and blacks didn’t celebrate this day. Most U.S. holidays became such after years civic lobbying like Martin Luther King day, after 15 years of campaigning. Juneteenth just followed the same path.
I think letting BLM taint a great holiday is foolish, especially when it’s been celebrated for over 100 years by blacks and has had 4 decades of bipartisan legislative work. Just silly and a waste of brain power.
I’m not letting BLM taint what they tainted: it tainted it. I do not believe this would be a national holiday if we did not have the rush to virtue-signal and grovel, as with the singing of “The Black National Anthem,” the DEI mania, the sudden inovation of mixed race couples on commercials and TV, and so much more. Nor do I believe that protesting setting bad precedents is “silly.” Jim Crow was followed slavery, making the freedom of blacks technical rather than real in many parts of the country. Martin Luther King’s birthday celebrates the end of that, and every American of all colors should be grateful. Juneteenth is a separatist holiday. Maybe one non-black in five can say exactly what it signifies.
Juneteenth is a separatist holiday.
it’s not
I’m not lettingBLM taint what they tainted: it tainted it. I
it’s not tainted for me so you’re the one letting it taint something you should be celebrating
I do not believe this would be a national holiday if we did not have the rush to virtue-signal and grovel,
maybe. That’s why you’re letting it taint the holiday though.
Jim Crow was followed slavery, making the freedom of blacks technical rather than real in many parts of the country. Martin Luther King’s birthday celebrates the end of that, and every American of all colors should be grateful.
I’m sure we are. Not sure what you’re arguing here
Then you’re not paying attention.
It sounds like your position is that June Nineteenth is redundant with Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and has been historically celebrated primarily by people of African descent, and the reason for it becoming a federal holiday for everyone is the inter-ethnic mistrust fomented by the Black Lives Matter movement. Does that sound right?
I agree there’s a solid case that, the holiday shouldn’t need to exist at the federal level. It was made a federal holiday as a gesture to build inter-ethnic trust that by rights shouldn’t have gotten eroded in the first place. Some people maliciously acted to damage that trust, which they should not have done. Would they have succeeded if our communities were more effective in doing the work of maintaining that trust, though? And at this point, does it matter what people should have been doing? If we’re looking at what should have happened, slavery shouldn’t have existed in the first place.
As long as we’re taking a critical look at whether federal holidays should exist, I think Christmas should be fair game. It may not be a purely religious holiday now, but it originated as one. It’s convenient for Christians that their religious holiday is recognized by the federal government. Does that violate the First Amendment? Can we celebrate the Winter Solstice like people used to do before Christians imposed their culture on all the pagan Europeans?
Yes, that sounds right. The equivalent would be if the Harvey Weinstein scandal and #MeToo prompted Congress to make a holiday out of the date the 19th Amendment was ratified, giving women the vote.
I think Christmas, a cultural, religious AND secular holiday, is pretty much unassailable by now—it’s also, by far, the most popular holiday and a unifying one. Kwanza, on the other hand, is like Juneteenth.
You celebrate racial pandering over a relatively insignificant local event, previously unknown to most Americans (even black people). Meanwhile, recognition of the two Americans arguably most important to the creation and maintaining of a unified USA, Washington and Lincoln, was downsized, leaving only a lesser one as the only citizen given the individual honor.
Political pandering and cowardice at it’s best.
I have also agreed from the beginning that the passage of the 13th Amendment should be the official (and historically accurate) celebration of the end of Slavery.
Why? Not all States that allowed slavery also rebelled and joined the Confederacy. The Emancipation Proclamation at the end of the war only applied to those States which seceded from the Union. So between Juneteenth and the passage of the 13th Amendment, Slavery still existed in the United States of America in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri.
This is why I agree that it’s all just a bunch of Pandering with a capital P.
Let’s celebrate some made-up FAKE end of Slavery instead of the REAL thing!
Why should the Left start caring about facts now?
–Dwayne
Sorry Dwayne you beat me to the facts. I replied to a comment much earlier and did not see you addressed the issue
If anyone takes the time to actually read Lincoln’s 1862 EO we now call the Emancipation Proclamation they will find that it did not free all slaves. Only those enslaved in states deemed in rebellion were conferred emancipation and protection from the fugitive slave acts. The purpose was to get the African slaves to rebel against their masters by offering them enlistment opportunities in the Union forces.
The EO lists the states that the order covered and included Mississippi where Jefferson Davis had respectfully resigned from the Senate because he felt he owed his state his allegiance whether he agreed with it or not. One can argue Lincoln provoked the attack on Sumpter by reinforcing the under construction fort after South Carolina seceded.
Rebellion is in the eye of the beholder. If you believe you have the right to dissolve a political relationship but the other side will not allow it while simultaneously making you economically disadvantaged through tariffs that benefitted some states at your expense you will remain in bondage to the them or you will try to protect what you believe are your Constitutional rights.
Anyway, the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the union because it only affected states that seceded which theoretically would not have any power unless Lincoln ignored the idea that the Confederacy had effectively seceded to form their own country.
add to your analysis: the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to states that had seceded because emancipating those slaves would not implicate the Takings Clause if the Fifth Amendment.
but, yes, that is only true if the Confederate states actually seceded from the Union and had no Takings Clause.
-Jut
Lincoln would have vehemently disagreed with your last point. His view, and the U.S. government view was that it was a rebellion, and that states did not have the legal right to secede.
The Proclamation included only those parts then in rebellion (New Orleans, for example, was excluded), and uses the war powers of the presidency to free those slaves.
It made it the policy of the United States that the war would be that slavery ‘then, thenceforward, and forever’ would be abolished.
This had two major purposes, I believe, aside from emancipation in and of itself.
After Lincoln was reelected, he then pushed the 13th Amendment through Congress, which would complete the emancipation process.
Lincoln was right from a pragmatic point of view and unquestionably that position was in the best interests of the nation as a whole and going forward, but there is no question, is there, that if Lincoln point was made explicit in the Constitution, that it would not have been ratified by all, or even most, of the states?
there is no question about that. Many of the secessionist declarations make a (perhaps) accurate contractual analysis that the federal government failed to hold up its end of the bargain.
it was, at the very least, an open question whether the Constitution created a perpetual union.
-Jut
Re: Curmie, he needs to get himself back in here and commenting. He’s cheating the rest of us by not doing so, in my opinion, and cheating is, of course, not ethical….
Curmie, I’m afraid, decided that there were too many conservative-leaning readers (and bloggers?) here for commenting to be worth his time. I inquired once, and got what I consider to be an unjustly curt and dismissive response. He was well treated here. I deserve better.
do you? How many more is that now? Great liberal commentators who left because you let your blog be overrun by conservatives because you ban and push back against liberals way more than you do conservatives.
There’s a reason you have the same group of commentators now when you’re comment section used to be much more enriching.
What “Great liberal commentators”? Great ethics commentators follow the rules, don’t engage in sealioning and trolling, and follow the conditions of participating here which are linked on the home page. EA has never banned a single commenter for disagreeing with a post, or for an ideological orientation. I have the records of every banned commenter, you know. The big exodus occurred in 2017, when I correctly pointed out that the Russian collusion accusation was media-fed black ops politics and that there was indeed a Deep State effort to knee-cap Trump’s first term. A very well treated liberal commenter and scholar announced that I had “drunk the Kool-Aid” and quit with that announcement. (I was right.) The most respected left-leaning commenters here have generally self-banned, which is grandstanding, or snapped and insulted me personally. Another recent commenter, a George Mason professor, was engaged in many civil discussions and quit, telling me that he didn’t want to deal with the conservatives. His scholarly position was that Joe Biden would step down and there would be an open convention (because the Democrats had so many good options(. I told him that the party would not allow anyone but Kamala Harris to run, and that he was deluded. He was deluded. But nobody kicked him off, or was unwelcoming.
If I push back harder on people who claim that there is no mainstream media bias, that Trump is a Nazi, that our borders should be open and that there wasn’t an organized effort to use the criminal justice system to remove the one opponent Democrats most feared, it is because there positions are unsupportable. I know it must be hard to have facts and reality prove one’s illusions are irresponsible junk, but that’s not my problem. A well -reasoned, civil argument is always honored here, and always has been.
Telling people they are deluded, even if you have every reason to believe you are correct, is generally considered unwelcoming and uncivil. That doesn’t excuse people who say the same to you, but it does explain why people who disagree with your position on high-profile issues are more likely to conclude that you don’t have any insights worth listening to.
There are plenty of equally firm but infinitely more respectful ways to convey to someone that they are engaging in wishful thinking.
Gotta say, at some point you hope to shock them in to seeing logic, reason, and facts and actually acknowledging the truth thereof. Everybody can have a different perspective, but there’s a finite level of departure from center for certain facts. For example one can argue immigration policy, but saying an open border represents anything but an abdication of responsibility to the law is absurd. Likewise, no one can seriously argue that Trump is anything like Hitler.
My daughter, despite having a gift for language (every theatric or film endeavor she’s been involved in, she gets called out for the insights and inputs she gave that improved the production in the eyes of the creators of the work), absolutely REFUSES to acknowledge the most basic of artifacts. Her current favorite is Trump is Hitler. If you point out that Trump has yet to send anyone to the gas chambers or invaded neighboring countries, she’ll say it’s no different because Hitler didn’t start with violence from the outset. When you point out that, in fact, he laid out his entire plan in a book before he was ever elected, did have people murdered, and was violent from the outset, silence.
It’s that way with literally any topic related to society and politics.
It is so irritating and frustrating. I finally told her she was incredibly intellectually dishonest. Deluded might be a more apt term.
It’s rude and obnoxious to refuse to engage in honest debate. And, at that point, unless they’re an outright fick, calling them deluded is an honest and accurate term.
While calling someone deluded may be accurate, it is also disrespectful and a good way to get them to stop listening to anything you say. Try to use more respectful language and you might possibly get them to maybe engage in a proper conversation.
Well, some people are like those glow sticks. You have to break them and shake them before the light finally comes on. Great liberal commenters? Don’t make me laugh. Most of the liberal commentariat here did nothing but repeat Democratic party talking points. More than a few took cheap shots and acted like arrested 14-year-olds. There’s nothing great and there never was anything great about the liberal commanders here. Speaking of which, what is Chris doing back here? Didn’t Jack ban him a long time ago after he engaged in outright mockery?
This is a disturbing story, and I have to endure a few versions of it myself. One loved one insists that certain kinds of citizens are going to be rounded up and deported, and there are no facts or common sense observation I can cite, to persuade her that this is paranoia bordeing on pathology. Another person close to me has insisted since 2016 that Trump only wants to be President so he can make money illegally. These and other—yes, delusions—come into their brains and others through relentless propaganda from our news media and the resulting confirmation bias. As with my Trump-Deranged Facebook friends, many of whom are genuine, long-time friends and associates, I have just given up arguing with them, raising any issues, or even linking to EA. I love to debate, and I think informed debate is essential to a functioning democracy, but if one will be cut off from necessary social contacts and networks by daring to try to pop ideological bubbles, it simply doesn’t make sense to keep debating.
I hate that. It feels cowardly to me. It goes against all of my instincts and impulses. But I honestly don’t know what else to do.
For what it’s worth, this particular article on “Why Trump is not Hitler” tickles my fancy.
https://americanmind.org/salvo/hitler-all-the-way-down/
And I assume you are honest enough to admit that your entry point is invalid. Curmie has never been treated with anything but respect here. He has been given a column, an honor only bestowed on one other commenter. He literally could post on whatever he chose, and was not limited in any way regarding what analysis he offered. EA promoted his blog and supported his work without exception.
Expecting honesty from liberal commenters is like expecting blood from a stone. It’s just not going to happen and it’s ridiculous to think it’s going to happen. Then again, I think dishonesty is now the liberals’ default setting. After all, they were the ones telling us the economy was doing just fine, the border was secure, Ukraine was winning with no problems, and that Joe Biden was sharp as a tack and ran circles around staffers less than 1/3 his age. If a liberal says the sky is blue, you better check out the window.
Jack responded well, but I’ll one add other obvious point: if this place has a somewhat conservative feel to it, that’s not the fault of the more conservative-minded here, nor is it the fault of our host.
All those “liberal” commenters?…they left. Some departed quietly, some in a huff, and others in dramatic fashion. But fact is, they left…conservatives didn’t.
And this has become the SOP of the Left: either assimilate, or face cancellation and/or abandonment as they migrate to a fully-agreeable hive elsewhere.
This is an ethics website, not a political one. True, politics are discussed an awful lot in here, but that only stems from the reality that the political arena is rife with ethics rot. It seems to me that more liberal-minded contributors can’t stick around and discuss ethics and politics without getting riled up to the point of leaving…or repeatedly breaking the rules and getting evicted. This smacks far less of traditional liberal-minding thinking and more of narrow-minded tunnel vision.
there were too many conservative commentators as compared to liberals, BECAUSE THEY ALL LEFT, just like he did.
and I do not recall his being treated poorly (at least by me). I don’t think A Friend was treated particularly poorly even after he banned himself.
-Jut
“I do not recall his being treated poorly (at least by me). I don’t think A Friend was treated particularly poorly even after he banned himself.”
With this I would agree, unequivocally!
PWS
If ever the term “great liberal commenter” is to be used, then I would consider Curmie just that.
I liken it to an experience I had on a government contract. There were three of us crafting language for a contract modification, and we wanted to be sure the government PCO couldn’t interpret it to include a particular type of work in the scope that would be nigh impossible to complete at the price we presented.
We spent several hours over a couple days coming up with an absolute bullet proof description, and would’ve bet our lives and the lives of our children or our dear sainted mothers that it was so far above crystal clear as to be impossible to interpret otherwise.
We got on the phone with the PCO and the first question out of the guy’s mouth blew our carefully crafted scope of work to smithereens.
That’s what Curmie brings to the table for me. To think about something in a way I hadn’t thought of.
Now, there was a post by him a while back where it seemed like he was spouting the party line, but I liken it to the Pharisees in Jesus time – they wouldn’t admit the truth because they’d be cast out of the synagogue. I forget the topic, but it was one out of the dozens I’ve seen that were just great writing and thought.
I still disagreed with a fair number of the ideas he posted, but so what? What a great writer and commenter.
My 2 cents, anyway….
Remember, Curmie has his own blog, and his skills are on vivid display there. He’s been posting more often recently, so you can catch up on https://manjushri924.blogspot.com/. I read his work regularly. I miss him too.