When we look at the instance of Darren Wilson shooting Michael Brown, judgement seems to line up largely according to political lines. Of course those who had seen the shooting, who had no dog in the hunt and who gave anonymous testimony were probably the most accurate in terms of what happened and when. But the rest of the "witnesses" seem to cling to what they want the story to be even when it is refuted by evidence. They would never tolerate that kind of treatment of one of their own. So it breaks down into a game of "Who's The Hypocrite?"
Twitter also plays these games. I like twitter-probably a little too much. It's a good way to get information quickly and allows for a free flow of back and forth if you choose. Twitter is not the only site that has this kind of dubious ambiance, but it's the best known. My biggest problem with twitter is the nagging tattle tail enforcement of their "rules". Twitter's "rules" seem to change at will. And enforcement of those rules is based on whichever little meathead is in charge of the site at the time. For example: The New York Times published the address of Darren Wilson opening up not just him, but all of his neighbors, to attack. The two writers who did this hid behind a cloak of arrogant journalistic hubris. A few hours later two other websites posted the writers' addresses-one in Chicago and the other in New Orleans. I copied them and posted them AS DID MANY OTHER PEOPLE. My account was suspended.
Keep in mind that tax rolls are public records. While I didn't do the heavy lifting of sifting through tax rolls, I don't think suspending my account makes sense when other subsequent people posted them as well and seemingly were not banned. Furthermore, if it is wrong for me-a private citizen who COPIED addresses from two other blogs then why is it not wrong for these self-important trumped up reporters to post Wilson's address exposing him and his neighbors to violence? What kind of game is twitter playing here? If they want to be the arbiters of what is right and wrong, fine. But by God do not get on a high horse over distant reporters' addresses when you allow them to point out a man who's life is in danger by publicly issue threats from the New Black Panthers. If it is wrong for one, it is wrong for all. I am willing to abide by that, but are the New York Times or Twitter?
Showing posts with label hypocrites. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hypocrites. Show all posts
Friday, November 28, 2014
Monday, July 08, 2013
Best Column Ever (An Excerpt and Link)
Just a bit of one of the best columns I have read in a long time. This puts in a nutshell everything that many of us have been saying for a long time. I'm just putting an excerpt, but use the link below and read the entire column. And please, share it.
"...One of the strangest things about the modern progression in liberal thought is its increasing comfort with elitism and high style. Over the last 30 years, the enjoyment of refined tastes, both material and psychological, has become a hallmark of liberalism — hand in glove with the art of professional altruism, so necessary to the guilt-free enjoyment of the good life. Take most any contemporary issue, and the theme of elite progressivism predominates.
Higher education? A visitor from Mars would note that the current system of universities and colleges is designed to promote the interests of an elite at the expense of the middle and lower-middle classes. UCLA, Yale, and even CSU Stanislaus run on premises far more reactionary and class-based than does Wal-Mart. The teaching loads and course responsibilities of tenured full professors have declined over the last half-century, while the percentage of units taught by graduate students and part-time faculty, with few benefits and low pay, has soared.
The number of administrators has likewise climbed — even as student indebtedness has skyrocketed, along with the unemployment rate among recent college graduates. A typical scenario embodying these bizarre trends would run something like the following: The UC assistant provost for diversity affairs, or the full professor of Italian literature, focusing on gender and the self, depend on lots of graduate and undergraduate students in the social sciences and humanities piling up debt without any guarantee of jobs, while part-time faculty subsidize the formers’ lifestyles by teaching, without grading assistants, the large introductory undergraduate courses, getting paid a third to half what those with tenure receive.
The conference and the academic book, with little if any readership, promote the career interest and income of the trendy administrator and the full professor, and are subsidized by either the taxpayers or the students or both. All of the above assumes that a nine-month teaching schedule, with tenure, grants, sabbaticals, and release time, are above reproach and justify yearly tuition hikes exceeding the rate of inflation. The beneficiaries of the system win exemption from criticism through loud support of the current progressive agenda, as if they were officers with swagger sticks in the culture wars who must have their own perks if they are to properly lead the less-well-informed troops out of the trenches."
Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/08/liberal_apartheid_119115.html#ixzz2YSjPuxpz
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
Friday, November 23, 2012
Proof that California Doesn't have the Corner on Nutjob Professors
Sir,
In response to this story: http://weaselzippers.us/2012/11/23/univ-texas-professor-thanksgiving-a-white-supremacist-holiday-founding-founders-nazis/
As a resident of Texas who pays far too much in taxes and probably pays part of your salary, I request a response. Where did your family come from? The name Jensen would appear to be Scandinavian in source. That means your ancestors were rampaging and pillaging their way through Europe centuries before a very small group of religions refugees braved the North Atlantic to come to North America. Do you feel your own shame in pillaging Europe, in imposing a rule of terror on Ireland, Scotland, France and Normandy? Or is that okay because it's Europe? How far did the Native American technology advance? They had not even really developed the wheel or advance metal working techniques in the regions inhabited. But you freely brandish the label "Nazi" on people who were trying to achieve religious freedom. Oh, now I understand, it's about religion. You, a liberal who probably claims to be tolerant, cannot allow someone to worship in any way that you cannot control. And in the end, that's what liberalism is all about isn't it-ultimate centralized control. Oh....who wanted that? Who wanted to control what babies were born, how they looked, the control of media and the outcomes of elections-that would be totalitarian societies like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Unions. What a sad specimen of academia you are. You should be ashamed.
Update: So it turns out that in their desire to be first, the media has fed us a great deal of disinformation and misinformation. The mother was the first victim, at home. The guns used were hers, and it appears they were kept in a basement gun safe. I can only surmise Lanza knew the combination. It also appears that the triggering moment was when Lanza discovered his mother, who had taken him out of public schools after a disagreement with school officials (this suggests an ARD where the school sought to have more restrictions due to escalating manifestation of violence or other disturbing behavior), removed him from private schools and they was homeschooling him was seeking to have him involuntarily committed. I'm sure she never thought her own son would have such pent up rage. That he went after the now first graders that had been her charges a year earlier is a clear manifestation of his resentment for the time spent with them. The wrong brother was sited as the shooter and a fictional girlfriend was sited as missing along with the father. That was incorrect. It's still a sickening tragedy that would not have happened if we didn't have committment laws that were so challenging to families.
In response to this story: http://weaselzippers.us/2012/11/23/univ-texas-professor-thanksgiving-a-white-supremacist-holiday-founding-founders-nazis/
As a resident of Texas who pays far too much in taxes and probably pays part of your salary, I request a response. Where did your family come from? The name Jensen would appear to be Scandinavian in source. That means your ancestors were rampaging and pillaging their way through Europe centuries before a very small group of religions refugees braved the North Atlantic to come to North America. Do you feel your own shame in pillaging Europe, in imposing a rule of terror on Ireland, Scotland, France and Normandy? Or is that okay because it's Europe? How far did the Native American technology advance? They had not even really developed the wheel or advance metal working techniques in the regions inhabited. But you freely brandish the label "Nazi" on people who were trying to achieve religious freedom. Oh, now I understand, it's about religion. You, a liberal who probably claims to be tolerant, cannot allow someone to worship in any way that you cannot control. And in the end, that's what liberalism is all about isn't it-ultimate centralized control. Oh....who wanted that? Who wanted to control what babies were born, how they looked, the control of media and the outcomes of elections-that would be totalitarian societies like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Unions. What a sad specimen of academia you are. You should be ashamed.
Update: So it turns out that in their desire to be first, the media has fed us a great deal of disinformation and misinformation. The mother was the first victim, at home. The guns used were hers, and it appears they were kept in a basement gun safe. I can only surmise Lanza knew the combination. It also appears that the triggering moment was when Lanza discovered his mother, who had taken him out of public schools after a disagreement with school officials (this suggests an ARD where the school sought to have more restrictions due to escalating manifestation of violence or other disturbing behavior), removed him from private schools and they was homeschooling him was seeking to have him involuntarily committed. I'm sure she never thought her own son would have such pent up rage. That he went after the now first graders that had been her charges a year earlier is a clear manifestation of his resentment for the time spent with them. The wrong brother was sited as the shooter and a fictional girlfriend was sited as missing along with the father. That was incorrect. It's still a sickening tragedy that would not have happened if we didn't have committment laws that were so challenging to families.
Friday, August 01, 2008
American Travesty
The linked story is to a fund raiser for the families of Ramos and Campeon. If you are unfamiliar with the case, these are two border guard charged in what amounts to a tainted trial of the shooting of a drug runner. The special prosecutor sealed key documents with the court's approval. When those documents were unsealed and shown to former jurors, they were appalled at the malfeasance and misplacement of justice. Now these families are suffering. They have lost everything. If you want to offer meaningful support, please consider donating to this cause. As for all the apologists for illegal immigrants everywhere, it's funny how emotional you are about keeping families together, but I guess that only applies to illegal immigrants, not citizens doing their jobs.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Another View of Rev. Wright's Foot In Mouth Situation
I came across this online and thought that excerpts might be interesting to folks. This does have quite a bit to do with how Mr. Obama approaches issues and says a great deal about what his idea of equality might be. Don't you know HIllary's operatives are combing every piece of footage they can find on Rev. Wrights diatribes (I won't honor them by calling them sermons because sermons are about faith and this is partisan politics plain and simple.)
Entire article here.
"The Obama Crash and Burn
If he acts as if the Wright controversy is behind him, it's over for Obama.
By Victor Davis Hanson
The latest polls reflecting Obama’s near-collapse should serve as a morality tale of John Edwards’s two Americas — the political obtuseness of the intellectual elite juxtaposed to the common sense of the working classes.
For some bizarre reason, Obama aimed his speech at winning praise from National Public Radio, the New York Times, and Harvard, and solidifying an already 90-percent solid African-American base — while apparently insulting the intelligence of everyone else.
Indeed, the more op-eds and pundits praised the courage of Barack Obama, the more the polls showed that there was a growing distrust that the eloquent and inspirational candidate has used his great gifts, in the end, to excuse the inexcusable.
The speech and Obama’s subsequent interviews neither explained his disastrous association with Wright, nor dared open up a true discussion of race — which by needs would have to include, in addition to white racism, taboo subjects ranging from disproportionate illegitimacy and drug usage to higher-than-average criminality to disturbing values espoused in rap music and unaddressed anti-Semitism. We learn now that Obama is the last person who wants to end the establishment notion that a few elite African Americans negotiate with liberal white America over the terms of grievance and entitlement — without which all of us really would be transracial persons, in which happiness and gloom hinge, and are seen to do so, on one’s own individual success or failure.
Instead there were the tired platitudes, evasions, and politicking. The intelligentsia is well aware of how postmodern cultural equivalence, black liberation theory, and moral relativism seeped into Obama’s speech, and thus was not offended by an “everybody does it” and “who’s to judge?/eye of the beholder” defense. But to most others the effect was Clintonian...."
"...The more the pundits gushed about the speech, the more the average Americans thought, “Wait a minute — did he just say what I thought he said?” It’s not lost on Joe Q. Public that Obama justified Wright’s racism by offering us a “landmark” speech on race that:
(1) Compared Wright’s felony to the misdemeanors of his grandmother, Geraldine Ferraro, the Reagan Coalition, corporate culture, and the kitchen sink.
(2) Established the precedent that context excuses everything, in the sense that what good a Wright did (or an Imus did) in the past outweighs any racist outburst of the present.
(3) Claimed that the voice of the oppressed is not to be judged by the same rules of censure as the dominant majority that has no similar claim on victim status.
What is happening, ever so slowly, is that the public is beginning to realize that it knows even less after the speech than it did before about what exactly Obama knew (and when) about Wright’s racism and hatred. .."
Entire article here.
"The Obama Crash and Burn
If he acts as if the Wright controversy is behind him, it's over for Obama.
By Victor Davis Hanson
The latest polls reflecting Obama’s near-collapse should serve as a morality tale of John Edwards’s two Americas — the political obtuseness of the intellectual elite juxtaposed to the common sense of the working classes.
For some bizarre reason, Obama aimed his speech at winning praise from National Public Radio, the New York Times, and Harvard, and solidifying an already 90-percent solid African-American base — while apparently insulting the intelligence of everyone else.
Indeed, the more op-eds and pundits praised the courage of Barack Obama, the more the polls showed that there was a growing distrust that the eloquent and inspirational candidate has used his great gifts, in the end, to excuse the inexcusable.
The speech and Obama’s subsequent interviews neither explained his disastrous association with Wright, nor dared open up a true discussion of race — which by needs would have to include, in addition to white racism, taboo subjects ranging from disproportionate illegitimacy and drug usage to higher-than-average criminality to disturbing values espoused in rap music and unaddressed anti-Semitism. We learn now that Obama is the last person who wants to end the establishment notion that a few elite African Americans negotiate with liberal white America over the terms of grievance and entitlement — without which all of us really would be transracial persons, in which happiness and gloom hinge, and are seen to do so, on one’s own individual success or failure.
Instead there were the tired platitudes, evasions, and politicking. The intelligentsia is well aware of how postmodern cultural equivalence, black liberation theory, and moral relativism seeped into Obama’s speech, and thus was not offended by an “everybody does it” and “who’s to judge?/eye of the beholder” defense. But to most others the effect was Clintonian...."
"...The more the pundits gushed about the speech, the more the average Americans thought, “Wait a minute — did he just say what I thought he said?” It’s not lost on Joe Q. Public that Obama justified Wright’s racism by offering us a “landmark” speech on race that:
(1) Compared Wright’s felony to the misdemeanors of his grandmother, Geraldine Ferraro, the Reagan Coalition, corporate culture, and the kitchen sink.
(2) Established the precedent that context excuses everything, in the sense that what good a Wright did (or an Imus did) in the past outweighs any racist outburst of the present.
(3) Claimed that the voice of the oppressed is not to be judged by the same rules of censure as the dominant majority that has no similar claim on victim status.
What is happening, ever so slowly, is that the public is beginning to realize that it knows even less after the speech than it did before about what exactly Obama knew (and when) about Wright’s racism and hatred. .."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)