Article on Margaret Thatcher's death
posted just below this item
About My Imputed Racism
 |
| Two Negroes by Rembrandt Van Rijn |
Some time ago there was quite a brouhaha over my accusing Stanley Ann Dunham of marrying “an African savage.” I’m still astonished that anyone took offense, because savage has always been a legitimate term for natives of primitive nations of any kind. For the record: I don't consider American Negroes to be "savages," even if some of the inner city ones act that way.
What bugs the you-know-what out of me is the way certain perfectly polite, appropriate terms have been politicized –– by the left, of course –– and are now considered "bad words." It’s a form of bullying –– purely a tactic designed to intimidate or embarrass non-leftists into submission. I continue to use these words very deliberately, because I think it's important to stand up to tyranny, which is exactly what Political Correctness is. I too have had black friends, and have respected them and loved them dearly –– but never because they were black. I care for them, because they are great people.
It's the same with any number of Jews, Asians and Hispanics I've known and worked with. Only leftists love and adore Obama simply because he is a Negro.
By the way don't you remember Sidney Poitier's character Dr. Prentice was referred to by Katharine Houghton, his beautiful milky-white golden-haired love interest, as “a Negro” in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? –– surely one of the the most "progressive" films Hollywood ever produced?
But once more I have to say that where I come from "savage" was a perfectly polite, standard term of reference used to describe ANY primitive people who lived very close to Nature who were illiterate, ignorant and unsophisticated. It was applied to American Indians, native tribes living in the jungles of South and Central America and Australian Aborigines as well as to sub-Saharan Africans. It was never the moral equivalent of "nigger" –– a word I never use, unless I’m quoting someone else. If I had ever used that word as a child, my mother would have washed my mouth out with soap.
And even "nigger" was not considered offensive in England, until it too was co-opted and used as a weapon by leftist activists. Before that it was used freely –– often as a term of endearment –– in reference to the natives of India. Joseph Conrad wrote a literary classic called The Nigger of the Narcissus, and Agatha Christie published a novel called Ten Little Niggers. These distinguished writers were not trying to be offensive to anyone; they were using the normal parlance of their time.
And so it goes ...
FYI:
Savage adj.
belonging to a wood, wild, fr. silva a wood. See Silvan and Silvatyic
Of or pertaining to the forest; remote from human abodes and cultivation; in a state of nature; nature; wild; as, a savage wilderness.
Living in a State of Nature. Primitive, wild; untamed; uncultivated; as, savage beasts –– “Cornels, and savage berries of the wood.” - Dryden.
Uncivilized; untaught; unpolished; rude; as, savage life; savage manners.
“What nation, since the commencement of the Christian era, ever rose from savage to civilized without Christianity?” E. D. Griffin.
Characterized by cruelty; barbarous; fierce; ferocious; inhuman; brutal; as, a savage spirit. Syn. –– Ferocious; wild; uncultivated; untamed; untaught; uncivilized; unpolished; rude; brutish; brutal; heathenish; barbarous; cruel; inhuman; fierce; pitiless; merciless; unmerciful; atrocious. See ferocious
Savage n.
A human being in his native state of rudeness; one who is untaught; uncivilized, or without cultivation of mind or manners.
A man of extreme, unfeeling, brutal cruelty; a barbarian.
The wisdom of your comments aside, I am reminded of George Orwell and his wise words that whoever controls the language controls the agenda.
ReplyDeleteSome time ago there was quite a brouhaha over my accusing Stanley Ann Dunham of marrying “an African savage.”
ReplyDelete-----
Surely you aren't as tone deaf as that statement makes you appear.
Control the language, you control the scope of the conversation and the "outcomes" it can "consider."
ReplyDeleteIn other words, to put "blinders" on a subject.
Move to the 21st century, Farmer.
ReplyDeleteControl the images, control the culture.
..."whoever controls the language controls the agenda."
ReplyDeleteTHANK YOU, Kurt. That, of course, is EXACTLY the point I keep trying to make, and why I INSIST on saying outrageous, sometimes distasteful things in the interests of keeping freedom alive.
I WILL not be SHAMED or EMBARRASSED into assuming a posture of cringing pusillanimity by ANYONE, and frankly if people were smart they'd follow my example.
Of course I'm not talking about sheer the idiocy we get from trolls whose sole purpose is to DISRUPT and DERAIL honest conversation.
Fake outrage is a hallmark of the left. They use it ALL THE TIME to try to keep the majority cringing, fawning, falling all over themselves with apologies for nothing, and eating shit by the ton.
Obama's sperm donor (he was never a proper father) was just one or two baby steps away from the mud hut stage when he went to Harvard, and certainly reverted to type right quickly after he got together with Randy Ann Dunham. His life was a TRAVESTY, and in the deepest sense he really WAS a "savage."
I do not and will not apologize for saying that. One should never apologize for telling the truth.
Savage: "A human being in his native state of rudeness; one who is untaught; uncivilized, or without cultivation of mind or manners.
ReplyDeleteA man of extreme, unfeeling, brutal cruelty; a barbarian."
You contradict yourself Mr. Free Thinke.
Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.:
When Barack H. Obama, Sr., was about six years old and attending a Christian missionary school, the boy converted to Anglicanism when strongly encouraged by the staff. He changed his name from "Baraka" to the more Christian-sounding "Barack".
While still living near Kendu Bay, Obama attended Gendia Primary School. After his family moved to Siaya District, he transferred to Ng’iya Intermediate School. From 1950 to 1953, he studied at Maseno National School, an exclusive Anglican boarding school in Maseno.
The head teacher, B.L. Bowers, described Obama in his records as "very keen, steady, trustworthy and friendly. Concentrates, reliable and out-going."
In 1959, Obama received a scholarship in economics through a program organized by the nationalist leader Tom Mboya. The program offered education in the West to outstanding Kenyan students.
He graduated from the University of Hawaii after three years with a B.A. in economics and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He received a degree in economics from Harvard University.
Mr. Obama, Sr., is NOT anyone's definition of a "savage," and certainly not the one you posted.
That's why so many objected to your use of the term to describe a highly educated African man, who by many other people's account was most definitely civilized and cultured.
He was a bigamist, that is certain, but it is also not outlawed from the part of the culture of the world he was raised in, just as it was part of the culture Mitt Romney's grandfather was raised in. That does not make either man a "savage."
I think it is an open secret that President Obama's father was definitely not an American. That being the case then Barack Obama is not a "natural born American" as defined by the Founding Fathers and writers of the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that would mean that he is not a legitimate President. How did he get there, the electorate aside? Can anything he has enacted into law actually be upheld as lawful and legal?
FT, your imputed racism...
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't go out of my way to insult somebody strictly on the basis of ethnicity or skin colour. I'd prefer to confine discussion to ideas and consider that the other person may disagree, and I may do my best to show the error of their way, I believe everything goes off the rails when ethnicity or skin colour become the central focus of a discussion, or even when the argument goes in the direction of upholding something strictly on the basis of ethnicity or skin colour.
Now, that being said, I do think some nefarious individuals may blend politics with skin colour in order to advance an agenda and to derail any criticism of the issues and ideas involved.
Susan Sontag, a white female had no problem advancing a leftist/communist/feminist agenda by insinuating blatant racism (i.e. calling the white race the cancer of this planet). Somehow I don't recall any great media shit-storm about the racism of this "lady". Not sure why that would be except that it may not have fit "all the news that's fit to print" in the "newspaper of record" destined to become "the first draft of history". And what a sorry history it is when history becomes a record of agenda driven neo-feudalist talking down to their neo-serfs.
ReplyDeleteHere are the qualifications for the presidency as agreed on by our founding fathers and encoded in law in the US Constitution:
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."
Birthright citizenship in the United States refers to a person's acquisition of United States citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of his or her birth. It contrasts with citizenship acquired in other ways, for example by naturalization later in life. Birthright citizenship may be conferred by jus soli or jus sanguinis. Under United States law, any person born within the United States (including the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands) and subject to its jurisdiction is automatically granted U.S. citizenship, as are many (though not all) children born to American citizens overseas.
President Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, Hawaii became a state in the Union in 1959. Mr. Obama was born in the United States of America, of an American mother, therefore, he is an American citizen.
End of discussion.
Birtherism is sooooo 2008!
BTW, my grandson was born in Toronto Canada to my daughter, an American citizen, and his father, who is Canadian.
My grandson is an American citizen.
FT: I do find some of your comments outrageous, and it would not normally occur to me to say such things, but I love to see Ducky and other gripped with the vapors and collapsing on their fainting couch.
ReplyDeleteSomeone is using words and phrases not approved by the Ministry of Truth! The Horror!
Here is the latest subject of two minutes hate, fresh off the presses of the Manufactured Outrage Industry. Better hurry over before you miss it, lefties:
ReplyDeleteBrad Paisley, LL Cool J: Accidental Racist
Curt,
ReplyDeleteTo call a man who has been educated to the degree Mr. Obama, Sr., was, and who also published papers on political issues having to do with his country, is to engage in character assassination, IMHO.
You and Mr. Free Thinke may detest everything Mr. Obama, Sr., believed in, but that doesn't make him a savage.
I object to that epithet to describe him because 1) it isn't true, by Mr. FT's own definition; and 2) it smells of racism to call a highly educated African a "savage."
There is nothing to justify that sort of insult to the man.
You call that pc? I call it being decent.
I'd like to hear what you and Mr. Free Thinke would say to the people who are calling Margaret Thatcher vile names now that she's dead--people who actually lived and suffered while she was Prime Minister. Some people would even go so far as to call some of her policies "savage."
Would you sic the Ministry of Truth on them? The Horror!
Shaw, Isn't a "natural born" American citizen one whose both parents are American?
ReplyDeleteYour grandson may have been born in Canada and became an American, but by the definition of "natural born" he would not be eligible to become President of the United States of America.
Who is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America
ReplyDeleteA "Natural born citizen" - the most crucial concept of the moment in America - is confusing (and deliberately confused). This concept is used in the Constitution of the US (Article II, Section 1, #4) as a precondition for presidency - and only for presidency, being clearly distinguished from ordinary citizenship. It has not been defined in the Constitution nor in any later statutes, because it had been self evident in the time when the Constitution was written, codified in the then contemporary encyclopedia "The Law of Nations" (1758) by Emerich de Vattel. (As a legal source "Law of Nations" is mentioned in Article I, Section 8, #10 of the Constitution in respect to the authority of the US Congress to enforce the law of nations, in particular - against piracies and felonies on high seas).
According to Chapter 19, §212 of "Law of Nations", the concept "Natural born citizen" is a twofold criterion meaning that:
Both parents must be the citizens of, and the birth must take place in the concerned country, assuming that the citizenship inherited by this child and the loyalty are never changed ever after.
In other words, a natural born citizen means at least a second generation citizen of the country. Vattel's own note on the margin of his book refers to the Roman law: NEMO PLUS JURIS TRANSFERRE POTEST, QUAM IPSE HABET, meaning "No one can give more rights than he himself has" (by Dr. A. Altec). Except for Obama/Soetoro, the Vattel definition had been always applied, the last precedent being the US Senate resolution 511 in 2008 (also here and here) acknowledging Sen. McCain as a natural born citizen.
After the Framers, all the presidential contenders (up to Sen. McCain in 2008 but not Obama) did officially satisfy this definition, demonstrating continuity of the meaning "Natural born citizenship" consistent with that of Vattel . (In the past only one President Chester Arthur 1881-1885 violated it, hiding and destroying the traces of the British citizenship of his father, discovered only after his death. The carefully hidden violation of Chester Arthur in fact is an additional argument that the Vattel's definition was valid and he was aware of it).
ReplyDeleteNot only did the continuity and understanding of the Vattel meaning of the "Natural born citizenship" take place well up to 2008: It was clearly disliked and stood on the way of somebody's "progressive aspirations". Since 2002 some members of the US Congress had made various attempts to rid of the concept Natural Born Citizen many years prior to Obama, which all have failed (here, here, and here). So finally in 2008 they simply violated the Constitutional requirement, created the precedent and therefore de-facto have changed the Constitution without any due constitutional process. It was "The Audacity of Dope", rephrasing the notorious title.
In 2008 nobody even attempted to hide the foreign citizenship of Obama's biological father - an open into the face overt violation of the Constitution. Worse, no personal documents of Obama at all have been ever verified. The perpetrators and enablers have been the media, both big and all the small parties, plus the three branches of government, who overlooked and orchestrated ascendance of the impostor into the White House - while the majority of American people didn't care, were hoodwinked, or brain dead.
This brain dead crowd still maintains the consensus of silencing and suppression of the truth, cheering the procession and wonderful clothes of the proverbial Emperor without clothes, while the cheer leaders keep an eye on those attempting to speak out the truth.
The former bright city on the hill turned into a despicable laughing stock for the entire world;
Into a chess board where the checkmate was made, but the winner retreats;
Into a poker game with a bluffer whose cards are never opened;
Into a procession of fools around an emperor without cloth, the procession which never ends.
http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm
"Shaw, Isn't a "natural born" American citizen one whose both parents are American?"
ReplyDeleteNo. Not by the Constitution. A natural born citizen is one who is born on American soil. Period. Mr. Obama had, in addition to being born on American soil, an American mother.
"Your grandson may have been born in Canada and became an American, but by the definition of "natural born" he would not be eligible to become President of the United States of America."
Wrong. My grandson was born to an American mother who lived the majority of her life in the USA, and who registered the birth of her son with the US Consulate when he was born, which made him officially a US citizen. He is not a "naturalized citizen," he is an American citizen.
"According to Chapter 19, §212 of "Law of Nations", the concept "Natural born citizen" is a twofold criterion meaning that:
Both parents must be the citizens of, and the birth must take place in the concerned country, assuming that the citizenship inherited by this child and the loyalty are never changed ever after."
There is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution or any amendment thereof that refers to the above. Nothing.
It doesn't apply to a US president's qualification.
Mr. Obama is as much an American as you or I.
Why do you and other keep beating this dead horse?
No rational people do.
to call a man who has been educated to the degree Mr. Obama, Sr., was, and who also published papers on political issues having to do with his country, is to engage in character assassination, IMHO.
ReplyDeleteTed Kaczynskis was a Harvard grad who wrote published papers on "political issues" too. Your point?
Yes, there CAN be "educated savages". Education doesn't always "take."
Savages we call them, because their Manners differ from ours, which we think the Perfection of Civility. They think the same of theirs.
ReplyDeletePerhaps if we could examine the Manners of different Nations with Impartiality, we should find no People so rude as to be without Rules of Politeness, nor any so polite as not to have some Remains of Rudeness.
-Benjamin Franklin, "Remarks Concerning the savages of North America"
Efforts to Eliminate the Natural Born Requirement (2003-2005)
ReplyDeleteProving that the players involved knew the correct definition of natural born citizen borrowed from the Law of Nations by our founders –
1) those born in the country, of parents who are citizens;
2) those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights;
3) The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;
4) in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen.
– that they knew Barack Hussein Obama II did not meet that definition as a foreign or dual citizen via his father’s British citizenship and that they worked feverishly to find a way around this constitutional requirement for office, as Obama was about to become president…
The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975 – when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment under H.J.R. 33 which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”
Bingham’s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33 in 1977 under H.J.R. 38, again failing to gain support from members of congress. Bingham was a Yale Law grad and member of the secret society Skull and Bones, later a lecturer at Columbia Law and thick as thieves with the United Nations via his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations.
Bingham’s work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record…
http://www.resonoelusono.com/Infamy.htm#PriorAttempts
There is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution or any amendment thereof that refers to the above. Nothing.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't apply to a US president's qualification.
Mr. Obama is as much an American as you or I.
Why do you and other keep beating this dead horse?
There are plenty of people that disagree with your "definition", Shaw. I can understand a rabid supporter of a particular politician may not want to listen or see the the man does NOT meet the definition of Natural Born American, since his father was NOT American. Period. He may well be considered an American, I didn't say he wasn't. I just said he doesn't meet the definition, long held that to be eligible to be President BOTH parents must be American.
Ms Shaw, methinks thou puttest too much stock in what-passes-for "education." Having earned a degree - or even two or three degrees -- is no guarantee of brilliance, high achievement, good character or even basic decency.
ReplyDeleteI have three college degrees, myself. So what?
Whatever the sire of our president acquired in the way of learning and civilized behavior was, apparently, given to him by his contact with Anglican Christians and a prominent university in a then-still predominantly White Anglo-Saxon Protestant country.
By all accounts he was a horribly selfish irresponsible, hedonistic, shamelessly exploitative man of low moral character -- a non-parent to his children -- a non-husband to the lunatic communist bitch who deliberately got herself pregnant by him -- on the advice of her father -- precisely because he was NOT WHITE. Her father had told her never to sleep with WHITE MEN -- only BLACK or COLORED.
Obviously she followed his advice. Her motives were POLITICAL not SENSUAL. There was no "love" in any of these carryings on. It was PURPOSEFUL.
I do, indeed, loath and despise anyone who would allow herself or himself to be motivated in such a perverse fashion.
Barack Obama's entire background is creepy and disgusting. It's a wonder he has turned out as presentable as he as, but I am morally certain that that TOO has been part of the long range plan.
If the affair had been a genuine love match that arose spontaneously between two people who just happened to "click," I'd no problem with it. I can understand that very well.
It's the cold-hearted, agenda-driven CALCULATION I so strenuously object to.
And I don't care what ANYONE says sub-Saharan African Negroes were, indeed, savages before contact with Europeans was established, and many of them still are to this very day. They don't call Africa "The Dark Continent" for no good reason.
Waylon, I hate to be the one to tell you, but Shaw is perfectly correct in the matter of natural born citizenship.
ReplyDeleteWe have the 14th Amendment, which was designed to grant automatic citizenship to freed slaves after the Civil War, to thank for that.
I think it's illogical and counter-intuitive, myself, but a child conceived during a one night stand between an Australian Aborigine male on a "student" visa and a silvery blonde Danish girl out for a good time while touring the good ol' USA would, indeed, be eligible to run for the presidency as long as the Danish girl brought that baby into the world on AMERICAN soil.
As far as I'm concerned that's just NUTS, but it IS the law.
I'm not sure what "freeing the slaves" has to do with the definition of "natural born citizen", being a prerequisite for becoming President. Tell me.
ReplyDeleteEven if that assertion were true, why would there be so much time and effort spent to remove the original definition of a "natural born" citizen being a basic requirement to become President.
What is evident is that there is a supreme effort being made from a politically driven agenda to redefine the original requirement, and I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia for this particular argument, just because an issue this important politically would have plenty of hired hands watching and editing this to support their point.
Thersites, Franklin's wry observations make good reading -- very interesting that he realized his own insularity and had discerned that ALL human tribes are virtual prisoners of their native mores and cultural norms.
ReplyDeleteThat is why this stupid thing we insist on calling "racism" is as natural and as normal as eating sleeping and breathing. It's BUILT IN to us.
This is why most people "hate" and "fear" Negroes, Jews and homosexuals. They are manifestly DIFFERENT. They LOOK different, act different, and THINK differently from the rank and file. That automatically makes them objects of suspicion and resentment.
This may be regrettable, but it is what it is, and if it's going to change, it will have to be through a long grinding down process of societal EVOLUTION. It will NEVER be accomplished by fiat or government edict. NEVER!
I've spent a fair amount of time "underground," so believe me I know what I'm talking about. The airhead eggheads in their ivory towers have no cognizance of Reality at all. They seem to think Reality is like modeling clay -- i.e. it can be fashioned into any shape THEY think it OUGHT to take.
Now naive!
Thank you for quoting the law, Ms Shaw. I should have thanked you for that earlier.
ReplyDeleteThis leapt out at me:
That little phrase "though not all" seems beyond the pale and totally out of whack to me.
If absolute FOREIGNERS getting pregnant during a casual weekend fling can whelp on OUR soil and have the infant AUTOMATICALLY declared a US Citizen, it is totally OUTRAGEOUS even to THINK that a baby born to two AMERICAN parents on far flung FOREIGN soil during a safari or archeological expedition would not automatically be an AMERICAN citizen like his or her parents.
The LAW is a' ASS.
"The standing qualifications to be President of the United States are set out in the
ReplyDeleteConstitution, at Article II, Section 1, clause 5, and state three specific requirements: one
must be at least 35 years old, a resident “within the United States” for 14 years, and a
“natural born Citizen.” The constitutional provision states as follows:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any
Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years,
and been Fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Questions from time-to-time have arisen concerning whether one who is a U.S. citizen “at birth”
because of the operation of federal law, is also a “natural born” citizen for purposes of the
presidential eligibility clause. Such questions often concern persons born abroad to parents who
are U.S. citizens, or persons born abroad when only one parent is a U.S. citizen who had resided
in the United States.1
Although such individuals born abroad may clearly be U.S. citizens “at
birth” by statute, would such persons also be “natural born Citizens,” or is eligibility to the
Presidency limited only to “native born” citizens?2
Additionally, questions have been recently
raised by some as to whether one born “in” the United States of one or more alien parents, and
who is thus clearly a U.S. citizen “at birth” by the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as by federal
law and common law, was intended to be considered a “natural born” citizen for purposes of the
presidential eligibility clause.
The Constitution does not define the term “natural born Citizen,” nor are the notes from the
debates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 instructive as to any specific collective intent of
the framers concerning the meaning of the term. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has never
needed to address this particular issue within the specific context of a challenge to the eligibility
of a candidate under Article II, Section 1, clause 5, the only place in the entire Constitution that
the phrase appears, although federal courts have discussed the concept extensively with respect to
other issues of citizenship. Consequently, although there are numerous Supreme Court cases, as
well as other federal and state case law, discussing the phrase and its meaning from which
conclusions may be drawn, there has still been certain speculation on the scope of the language..."
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
My understanding of this is that the issue of "natural born" citizen is far from settled and it's absolutely not defined as anyone being born on American soil. An American citizen can be defined as anyone born on American soil, but in respect to becoming President the clear requirements are being "Natural born" ... i.e. simply being the child of two American parents.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteDo you think Rembrandt was a racist? That painting looks really nasty to me. It's an honest portrait of the way unblended Africans really looked before the slave masters started the miscegenation thing.
ReplyDeleteDick Wilde
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe airhead eggheads in their ivory towers have no cognizance of Reality at all. They seem to think Reality is like modeling clay -- i.e. it can be fashioned into any shape THEY think it OUGHT to take.
ReplyDeletelol! If you only knew...
In a democracy, it IS modelling clay.
...just ask "Prometheus" and his brother.
ReplyDeleteIn a Democracy, the University Discourse represents the "Master's" forethought.
For "who" is the source of "authority" in a democracy? The sovereign "people"? Or the "experts" in the universities who offer solutions to all of our many ever more intricately complicated "problems"?
ReplyDeleteFor "lies" may start simply. But to live, they must constantly "evolve".
Where individual experts start to enjoy too much the trappings of personal authority, peer review is an often effective counter-measure. Do you have any other measures in mind? How do they compare?
ReplyDelete"Personal" authority, in a University "professor" IS likely also "public" authority, depending up[on the "prestige" conferred upon the specific university.
ReplyDeleteCredit by association.
...or in the case of a mere Administrator... Guilt.
ReplyDeleteie - Derrick Bell, Elizabeth Warren and/or Lawrence Summers.
Personally, tar and feathers work best for me. ;)
ReplyDeleteComing soon to a campus near you. ;)
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteYeah but what about "RACISM?"
Isn't "RACISM" the ONLY thing that matters?
Forget unemployment, social degeneration, economic woes, the failure of public education, institutionalized ignorance, an illegitimacy rate of over SEVENTY PERCENT in the Negro Community, and more than FIFTY pERCENT overall. Forget the threat of Islamism. Forget Israel. Forget North Korea. Forget widespread corruption and misappropriation of funds in government.
FORGET EVERYTHING --- E-X-C-E-P-T ---
RACISM! RACISM! RACISM! RACISM!
RACISM! RACISM! RACISM! RACISM!
RACISM! RACISM! RACISM! RACISM!
RACISM! RACISM! RACISM! RACISM!
RACISM! RACISM! RACISM! RACISM!
RACISM! RACISM! RACISM! RACISM!
RACISM! RACISM! RACISM! RACISM!
RACISM! RACISM! RACISM! RACISM!
RACISM! RACISM! RACISM! RACISM!
RACISM! RACISM! RACISM! RACISM!
RACISM! RACISM! RACISM! RACISM!
RACISM! RACISM! RACISM! RACISM!
It's ALL that matters.
Intolerance of the other's intolerance (not my own). That's the ticket!
ReplyDeleteFreek Thinke,and the rest of your ilk, YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN, THEREFORE YOU ARE A RACIST, no matter how hard you may try, you just can’t hide it. .
ReplyDeleteMethinks that there is a bit of racism in every person on the planet. Human beings -- like all higher mammals -- have an inherent suspicion of "the other." And race is the obvious manifestation of "the other."
ReplyDeleteHow one behaves toward "the other" is what matters, IMO.
Of course you are correct, AOW.
ReplyDeleteTomorrow's post, which started as a response to you here and then became too detailed will attempt to expand on views presented in this discussion. I hope to see you there.
I appreciate everyone's input. Even remarks I disagree with or sentiments that rub me the wrong way still reveal much about the human condition.
EVERY LEGITIMATE OPINION is WORTH CONSIDERING.
Don't forget, FT...we Republicans who adore Dr Ben Carson and would vote for ANY BLACK MAN OR WOMAN WITH OUR VIEWPOINTS are RACIST according to the liberal above.
ReplyDeleteDoes he KNOW how stupid that really sounds!:? :-)
Come on by tomorrow...there's a post you can sink your teeth into!
Thanks, Z. The polarization one grows stronger with all the repetitious propaganda and "talking points" we allow to substitute for genuine THOUGHT.
ReplyDeleteInstead of mindlessly repeating clichés picked up by osmosis, each person owes it to himself to think things through using the principles of good, old-fashioned common sense.
That's the only I know of that mght break the current "log jam" in public discourse.
My advice would be: DON'T LET THE MEDIA -- or your favorite PRESSURE GROUP -- DO YOUR THINKING FOR YOU.
I have long considered the feral children running criminally amok in our streets to be the "Lord of the Flies" generation.
ReplyDeleteAndie