I was pretty confident KG would be fired and she was within 36hrs of the pictures being released. The process worked as it should and I'd expect similar from Fox News or other MSM/Alternative news sites (i.e. Brietbart/Milo). When employee embarrasses news company, quick investigation occurs, lawyers draw up the severance notice/package and then employee is fired. What's lost in this discussion is that Griffin was never part of the news apparatus at CNN. She was merely the "comic relief" for their New Years Eve show. I'm sure it was an easy decision at CNN as they have 7 months to find a replacement.
One can argue that the Glorification of the Lost Cause across the American south was somewhere between a little overdone and way overdone. The war between the states was certainly time of heroic sacrifice and putting lives on the line in defense of participants' vision of liberty. It was also a time when humanity showed it's worst. And in the end a terrible institution, slavery, was abolished because the Yankees won. You have to understand that some see the Rebel flag as the flag of courageous heroes defending their homes and families. Others see it as the flag of racist oppressors. Both are right ... and sometimes they were embodied in the same person.
Crockett, Some people see George W. Bush as a terrorist and Osama Bin Laden as a freedom fighter. I am not advocating for new anything. I just say that things that have been there for 50-100+ years and are not doing anyone any harm should not be removed due to the whims of the fickle mob. On top of that, the ignorant and fickle mob has already demonstrated it will be emboldened to go after non civil war figures. Hell, in cases like South Carolina, polling showed the majority of republicans wanted to leave the flag alone. There you had government ignoring the will of the people and giving into a mob that was not representative of their constituents' views. Anyway, do you or seattle think the federal government should commemorate John Brown and his actions at Harper's Ferry? I am curious for opinions. I guess because I looked at my change the other day and discovered we now have "John Brown's Fort" quarters. http://www.coinnews.net/2016/06/06/harpers-ferry-quarters/ "The winning design depicts John Brown Fort, the site of John Brown’s last stand during his raid on the Harper’s Ferry Armory in 1859." I am curious to know why confederate statues, andrew jackson, woodrow wilson, sam houston and george washington must be removed, but why issuing new quarters are acceptable for a domestic terrorist convicted of treason who killed five men in Kansas that did not own slaves for supporting slavery, then raided a federal arsonal at Harper's Ferry where the first person he killed was a free black man who refused to join him named Hayward Shepard. It is good to know that confederate statues have to go, but quarters commemorating John Brown's murder, terrorism and treason are fine.
I'm all for people learning history and viewing it with clear eyes for inspiration, instruction and correction. John Brown was an agitator who hardened opinions north and south. His actions energized partisans. He's not a hero of mine. Harriet Tubman, also a lawbreaker, is. Still, Brown's life is worthy of study and his misdeeds, atrocious as they were, should be viewed against a backdrop in which his slavery-supporting rivals committed atrocities on comparable scale -- Google "Bloody Kansas." Confederates shouldn't be forgotten, but where public space is limited and valuable, maybe it's worthwhile to make valuations on who deserves a place of special reverence. In the communities where I've lived, the brave settlers who wrested control from the Comanches and the folks who won World War II are comparatively poorly represented in terms of statuary.
Statues are an homage to a group of peoples values and history. The interpretation of both change over time so why wouldn't their emblem? Heck, the communities demographics themselves evolve which impacts their values.I fully recognize the risk of the "whims of a fickle mob" but also realize that our interpretation of history changes as we get new information. Penn St's statue of Joe Paterno is a perfect example. He was celebrated for his accomplishments and impact to the university with the statue. Later we learned of his contribution to enabling a serial sexual predator to go unchecked for decades. Shouldn't that latter information now be considered when looking at whether Joe Pa deserves a statue that represents the values and history of the Penn State community? I don't know enough about John Brown to have an opinion.
Seattle, what is there new to learn about something that happened 150 years ago? I agree with you on statues of people alive or recently deceased (which is why, in general, it is a good idea to wait 20 years after someone dies to make a statue). I do not disagree on the "learning new things" point, I just do not think it is applicable. Statues from 100 years ago tend to follow under the "changing opinion" category. It is possible we could learn that Henry Clay was a serial rapist and that could open debate, but I highly doubt that would happen. Crockett, I agree the actions of both the pro slavery and anti-slavery supporters during Bleeding Kansas and the actions of both pro-union and pro-southern militias in Kansas-Missouri during the War Between the States were not heroic and were more akin to terrorism. There really were no good guys in any of the Kansas-Missouri affairs. (Btw Ride with the Devil is a great movie about it.) I would describe both groups as being like abortion clinic bombers. I guess John Brown did believe God was telling him to commence a holy war, so he did not think he was doing anything wrong. Historians have compared John Brown to Osama Bin Laden and Timothy Mcveigh. That said, to my knowledge no public honor has ever been bestowed upon pro southern missouri fighter William Quntrill (could not find one on google either, correct me if I am wrong) and I would not support any such honor, yet, despite general condemnation from historians, John Brown's deeds get honored on a quarter. I will also add my only issue with Harriet Tubman is her support of John Brown and his raid on Harper's Ferry. It would seem odd to me to put a supporter of the most famous domestic terrorist of the 19th century on the $20, but I guess everyone is okay with honoring John Brown's Fort. Wikipedia is not the best source, but here is their summary: " In April 1858, Tubman was introduced to the abolitionist John Brown, an insurgent who advocated the use of violence to destroy slavery in the United States. Although she never advocated violence against whites, she agreed with his course of direct action and supported his goals.[82] Like Tubman, he spoke of being called by God, and trusted the divine to protect him from the wrath of slaveholders. She, meanwhile, claimed to have had a prophetic vision of meeting Brown before their encounter. Tubman helped John Brown (pictured)plan and recruit for the raid at Harpers Ferry Thus, as he began recruiting supporters for an attack on slaveholders, Brown was joined by "General Tubman", as he called her.Her knowledge of support networks and resources in the border states of Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware was invaluable to Brown and his planners. Although other abolitionists like Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrisondid not endorse his tactics, Brown dreamed of fighting to create a new state for freed slaves, and made preparations for military action. After he began the first battle, he believed, slaves would rise up and carry out a rebellion across the south.[84] He asked Tubman to gather former slaves then living in present-day Southern Ontario who might be willing to join his fighting force, which she did.[85] On May 8, 1858, Brown held a meeting in Chatham, Ontario, where he unveiled his plan for a raid on Harpers Ferry, Virginia.[86] When word of the plan was leaked to the government, Brown put the scheme on hold and began raising funds for its eventual resumption. Tubman aided him in this effort, and with more detailed plans for the assault.[87] Tubman was busy during this time, giving talks to abolitionist audiences and tending to her relatives. In the autumn of 1859, as Brown and his men prepared to launch the attack, Tubman could not be contacted.[88] When the raid on Harpers Ferry took place on October 16, Tubman was not present. Some historians believe she was in New York at the time, ill with fever related to her childhood head injury.[88]Others propose she may have been recruiting more escaped slaves in Ontario,[89] and Kate Clifford Larson suggests she may have been in Maryland, recruiting for Brown's raid or attempting to rescue more family members.[90]Larson also notes that Tubman may have begun sharing Frederick Douglass's doubts about the viability of the plan.[90] The raid failed; Brown was convicted of treasonand hanged in December. His actions were seen by abolitionists as a symbol of proud resistance, carried out by a noble martyr.[91]Tubman herself was effusive with praise. She later told a friend: "[H]e done more in dying, than 100 men would in living."[92]
And apparently the Sgt. Pepper album is acclaimed because of sexism. Link. (And yes, I'm one of those pretentious people she talks about who likes Revolver better. Since I'm a conservative, it must be because the name promotes gun violence.)
Here's the problem. You think my support for taking down the Confederate flag is an attempt to appease radicals. It's not. I don't give two squirts of piss of what they want. That's why I can support taking it down and tell the radicals to screw off on other matters. And it's not ignorance or stupidity. I favor taking down the flag because I oppose flying the flags of defeated or fallen regimes at government buildings. I think flag(s) of the current regimes that have jurisdiction over the government building at issue should fly. It's the same reason why I wouldn't want the swastika flown over the Reichstag or the Union Jack flying over the US Capitol. What's stupid or ignorant about that rationale? You're trying to convince people to keep a flag and memorials around that honor something they believe was terrible. That's foolish. If you really want them around, you need to convince people that they don't honor something terrible. (I don't think you can make that case, but that's what you should be doing.) And I'm not talking about the radicals. I'm talking about just sensible people whose minds are open. The Confederate stuff comes down because you've lost them. Private flags on private property is an entirely different matter. I've criticized the German government for banning Nazi symbols from private use because I believe in free speech. Ditto for the Confederate flag. If you want to fly it over your home or your business, you have every right to do it. Hell, if a bunch of Muslims want to fly an ISIS flag over their mosque, I don't care. (I'd have the FBI on them 24/7, but that's another matter.) So what? Tell them to screw off. I have no problem with that. The surest way for those symbols to come down is to link the cause of those symbols with the cause of the Confederate flag. (Also, Woodrow Wilson was crap as President. I really don't care that his memorials come down.) I don't argue that at all. Reason will prevail if reason is taught to succeeding generations. So long as left-wing crackpots run public education, that's not going to happen. But instead of worrying about that, you get bent out of shape over some flag. My biggest complaint about your rap on this issue is how you're dealing with a very minor symptom rather than a cause. Then resist fostering that kind of society. Oppose the teaching of Left wing horse crap in schools, in the media, and in popular culture. Stop worrying about some flag that mostly discredits you. No.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/1285364-170602063.html Kathy Griffin: How can we miss you if you won't go away?
I googled this, and apparently it is a thing. Link. To be fair, it isn't the whole nest, and the wasps aren't there.
Evergreen State faculty demand punishment of white professor who refused to leave on anti-white day "..... Bret Weinstein was driven off campus to teach because the campus police said they weren’t allowed to protect him. Now the white biology professor might be driven off campus under Evergreen State College’s own disciplinary process. More than 50 professors at the public college – nearly a quarter of faculty – have signed a statement as of Friday afternoon calling themselves “angry and frustrated and concerned” by the backlash against students and the university. They demanded Weinstein be punished for his response to students who cornered him and called him racist after he refused to leave campus on the anti-white “Day of Absence”: https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/32946/
The solution to the Evergreen State problem is for parents to not allow their kids (and their money) anywhere near that festering ********.
Ultimately this is the fix for the campus horse crap. Once the money goes away this garbage will end. However, people need to start caring enough for it to impact their decisions.
Donations to UT and UT Law from alumni are down and low, but until the legislature stops backing them and demands better management, nothing will change. It is the same with education across the country. People do not care. Look at the comically low turnouts in school board elections.
The problem is that in situations like that, progressives almost always double down. They never see a connection between rejection and their own ideas or behavior. The Hillary "everyone screwed up but me" tour this past month is a great example of the complete lack of interest in adjusting behavior or acknowledging that they might be outside the mainstream. Even if they get a stream of people saying "I'm not coming here, and here's why," the assumption will be that it's all about alt-right negative information campaigns, and they just need to be stronger about getting the "true message" out there.
The University of Missouri is still experiencing low enrollment since the 2015 altercations in which Melissa Click called for "muscle" to remove a journalist. I imagine Evergreen St. will (and should) suffer for this bout of stupidity. It you were a parent to a white, graduating HS student, would you send your kid to Evergreen? Especially if you read that pathetic letter from the President of the school which began; "I’m George Bridges, I use he/him pronouns.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/29/evergreen-state-college-president-expresses-gratit/
Evergreen State College may be the most liberal school y'all have never heard of. This is a school that in 2000 had a quarter long programs with theme centered curriculum like 'Star Trek'. Imagine your English, Math and Social Science classes all having a theme like that in college. My best friends sister actually took that program. At a local Washington State college fair I listened to one of their counselors claim that test scores and grades have no bearing on admittance into their school. They base admission on an interviews/statements nearly 100% was the impression I got. It seemed to meet that their entire goal was to turn out SJW. It also happens to be in the Washington State capital, Olympia. This isn't the first time Evergreen made national headlines. The last time was when a Transgendered student of theirs used the woman's restroom at a local pool they partner with and ran into some teenage girls. I actually agree with the conservative state politician that has proposed turning this school private. They are so far off the mainstream reservation that its best if they become private and cater to their specific education rather than using public monies for the hippie indoctrination. There are some videos where students acost this professor in the hallway. There are white students shouting him down. He's not exactly conservative based on his dress (birkenstocks, longer unkept hair). This is where liberalism is going to extreme.
Agree. I quit donating to the school two years ago and I'm really on the fence about football renewal next year. Just getting harder and harder to support UT. I don't know if my lack of interest and passion for UT is a byproduct of me getting older, UT teams losing so much, or my distaste for many of the recent decisions on the political side but it's certainly taking much more time for me to write that check these days.
I'm guessing fake. But I did get a laugh out of the last line. “I couldn’t have done it without my team.” It does show how ridiculous the whole self identifying topic is.
Oh, I know. It was just too funny not to post. But is it really that much goofier than this real story?
OK, as a female runner who ran track in the past, and whose niece is a pole vaulter and heptathalete at University of Arkansas, this story is absolute madness. To see someone win a 100 by 4-5 steps is a tragic and grotesque parody of sport. Why should the girls at this meet, and on these teams work incredibly hard hours training for an event they have very little chance of winning? If this "transgender" male, who hasn't transgendered as of yet, expects to be taken seriously and treated fairly, where is the reciprocal respect for these young women? He/she needs to either compete with males, while a male with male hormones, or skip track, or at the least the actual meets to return the respect and integrity to the members of the women's track team. If I were a parent, I would be furious that this male suddenly appeared on the women's team and possibly destroyed the hopes and dreams of my daughter. I try to be open minded about things I can't comprehend, such as transgender. There are times when transgender people need to understand they are not the 800 lb. gorilla that everyone else needs to step around.
