Yeah, right:
“If you look at the most credible evidence [of Michael Brown’s death at the hands of a Ferguson, Mo., police officer], the lessons are really basic,” Lowry said during an appearance on Meet the Press. “Don’t rob a convenience store. Don’t fight with a policeman when he stops you and try to take his gun. And when he yells at you to stop, just stop.”
Those comments elicited gasp from a panel that included the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson and MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. Mitchell exclaimed “Whoa, whoa” during Lowry’s comments, while Robinson said his recitation of the known facts in the case was an attempt to “relitigate” Brown’s death.
Do they ever listen to themselves?
No, they don’t listen to themselves – beyond the mellifluousness (a word Katy Couric should not be asked to define) of the sounds they make.
No they don’t listen to themselves with thought–they listen only to ensure they are following the party line.
remember, the top purpose of the press is to suppress facts that the Party wants to conceal.
I would agree with all the liberals describing Brown’s death as a tragedy, but add the definition of tragedy:
a dramatic composition, often in verse, dealing with a serious or somber theme, typically that of a great person destined through a flaw of character or conflict with some overpowering force, as fate or society, to downfall or destruction.
Then I’d ask what kind of culture makes a young person think it’s cool to rob stores and try to kill cops? Would that be the same culture that makes people think arson is the answer?
Nobody else does, so why should they?
I guess I am subject to an “employee anti-bullying” policy, like the slow-motion train wreck that it is, I tried to stop it in Faculty Senate, but a train can have considerable momentum, even when it is not going all that fast and you are waving your hands trying to get the crew to pull the emergency brake handle.
That our undergraduates, I guess primarily our male undergraduates are now subject to “Only Yes Means Yes” policies, is a hot topic in Right Blogosphere circles. The idea is if a undergrad man and an undergrad woman drink too much, they do what I am told undergrad men and women do under such circumstances, and a woman files a complaint, a man is subject to a kangaroo court where he is not sent to jail but is instead expelled from school with a black mark sharply limiting his future? So they tell me.
So I guess the anti-bullying measure is that faculty get a taste of the same medicine administered to male undergrads, that is, a kangaroo court proceeding leading to loss of employment and a lifelong stigma from actions between adults subject to a variety of interpretations? It was a hard call because if people running the place are subject to the same style rough justice as those we are serving, maybe both the help and the customers will get relief in the near future. On the other hand, is this sort of frontier law justified for anyone?
Anyway, in the course of the debate (I am getting to the point here), someone asked for examples of bullying under the faculty legislation. Two examples offered were of a faculty member getting into a heated argument/discussion with a colleague and punching their hand through a wall (I guess you can do that with gypsum wallboard). Another was someone standing to block another employee trying to get into their automobile and leave.
I got up to ask “why are we instituting a parallel criminal justice system for actions that are crimes”, reasoning that punching your hand through a wall is enough of a threatening gesture as is blocking someone’s access to their car constitutes assault. Furthermore, I explained that our UW Chief of Police (they are Wisconsin State Police like State Troopers with badges, guns, and arrest authority, even though a certain Midwestern Governor didn’t give them the same “cut out” as police) had addressed the Faculty Senate, explaining, pleading that such incidents be reported to UW Police before they escalate to “Postal incidents.”
While I am saying this, a member of the University Committee is emphatically shaking their head “no” like I am some child saying something stupid. We were only debating and had not yet enacted the Anti-Bullying rule — otherwise I would have reported that incident to the Chancelor who was in the room watching. Let’s say there was gender politics involved here in the way the race card was played against Mr. Lowry on the Tee-Vee.
Yes, go home, get into an argument with your spouse, and put your hand through a wall, and tell me that you then didn’t spend the night as a guest of the Dane County Sheriff. We are talking about a big room full of scholars and PhDs who apart from a handful from the Law School faculty are not aware that you don’t need to batter someone (committ battery) for an action to count as an assault (the Ferguson case, for example). Smart people these perfessers and they sure know how to comport themselves in a public forum.
Mencius Moldbug (Curtis Yarvin) before he quit blogging because he already made this point to whoever cares to listen, told us that “the U” is the harbinger of society at large. How Mr. Lowry was treated on a talking-head show is standard procedure for the U.
To paraphrase Latter-Day Saint theology as pithily explained by one of their leaders, what the U was, society is. What the U is, society will become?