…has gone away.
I’m not as optimistic as Glenn is that this, or October 7th, represented a sea change. She is, after all, still at Harvard as a full professor, despite her obvious mediocrity and venality. But I hope that it’s woken enough people up from woke that the Democrats will finally (and deservedly) lose the automatic Jewish vote.
[Update a few minutes later]
She’ll do fine. Sadly.
Perhaps Dr.(ish) Gay shall survive and prosper, but I rather doubt it. She has gone from President of the University (as close to God as any of these folks will ever hope to get) to another DEI hire. Nobody will say that of course (in her hearing at least), but everyone will know it, even those who genuinely support her, a much smaller subset than she likely thought that there were. In a profession that is all about status and standing, she has fallen from the peak of the mountain, and no amount of money is going to change that.
Don’t get me wrong, I would be far happier if she was condemned to die in the gutter, broke and alone, but stripping away her rank and privilege, replacing it with pity and contempt….that will do fine as a second-best outcome.
Now if we can just destroy the cause(s) that she has worked for….
She will find some way to scrape by on $900k a year.
damn. I was a medical school professor, and didn’t make that much money or even close to it.
Of course, I’m competent so I guess there’s a moron bump for her?
Odd how much digital ink has been spilt about this, but barely a peep when this happened. Odd, Wonder what the difference is.
As for “the automatic jewish vote”, I’m sure they will side with the party that endorsing the man who said there were “very fine people” standing next to these people or party that would support this very fine gentleman.
Oh, what fun. The moron is repeating the “fine people” lie.
What part is a lie did he not say there were “fine people on both sides”?
“What part is a lie did he not say there were “fine people on both sides”?”
Likely the part in the same taped Trump remarks where shortly there afterward he stated that he didn’t mean white supremacist etc.; that they were despicable people or some such phraseology. The part of the taped speech that the media gas-lighted by deliberate omission.
What part of my statement claimed he did? I just said he claimed people who stood with those goons, the next day were fine people. Who saw what was happening the night before and still decided to show up.
It is sad the degree to which you have no idea how utterly despicable you are.
In the Stanford case he was found out and resigned. As should happen.
In they Harvard case she was found out, refused to resigned, called those calling for her resignation racists, she was then protected by powerful leftists who called everyone calling for her resignation racists and finally after many weeks she resigns and laughed all the way to the bank with her nearly 1 million a year consolation prize.
… but ‘engineer’ had a nice link in his post.
The cases are nothing alike, other than the fact that 2 University President’s were moved out of office. The sad part is that ‘engineer’ can’t (or most likely doesn’t want to) see the difference.
Also, LOL at that name. Reminds me of an old joke:
Q: How do you know someone’s an engineer?
A: Give it 30 seconds, they will tell you.
On a different subject the amicus brief filed by former AG Ed Meese that Jack Smith wasn’t properly appointed by law to have full prosecutorial authority to prosecute/appeal to SCOTUS and is therefore an illegal appointment is now part of Trump’s lawyers appeal to the DC federal appeals court:
“Garland’s Fake Jack Smith Appointment Is In Court! – Trump Challenges”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDLpA9B39Dk
I have heard of this before; it basically died (it was presented to SCOTUS) when they kicked Jack Smith’s appeal back to the appeals court. But now it is back; the appeals court is saying both parties better be prepared to respond. Even if the appeal court rules against Trump (very likely) it will now have to be a part of the final appeal to SCOTUS.
“Trump, Jack Smith Must Be Prepped to Address Legal Experts’ Amicus Briefs in Presidential ‘Immunity’ Appeal
Dozens of former GOP officials including former Attorney General Edwin Meese III have joined amicus briefs filed with the DC Circuit as it considers Trump’s appeal of his federal election-subversion charges”
https://themessenger.com/politics/trump-amicus-briefs-immunity-appeal-jack-smith
” According to an amicus brief signed by a former U.S. attorney general and two law professors, Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional, leaving him powerless to obtain a quick U.S. Supreme Court decision on immunity claims by former President Donald Trump.”
“Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor,” the Dec. 20 amicus brief argues. “Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift or Jeff Bezos.”
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/was-jack-smiths-appointment-unconstitutional-he-has-no-more-authority-than-taylor-swift-amicus-brief-argues
I’m not as optimistic as Glenn is that this, or October 7th, represented a sea change.
While I agree with your assessment, we should ask ourselves what does victory look like in an ideological war?
The other side won’t magically become convinced of the rightness of your views. It’s the people who aren’t invested in anyone’s side who are the decisive factor. My take is undermining one’s reputation to the point where they have to resign from a powerful position is such a victory.
There’s a lesson for all of us, never become so invested in a belief system that you cease to see reality. Otherwise you will cause your own greatest defeats and might never get why