All Hank, all the time.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sexual Harassment Panda
Not me. I'm just sittin' back, sipping Oban and watching the neocons implode with the greatest of amusement. Nobody is running the government these days - it's a rudderless ship.

In that case, pass the bottle Comrade

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
In that case, pass the bottle Comrade

Si, es muy bueno!

• 

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It's too bad the ACLU stopped being a free speech advocate for anyone but a few scumbag liberals.

WTF? They are pretty damn consistent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Volokh, eh?

Here's his take on OSU:

I'm with Eugene. The ACLU does good work, and the OSU professors were out of line.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
WTF? They are pretty damn consistent.

For those who don't like Econ 1 with Burger, the Old Gray Lady has my lecture notes on immigration and wages.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Even a broken clock is right twice a day

So what time are you reading?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well, it doesn't use the words "unfuckiungbelievable" or "scumbag liberal," but I'll grant you that Volokh supports you that the university professors are acting like twits.

I found this part of the Volokh quote interesting:

• I expect that the university will promptly dismiss the complaint, since even under the university's own policy such speech is not prohibited -- among other reasons, the speech wasn't "based on a person's protected status," since the statements weren't about the complainants, and weren't targeted towards the complainants because of their sexual orientation. But it reflects badly on the complainants that the complaint is even being filed.

So the university may not go full-out in its defense of some dumbass, liberalscumbagproterrorist professors, and this wound of political correctness on the body politic may not be the chronic bleeder that conservatives had hoped. Sad.

I took a look at the ADF site, the complaint letter, and the emails that the ADF chose to include (there were clearly other emails, written by their client, that they chose to leave out.)

The controversy centers around one book that he recommended, "The Marketing of Evil," which looks to be an anti-gay screed self-published by a right-wing press. Sort of Ed Anger with a website.

Some of the faculty in the discussion are openly gay and focus on gay issues in their scholarship.

So, is pushing this book, which talks about "gay rights" as "evil," harassment? I'm not sure. Certainly Savage is a shit-stirring moron, but leave that aside. If the profs in question were conservative Israelis -- say a pro-Sharon scholar and a Zionist -- and they were discussing books for a freshman reading group on Jewish history, and the librarian starting pushing for inclusion of the Turner Diaries and the Chronicles of the Elders of Zion on the argument that these would spur discussion and challenge the dominant orthodoxy..... would that be anti-Semitic? Or just stupid? Would it matter if the librarian had admitted that he had never read the books, and thus could not speak to the quality of scholarship (if any)?*




*Or, in this case, if he cited a right-wing Ph.D. in Communications, who was a Jerry Springer guest, as support for the book and as having "more academic heft" that the entire university at which he worked? (This was apparently what he said, in one of his emails; I didn't see that email included in the ADF letter but did see references to it..... maybe I just missed it).

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
No. As the world's lone superpower, our police function gives us the right to decide who has declared war on whom. We also then have the right to intervene on neither, either or both sides. For more information, see http://www.newamericancentury.org.

Pshaw. Nifty academics, to be sure, but what about real world solutions?

• When the United States should use its military strength to achieve worthy goals abroad is an important question. But based on this record, it seems a bit theoretical. It's like asking whether Donald Trump should use his superpowers to cure AIDS. Or what George W. Bush should say when he wins the Nobel Prize in physics. A more pressing question is: Can't anyone here play this game?

Gattigap

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well, it doesn't use the words "unfuckiungbelievable" or "scumbag liberal," but I'll grant you that Volokh supports you that the university professors are acting like twits.

I found this part of the Volokh quote interesting:

• I expect that the university will promptly dismiss the complaint, since even under the university's own policy such speech is not prohibited -- among other reasons, the speech wasn't "based on a person's protected status," since the statements weren't about the complainants, and weren't targeted towards the complainants because of their sexual orientation. But it reflects badly on the complainants that the complaint is even being filed.

So the university may not go full-out in its defense of some dumbass, liberalscumbagproterrorist professors, and this wound of political correctness on the body politic may not be the chronic bleeder that conservatives had hoped. Sad.

It appears that, as anticipated, OSU cleared Mr. Savage and had the charges dropped.

And Malkin wept.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Si, es muy bueno!

• 

I prefer this:

• 

[sgtclub]

Well, at least one of the indicted Duke players looks like he has a pretty tight alibi: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCente...1858806&page=1

and more: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?se...cal&id=4091290

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Well, at least one of the indicted Duke players looks like he has a pretty tight alibi: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCente...1858806&page=1

and more: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?se...cal&id=4091290

I'm guessing this case goes away May 3.

I'm not saying nothing happened, but there's no DNA, and now her IDs of the assailants are very suspect (assuming all the timeline evidence lines up).

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm guessing this case goes away May 3.

I'm not saying nothing happened, but there's no DNA, and now her IDs of the assailants are very suspect (assuming all the timeline evidence lines up).

Why May 3? Is that the election date?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Why May 3? Is that the election date?

Day after election.

He's got a thin case, but needs to make things happen to get votes.

The defense lawyers clearly believe the case is weak, and are bringing their evidence out now to show how weak it is. I couldn't ordinarily imagine putting out in the press exculpatory evidence this early on, absent a recognition this case is going to be tried in the media within 3-4 weeks, rather than the several months it will take to get to trial.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Day after election.

He's got a thin case, but needs to make things happen to get votes.

The defense lawyers clearly believe the case is weak, and are bringing their evidence out now to show how weak it is. I couldn't ordinarily imagine putting out in the press exculpatory evidence this early on, absent a recognition this case is going to be tried in the media within 3-4 weeks, rather than the several months it will take to get to trial.

At least the one kid looks like his alibi is pretty air tight and his reputation has been unfairly sullied. If I were him, I would make it my mission in life to destroy this DA.