"Last Week, a … [UC Berkeley] Professor Confronted a Muslim Student During a Dinner for Graduating Law Students"

From NBC, what strikes me as a misleading characterization of Professor Catherine Fisk's confronting a student who pulled out a microphone to orate at a dinner organized at the professor's (and Dean Erwin Chemerinsky's) house.

Here are the closing paragraphs of yesterday's NBC News article, "Columbia University protesters resume demonstrations after mass arrests":

Is this really a fair and objective summary of what happened at the Chemerinsky dinner? "Confronted a Muslim student," with no further explanation, strongly implies that the student was confronted for being a Muslim, rather than for trying to give a speech in the middle of a social occasion. I know of no evidence that Dean Chemerinsky or Professor Fisk (they are married) targeted the student for her religion, as opposed to her disruptive conduct.

If you want an analogy, imagine there was a controversy about the police arresting someone who happened to be Catholic for blocking an abortion clinic entrance, and the incident was characterized (with no mention of the person's misconduct) as "Last week, Berkeley officials confronted a Catholic on a city sidewalk." Would that be a fair journalistic summary?

I think even the USC discussion ought to have been framed differently: The student's speech was canceled, I think, because she had in the past expressed support for sharply anti-Israel views, and I expect there would have been comparable outrage against her if she had been a non-Muslim expressing such views. The most accurate way to describe the incident would be to describe her as a person who had expressed anti-Israel views. (Likewise, if pro-Israel Jewish students are targeted for being pro-Israel, I think coverage of that incident should accurately characterize them as pro-Israel students, not as Jews.) But the Berkeley situation seems to me even more clearly misdescribed.

Comments

[MaddogEngineer]

It's all about the narrative.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The current narrative is that right-wingers find it convenient to bash Palestinians and Muslims (and purport to support Jews, not only by excusing Israel's unlawful violence and immoral conduct but also by calling anyone who criticizes Israel's shameful conduct an antisemite).

The cost to Israelis for being and aligning with right-wing belligerents, like the cost to Israel's supporters for making Israel's deplorable conduct a cause for the losing side of the American culture war, seems predictable and destined to be severe.

No free swings, clingers.

[Scooter]

Yep. How many time has the mainstream media referred to Florida's Parental Notification law as the "Don't Say Gay" bill when the law did nothing to make saying the word "Gay" illegal.

[Mr. Bumble]

Lying liars lie.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Wouldn't that be "Can't Say Gay"?

[Sarcastr0]

the Florida board of education will send instructions to every school district saying the Florida law does not prohibit discussing LGBTQ+ people, nor prevent anti-bullying rules on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity or disallow gay-straight alliance groups.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/11/florida-dont-say-gay-lawsuit

Weird there had to be a legal settlement if it was all media lies.

[JesseAz]

Did you even read the settlement? It has almost zero effect. It was basically capitulation by the activists to get Florida to admit the law is what the legislature passed. It had nothing to do with the narrative activists claimed the law it was.

You seem to care solely about false narratives. It makes you look partisan and dumb.

[Sarcastr0]

If it was nothing, then Florida could have made such a statement earlier. But it did not.

The right's been saying this about their recent spate of censorious legislation - 'how could you think it'd be implemented like the text allows? No one would abuse the law like that reasonable reading of the text!'

What trust in government you've recently discovered.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"‘how could you think it’d be implemented like the text allows?"

Please cite the text that prohibits people from saying "gay".

[Sarcastr0]

Your take is that the instructions Florida was required to send to every school district were redundant.

The language leaves plenty of room to sue a teacher for mentioning gay.
What counts as instruction?
What does 'on sexual orientation or gender identity' mean?
Who gets to determine what 'age-appropriate' means?

And all enforced by parents. A recipe for risk-averse overenforcement.

This was censorship, and no one was really very fooled by Florida's attempt to get cute with it. Except you and Brett; somehow you keep falling for this shit.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Your take is that the instructions Florida was required to send to every school district were redundant."

No, my take is that the fact that the school agreed to send those instructions out doesn't imply that the law said anything different.

"The language leaves plenty of room to sue a teacher for mentioning gay.
What counts as instruction?
What does ‘on sexual orientation or gender identity’ mean?
Who gets to determine what ‘age-appropriate’ means?

And all enforced by parents. A recipe for risk-averse overenforcement."

Then it was pretty shitty to send instructions to schools saying otherwise, eh?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The right’s been saying this about their recent spate of censorious legislation..."

Again with the Orwellian use of "censorship" to refer to elected officials controlling what the government does.

[Sarcastr0]

It's controlling what people say, TiP.
People who previously were free from government telling them what to say and not say.

I'm not saying it's not legal, I'm saying it's censorious.

[Absaroka]

"People who previously were free from government telling them what to say and not say."

I don't think that government employees have ever had complete freedom to say whatever they want at work.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"People who previously were free from government telling them what to say and not say."

On what planet have government employees ever been free to say whatever they what in the course of their employment?

Teachers have to teach the curriculum, judges have to say what they think the law is instead of reciting Shakespeare, cops have to tell people they're getting tickets or ask suspects relevant questions, DMV employees have to tell people the stuff they need to know to get their license or registration, etc.

Do you really think it's censorship when the government prevents teachers from launching tirades about how the Jews should be exterminated and how the natural condition of the negro is in permanent servitude to the white man?

I mean, I know you're not dumb enough to believe the stuff you are saying.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And the idea that the government has freedom that should be protected from the electorate is absolutely Orwellian.

[Sarcastr0]

Your conflation of individuals with the government they work for is doing a lot of lifting here.

People are not institutions.
What is actually going on is you have teachers who have in the past been given broad discretion suddenly being told by the government a subject is off limits.

It is legal. It is also censorship.

And quit using the word Orwellian if you're not going to use it correctly.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Institutions act through people. And the electorate has the right to direct the actions of the government.

“It is legal. It is also censorship.”

If your definition of censorship is so broad that it covers “controlling what people say” in the course of performing their government function, such as telling government employees that they can’t call for the genocide of the Jews in the course of their government employment, then calling something censorship isn’t much of a criticism, is it?

Freedom is not slavery, and democracy is not censorship, Sarcastro.

If you think it's a bad policy, make that argument. But you don't get to skip the work by invoking the c-word.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"the Florida board of education will send instructions to every school district saying the Florida law does not prohibit discussing LGBTQ+ people"

Maybe Sarah Palin can sue the government and settle on the grounds that HHS instruct health care providers not to implement death panels to euthanize disabled people. Then Sarcastro will have to admit that she was right about Obamacare.

[Commenter_XY]

Spot on = It is all about the narrative

[Mark Regan]

A question about the problems at USC. Does a graduation speaker submit draft remarks to the University, and does USC have the opportunity to say, "No, you can't say that," if the draft remarks are, say, anti-Semitic?

[garysixpack]

Practically speaking, even if the speech were previously vetted, there is nothing to stop the speaker from going off script.

[Michael P]

Is USC so small that its graduation ceremony doesn’t use a public address system and doesn’t have any kind of security or police in attendance?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Have you all missed the reference to "expectations of federal regulators" in the provost's letter to the campus?

USC, which has had HOW MANY scandals in the recent past, is terrified of "federal regulators" which may not be OCR.

It may be Homeland Security, and I believe that USC gets a lot of DOD research money, although that may be Stanford. (Hey, they are both in California, I'm not, sue me...)

And who knows, Homeland Security (et al) might actually have a realistic concern. We don't hear about the terrorism that gets stopped -- it's actually a pity we don't because the Feds are not *always* incompetent...

[Noscitur a sociis]

No, Dr. Ed, the speech did not get cancelled because Homeland Security was afraid of a terrorist attack.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How do you know she isn't a terrorist?

[Voize]

She doesn't threaten people with machine guns and snowplows.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Oh, so you think it's okay to threaten people with bombs?

[Voize]

Gosh no. Has Ed done that too?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nor any of the other things you falsely accuse him of.

What he HAS stated is that a sovereign country, as a last resort, has the legitimate right to resort to the use of deadly force. That's Civics 101.

A sovereign country has the right to say "don't do this" and if lesser means get overwhelmed, it has every right to use lethal force to (a) stop "this" from being done and more importantly (b) discourage others from doing "this."

Using machine guns to police the border or snow plows to keep interestate highways open is perfectly legitimate if lesser means will not work. But like EV stated in the OP, things become twisted in political restatement.

[Sarcastr0]

Your definition of last resort looks more like now and eagerly.

Machine gunning immigrants
Cheering for women to get raped if they're 'acting slutty'
Running over liberal protestors if they're blocking the road
Nuke Gaza
Civil War 2: This time it's all for Trump
Civil War 2: Wait actually it's about white men being oppressed
Civil War 2: The Supreme Court got it wrong, lets start killin'
Civil War 2: Eh, it's about anything that Ed is tweaked about today
Civil War 2: Truckers, for real this time!

Ed, you advocate for mass killings all the time. Many might see that threatening.
I think you've just got a negative attention-seeking screw loose, but YMMV.

[Dr. Ed 2]

One final time, Gaslighto:

Machine gunning immigrants
They are CRIMINALS and we have no other way of stopping them.

Cheering for women to get raped if they’re ‘acting slutty’
More nonchalant indifference -- they got what they deserved. Same thing with idiots who go out on wet ledges during hurricanes -- and get washed away. They ought not have done it.

Running over liberal protestors if they’re blocking the road
See above about idiots walking out on wet ledges during hurricanes...

Nuke Gaza
It's a war and it'd work...

Civil War 2: This time it’s all for Trump
Civil War 2: Wait actually it’s about white men being oppressed
Civil War 2: The Supreme Court got it wrong, lets start killin’
Civil War 2: Eh, it’s about anything that Ed is tweaked about today
Civil War 2: Truckers, for real this time!

It's not like I'm calling 1-800-CIVILWAR on a daily basis...
WARNING about an approaching storm is very different from CAUSING the storm...

Ed, you advocate for mass killings all the time.
The hell I do....

"Many might see that threatening. I think you’ve just got a negative attention-seeking screw loose, but YMMV.

EV has asked me not to personally attack other commenters -- perhaps you could do likewise?

Perhaps?

[David Nieporent]

Cheering for women to get raped if they’re ‘acting slutty’

Not raped. Raped and murdered. He was cheering on the serial killer on Long Island who was targeting sex workers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was not cheering him on...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Mohamed Otta was a nice little psychopath until the morning when he wasn't.

[Sarcastr0]

I think even the USC discussion ought to have been framed differently
Hard to argue, but I will note that the actual incident still fits the topic sentence about tensions over speech re: Gaza/Israel/Hamas.

[Roger S]

I was going to give the professor credit for confronting a Moslem student. There is nothing wrong with challenging someone's beliefs. Especially Moslem beliefs, like jihad. But alas, it was just bad reporting.

[Sarcastr0]

Why bother with just the slight misspelling? Just call them Mohamadeans. Or sand niggers.

It’s not like you’re hiding your bigotry at all, go whole hog. I'm sure you're enjoy it.

[Roger S]

Nothing bigoted about using dictionary terms.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nigger

[Roger S]

You were the one using that term, not me.

I guess you think Mohammad and Islam are offensive. Okay, I agree that the religion is offensive. But I have to refer to them somehow. The above article was about someone of that persuasion.

[Sarcastr0]

Also a non-bigot might be a bit more educated on the many definitions of jihad, and the many sects of Islam.

[JSinAZ]

Are non-bigots required to know the differences between Hudderites, Mennonites and Quakers?

No, of course not any more than they’d be bigoted to _not_ know why the government of Pakistan consider the Ahmadhi sect to be non-Muslim apostates.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hey Gaslighto, what does the "CP" in "NAACP" stand for???

[Dr. Ed 2]

Does Gaslighto know that Arabic doesn’t use the Roman alphabet and that both versions (Moslem & Muslim) are correct?

[neurodoc]

"Moslem" is not an accepted alternate spelling of "Muslim"?

Your suggested alternative is indisputably offensive.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, when "black" is suddenly offensive, anything's possible.

[Sarcastr0]

1. I was noting the rest of Roger’s bigoted post, which made it clear that he was aching to use a slur, and settled for a nonstandard spelling.

2. Separately, I have noticed that people who insist on writing ‘Moslem’ inevitably turn out to be cockmongers.
See also Democrat Party, Brandon, Drumpf, or people don’t capitalize the names of people they don’t like.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Kirkland is right...this blog *does* attract people who like to utter the word "n____."

[#FFFFFFPride]

Welcome to 2024, Eugene.

Instead of being curious or surprised that a mainstream journalist would publish something that’s unfair, you should assume it’s unfair and biased.

Your axioms of.how the world works are outdated. The default journalist isn’t that valiant truthseeker doggedly following the facts no matter where they lead. The romantic 1950s journalist probably never existed. The modern journalist is a narrative minder and partisan who serves some of the most evil, vile people on the planet. The Deep State.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These are your people, Volokh Conspirators.

"Deep State" dopes and anti-government cranks.

Election deniers and un-American insurrectionists.

Old-timey bigots and religious kooks of nearly every variety.

Antisocial misfits and conspiracy theorists.

You are entitled to your opinions, but not to the respect of the American culture war's winners.

[#FFFFFFPride]

America’s culture war winners are sterilizing their children, aborting hundreds of thousands of blacks each year, and now railing against the Jew Menace.

Sounds like my side is one that’s really winning.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The right-wingers are winning the culture war?

That would explain clingers' disaffectedness, desperation, and delusion.

[#FFFFFFPride]

If my side was losing would you see:

Hundreds of thousands of blacks aborted ?

Thousands of inferior Democrat children chemically sterilized?

You and others publicly railing and protesting against those vile, immoral Jews?

Reverend, you're one or two bitchute videos away from coming here and posting "six gorillion cookies baked, that math simply doesn't add up?" Or "what sort of gas chamber has a wooden door?"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The immoral Israelis -- the right-wing assholes who enable settler atrocities, kill indiscriminately in Gaza, operate a superstition-soaked and bigoted government -- deserve to be castigated and to lose American support.

They also deserve the consequences of losing that support, after decades of acting like assholes while hiding behind American skirts.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Welcome to the fold, Rev!

Wait to you hear what they do to White Christian children and baby penises.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I doubt many of the victims of Israel in Gaza or the West Bank are white Christian children.

If you are referring to this shit, it's a vivid reflection of how superstition makes gullible, downscale people do disgusting things but it seems a relatively small problem that time will sift as those sick old fucks succumb to modernity and die off.

[Jerry B.]

“..operate a superstition-soaked and bigoted government..”

Like Islam?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Don't forget about the elimination of women's sports.

[Sarcastr0]

There's discussions to be had on that front.

But you're not here to discuss anything productively; you're here to approvingly reply to WhitePower with a TERFy bumper sticker.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Of course Sarcastro’s comments, including this one, are always completely productive.

And there's no discussion to be had. Just keep the men out of women's sports.

[Nige]

That's okay, there aren't any men in womens' sports. But if you're bothered enough, there's people who want to check kids' genitalia to confirm their genders before they can play. They seem nice.

[Scooter]

"there aren’t any men in womens’ sports. "

This is a false statement.

[TwelveInchPianist]

As you are well aware, I am using the standard, traditional definition of "men" and "women's"

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You could have said, "biological men", but I believe that is considered quite offensive as well.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m noting you for being notably counterproductive because unlike WhitePride I know you capable of thoughtfulness, but choosing not to act like it.

You make common cause with antisemetic shitposter WhitePride, and you do so with an off topic question begging culture war whinge.

I’m not the counterproductive one in this thread.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I’m not the counterproductive one in this thread."
I disagree.

"You make common cause with antisemetic shitposter WhitePride"
Hey, when he's right, he's right.

"with an off topic question begging culture war whinge."

It's not question begging, and the fact that you think a claim about the importance of women's sports is a culture war whinge only reinforces White Pride's point that his side has won the culture war.

[Sarcastr0]

This is why you've become what you've become:

You seem to think there's your side, and the other side, and in between is surrenderland.

My saying 'this is an area worth discussing' is not some great defeat of anything.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Then feel free to discuss it with yourself. I don’t find it worth discussing. YMMV.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Oh Sarcastr0 the High Minded, however will we get your approval!

Please, your opinion of me is so incredibly important, however do I earn your respect!?!?

Should I gain 75lbs, join the FBI, put on a dress and lipstick, start sucking massive black cocks and then arrest and harass White Christian grannies and grandpas? Would then earn your respect?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, if you did that I would respect you for sure.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As would the FBI...

[bernard11]

Oh right. You're deeply concerned about antisemitism.

None of that in your movement, do you think?

[Sarcastr0]

Welcome to the fallacy of confirmation bias. As though someone as deep in as you needs it.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Of course you crawled out of the woodwork to defend your narrative comrades.

[Scooter]

Just as Kipling wrote in "Gods of the Copybook Headings".

'The burnt fools bandaged fingers go wobbling back to the fire.'

[Sarcastr0]

No one has ever burned their metaphorical fingers debating WhitePride.

[#FFFFFFPride]

I should read that before Kipling gets decolonized by the Sarcastr0's of the world.

[Sarcastr0]

You do love to tell liberals what they think and are personally planning to do.

[Caphon]

“Mostly peaceful protests”

[Krayt]

So a prof couple had a dinner party and some blowhard bore pulled out a Ronco Mr. Microphone and started blabbing on not just one but two subjects normally forbidden at polite coctail parties.

[mydisplayname]

No, that's not a fair journalistic summary and it is a symptom of the much larger problem: for whatever reason, American news outlets bias their journalism towards the perceived marketplace. The current Israel-Against-The-World War is no exception, as many outlets overlook the carnage in favor a message pleasing to what the outlets [wrongly] believe to be their primary marketplace.

This is nothing new. For example, consider the editorial cartoon appearing in the Washington Post on December 7, 1938, which depicts France preventing the German bird of peace from landing. [image at https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/images/lehmann/lehmann5.jpg ] Of course, on the same date a few years later, the US declared war on Germany. We sometimes forget that Hitler was popular in the American press -- more popular than Netanyahu is today, in fact -- up to the precise moment Japan attacked. Some outlets, the Atlantic, for example, in a single issue valued Hitler above that rabble-rouser Mohandas Gandhi!

American journalism has always been biased, leading to bias in the thought processes of Americans. As an exercise, take phrases from news reports and ask "Does the phrase related to Nazi Germany, to Modern Iran, or to Modern Israel?" You will find it difficult to distinguish Nazi Germany from Modern Israel in pre-World War II phrases: during that pre-war period, murders by each are brushed away as "rightful things."

Finally, I will continue to state that if one is an American, Australian, or British citizen, or a Christian of any citizenship, one is more likely to be murdered by an Israeli than any Arab Muslim.

[David Nieporent]

Of course, on the same date a few years later, the US declared war on Germany.

Without looking it up, I know that's not true, because we didn't declare war on Germany until after Germany first declared war on the U.S., and that wasn't until after the U.S. declared war on Japan. It was December 11, not December 7.

We sometimes forget that Hitler was popular in the American press — more popular than Netanyahu is today,

That's a Dr. Edism, as in "People forget… [something that isn't true.]"

[Mr. Bumble]

Not, not true.
Joe Kennedy, Henry Ford and Charles Lindburgh were supporters among others.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hitler -- Time Man of Year in 1938. Openly supported by the NY Times and much of American academia, as was Eugenics. Huey Long wasn't that much different than Hitler, just didn't have the base.

Bear in mind that the "Red Scare" of 1919-20 (and the Palmer Raids) had not completely gone away. Many felt that Hitler was better than Stalin and FDR had campaigned in 1940 on a promise that he "will not send your boys to fight in a foreign war."

Attitudes changed dramatically on December 7th -- before that, the majority of the country was OPPOSED to war.

[Absaroka]

"Time Man of Year in 1938"

Not wrong!

But for context:

"Hitler appeared on the cover of TIME on multiple occasions — most famously perhaps on Jan. 2, 1939, when he was named Man of the Year. That choice abided by the dictum of TIME founder Henry Luce, who decreed that the Man of the Year — now Person of the Year — was not an honor but instead should be a distinction applied to the newsmaker who most influenced world events for better or worse. In case that second criterion was lost on readers, the issue that named Hitler dispensed with the portrait treatment that cover subjects typically got. Instead he was depicted as a tiny figure with his back to the viewer, playing a massive organ with his murdered victims spinning on a St. Catherine’s wheel. Underneath the stark, black-and-white illustration was the caption, “From the unholy organist, a hymn of hate.”"

Image of cover here.

Not exactly what I'd call support.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Others supported him: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-journalists-covered-rise-mussolini-hitler-180961407/

[Sarcastr0]

You changed dates, and thus goalposts.

This article is about the 1920s and early 1930s. Above you were talking about 1938 through 1945.

Kind of an eventful bunch of years to skip.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Where was I talking about 1945 -- people (particularly Patton) was talking about the US troops coming home by Christmas of 1944.

Good grief.

[bernard11]

Finally, I will continue to state that if one is an American, Australian, or British citizen, or a Christian of any citizenship, one is more likely to be murdered by an Israeli than any Arab Muslim.

This is absurd to the point of being delusional. Israel has a population of 9.5M, of whom a significant percentage are non-Jews.

There are over 400 million Arabs in the world, over 90% of whom are Muslims. So you think a randomly chosen Israeli is about 40 times as likely to kill "an American, Australian, or British citizen, or a Christian of any citizenship," as a random Arab Muslim. Really?

And what does the historical data tell us about this? What Israelis carried out the equivalent of 9/11? Or other Islamist terror attacks?

[TwelveInchPianist]

“So you think a randomly chosen Israeli is about 40 times as likely to kill “an American, Australian, or British citizen, or a Christian of any citizenship,” as a random Arab Muslim. Really?”

Well, you know, what with all of the rituals and stuff.

And don't get me started on the space lasers.

[ThePublius]

"Finally, I will continue to state that if one is an American, Australian, or British citizen, or a Christian of any citizenship, one is more likely to be murdered by an Israeli than any Arab Muslim."

That is the stupidest thing I have read on the internet in a long time. Maybe not "stupid" - just the exact opposite of the truth.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"... if one is an American, Australian, or British citizen, or a Christian of any citizenship, one is more likely to be murdered by an Israeli than any Arab Muslim."

They only want to kill the Jews first...

People tend to forget that (a) the Holocaust started with the killing of the mentally retarded and (b) it could have been stopped then.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I find Columbia quite interesting -- the admin has shut the 19th century iron gates in the belief that it could keep the 21st century out -- although at least one intrepid TV station has hired a helo to take footage of the tents reappearing...

There'll be a showdown on Monday. This one could get ugly.

[Longtobefree]

Paragliders with machine guns?
Rape and pillage?
Babies killed?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Congress is an exemption to FERPA -- if the subcommittee asks about suspensions, Columbia's President has to tell them.

And you'll notice they're all wearing masks.

Getting arrested on Thursday was no big deal because NYC is not going to prosecute them -- but the NYPD is giving names to Columbia, which appears to actually be suspending them. The Hamasers are also blocking off access to dorms by blocking some numbered city street. Well after a day or so of that, this will reach critical mass and that is where I think the true uglyness because as good as the NYPD has become with crowd control, the sidewalk is not wide enough to separate the protesters from the kids wanting to get into the building.

[Ed Grinberg]

from Wikipedia:

As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently accused the press of bias, calling it the "fake news media"

He was dead-right (as he is about most things).

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah if only they could all be good sources like VDARE.

[Krayt]

Previous Republicans didn't have this problem. But they didn't run around inventing conspiracies for any commentators who didn't praise him or, hell, disagreed.

I have pointed out some anti-racist rules make me sad, because they adopt some of the worst historical control methods from religion (brilliant, whoever did that) like "if you aren't with us, you are against us."

Trump raises that to a new level with his mouth.

[Sarcastr0]

Nixon invented plenty of conspiracies, actually. And some of his voters legit wanted him to take over as a strongman.

The voters putting the R lever have been deep into the paranoid style of politics since Father Coughlin.

It's worse, but this is just the trend continuing, not a sea change.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Father Coughlin was a Catholic Democrat who initially supported FDR and then went to the left of him claiming that Roosevelt was too friendly to bankers.

Facts matter, damn it....

[Sarcastr0]

Facts do not and cannot matter to you because you are congenitally unable to get anything about history correct ever.

"Initially, Coughlin was a vocal supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal; he later fell out with Roosevelt, accusing him of being too friendly to bankers. In 1934, he established a political organization called the National Union for Social Justice. Its platform called for monetary reforms, nationalization of major industries and railroads, and protection of labor rights. The membership ran into the millions but was not well organized locally.

After making attacks on Jewish bankers, Coughlin began to use his radio program to broadcast antisemitic commentary. In the late 1930s, he supported some of the policies of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Father Coughlin was a Catholic Democrat who initially supported FDR and then went to the left of him claiming that Roosevelt was too friendly to bankers."

EXACTLY WHAT PART OF THAT IS NOT TRUE?!?!?!?

1: He was Catholic -- Ordained Catholic Priests tend to be.
2: He was a Democrat.
3: He initially supported FDR.
4: He went to the left of FDR --
5: He claimed that FDR was too friendly to bankers.

Fascism does not mean left or right -- the Soviet Union under Brezhnev was fascist, and I argue that Nazi Germany was more communist than Stalin's Soviet Union.

Who had more public works programs -- Hitler or Stalin?

[Dr. Ed 2]

And as to names meaning things, both East Germany (DDR) and North Korea (DPRK) had/have "Democratic" in their names.

[Sarcastr0]

It's disingenuous to focus on the time before he became what he was known for. He supported Nazis. That's not going to the left, no matter what you say about Nazis being socialist.

In another post recently you tried to deflect from a white supremacist organization so you know where that valiance to complain liberal bias that Antifa wasn't treated the same way. Don't pretend you are ignorant of where this particular flavor of bigotry and conspiratorial fear of *ahem* "International Bankers" has landed these days.

IOW Coughlin and his angry conspiracies has an ideological throughline not to FDR or the modern Democratic party but to you and your conspiratorial nonsense, Ed.

Yeah, that's the factual issue.

[Dr. Ed 2]

EXACTLY what percentage of the "international bankers" in 2024 are Jewish? Bear in mind that we are not only talking the European banks but other large banks throughout the world.

OK, what percent of AMERICAN bankers are Jewish?

I honestly didn't know that Meritless Garland had taken the "fink" out of his last name, and how he spells his last name is definitely not my issue with him! How the hell am I supposed to know this for that matter?!?

For that matter -- and I ask this out of ignorance because I've never cared enough to look it up -- what percentage of the US Bankers 90 years ago (i.e. 1934) were Jewish? Weren't they all WASPs?

You're not smearing me Gaslighto.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"the general field of commercial banking in the United States has remained relatively closed to Jewish participation despite heavy Jewish involvement in such related fields as stock brokerage, investment analysis, and corporate management. A study undertaken by B'nai B'rith in 1939 revealed that out of 93,000 bankers in the United States only 0.6% were Jewish, and that even in New York City Jews formed only 6% of banking executives as compared to 28% of the general population. Similar statistics for a later period are unavailable, but reports of discrimination against Jews in major banks throughout the country persist and in 1968 the American Jewish Committee publicly filed a complaint before the Human Rights Commission of New York City charging the banking system with job bias against Jews."
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/banking-and-bankers

It's about what I thought.

[Sarcastr0]

Ed, dunno what relevance it is that antisemetic conspiracies are not grounded in reality, but that's not news.
And no, I do not buy that you are ignorant of what you find from WhitePride and his ilk who comprise no small part of MAGA.

[Dr. Ed 2]

ATTACKING BANKERS ISN'T ANTISEMITIC IF THE BANKERS AREN'T EVEN JEWISH TO BEGIN WITH. IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE EVEN IF THEY WERE EVEN IF THEY WERE, BUT THEY AIN'T.

YOU ARE WORSE THAN RAK == AND ARE BANNED.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Chemerinsky has been careful to guarantee the speech of Palestine advocates at Berkeley not be abridged, but US law schools have failed to address the legal implications of US government support for the perpetration of genocide by a US ally.

The following succinctly addresses the most prominent violator of US anti-genocide law, but the FBI should be out arresting all US Zionists. US anti-genocide law is much harsher than international anti-genocide law.

Genocide = US Capital Crime!
No more genocidin' with Biden!
Genocide Joe has to go!
Death Row for Genocide Joe!

[Dr. Ed 2]

And I don't need to listen to this schmuck, either.

[neurodoc]

Did EV have any problem with the NYT's account of the interruption by the Palestinian student of the dinner UC Berkley Law Dean Chemerinsky and his law professor wife were hosting for students at their home? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/us/uc-berkeley-palestinian-protest-free-speech.html

Weren't the facts of the incident adequately and fairly recounted? I thought they were, and a good deal more than bare bone details gave depth to the Times account. For instance, it was noted not only how offended the Chemerinskys were by the student's brazen rudeness in bringing a microphone and amplifier with her so she could be sure she wasn't ignored and refusing to let go of it when asked to do so, but by an earlier publication of a "cartoon" portraying the dean as a bloody fanged monster dining happily while Gazans starve. It seems the dean was truly shocked by the blood libel.

When Chemerinsky was previously the dean at UCIrvine he pleaded unsuccessfully that 11 Palestinian students who kept Israel's ambassador Michael Oren from speaking not be criminally prosecuted. I find it almost touching that Chemerinsky, who falls just a bit short of EV in the free speech absolutism scale, finds it hard to accept how far his guest was willing to go in violating social norms.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" I find it almost touching that Chemerinsky, who falls just a bit short of EV in the free speech absolutism scale, finds it hard to accept how far his guest was willing to go in violating social norms."

The middle ceasing to hold...

[Sarcastr0]

You been saying that for like 8 years, and the center continues to hold despite you constant promises of impending doom.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

just a bit short of EV in the free speech absolutism scale

The EV who imposes viewpoint-driven censorship at his blog; the EV who argued ardently for Publius' pseudonymity; the EV who believes the government should tell social media companies what they must publish; the EV who operates a white, male blog; or some other EV?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

A law professor should know that grabbing something out of someone's hands is potentially illegal.

However, if consent to be on private property is revoked, the trespasser would probably need to be given reasonable time to leave, but at some point refusing to do so would potentially qualify as a misdemeanor, for which the trespasser could in theory be arrested and removed by a citizen who had witnessed the crime (and whose personal liability insurance was paid-up...) Then, and only then, could the microphone could be forcibly removed and deposited in a safe location/orifice.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Unless it could be construed as a weapon...

A megaphone at close range has a dB level high enough to harm hearing, QED cause injury, QED be a weapon....

[ReaderY]

The difficulty here is that it’s strictly true. It’s not libel. It accurately describes the photograph or tiny snippet of video representing an instant in time.

Does anybody in this society perceive themselves as having any ethical obligation other than what the law strictly requires?

To the extent lawyers have become the authorities on ethics, the answer would generally appear to be no.

[Seamus]

The most accurate way to describe the incident would be to describe her as a person who had expressed anti-Israel views.

Even under that description, it's outrageous that she not be allowed to give a valedictorian speech under the same conditions as any other valedictorian. Bet they wouldn't have had a problem if she had a history of making anti-Boer South Africa or (even worse) anti-Trump public statements.