| UVA Rape Story Collapses; Duke Lacrosse Redux | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 5 2014, 01:45 PM (60,486 Views) | |
| Walt-in-Durham | Dec 9 2014, 01:56 PM Post #256 |
|
Now, it turns out that Barry as used by Ms. Dunham is a pseudonym and not the Barry who is easily identifiable with a simple Google search. Unfortunately, Ms. Dunham did not tell us that Barry was a pseudonym, so sayeth the Washington Post and her publisher. Worse, Ms. Dunham and her publisher chose not to alert readers to the fact that she was using a pseudonym. The copyright page does say she has changed some names. And, she footnotes at least one name change. Unfortunately for Barry, the real Barry, she does not footnote his name as being changed. A careful reader, indeed a casual reader, can be forgiven if they conclude that Barry's name is not a pseudonym. Thankfully for the real Barry, the publisher, Random House, has agreed to add a footnote to future print editions if there are any. At the risk of sounding repetitive, there is no excuse, no matter how horrible the crime for accusing an innocent person of committing the crime. Not one. This is not a case of mistake. This is not a he said - she said situation. Ms. Dunham herself admits the real Barry never came in contact with her. Ms. Dunham has woefully accused an innocent man of a heinous crime. The fault is solely hers. No matter how important the cause, there is no excuse for accusing innocent people of some heinous crime just to further the cause. They had nothing to do with the problem in the first place. They never asked to be brought into the issue. And now, to claim as Ms. Dunham and her supporters such as the President of the University of Virginia and survivor's advocates that somehow it is important to believe every claimed survivor's tale as justification for slandering and accusing the innocent is simply repugnant. Rape culture may be a problem. But, you won't address it by making enemies of the innocent. I suspect the President of the University of Virginia knows that and simply doesn't care. For her, and people like her and Ms. Dunham we're all useful targets to get what they want. Walt-in-Durham |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Dec 9 2014, 03:01 PM Post #257 |
|
The Mega-Narrative is more important than the Truth! How's that for a sick twisted mind? May I remind the President of UVA, Trolling Stone Magazine, and the author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely Justitia or Lady Justice is the personification of the moral force in judicial systems. She is blindfolded & weighting scales Justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of identity, personal wealth, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality. It is the basis of our system and reporters need to be held to that standard Trolling Stone & Erdely deserve to be shrouded by Professor Charles W. Kingsfield Jr
Edited by Baldo, Dec 9 2014, 07:01 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Dec 9 2014, 03:03 PM Post #258 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Dec 9 2014, 03:12 PM Post #259 |
|
Great statement, slightly revised to fit another case: "No matter how important the cause, there is no excuse for accusing innocent people of some heinous crime just to further the cause. They had nothing to do with the problem in the first place. They never asked to be brought into the issue. And now, to claim as the Duke faculty and their supporters such as the President of Duke University and survivor's advocates that somehow it is important to believe every claimed survivor's tale as justification for slandering and accusing the innocent is simply repugnant. Rape culture may be a problem. But, you won't address it by making enemies of the innocent. I suspect the Board Chair of Duke University knows that and simply doesn't care. For him, and people like him and the Duke faculty, we're all useful targets to get what they want." |
![]() |
|
| cks | Dec 9 2014, 03:15 PM Post #260 |
|
And, I can say this - not only as a former first vice-president of a sorority whose job it was to register such parties with Campus Life authorities (though in the dinosaur ages of the 70's) but as the mother of a son who had the same position in his fraternity - failure to register a party brings down the immediate heavy hand of God (the administration) on any frat or sorority who fails to register a party. Furthermore, the national organization as well as the local alums who make up the trustees overlooking the Greek organization would close that chapter down before one could even begin to snap one's fingers. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 9 2014, 03:38 PM Post #261 |
|
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/12/09/concha-lena-dunhams-republican-raped-me-story-crumbles-legal-action-looms Concha: Lena Dunham's Republican-Raped-Me Story Crumbles as Legal Action Looms by Joe Concha, Mediaite - 12/9/14 Campus rape has been and continues to be a serious problem in this country despite some relatively good news from the Department of Justice around incidents being on the decline (down 58 percent between 1995 and 2010 – the most updated numbers available). Still, that doesn’t include the many incidents that go unreported. Others are merely qualified as “attempted”. In other words, there’s still a long way to go despite the progress. That said…it is profoundly disturbing to see one major publication and one actress/author exploit this subject in the irresponsible manner witnessed this week in the form of Rolling Stone’s UVA rape “exclusive” and Lena Dunham via her memoir, Not That Kind of Girl. You’ve likely heard the story around the former by now: Rolling Stone breathlessly reported on a gang rape of a woman named “Jackie” at a fraternity at the University of Virginia in graphic detail. But the story–which got major play by many media outlets and cable news–unraveled after many holes are found in it. Consequently, Rolling Stone retracted this rather large portion of it after initially blaming its source instead of its own sloppiness from the reporter herself (the now-MIA Sabrina Rubin Erdely) to scores of fact-checkers back in New York. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 9 2014, 03:40 PM Post #262 |
|
Source: Rolling Stone Deputy Editor Tendered Resignation; Wenner Declines Deputy managing editor offered to resign in wake of UVA reporting brouhaha By Ken Kurson | 12/09/14 2:10pm The Observer has exclusively learned that in the wake of Rolling Stone‘s blockbuster story about campus rape at the University of Virginia and the subsequent fire that that story’s reporting has come under, the magazine’s deputy managing editor offered to resign. According to a source inside Rolling Stone, who insisted on anonymity to preserve an ongoing relationship with the magazine, Sean Woods presented a letter of resignation to founder and publisher Jann S. Wenner. Mr Wenner, said to be furious at the unraveling of what had originally looked like a massive scoop, declined to accept the resignation. Asked if either Mr. Woods, who edited the story, or Will Dana, the managing editor of Rolling Stone, had offered to resign Mr. Wenner told the Observer that this account was “not true.” He declined to go into further detail. A second source confirmed that Mr. Woods had offered to resign. According to the first source, “Sean handles all the non-music features, including anything like Matt Taibbi. This happened in part because Will is stretched way too thin. You have to understand, he’s not only the editor of Rolling Stone, but of Men’s Journal, too.” Mr. Dana’s title lists him as Editorial Director of Men’s Journal, but according to the source, he’s as hands on there as he is at Rolling Stone. According to the source, Rolling Stone is right now planning to assemble a “re-reporting project” akin to the one the New York Times put together in the wake of the Jayson Blair fabulism scandal that will head to UVa both to sort through the errors of the story and to tell readers what actually happened. The source attributes at least part of the explosion of the story not to the revelations about inconsistencies in Jackie’s story, but to the way Rolling Stone responded, or failed to respond. “Erdely was terrible in the podcast,” said the source, referring to a how-I-got-the-story interview that the story’s author Sabrina Rubin Erdely gave to Slate. “Hanna Rosin is like a dog with a bone and you can hear her disbelief as Erdely explained her methods. Then when people started asking around, they failed to get outfront of this. Will has this WASPy sense of entitlement and has this sense that Rolling Stone is above it all. By Wednesday, it had blown up and by Thursday Will had put out this real mealy-mouthed statement, and even that statement had to be re-written.” What about the fact-checking? The source knows Rolling Stone Senior Editor/Head Factchecker Coco McPherson well and claims that she is a “stickler who errs on the side of caution,” a claim backed up by Mr. Taibbi, who remarked that the process is so intense “it usually takes longer to fact-check a Rolling Stone feature than it does to write it. Each review is like an IRS audit.” The Observer raised an idea that has been mentioned in some corners of the press—that Rolling Stone was credulous about such an intense story because from factcheckers to editors to writers they are predisposed to believe the worst about fraternity brothers at an elite university. Indeed, Ms. McPherson initially defended the story and its methods, taking to Twitter to point to an example in which other news organizations did not identify or interview alleged campus rapists. The source wasn’t buying that “predisposition.” “UVA does have a problem. That’s legit. The problem is she (meaning Ms. Erdely not McPherson) found a story that was embellished. It didn’t hold up.” The Observer asked the source why Mr. Wenner declined to accept Mr. Woods’ resignation or force out Mr. Dana, having in the past shown little reluctance to fire people. “Jann at this point has fired more people than most owners will ever hire. Will has lasted longer than any editor in the history of Rolling Stone and Jann puts a lot of currency in the people who are there and doesn’t want to go through the hassle of finding great people. And he also believes that Will is the best editor in New York. And he might be right.” Emails to Mr. Dana and Mr. Woods sent just before press have yet to be returned; if either has comment to add this story will be updated. Read more at http://observer.com/2014/12/source-rolling-stone-editor-tendered-resignation-wenner-declines/#ixzz3LR328lOn Follow us: @newyorkobserver on Twitter | newyorkobserver on Facebook |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 9 2014, 03:45 PM Post #263 |
|
http://www.delawareonline.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/12/09/rolling-stone-may-crushed-anti-rape-bill/20148205/ Rolling Stone may have crushed anti-rape bill Margaret Carlson 2:22 p.m. EST December 9, 2014 U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand could be among the immediate collateral damage from the apparent unraveling of the Rolling Stone article about an alleged brutal gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity. The New York Democrat has been leading the congressional fight against college and military sexual assaults. In these closed systems, perpetrator and victim know, or know of, each other, and victims are destroyed twice: first when they are attacked and second when the institution they report it to lets them down. When her legislation to remove the handling of assaults from the military chain of command failed to clear a 60-vote hurdle last spring, she vowed to revisit the matter after the Pentagon reported on progress to make the system work better. That report, showing mixed to no progress, came out last week. This week, she will attempt to get her bill through again, either as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, or in a separate vote. In addition, she is scheduled to testify today before a subcommittee on her proposal for having campus assaults dealt with by a system of justice outside the university. But a fight that was always uphill is now much harder given that any attention to sexual assaults will be shadowed by the awful disservice the slipshod Rolling Stone story has done to women, especially victims whose truthfulness will now be called into question. Gillibrand acknowledged the article made her job harder. “I refuse to let this story to become an excuse for Congress to do nothing and accept a broken system,” she said. Rolling Stone issued a second semi-retraction over the weekend, in an attempt to erase the impression given by its first semi-apology that the magazine blamed the accuser, not itself, for the article. Those working in the trenches of sexual assault see the Rolling Stone fiasco setting back years of work and making it all the harder for skittish victims to come forward. In no other crime does the accuser get grilled about her marriage, her sexual history, what she was wearing or doing. There’s a market for stories that provide a pretext for playing down the extent and severity of sexual assault. And, yes, there are horrendous false accusations. Still, studies show that fewer than 10 percent of charges are shown to be false. Nonetheless, when one woman is caught lying, all women are tarred as liars. How come the misbehavior of one man doesn’t indict the entire sex? With the Pentagon report, Gillibrand has what she needs to show the current system isn’t obtaining justice for victims. When her bill fell five votes short last spring, General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he knew the military had to clean up its act. “We are currently on the clock,” he said, “just because Senator Gillibrand’s vote was defeated yesterday doesn’t mean that a year from now it may not be reintroduced and if we haven’t been able to demonstrate we’re making a difference, you know, then we deserve to be held to the scrutiny and standard.” The bell has tolled for Dempsey. Despite the highly touted reforms in last year’s defense bill, the military isn’t seeing the kind of reporting that would indicate more trust in the system. In 2011, 78 percent of victims allowed themselves to be named in reports, that number declined to 75 percent this year. More significantly, the number of victims who experienced retaliation has stayed the same. In 2012 and 2014, 62 percent of military women who reported being sexually assaulted said they felt shunned – given bad assignments, told to move themselves and their families to another base – and isolated. Those who make it to court find they sit alone while character witnesses and cheerleaders for the defense crowd the benches around the accused. Congress made retaliation a crime, but the Pentagon says they have no information on any prosecutions under that authority. The Pentagon says the lack of progress makes it “extremely concerned.” Shamed is what it should be. Gillibrand expects the president to weigh in this week – on her side given the Pentagon report. After she testifies on campus assaults today, Gillibrand will be trolling for five votes. Among her likely targets, Senator Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican who voted no last year but said he would change “down the road if what they’re doing now doesn’t work.” He should be a yes now. Another is Senator Mark Kirk, an Illinois Republican who co-sponsored Gillibrand’s bill, yet voted against it. Gillibrand already has Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, and two more Republicans: Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. Despite the growing attention to the problem of sexual assault on college campuses, the statistics about its prevalence aren’t as widely accepted as those for the military. According to the Justice Department, 19 percent of undergraduate women reported experiencing completed or attempted sexual assault. Most of the assaults were committed by someone the victim knew. The confusion surrounding the Rolling Stone article is further muddying the waters. The University of Virginia’s fraternities and sororities are using the holes in the story as exoneration, asking the university to reinstate the Greek system, which has been suspended until Jan. 9. Even so, UVA President Teresa Sullivan said last week that her new focus on curbing sexual assault on campus (until now, no one has ever been expelled for an assault) isn’t compromised because of the doubts over the victim’s account. And UVA, like dozens of other schools, is already under a controversial federal review by the U.S. Department of Education for its handling of sexual assault cases. There’s a debate over whether in a rush to comply with DOE and advocacy groups, schools are adjudicating cases without observing basic due process. Pendulums can swing too far. DOE said Friday that the review “predated the Rolling Stone article and will postdate it, too.” At the state level, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring has named the law firm O’Melveny & Myers as independent counsel to conduct an “aggressive and consequential” investigation. Conduct away. It has to be better than Rolling Stone’s. Let’s hope it gets as much attention. Contact Margaret Carlson at mcarlson3@bloomberg.net |
![]() |
|
| Walt-in-Durham | Dec 9 2014, 04:03 PM Post #264 |
|
Joan and CKS, this is a perfect illustration of the value this forum brings to us all. My fraternity experience was in a chapter that was on private property. Thus, we had no obligation by lease or agreement with the university to notify them of a party. I did not know that other universities did. Although, it makes sense that they would. With your contributions, I have learned something important. Many thanks! Given the notice requirements, the President of UVA knew our could have easily found out just as soon as she read the Rolling Stone article that there was one glaring factual error. When I say she could have found out, I know this to be the case. For I was the fraternity officer (Treasurer) who got a phone call from the Dean of Students demanding to know "what the **ll is going on over at your house?" He told me that the President of the University was waiting for an answer at that very moment. Presidents seem to have no problem calling Deans, even in the middle of the night and Deans apparently have no problem calling room phones of lowly undergraduates. Madame President could certainly have called the Dean of Students or whatever office gets party notices and asked if the Phi Kappa Psis had a party on the night in question. If she didn't know and didn't try to find out, she's a bigger fool than I thought her to be. Second, the President should have known that pledging and rush are spring semester projects at UVA. Again, she can ask questions. If she didn't, she's a fool. I suspect she did and she just let her belief in the metanarative override her sense of judgment. Walt-in-Durham Edited by Walt-in-Durham, Dec 9 2014, 04:06 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Dec 9 2014, 04:14 PM Post #265 |
|
Great post, Walt...this Blog means so much to me because I always learn something new or find a new perspective or a great article to read! I have been saying for a long time now that there is a religious air to the belief systems at these Universities. They will not and cannot be shaken from the Dogma of the Faith. They cannot brook any argument from the Infidel. They are going to protect their gospels at all cost. And Wow...was this a Holy Writ or what! It is actually intensifying IMO. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 9 2014, 04:32 PM Post #266 |
|
Unfortunately, Joan, the antidote is the complete dismantling of the public education system. I've sat through five straight years of monthly school board meetings here where I live, and all I see is nibbling at the edges. And this one is one of the better systems in Louisiana. What will happen is that online education will supplant the expensive, cumbersome setup we have now. Economics will dictate this outcome. We can no longer afford the capital expenditures for the physical plant, the ongoing payroll expenses, nor the retirement and medical costs of the education bureaucracy. Almost all learning will be done online. You and I won't live to see it, but it is inevitable. It is unfortunate, because those young people who don't have the advantage of a sturdy family structure that encourages learning, discipline, and hard work will simply be left behind. |
![]() |
|
| cks | Dec 9 2014, 05:13 PM Post #267 |
|
Walt - there is one caveat that I think needs to be said about sorority and fraternity rushing. In a number of schools there is fall rush for upperclassmen - sometimes it is sanctioned by the school (it was at my college) and sometimes not. There is also underground rush" that occurs as well - I know that it did for fraternities at two of the schools that my sons attended. Now, to what extent that was known by the faculty advisors is questionable. At all the colleges my offspring attended (all southern schools) and at the college I attended (a Midwestern private university) each Greek house had a faculty advisor who was supposed to be fully informed about the goings on of the universities. Now, some faculty advisors were more involved than others - the faculty advisor for my sorority never showed up for anything and did nothing when, our last two years we got rid of our housemother (a requirement) and did nothing to require us to have someone on the premises. Now, I do know at my children's fraternities and sororities they could not have any parties without registering with the authorities AND having people checking ID's if there was alcohol involved. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 9 2014, 05:31 PM Post #268 |
|
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/12/09/liberal_pop_culture_on_the_march_rolling_stone_and_lena_dunham_publish_rape_lies Home > Archives (Dec 9, 2014) > Liberal Pop Culture on the March: Rolling Stone and Lena Dunham Publish Rape Lies Liberal Pop Culture on the March: Rolling Stone and Lena Dunham Publish Rape Lies December 09, 2014 BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Look at this Lena Dunham situation. Lena Dunham, who was a heroine to the pop culture in this country, she's an absolute star. She's got this HBO show called Girls, so popular, so hip, so cool that Obama used her in a campaign commercial in the War on Women back in 2012. What is she, 17 years old? I know she's in her twenties. She's got an autobiography. Oh, yes, she has an autobiography. You know what the prominent event in her autobiography is? Yeah, she was raped by a conservative Republican. Right. She was raped by a conservative Republican named Barry at Oberlin college in Ohio. She described this guy, and it was easy to find who it was, except a problem arose when he said that he didn't do it, and he had evidence that he didn't do it. So then people were confused, because Lena Dunham, why, she is a heroine, and she wouldn't lie about this because women don't lie about this. So what do we do? The guy says he didn't do it. It looks like he's telling the truth. But we know she wouldn't lie, so what happened? And this festered and effervesced, and it began to become a very harmful thing for this book project. So the publisher finally came out and said, "Well, it turns out that Barry is a euphemism, a made-up name. It's not the real guy. It's a pseudonym type thing and so forth." And okay, well, let's go looking for another Republican guy who might have raped Lena Dunham. They can't find anybody. So the publisher has basically tried to walk this back. They will not apologize to this Barry guy, but everybody that's looked into this knows who he is, and he didn't do it. The publisher is now saying it wasn't true, but there's no apology. Lena Dunham, as far as I know sitting here today, hasn't said anything about this one way or the other. But it turns out that the whole story was probably made up, and it was used to advance this whole notion of War on Women and how women are being targeted by a bunch of male predators, primarily at universities, because there is a rape culture on American universities now because men are such predators. And then the Rolling Stone story about how a gang rape of a female student at UVA took place and then they had to walk that back because it turns out that the writer of that story made it up and didn't even talk to the members of the fraternity who had been accused. So Lena Dunham lies about a Republican college student, Barry, raping her; a Rolling Stone reporter falsely accused a fraternity at the University of Virginia of gang raping a young woman. The leading publication for pop culture, sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll I guess is gonna have to walk itself back now and just limit itself to drugs and rock 'n' roll because it can't be believed when it writes about sex. And it's been learned that the author of the Rolling Stone story has done this before. She has made up these kinds of events -- rape -- before. But before everybody figured out that the Rolling Stone story was bogus, University of Virginia suspended the entire fraternity system over these false allegations. It turns out that dean Wormer over there, whoever he happens to be at the UVA, shouldn't have put the fraternities and sororities on double secret probation. And I doubt that anything's gonna happen to the Rolling Stone reporter because everybody's in a circle the wagons CYA mode just like they did with Dan Rather. When Dan Rather obviously ran a totally made up story on George Bush and the National Guard, the Drive-By Media scheduled a brand new award and a ceremony and a dinner that Dan Rather was the first recipient of. They couldn't let the news suffer. They couldn't let liberalism suffer, and they couldn't let journalism suffer, and they couldn't let the networks take a hit, so they had to circle the wagons and make Dan Rather some great new award winner, and that's what's happening now with Lena Dunham, the same thing to try to protect her. The publisher's neck is hanging out on the noose here, and this Rolling Stone situation is the same thing. The lying based on totally false political assumptions. Lena Dunham being raped by some guy at Oberlin college, that's political. "What do you mean, Rush, how is that political?" If you had any idea what's taught at feminist studies, can I remind you, remember the name Catharine MacKinnon? This goes back now to the nineties. Catharine MacKinnon was a militant feminazi. She happened to teach women's studies at the University of Michigan. She was famous for teaching the women in her class that all sex is rape, even the sex in marriage, because men are basically predators, heartless, with no feelings, who essentially just force themselves on undesiring women, even in marriage. Now, you listen to this, and you listen to her say it, and you think this is crazy, nobody's gonna believe this, except they did. The young women in her class, a certain percentage of them did. I'm convinced that a lot of this culture rot which is taking place in journalism is happening in journalism school. I really do believe that we are not fully aware, even though we intellectually know, but I don't think we're fully aware of just how radical the faculty at most major universities has become. I think the faculty is the repository for the most radical extremists in our culture. Bill Ayers, for example, is a faculty member at some college or university. I think they're scattered all over the place, and I think they're filling their young skulls full of mush with lies and hatred for practically everything to do with American tradition, with American institutions. And they're taking these young skulls full of mush, and they really are filling up with the kind of hatred that you can't imagine. It's taught to them in such a way, "Hey, I'm letting you in on something. You, because you're fortunate enough to be in this class, I'm gonna tell you what's really going on in this country. I'm gonna tell you who the Republicans really are. I'm gonna tell you what the Tea Party really is. I'm gonna tell you who the conservatives really are." And they launch with the hate, and they launch with the bias, and they launch with the bigotry. These young kids don't come out of the womb thinking this stuff. They probably didn't go to college thinking this stuff. Some might and just had it affirmed or confirmed. But many of them show up, just going to college because it's next phase in life, and they end up being radicalized by these professors. I have no doubt that's what's happening, and now they're entering the mainstream as reporters and journalists, and they're carrying the agenda that they've been inculcated with and taught right into their jobs. And there are more and more women in the news business, management, assignment editors, producers, you name it. Not just on camera, reporters and writers, and it is rearing its ugly head everywhere you go in the middle of what is called American pop culture. And it is another thing that's literally tearing this country apart. I'm sure that this writer for Rolling Stone -- I mean, I don't know for sure, but I would wager if I had to that she would have written the story even if she knew it was false. The premise being, "Well, it may not be true here, but we know it's happening everywhere. We know there's a rape culture, and therefore it's important and needs to be written about and who cares if my story doesn't actually contain real people and real names?" There are advocates saying it right now. In order to defend her, they're saying, "Well, she might have gotten the details wrong, but everybody knows it's a problem. And she has raised the curtain. She's lifted the curtain on one of the evils happening in American universities, gang rape." So we have to look past the fact that she might have made this up because she's doing a service in shining a light on a horrible thing that's becoming standard operating procedure in the American fraternity system, and that's how it's justified. And the same excuse can be made with Lena Dunham. "Well, okay, maybe she took some liberties here, but we cannot deny that women are under siege on American campuses." And this is the justification. It's like that ill-fated moment when somebody leaked that I was in a group trying to purchase the St. Louis Rams. And all of a sudden there are reams of fake quotes attributed to me that I never said about race, slavery, race relations. The sports Drive-Bys are publishing it without even checking it out, and they're all being heralded as heroes, and then finally it was pointed out to all of them that I had never said it. And the man who made 'em up had been identified. He wouldn't take it back, but he admitted that he had taken some liberties. They all knew that they had published total lies, and the way they dealt with it was to say, "Well, Limbaugh didn't say it, okay, he didn't say it, but we know he thinks it." It's the same thing that's being done here with all of these rape stories and whatever else that fits into the War on Women meme that the Democrat Party has established. And therefore the truth is the biggest casualty because the truth has become relative. The truth is all dependent on what the powerful can make it be, or the people who think they are powerful. In this case, it's journalists. And to them, power, not truth is the key. And if you have the power to write a story that is factually incorrect but you think identifies a larger problem, fine, go ahead and do it because you're serving the greater good by illuminating a problem, even if you had to fictionalize an account of it. They're applauding themselves and patting themselves on the back for this. And it's the same mentality. "Well, Limbaugh didn't say it, okay." They were upset when they found out I didn't say it. But then they had to say, to cover their own bases, "Well, we know he probably has thought it. We know he probably thinks it, 'cause we know Limbaugh," that kind of thing. So character assassination, defamation, you name it. But this has a real-world result. They are tearing apart the fabric of society. They are rendering meaningless the truth. They are getting away with using power to make the truth relative to fit whatever their political agenda is, and, as such, innocent bystanders which happen to be the American people, their heads are spinning not knowing what's what, but afraid to speak up because they know what happens to people that do. The same in St. Louis, "hands up, don't shoot" did not happen. "Hands up, don't shoot" did not happen. And Eric Garner was not killed with a chokehold. He had a heart attack. He had all kinds of health problems, diabetes, type 2, I think, and a respiratory problem. It wasn't a chokehold. Doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. You know, I can remember asking some friends of mine who have been in the business of sports, primarily on the management side in broadcasting, I remember asking 'em, "Why don't athletes speak up on some of these political things?" I mean, you realize how much credibility they have. Take your favorite player you have anywhere and there's a controversy in America. You know that if an athlete spoke up, to a lot of people that would settle the issue. And these guys said to me, "It'll never happen. Athletes are never gonna go there. Their endorsements would be on the line. They have nothing to gain, Rush. They've got nothing to gain by angering half the country with a political point of view, so they're gonna stay out of it." Well, guess what? That's gone bye-bye now. And I knew it was gonna happen when those five guys in the Rams came out and put their hands up, solidarity with the protesters, and it wasn't just the next week, it's "I can't breathe" all over T-shirts or "I can't breathe" all over shoes and LeBron is out there, "I can't breathe" on the court. And so now the corrupting influences that sports was an escape from, the corrupting events that sports provided an escape from, sports has now been corrupted as well. There is no escape from it. END TRANSCRIPT |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Dec 9 2014, 07:20 PM Post #269 |
|
We interrupt this forum to bring you a Public Service Message from Baldo We have the MSM & the "culture" trying to solve a problem. But is it the right or true problem, or systematic of something deeper? Hay Dudes & Dudettes try living with a sense of morals, values, and all the rest of that old clunky stuff we learned from our Mothers & Fathers, Grand-parents etc It's Ok to promote sexual deviation on campus. Glorify the hook-up cultures, & celebrate sexual freedom. BTW I learned a long time ago sexual freedom isn't free. What we really have on campus is a horrendous Drug & Alcohol problem. Many if not most of these real or imagined "incidents" start with getting drunk or taking drugs Wasting the Best and the Brightest: Alcohol and Drug Abuse on College Campuses May 28, 2007 ....College presidents, deans and trustees have facilitated or tolerated a college culture of alcohol and drug abuse that is linked to poor student academic performance, depression, anxiety, suicide, property damage, vandalism, fights and a host of medical problems. By failing to become part of the solution, these presidents, deans and trustees have become part of the problem. Their acceptance of the status quo of rampant alcohol and other drug abuse puts the best and the brightest—and the nation’s future—in harm’s way....snipped http://www.casacolumbia.org/newsroom/op-eds/wasting-best-and-brightest-alcohol-and-drug-abuse-college-campuses What UVA & Trolling Stone should concentrate is that. But then that means giving up their addictions Edited by Baldo, Dec 9 2014, 07:22 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| foxglove | Dec 9 2014, 07:40 PM Post #270 |
|
Rush's comments are very astute. While the left would like us to believe is that they are about doing the right thing, as in some sort of humanistic pursuit. What they really are about is the power to destroy traditional values and sometimes people's lives in the process. In trying to empower college females they take away a reasonable process for college men like innocent until proven guilty. Rush's comments make me think about the term "the dictatorship of relativism". http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Introduction--The-dictatorship-of-relativism-3981 http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/dictatorship-of-relativism.html Edited by foxglove, Dec 9 2014, 07:46 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







9:16 AM Jul 11