|
Post by celawson on Jun 7, 2017 10:53:18 GMT -5
I love dark humor. But this is no cause for hand-wringing. I'm not "hand-wringing." I pretty clearly said that I can't fault Harvard for their actions, no? But I thought this story might make a good jumping off point for a discussion about dark humor. And yeah, I do have some potential pity--I don't know the details--for the kids involved, because I get the irreverent stuff. Obviously, they made a bone-headed choice here, but too dumb too live? They did get in to Harvard. Standards haven't dropped that much, have they? Bolding mine. IMO, the problem is not that the standards have dropped that much, it's that they have climbed that much. Kids nowadays, in order to get into a super-elite school like Harvard, have to live a skewed life. They really don't have time for the normal things teens do to develop themselves as people, to learn how to make their own decisions (helicopter parents, anyone?), to have normal social interactions (too much internet!), to work a real job (that teaches you appropriate public behavior pretty quickly), heck, they don't even have time to sit around and daydream and figure out who they are. And so kids are being turned out who can score astonishingly high on their SATs and get a 4.3 GPA, but who can't make intelligent real world decisions. My cousin graduated from USC a few decades ago and has a very strong business network of fraternity brothers. They have repeatedly complained to him that hiring kids out of college today is very frustrating. The highest quality applicants on paper have no interpersonal skills or common sense. I truly think the above fiasco is a reflection of this.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on May 27, 2017 1:58:15 GMT -5
God, he looked exhausted and totally out of it.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on May 26, 2017 14:35:34 GMT -5
And to Angie and Amadan - Trump clearly has changed his tone, and the words in the EO are clearly not a Muslim ban. This sets a dangerous precedent, IMO. I am just fine with setting the precedent that Executive Orders can be challenged in court. I don't think the court read it as a "Muslim ban." Trump never said he was going to just outright ban all Muslims. He has said he intends to make what are essentially arbitrary decisions about who he does and does not want to allow into the country, possibly using such things as religion and nationality. It is certainly, at the very least, a valid question as to whether this is Constitutional, and challenging his authority to do so does not require a Vast Liberal Conspiracy out to STOP TRUMP at all costs. The precedent I'm talking about is not challenging EOs. It's subjectively interpreting someone's current intent, regardless of the exact legal phrasing in an EO, from prior statements made when one wasn't even POTUS! And the decisions weren't arbitrary. There is some sort of logic and rationale. EDITED to add: And yes I'm reading the opinion - but not all today, it's frickin 205 pages including the dissents. But I have read the entirety of Judge Shedd's dissent. And no I don't only take partisan opinions and regurgitate them here. I actually try to read things myself, too. And when I do read partisan opinions of judicial opinions, I do make sure the person writing them has a strong legal background or I don't give it much weight. I just went through that process this morning before anyone made any suggestions to me.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on May 26, 2017 14:33:12 GMT -5
Wow, Judge Shedd's dissent is scathing. He thinks the court "abused its discretion". *applause*
|
|
|
Post by celawson on May 26, 2017 13:17:24 GMT -5
Still haven't had a chance to read the opinion. Maybe this weekend. I won't comment until I do. I will be very interested to see if they take it. If they do, I'll get the popcorn ready to see what they say. eta: I will note: a 13 judge panel considered the case, and they ruled 10 to 3. This is not a lone radical yahoo decision. I read it came down clearly within party lines. And that's concerning for a panel of 10 judges when the reach of this opinion seems excessive. It's like partisan judges are now the legislature. And here we go again with the "Stop Trump at all Cost". And to Angie and Amadan - Trump clearly has changed his tone, and the words in the EO are clearly not a Muslim ban. This sets a dangerous precedent, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on May 26, 2017 10:49:56 GMT -5
I'm just teasing, Cassandra. (But I did suspect strongly that Trump would win the election. )
|
|
|
Post by celawson on May 26, 2017 10:30:20 GMT -5
Well then, maybe Trump is trying to upstage Obama? I don't know; it just seems fishy to me.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on May 26, 2017 10:18:50 GMT -5
From what I heard on NPR yesterday, this opinion took into very important account, Trump's statements about Muslims during his campaign. The administration's lawyers argued that only the actual EO's language should be considered, but the court apparently wrote pages of why Trump's pre-presidency words should also matter. Fascinating. And sort of bullshit, IMO.
Edit: Actually, this is bugging me more and more. I really hope the SCOTUS takes this on.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on May 26, 2017 10:14:14 GMT -5
Someone on Twitter suggested that Trump may have been fuming because Obama spoke in Germany today, drawing a yuuuge adoring crowd. Obama accepted the invitation long before the election, so he wasn't timing it to upstage Trump. Still. I'll bet Trump was pissed. Whether that factored into his behavior...well, who knows, but I don't rule it out. I am a little suspicious about Obama's timing of his European trip. I mean, he was in Italy when Trump was, and now he's made a speech in Germany? If I remember correctly, GW graciously wrote Obama a letter and then slipped away to his ranch and didn't make a peep for a while after Obama came into office.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on May 25, 2017 18:55:42 GMT -5
Regarding Cass tweeting post 1945 historical developments to Trump:
|
|
|
Post by celawson on May 25, 2017 18:39:55 GMT -5
OMG. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Joe Scarsborough (of Morning Joe) retweeted the story, noting that Germany was one of our most valued allies and trade partners. A Trump supporter tweeted back: yeah. A few things have happened since 1945... Oh my God, when I first read your post, I thought you'd said TRUMP tweeted that back. And my stomach seriously turned upside down. *mops brow*
|
|
|
Post by celawson on May 25, 2017 18:12:05 GMT -5
Oh, god. Please, please tell me Trump didn't really say the Germans were "very bad" or "evil." Trump allegedly said: Please tell me that it's all a mistake. Also, rumor has it Trump owns a German car... ETA: oh, god. it looks like he really truly did say that, and publicly. It was in der Spiegel. It's all over twitter, from reputable sources. Jesus, will someday tell this goddamn fool which countries are our allies, and which our enemies? That trade is not in itself a BAD thing? (Like, really? we don't want to buy German cars?) Well, maybe he's talking about the VW dieselgate? (I drive one that I have to trade in, so I'm not too happy about that, either.) But I am starting to suspect Trump's frontal lobe didn't fully develop.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on May 25, 2017 17:54:43 GMT -5
And how come no one appropriates Scottish cuisine? Haggis appropriated it for his name. I think that deserves some level of punishment. *calls for my dog who probably is part pitbull* PLUS... I bet those SJWs sip on their Starbucks Venti Cafe Lattes and Grande Cappuccinos while they write those arguments without a thought of picketing Starbucks for cultural appropriation from Italian espresso traditions
|
|
|
Post by celawson on May 25, 2017 11:35:13 GMT -5
This is actually scary stuff. And it keeps continuing. And big guns like the NYT are complicit. IMO, this is worse than Trump making a newbie mistake by bragging -- this is calculated, purposeful, and perpetrated by people who know better and don't give a shit about security or other repercussions.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on May 25, 2017 11:31:11 GMT -5
|
|