Tuesday, December 27, 2016

What is wrong with these people …

 and how the hell did they get advanced degrees: 'F**K YOU': Georgetown Prof Loses It On Muslim Trump Voter | The Daily Caller.


  1. On one hand, you have to wonder how the Muslim professor ever got around to voting for a bigot who was appealing to people who hate her. On the other hand, Nomani said it was because of health care, and yet, there is no reason to believe that Trump has any idea at all on how to lower health care prices. He's never done anything like health care before, and was too, what, financially embarrassed, or just felt that he'd better hide his tax forms, outof sight if not underhanded, so besides his public bankruptcies, we do not know if he has just squandered his inheritance. A group Trump would never get to vote for him are the more educated. Was Nomani thinking, "Okay, hate me and my family, but lower my health care costs please?" There's a serious disconnect here from reality. The problem with Fair's attacks on her, is that Nomani in her apparent ignorance, does not deserve it. On the other hand, Fair seems to be influenced by Trump's ways of insulting. As a liberal, she witnessed the grossest display of negative campaigning in decades if not centuries, a campaign in which a guy who has no idea how to be an effective president, became president-elect by insulting people, leading most Americans to be ashamed of him in this position, which Fair may be feeling. It's sad to see the Trump method invade academia. I give Fs to both Nomani and Fair.

  2. Rus, I think you miss the point (or at least that is my take on your comment). This has nothing to do with Trump or "the Trump method" (whatever you mean by that label). This is a symptom of the disease: the decline and fall of higher education (and even K-12) in America because of liberalism and secular humanism. All the sound-and-fury of the incident is superficial noise but symptomatic evidence of the disease.

  3. It seems a disease that Trump subscribes to, R.T., the way he insults anyone who is politically opposed to him, or says anything in any way that he does not want spoken. Fair's reaction to an ignorant Muslim professor voting for Trump, who would have people hate her, because of the idea that he could reduce her insurance costs, is a step higher than Trump's insulting attacks of his opponents, disabled people, races, what have you. At least Fair has good reason. It's her Trump method that is wrong. Trump's reason and method are appalling both. It is not wrong for Fair to call out Nomani on her ignorant vote. It's how she did it, taking a page out of Trump's play book that is the issue.

  4. But Rus, if you call this woman "an ignorant Muslim professor," are you not yourself doing what you criticize Trump for doing? Ms. Nomani had her reasons. You may not agree with them. You may dispute them. But she remains a sovereign individual entitled to make up her mind on her own terms. I don't see how the intemperance Trump is criticized for is addressed by a corresponding intemperance.

  5. If I note that Trump is illegally calling for a racist registry of Muslims, and note that she is a Muslim, and now, if I further note that Muslims along with all other people with color have had hate spewed at them since Trump made it politically correct to do so ~~ if I then note that Trump has no idea about health care, and point to the reason that Nomani used to vote for Trump, his saying he would reduce health care costs, which he does not know about ~~ it does not follow that I am doing what Trump is doing.

    Call hate hate, and call ignorance ignorance. This is not Trump's method. His is to degrade all who oppose him.

    We can never address Trump's method, and danger as well, if we allow him to be Teflon Don. He's the hateful one. He's the liar. We know this. We saw and heard it. That’s clear.

    Imagine a trial, and it is clear the defendant indeed murdered the victim. The murderer does not reasonable get off by then insulting the judge, jury, and prosecution, by saying that they are all guilty of vile things. To use Trump's metaphor against him, the Spewing Swamp Monster is the one who stinks.

    He's the one who lied on his tax forms and now wants to disband the guilty foundation. He claimed he never heard of David Duke and the KKK, yet his father was arrested for being a member. No one in this country needs my reminders of the hateful campaign he ran. I am not at fault, I have no personality disorder, I murdered no one, I am not myself hateful, I am not wrong, to point out his methods, and ask for agreement from all who witnessed his hate-mongering on the campaign trail.

    How angry should Fair be? Does Fair herself come from a mixed-race family? Is anyone she loves disabled? We can all empathize with her anger that someone like Nomani would vote for Trump? Fair only gets an F for not keeping it issue based.

    74 million Americans got up from their chairs disabled, woman, man, LGBT, all skin pigments, licensed drivers, walkers, cyclists, got to the polls in order to vote against Trump. 63 million did the same to vote for him. Many were white supremacists. Many were those who would think Hillary capable of running a child slavery ring (They're out there and they're Trump's creations).

    Because of the work between Obama and the Republican Congress, Trump has been handed low gas prices, low interest rates, the lowest unemployment in a decade, and, if I may, fewer people without health insurance. Trump, however, has run multiple businesses into the ground, and has stiffed many people along the way, both his know-how and ethics are suspect. Can anyone blame the liberals for being beside themselves? Are liberals the only ones calling “Treason!”? Must they now be called “Sore losers?” ~~ instead of thanked.

    Here is a conversation between Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers:

    JOSEPH CAMPBELL: Let me tell you one story here, of a samurai warrior, a Japanese warrior, who had the duty to avenge the murder of his overlord. And he actually, after some time, found and cornered the man who had murdered his overlord. And he was about to deal with him with his samurai sword, when this man in the corner, in the passion of terror, spat in his face. And the samurai sheathed the sword and walked away. Why did he do that?


    JOSEPH CAMPBELL: Because he was made angry, and if he had killed that man then, it would have been a personal act, of another kind of act, that’s not what he had come to do.

    Bear in mind too, Frank, that it is shameful for a Samurai to have to re-sheath his sword. Yet, in this case, it must be done.

    I am saying that Fair is not as bad as Trump, but that it is hard to know when to resheath the sword.

  6. Rus, your terminology -- racist registry of Muslims -- puzzles me. How do you equate Muslims and race? One is a person's chosen religion. The other is biology. Color me confused.

  7. Hi RT. Are you suggesting that anti-Muslim propaganda is not racist? Would you consider a Muslim registry not to be racist? Should we view ISIS as Muslim too?, a religion? My writing here tonight, my contribution, has included with it many many valuable points. Shall we really take this tangent, which at best can simply re-coat Don with Teflon?

    How do you view this discussion, as if we are talking ideology? Hate is not ideology.

  8. Rus, yes, you make a lot of interesting points. My question involves definitions which must be agreed upon in such discussions. Race is one thing. Religion is another. You're erring by conflating the two.

  9. Hi Tim, I have not erred, nor have I conflated. You have at least erred. ISIS, the reason for the call for a registry, is not Muslim. Our citizens being attacked, are being attacked based on skin color and national origin. A Muslim registry is high racism. The conflation is not mine, the messengers, but the haters'.

    I need to correct you on one too-common misunderstanding, that even at this point, you may not be aware of. Race is not a matter of biology, but pseudo-science like craniology. It's a poor attempt at discrimination, then definition.

    1. Rus, let us agree that we disagree. I defer to you and suspend further comments.

    2. I did not mean to stop you from delving into discussion, Tim, but was anticipating these definitions to be preliminary.

  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

  11. Frank, I agree that intemperance does not foster anything except more intemperance, and ultimately, a retreat into one's already hardened beliefs. (One of my heartfelt beliefs, by the way, is that kids should be taught from an early age, and in school, how to listen actively to each other.) However, I'm not sure that liberalism and secular humanism are to blame for the decline of higher education -- or perhaps only in the American context. I'm thinking here of some of the Scandinavian countries, which have a good educational standard but relatively liberal views, on the whole.

    1. Lee, when I was a student at several colleges, and later when taught as an adjunct for nearly twenty years at three different colleges, I could see the deterioration of bedrock canonical curricula and academic standards and the growth of liberalism and relativism (and anything goes except conservative values and rigorous standards). This is not anecdotal evidence. This is objective observation by someone who fought the uphill battles against the encroachment of secular humanism and similar foolishness. Note: I agree with you that kids should be taught to listen to each other; kids who arrive at colleges with that skill are rare, and that skill does not serve them well in an environment wherein expressions of old-fashioned, God-centered values are often vilified and silenced; again, though I have been retired from the classroom since 2015, I make these statements based on experience.

  12. I suspect, Lee, that educational standards still apply in places like Scandinavia, and that PC fashion does not rule, as it seems to increasingly in these parts. Take the guy at Drexel who says his tweet about white genocide was meant as satire. Well, genocide just isn't a good subject for humor. But we both agree that insulting those you would persuade is not the best way to win minds and hearts — especially if you say you deplore someone else's incivility.

  13. I've been arguing that Fair needs some empathy here, but doing it based on the idea that she stepped over the line in her attacks on Nomani, and that is so. She gets an F from me, for swinging her sword in anger instead of honorable purpose.

    I also pointed out that Trump has caused an increase in hate attacks across the country, and that even though any give “white” person may not be affected and can go about his business, people of any color cannot, and by the way, this includes Nomani, who Fair says identified herself as an atheist at her home one day. Nomani knows it is not all about religion whether this is true or not.

    Darker-skinned people who do not have all European features, must gird up for the onslaught that is now part of their lives. This affects me in that my significant other is of Cape Verdian and other African-American lineage, thus her grandchildren the same. We now live in a world that acts out hate for them more than before, one that has increased danger for me for being part of the loving family.

    Furthermore, we know that Trump courted the bigot vote shamelessly. Yet somehow, the important point of this gets lost. Nomani, in voting for Trump, voted for my family to be attacked, while she looks for conversational clemency from the haters (“I voted for Trump too”) which we have been, a point that I have not included up until now. Trump's campaign message was clear to bigots, permission is granted to punch and hatefully harass people. Racist (and other) bigots took him seriously, and gave him their vote en mass.

    What is bringing me back into this, is that this increase in hate crimes, somehow does not get attached to Fair's position against Nomani. Why would Fair be so angry? And I wondered if maybe she too has people of color, or disabled people with whom she lives or loves. To make my point, somehow being a woman would not be enough for the sake of argument, even though it really should, but that’s how backed up the argument is.

    What brought me back into the discussion is this article in the Boston Globe, a phenomenon that I knew about, but did not integrate into the discussion yesterday: Boston-area campuses receive a schooling in hate. Hate crimes and other hateful attacks are way up in elementary and high schools and colleges all over the country. We need to address this and understand it, not make the issue a political criticism of liberals. It is affecting the work place of professors of all political persuasions.

    Professor Fair was talking out of the anger she has, at least with what is going on around her at the university, and rightfully pointing the finger at anyone who helped Trump get into office.

    It seems much more nuanced than the idea Nomani put forth that she simply wants lower health care costs. So now we must empathize with her error in judgment, most likely trying to fend off the haters by taking other side. Maybe Fair is right, that (the so-called atheist) Nomani is grandstanding for fame and position during the Trump era. Yet such political maneuvering only puts her in the category of say Romney, who would sell out his espoused principles for a job in Trump's cabinet. Nomani being human, is furthermore reacting from the fear. She too gets an F, however, and she surely understands Fair’s anger.