Patterico's Pontifications


Pastor Says He’d Welcome Person Who Decapitated Statue Of Jesus, And Forgive Him Because That’s What It’s All About

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:50 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Cottage Avenue Pentecostal Fellowship has stood in its current Indianapolis neighborhood for 100 years. About five years ago, the congregation erected a statue of Jesus near the entryway to the church. The first day it was put up, it was knocked over. Now, the statue has been attacked twice in two weeks. The first time, Jesus was beheaded, and the decapitated head was left behind. The church reattached it to the statue this past Saturday. But on Sunday, the statue was once again attacked, with Jesus again beheaded. This time, the culprits took the head.

Rather than the pastor and church members losing their heads over these attacks on their Savior and rioting in rage or threatening the blasphemers who dared to deface Jesus, Pastor Brad Flaskamp instead chose to live out his faith in response:

“If whoever it is would come in and return the head and ask us to forgive him, we’d forgive him,” he said. “That’s what it’s all about.”

Interestingly, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Sgt. Kendale Adams also kept a cool head and declined to jump to any conclusions about who might be responsible for the attacks. Instead of assuming that these beheadings were done by individuals disdainful of Christ or His followers, he reasonably stated that the investigation is ongoing, and that detectives are reaching out to locals for any leads.

In the meantime, I can find no report of any social justice group coming along side this Christians fellowship to protest an attack on their religion and demand this be investigated as a hate crime… And further, I can find no public condemnation from any elected officials over the attacks. Crazy, right?? It almost makes one suspect that maybe all religions are not regarded equally. Or maybe this is just a reminder of what reasonableness looks like.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)


THIS Is CNN: James O’Keefe Releases “CNNLeaks”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:45 am

Yesterday, Susan Wright flagged the fact that James O’Keefe is now going after the media. He has now released his material, and his target is . . . CNN:

Project Veritas released 119 hours of raw audio in a WikiLeaks style dump, with over 100 more hours still yet to be released. The audio was secretly recorded in 2009 by an anonymous source inside CNN’s Atlanta headquarters who we are identifying as Miss X. The tapes contain soundbites from current and previous CNN employees Joe Sterling, Arthur Brice, and Nicky Robertson, as well as numerous others. Project Veritas is also offering a $10,000 award for content that exposes media malfeasance.

The Wikileaks style release is an unusual method for O’Keefe. He says that with all the investigations he has going, he has not had the time to go through all the audio and compile the highlights. O’Keefe is calling it “CNNLeaks” and has put the audio here — though I’m warning you, you may have trouble getting through today.

Is CNN worried? It sure seems that they are.

CNN’s Brian Stelter did his level best yesterday afternoon to pre-inoculate CNN with a hit piece using the old Big Media “many say” trick to try to discredit O’Keefe in advance of this morning’s release. I’ll go ahead and bold several statements that reflect Stelter’s own opinion, which he dishonestly couches as “news” through the transparent device of attributing his own opinions to a faceless mob of “many” or “detractors”:

O’Keefe, who uses undercover stings to trap his targets, has a reputation for shady tactics and exaggerated statements.

Some of his so-called exposés have relied on misleading editing techniques. And an incident in 2010 landed him in legal trouble. After he was arrested at Senator Mary Landrieu’s office, O’Keefe pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for entering federal property under false pretenses. He was sentenced to three years of probation, plus community service and a fine.

Given his track record, many consider O’Keefe discredited, and not a serious journalist.

In the phone interview on Wednesday, he said that characterization is “very false and very inappropriate.”

O’Keefe’s fans, who cheer him on via social media and donate to his nonprofit group, Project Veritas, say he is serious about rooting out liberal corruption, voter fraud and media bias.

His detractors say his salesman techniques are an attempt to mask unethical practices.

You know, Brian Stelter’s detractors say he is a nasty bald-headed tool of the Hillary Clinton campaign who slanders people behind a phony mask of objectivity. I mean, I don’t say that, you understand. But that’s what many are saying. His reputation is poor among many of his detractors, is my point.

Anyway, feel free to dig through the release, if you can get through.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]


Washington Fears for His Country’s Future

Filed under: General — JVW @ 11:28 pm

[guest post by JVW]

It’s been a (mini-)mini-tradition for me to write a post about the Indispensable American, George Washington, on the anniversary of his birthday each year. Here is my post from 2015, and here is last year’s offering.

This year finds our country to be rather disunited, a fate that the great man himself would recognize. Washington, who led the country through a long and arduous war for independence, a conflict that seemed to be ever on the verge of failure as the Continental Army suffered defeat and desertion, had finally seen his countrymen to an improbable victory. In the aftermath, he played a crucial role (one largely behind the scenes) in helping draft and submit for ratification a constitution, the work of which took place at a convention that may not have been — strictly speaking — legal according to the Articles of Confederation adopted nearly ten years earlier. So esteemed by his colleagues was the general that the office of executive was more or less designed with the assumption that Washington would be the first to serve in that capacity.

But establishing a government is always a more complicated venture than designing one, and despite having the Father of His Country as its leader the United States found itself drifting into factionalism, what Washington himself referred to as “the spirit of party.” Federalists, led by figures such as Vice-President John Adams and Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, generally desired a centralized government to pay off war debts and negotiate trading pacts on behalf of all the colonies, and a rapproachement with Great Britain. Democrat-Republicans, led by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and Congressman James Madison, were distrustful of national banking and trade policies and took a far more benign and even admiring view of the Jacobin revolution in France. Despite Washington’s firm resolve to remain above party and his general success in doing so during his first Presidential term, by his second term the Jeffersonian faction was complaining (not unreasonably) that the Hamiltonian faction had the chief executive’s ear.

So when it came time for Washington, who flatly refused to consider a third term (and indeed, had to be talked into serving even a second term by the wily Hamilton), to announce his plans to step down and return to Mount Vernon for good, there were certain ideas that the American Cincinnatus wanted to convey to his fellow countrymen. In his magnificent book about Washington’s Presidency, Patriarch, historian Richard Norton Smith sets the scene:

At first glance, there was nothing about the issue of the American Daily Advertiser on September 19 to set it apart. On the front page was the usual diet of advertisements and commercial notices. Only on turning the page did readers find any hint of the unusual:

To the PEOPLE of the United States
Friends and fellow citizens:

What followed confirmed the President’s fears of Hamiltonian prolixity, as the final text of this, the most important public message of Washington’s life, filled an entire page of [David] Claypoole’s gazette and part of another.

As Smith notes, historians generally agree that the first ten paragraphs of his address were taken from a draft that Madison had prepared for Washington had he chosen to step down four years earlier, while most of the rest of Washington’s Farewell Address had been written by his protege, the Federalist Hamilton. We should therefore see it as entirely fitting that Washington’s final major prouncement was a compendium of ideas brought to him partly by one of the most ardent Democratic-Republicans and partly by a staunch Federalist. Regarding the latter part of the address, when Washington discusses his hopes for the still new nation, Smith suggests that “Hamilton coined what Washington had mined during twenty years of public advocacy,” and declares that the address “ranks as a statement of American purpose alongside Jefferson’s Declaration and Lincoln’s new birth of freedom proclaimed at Gettysburg.”

The Farewell Address (when capitalized, it can only refer to Washington’s) is fairly well-known and oft-cited (sometimes quite erroneously) to prove this point or that. For instance, Richard Brookhiser reminds us, Washington never warned against “entangling alliances” (those words are from Jefferson), he instead disdained “permanent alliances.” He warned against attempts to undermine “the unity of government,” but in the very same paragraph (likely written by Hamilton) was quick to remind us that government is only worthwhile insofar as it helps to secure peace, safety, prosperity, and, most importantly, liberty. He begged that we “cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment” to the union, and implored us to be vigilant in “watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.” In that regard, Washington sadly foresaw the future cultural divisions between North and South, industrial and agrarian, coastal and interior, urban and non-urban. He beseeched us that “The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations,” with postmodernism, historical revisionism, and racial/ethnic grievances not yet being in vogue at Harvard or Yale in those days.

To the modern conservative, Washington’s belief in a beneficial national government — “a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence” — may strike us as archaic or naive. Yet Washington operated in an era in which three major world powers (England, France, and Spain) still had colonies in North America, and he understood the importance of the new nation presenting a united front in order to avoid being gradually subsumed piecemeal back into Europe. As he saw John Adams, his successor in the White House, drift deeply into partisan acrimony not only with the Democratic-Republicans like Jefferson but also with Federalist rivals such as Hamilton, Washington fretted that the great American experience was perilously close to coming to naught, collapsing underneath its own rivalries and contradictions.

This post isn’t to dismiss the acrimony of today as something deeply ingrained throughout our earliest history, nor is it an attempt to suggest that just because the United States eventually managed to rise to the level of the world’s greatest power (albeit after a bitter civil war which began some sixty years after Washington’s death) that our current mess will prove to be a passing fancy in our inexorable domination of the Twenty-first Century. But knowing that the Greatest of All Americans went to his Eternal Reward wondering if this nation could really make a go of it should at least give heart to pessimistic conservatives everywhere that we ever thus remain in good company.



Tuesday Night Music

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:06 pm

I stumbled on to a treasure trove of B-sides from Jamie Woolford and The Stereo (and Let Go). Start with this cover of “All My Lovin'” — if you like it, go here and let the 10-song playlist play.

You may be hearing more from Jamie Woolford on this blog in coming days.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

Breitbart Editor Comments On Milo Controversy (UPDATE: “Resigns” from Breitbart)

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:15 am

We have our first comments on the Milo controversy from the Breitbart organization. In anticipation of Milo Yiannapoulos’s news conference today, Breitbart editor Alex Marlow was interviewed by Matt Boyle. Marlow said that Milo’s comments were “absolutely indefensible” — but that the controversy looks like a “coordinated hit”:

[Milo] was in the news for unfortunate reasons yesterday. It was something that was a total surprise to people in the Breitbart organization that there’s video that surfaced that appeared to show him justifying sex between an adult and a minor, at least in certain circumstances, which was very troubling and upsetting. . . . The bottom line is the comments on the video are not defensible.

Marlow notes that Milo will have a press conference later today in which he will talk about his “future with Breitbart” and other matters. Marlow then offered some context:

The comments are absolutely indefensible, they’re appalling, and very disappointing that those came out. However, Milo — there is context. Some of the context that, Milo is a gay man who was abused as a child. These are not irrelevant. Other things: that he has said he’s never molested anyone or touched anyone like that himself and it is merely words.

Marlow goes on to cite actual examples of predatory behavior by Lena Dunham and Roman Polanski, and says there is no evidence Milo has been a sexual predator himself. He also says it looks like a coordinated hit by the left and the NeverTrump movement, which “sat on the story” until the CPAC invite. Audio is below.

UPDATE: Milo has “resigned” from Breitbart, surprising exactly nobody.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]


Milo on the Joys of Young Boys Having Sexual Relationships with Older Men (UNEDITED VIDEO)

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:01 pm

Milo Yiannopoulos will speak at CPAC (although he is not, as some have reported, the keynote speaker.)

A controversy has arisen concerning his comments suggesting that 13-year-old boys can consent to sexual relationships with older men; that sexual attraction to “sexually mature” 13-year-olds is not pedophilia; and that sexual relationships between young boys and older men can be “hugely positive.”

Milo has posted a statement that claims that the controversy arises out of “selectively edited videos.” (He does acknowledge some “sloppy phrasing” too.)

I thought it might be a public service, then — if a somewhat distasteful one — to publish a lengthy transcript from a video that appears unedited to me. The following excerpt is about four minutes in length, and you can navigate in the video to watch the whole 2 3/4 hour video if you wish. Make up your own mind about whether Milo Yiannopoulos appears to advocate older men having sexual relationships with boys as young as 13.

And if it appears that he does, you must decide whether that is an opinion that you want representing you as a conservative. [Discussion is NSFW.]

PaulsEgo: The whole consent thing, for me, is, it’s not this black and white thing that people try and paint it. Are there some 13-year-olds out there capable of giving informed consent to have sex with an adult? Probably. But I was also a 13-year-old. I hung around with 13-year-old guys, you know, when I was 13, and there were some of them that still thought girls were f*cking icky at 13. Like not many, but like, they were just coming out of that phase. I don’t know that I was ready at 13 to get f*cked in the *ss by a 28-year-old black drag queen is what I’m saying. So, you can’t, the reason these age of consent laws exist is because we have to set some kind of a barometer here.

Yiannopoulos: I completely understand…

PaulsEgo: We’ve got to pick an age and go, okay, look, this is the age where we can reasonably be assured you’re an adult, you can give informed consent, you understand the risks of pregnancy, all that bullsh*t.

Yiannopoulos: Of course, of course, and I think the law is probably about right, that’s probably roughly the right age, I think it’s probably about okay, but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age, I certainly consider myself to be one of them. People who are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world, by the way. And in many cases, actually, those relationships with older men — this is one of the reasons I hate the left, this sort of stupid, one-size-fits-all policing of culture, this sort of, this arbitrary —

Ben: You know, Milo —

T.J.: Let him talk.

Ben: Oh, I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I was just —

Yiannopoulos: This arbitrary — I’m just gonna — I’ll be quick. This arbitary and oppressive idea of consent which totally destroys, you know, the understanding that many of us have of the complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex, and actually, in the homosexual world particularly, some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, those kind of coming-of-age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable — a sort of a rock for when they can’t talk to their parents. Some of those relationships are some of the most —

Unknown: It sounds like priest molestation to me.

Ben: It sounds like Catholic priest molestation to me.

Yiannopoulos: And you know what? I am grateful for Father Michael. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.

Ben: Oh, my God. Oh, my God, I can’t handle it.

Unknown: What is wrong with you, Ben? Come on?

PaulsEgo: It’s funny because Ben gave me some homework on you, Milo, he gave a few videos to watch to brush up on my Miloisms, and one of the things you said in one of these clips was that transgenderism is the new, you know, frontier of, you know, rights, my wording is bad here, but, um, you know, it’s the new frontier of social progress and the next thing in line is gonna be pedophilia – and yet, here you are talking about how, look, you know, some of these kids that get diddled by these priests, I mean, it’s a good thing for them! They’re getting this love! Now they are also getting a d*ck —

Yiannopoulos: You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to someone 13 years old who is sexually mature.

PaulsEgo: OK, ephebophilia or whatever.

Yiannopoulos: Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty. Pedophilia is attraction to people who don’t have functioning sex organs yet, who have not gone through puberty, who are too young to be able to understand the way their bodies —

Unknown: Ann Coulter.

Yiannopoulos: That is not what we’re talking about.

T.J.: Ann Coulter.

PaulsEgo: Sure, granted.

Yiannopoulos: You don’t understand what pedophilia is if you think that I’m defending it, ’cause I’m certainly not.

PaulsEgo: No, no, no. I’m not saying you’re defending it, I’m saying you’re walking the borderline.

Yiannopoulos: No it’s not. You said I was defending it, and you’re wrong.

PaulsEgo: OK, OK, fine. I retract my statement, Milo. I retract my statement. I shan’t slander you further. But you are advocating for cross-generational relationships here, can we be honest about that?

Yiannopoulos: Yeah, I don’t mind saying, I don’t mind admitting that, and I think particularly in the gay world – and outside, the Catholic Church, if that’s where some of you want to go with this – I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly, you know, life-affirming, important, shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys, they can even save those young boys from desolation, from suicide, from drug addiction, all those things, provided they’re consensual. Provided they’re consensual.

Manufactured controversy or genuinely disturbing and immoral nonsense? You be the judge.

UPDATED to correct one line from PaulsEgo.

UPDATE x2: Milo has now been disinvited from CPAC and Simon and Schuster says they will not be publishing his book.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

High-Profile Provocateur To Deliver Keynote Speech At CPAC

Filed under: General — Dana @ 3:02 pm

[guest post by Dana]

[Ed. note: According to CPAC chairman Matt Schlapp’s twitter feed tonight, Milo will not be the keynote speaker, but one of many speakers at the event.]

Organizers of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) have announced that Milo Yiannopoulos will be this year’s keynote speaker. Like it or not, this is yet another step in the Right’s march toward the new “normal,” which is made up of bright, shiny, novelty items collected under an even more bigly Big Tent.

In spite of some noteworthy Republicans speaking at the event, including Sen. Ted Cruz, Vice-president Mike Pence and Gov. Scott Walker, it is Milo that will be allotted the most time on stage.

According to CPAC chairman Matt Schlapp:

An epidemic of speech suppression has taken over college campuses. Milo has exposed their liberal thuggery and we think free speech includes hearing Milo’s important perspective.

Here is Milo appearing as a guest on Bill Maher’s show last night:


And yet, here is another view of Milo:

(Absolutely NSFW):

People, good and decent people can make themselves overlook the inexcusable when it’s necessary and beneficial to their cause.

Question: If you find Milo’s views expressed in the second video reprehensible, do you think Cruz, Walker, Pence, etc. should decline to appear at the conference?

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)


UPDATE BY PATTERICO: Please watch this video.

UPDATE BY DANA: Here is CPAC chairman Matt Schlapp’s statement regarding the controversial selection of Milo Yiannopoulos as keynote speaker:

“We realize that this invitation will be accompanied by controversy which we think the conservative movement and our CPAC attendees can handle. Each will use his or her individual judgment as to the worthiness of each speaker, including Milo. ACU has publicly taken on racism and the alt-right and will continue to do so aggressively, like ACU’s founders before us.

We look forward to hearing Milo’s message and having him sit down with Scott Walter to answer some tough questions. We believe that all of us are up to the challenge at a time when political correctness is properly being discarded.”

About The Press And The President: We Deserve Better On Both Fronts

Filed under: General — Dana @ 12:05 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Last night, I spent time with two successful individuals from Los Angeles who work in the movie industry. They are both liberals who voted for Hillary Clinton, and both are aghast that Donald J. Trump is now our president. They are also very clear-eyed about the media’s role in helping Trump get into office. They understand that Trump was given far more print space and air time than any other candidate in the running. This by a media desperate for the ratings and hits, and as a result, they essentially launched his win. So the press’s current hysterical reactions and doomsday proclamations of everything Trump – whom they helped put into office – is nothing but a clanging gong of unhinged dishonesty grating on the last nerve of this couple. With regard to the mainstream media, their view is: You made him, now own it. No backsies, no re-dos, so just shut-up.

I couldn’t agree with them more. I loathed the mainstream media, before the election, and even more so after. Their dishonesty and complicity with the Democratic party, their refusal to ensure that newsrooms have equal representation of varying political views (which should not matter, but undeniably does), and sheer arrogance reveals jut how unable they are to see the world through any other lens than a very-narrowly defined one of liberalism. Thus after decades of this partisan bias, it’s no wonder that we are now here: polarized and frustrated as one side seeks its revenge against the powerful entity that is the American press. An entity which has long-mocked, dismissed and sneered at a large swath of the population. A populace now counting on President Trump to exact a long-sought after revenge. And with this thirst for a comeuppance, there comes a willingness to lower the bar of reasonable standards and look the other way at dishonest and unethical behavior from their champion. The end now justifies the means. On the side of the press, the still-smoldering anger over the devastating election loss, an election that they believe was their “owed” win, has turned to an hysterical, over-the-top reaction of hit jobs and Fake News reports. That the election was lost to someone like Trump still cannot be believed. This inability to accept reality is also similar to the press’s continuing inability to grasp that their long-exposed collective biases have rendered them mostly irrelevant, save for a few pocketed regions of liberalism.

As readers here already know, I have not been a Trump supporter. I don’t see any reason to re-hash the basis for my concerns, but suffice it to say, that post-election, my concerns and fears about the president haven’t changed.

With that, I want to point you to an excellent article addressing the simple fact that it is very possible – and I am proof of this, as is the liberal couple with whom I conversed – that one can dislike equally both President Trump and the American press. Those are not mutually exclusive positions. This is not a binary choice that we have to make: either reject Trump or reject the press, either support Trump or support the press. Says who?

NRO’s Kevin D. Williamson offers thoughts on this, to which I heartily concur:

…Every Republican president is “the most extreme ever,” or so Democrats and their media friends insist. (“We do always say that,” one Democratic friend acknowledged. “And it is always true.” Well . . . )

In this corner, the American Press; in the opposite corner, the American President. The time has come for choosing sides — or so do many of our friends on the left and in the media (there is some crossover in that group) insist, as do more than a few of our friends on the right.

On Friday, I was scolded by Joe Hagan of New York magazine (he must have taken a break from the vital service he is offering to the republic at the moment, composing a biography of Jann Wenner) for daring to criticize my media colleagues in the age of Trump, “since you are supposedly a journalist.” It is, he insisted, “as if you, as a conservative, can’t see objective reality along with somebody you assume is a political opposite.” No, it is as if the American news media is predictably biased and incompetent, and would be writing almost precisely what it is writing about Donald Trump if the election had been won by Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, or Pat Sajak.

It is possible, if you are not mentally crippled, to hold your mind two non-exclusive ideas: Donald J. Trump stinks, and the press stinks. Trump’s spat with the press is a bloodless Iran–Iraq war, and I myself am cheering for (metaphorical) casualties. If you find yourself only able to focus on which party stinks worse, then you have adopted the pre-kindergarten “binary choice” rhetoric of the campaign, in which both Trump and Clinton supporters insisted that we must ignore the obvious character defects, financial shenanigans, lies, and foolishness of A or B on the theory that B or A is so much worse that we simply cannot acknowledge any shortcomings on the other side.

Those of us who have not entirely surrendered our neocortices to one cable-news tribe or the other are perfectly capable of criticizing Trump and criticizing the media. Of course the American media is terrible. Everybody knows this. Everybody who follows the public debate about guns, taxes, or abortion knows this. Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the New York Times, knows this, which is why he sheepishly acknowledged that the so-called Newspaper of Record and its editors “don’t get religion.” And that is just a little bit of what they don’t get. Other senior editors at major media outlets know this, too. The people who run the Washington Post know this. The reflexive Democratic affiliation of most of the major media is a simple fact of life that you’d have to be foolish or dishonest to deny[.]

The tragedy of all this is that, yeah, we really could use an effective, active, and credible press right now. We have an active one five days out of the week, an effective one five days out of the month, and a credible one . . . not that often. My criticisms of Trump do not go so far as those who believe that he is a budding fascist dictator on the verge of building concentration camps, but if you really did believe that, wouldn’t you wish, at least a little, that the media hadn’t been exactly as hysterical when faced with the bland, anodyne visage of Mitt Romney? Or John McCain? You want to be taken seriously now after insisting that Dick Cheney was the new American Gestapo?

Williams goes on to point out that unfortunately, everyone’s view of a credible source differs greatly. It may be Maddow or Chris Hayes one side of the aisle, and Limbaugh or Hannity on the other side (I’m spit balling here, because honestly, I don’t even know about the right anymore…). Regardless, to my mind, the American people have fought too long and hard to settle for this current lot in life:

We deserve a better press, and a better president, too. If you are the sort of partisan who cannot entertain the possibility that both of these things may be true at the same time, then you ought to consider the possibility that you are one of the reasons why we do not have a better press or a better president.

We need to keep fighting. For both.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)



Punching Back: Student Suspended For Filming Professor’s Anti-Trump Rant Threatens Lawsuit

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:30 am

A California college student was suspended for revealing his professor’s ridiculous bias. Now, he’s punching back.

Yesterday, Andrea Ruth covered the story of a student at Orange Coast College, Caleb O’Neil, who was suspended for filming his professor’s anti-Trump rant:

The professor, Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox, calls Trump a “white supremacist.” She calls Mike Pence “one of the most anti-gay humans in this country.” She calls Trump’s election an “act of terrorism.” She assumes all her students agree with her and says “we are the majority.” She says she will go over “coping skills.”

One of those coping skills includes adding 2-3 more words to her name. “From now on, instead of Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox, I will be called Professor Olga Perez Stable Suarez Humbert-Gillers Cox.” Nah, I made that last part up.

For publishing this rant, Mr. O’Neil was praised for revealing an issue with the faculty suspended for a semester and ordered to write an essay about why he was such a bad boy.

Guess what? Now he’s not only appealing the suspension, but threatening a lawsuit:

19-year-old Caleb O’Neil will appeal.

The Orange Coast College freshman said Wednesday that he [will] file a lawsuit in federal court if his appeal is rejected.

“We think this is a clear example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination that targets conservatives and we’re going to challenge it,” O’Neil’s attorney, Bill Becker, said at a news conference in Costa Mesa, according to CBS Los Angeles.

Becker told the Orange County Register that the suspension “is an attack by leftists in academia to protect the expressive rights of their radical instructors.”

These people need to market themselves better. Set up a fund. I’d donate.

To be fair, I’m not quite sure what the fella expected when he signed up for a “human sexuality class” taught by a Professor Olga Perez Farias-Smith Williams Gutierrez Walker Unstable Cox, or whatever her name is.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

Happy Blogiversary to Me

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:01 am

I think I have forgotten about this the last couple of years, but I’m observing it this year. This blog began 14 years ago today, on February 17, 2003. I was thirty-four years old. Today I’m . . . older. My daughter, now 17, had recently had her third birthday. My son, now 14, was barely four months old.

Five years ago I made the following request on the nine-year blogiversary, and I would like to repeat it today, since the composition of the readership has changed:

On this blogiversary, I would ask the long-time readers how long they have been reading here. Tell me in comments. The longest-standing reader gets a cookie.

It will be a virtual cookie, to be sure, as we live in a virtual world. But if I meet you in person I’ll buy you a real one. Or maybe a real beer.

Thanks for reading.

As I said in my Fault Lines interview:

Blogging has brought both good and bad. I would say that, despite the SWATting and lawsuits and other nuisances, it’s mostly been a good thing, on balance. It’s brought me into contact with many, many people I never would have met otherwise — and many of those people are important in my life. In the end, it’s part of who I am. It’s hard to imagine myself without it.

I think I’ve said this before, but I went to a retirement party for AZ Bob not that long ago, and he was telling me what a funny and idiosyncratic crew of commenters I have. Rekindling The Jury Talks Back as a forum for civil discussion has reminded me that there are also many lurkers out there, including plenty who are quite regular readers. I appreciate all of you.

OK, most of you.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2183 secs.