January 9, 2012

The lawsuit against the University of Iowa College of Law for rejecting a conservative applicant for a lawprof job.

The applicant, Teresa R. Wagner, was active in the Right to Life cause, and the associate law school dean is caught in writing saying "Frankly, one thing that worries me is that some people may be opposed to Teresa serving in any role in part at least because they so despise her politics (and especially her activism about it)."

In the NYT, Adam Liptak calls attention to the dissonance conservatives ought to feel about litigation:
“I have serious misgivings about asking the courts to fix this through lawsuits,” [Walter Olson, a fellow at the Cato Institute, said]. “It threatens to intrude on collegiality, empower some with sharp elbows to sue their way into faculty jobs, invite judges into making subjective calls of their own which may reflect their assumptions and biases, all while costing a lot of money and grief.”

“At the same time,” he added, “there’s a karma factor here. Law faculties at Iowa and elsewhere have been enthusiastic advocates of wider liability for other employers that get sued. They’re not really going to ask for an exemption for themselves, are they?”

108 comments:

BarryD said...

IOW, Cato is sending them the big Nelson Muntz "Ha ha!"

Tank said...

LOL.

Of course they want an exemption.

Christ, it's Animal Farm stupid.

Some animals more equal than others. Jesus. Didn't you learn this, like in Kindergarten.

The "rules" are for the little peeps, not us professor types.

wv: acitz - I squeezed out acitz.
Ewwww.

traditionalguy said...

Where will law professors be safe anymore. The debaters are coming, tghe debaters are coming!

Larry J said...

Of course, "collegiality" is just a nice way of saying "people who agree with us." Despite all the talk about diversity, they want no one who doesn't toe the liberal line.

Crimso said...

There is no dissonance whatsoever when viewed from an Alinsky perspective.

"It's your game, the rules are your own, win or lose." Becker and Fagen.

Tank said...

This is true to some extent for both progressive/liberal types and conservatives, but MUCH more for the lib's [in my experience]:

It's the Electric Koolaid Acid Test. Either you're on the bus, or you're off the bus. With us, or not with us.

Period.

George Grady said...

A study published in The Georgetown Law Journal in 2005 analyzed 11 years of federal campaign contributions by professors at the top 21 law schools as ranked by U.S. News & World Report. Almost a third of these law professors contributed to campaigns. Of those who gave $200 or more, the study found, 81 percent gave wholly or mostly to Democrats, while 15 percent gave wholly or mostly to Republicans.

Is this an example of "disparate impact"? Are Republicans a "protected class"?

Canuck said...

Who got the job instead? If the person who got the job has better qualifications this might be a desperate attempt to get a good job. Lotta out of work lawyers and academics in the US right now.

Very interesting. I wonder how anybody found out about her political feelings and/or activities.

Is it legal in the U.S. to ask about political activities during job interviews?

Did her academic or legal work involve reveal her political opinions?

Or, for some reason, did they socialize and then talk politics during the interview?

The Crack Emcee said...

There’s a karma factor here

Garbage in/garbage out. No, Obie Wan, the only "karma factor" is in your otherwise empty head.

I wish I could find it difficult to understand how this stuff gets said, but I don't,...

gregq said...

A person with worse qualifications got the job. There actually was funding for two jobs, but the other law professors were so opposed to hiring a Republican that they voted to leave the second job empty rather than hire her.

If a leftie is ok with a Republican governor appointing a school administrator whose job it is to fire every single left-wing professor, and replace them with Republican professors, then they should feel free to oppose this lawsuit. If they don't want that, then they need to keep their side from imposing ideological litmus tests.

DKWalser said...

I agree that this isn't the kind of matter that should come before a court. The law is poorly equipped to deal with such nuances. However, since liberals are incessantly bringing such matters before the courts, it's not only fair, it's imperative that conservatives return the favor. Perhaps, giving liberals a taste of their own medicine will lead to a mutual agreement to quit using the courts to resolve such matters.

I don't have a lot of hope in that regard. I don't believe in unilateral disarmament, either. Liberals depend on conservatives' willingness to take the high road. They'll continue to do so until the price for taking the low road becomes unbearable.

Dose of Sanity said...

This is definitely an awkward case. On one hand, stopping someone from being a gatekeeper to legal education based on their political beliefs is just flat out wrong.

On the other hand, the University does have a legitimate right to be concerned about its imagine (hold that remark about how this doesn't help it) and if their main concern was her "extreme activistim" - perhaps reflecting negatively on the university or even the students education, well, that muddles things a bit.

At some point, you need to fit the job qualifications. I doubt she's got a legal right here, but at the same time, I despise attempts to weaken our diversity - even our political diversity.

Darleen said...

Very interesting. I wonder how anybody found out about her political feelings and/or activities.

Google, Facebook, et al.

Believe me, any cursory background check these days includes finding out what people are doing in public via the internet. If one has any sort of public activity (political donations, heading up charities, writing blogs/articles, etc) it's going to come up on the 'net.

And employers look.

Big Mike said...

They’re not really going to ask for an exemption for themselves, are they?

Well yes, as it turns out.

Original Mike said...

"Frankly, one thing that worries me is that some people may be opposed to Teresa serving in any role in part at least because my faculty aren't mature enough to work with someone with a different point of view."

What the Dean should have said.

blythe_masters said...

The plaintiff was a classmate of mine, but I neither recognize her nor remember her.

I suspect the lawsuit has merit. The faculty of the U of I College of Law is uniformly, rabidly leftist. Conservatives were run out of town in the '90s. Most moderates were disposed of in the '00s, their academic bodies buried in shallow graves by the roadside.

Even in the early '90s liberal orthodoxy ruled and the atmosphere was mildly oppressive. Conservative viewpoints were ridiculed and dissent was not tolerated. The late '90s and '00s brought a wave of faculty hiring under the guise of increasing diversity that pushed the institution over the edge. Needless to say, fundraising envelopes go straight to the shredder.

Professor Carlson is a moderate who was fortunate enough to be tenured before the onslaught. Kudos to him for putting his concerns in writing. He knew damn well that they would be subject to discovery in the event of a lawsuit.

Canuck said...

"A person with worse qualifications got the job. There actually was funding for two jobs,"

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FCO%2020111228091.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

I just skimmed the case. Doesn't look good for the Dean.

Lesson: Do not discuss politics in the job hiring processes. Keep it out of the room.

One aside: I thought it was interesting that other the Asst. Dean prepped her for the interview. Wagner used that information as part of the basis for the lawsuit. Whoops! Sometimes being nice bites you in the ass.

Alex said...

Believe me, any cursory background check these days includes finding out what people are doing in public via the internet. If one has any sort of public activity (political donations, heading up charities, writing blogs/articles, etc) it's going to come up on the 'net.

And employers look.


Employers do the Facebook check because it serves as basic idiot filter. If a person is too dumb to figure out how to use the Facebook privacy settings, then how can they be trusted to do a more complicated job? Believe me, if you keep your Facebook page private and keep your comments limited to non-political fare no employer will ever get anything on you.

Alex said...

One aside: I thought it was interesting that other the Asst. Dean prepped her for the interview. Wagner used that information as part of the basis for the lawsuit. Whoops! Sometimes being nice bites you in the ass.

One thing that exists these days is a reality that leftists feel free and comfortable to bring up politics into any conversation, somehow assuming that the other person is a fellow leftie. Conservatives just nod along and don't rock the boat. They know who has the power.

Dan in Philly said...

Activists are like the tragedy of the commons played out large. There is common goodwill of how to act in the culture in which we find ourselves. One of these goodwill rules is not to make a big fuss when bad things happen to you (ie not getting a job).

Activists like to do things when bad things happen, like sue. Though this may redress the immediate injustice, it eats away at the common goodwill of the culture, and more and more people will take advantage of this tactic until there is no room to hire anyone for fear the loser in the process might sue. At this point, the whole edifice crumbles and something new must take its place.

The curse of being human, I guess.

Scott M said...

Though this may redress the immediate injustice, it eats away at the common goodwill of the culture, and more and more people will take advantage of this tactic until there is no room to hire anyone for fear the loser in the process might sue. At this point, the whole edifice crumbles and something new must take its place.

Surely the flip side of this coin is that whoever is responsible for the "something bad" also eats away at the common goodwill as well?

Revenant said...

I enjoy seeing people hoist in their own petard as much as anyone else, but I don't really support this suit.

The solution is to publicize the bias, not to enforce diversity at gunpoint.

Chuck66 said...

Anyone in business knows that employment lawsuits are the worst. The lawyers can come up with almost anything to sue an employer over when it comes to hiring. So perhaps the law schools, who create this class of people, should get see what its like to be on the other side.

Hagar said...

Publicise it where?

Darleen said...

Alex

What about political contributions? Those are public record. Or if you sit on the board of some charity or foundation? Ever have an article written about you in your local rag for anything you did in the community?

And Facebook settings aren't necessarily that private. Your friends list is available and unless you scrub that, employers will see what your FRIENDS are writing about you or to you. Or pics.

This is about some employers who feel that your outside-of-employment activity is their business; even if what you are doing is legal and/or constitutionally protected.

EDH said...

She sued, alleging discrimination because of her political beliefs. Late last month, a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, ruled that her case should go to trial, saying she had presented enough evidence to suggest that “Dean Jones’s repeated decisions not to hire Wagner were in part motivated by Wagner’s constitutionally protected First Amendment rights of political belief and association.”

Not even sure of the cause of action being asserted here.

Is a 1st Amend claim available only because UI is considered a "state actor"?

Chuck66 said...

By the way...as far as blatent discrimination in the world of Big Academia.....remember that 3 UW system schools were sued for discriminating agaisnt Christian-Americans, and of course the schools lost all 3 lawsuits (Eau Claire, Madison, Superior).

There is something wrong with higher education when the schools see no problem with obvious discrimination.

The Crack Emcee said...

And you guys wonder why I bag on Glenn Reynolds:

KARMA: “Law faculties at Iowa and elsewhere have been enthusiastic advocates of wider liability for other employers that get sued. They’re not really going to ask for an exemption for themselves, are they?”

If Reynolds thinks karma is real, how smart can he really be?

NYTNewYorker said...

Break up these liberal cartels by Any Means Necessary.

Scott M said...

If Reynolds thinks karma is real, how smart can he really be?

If you think he was being serious and not using it as it's commonly used turn of phrase, ie, sarcastically, how smart can you be?

Dan in Philly said...

ScottM, surely so, but my point is the activists tend to oversell the harm of the latter, and totally ignore the reality of the former, in much the same way as when unused pasture gets used by one farmer, he argues that an unproductive asset is now more productive and the village as a whole benefits. If you narrow the scope of the argument to that and only that, he is of course right.
It's only when the larger picture is considered that the inevitable harm is evident.

Scott M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott M said...

I'm certainly willing to grant that someone bringing a lawsuit would accentuate the negative, but without the lawsuit, how is the common goodwill protected or how does it seek its redress? I'm not suggesting that lawsuits are the way every time, but it seems to me that outside criminal law, there have to be civil constraints on "something bad" things and punitive actions against the perpetrators. Otherwise, the balance really starts to shift and we're no longer talking common goodwill, we're talking Hobbes.

Revenant said...

If Reynolds thinks karma is real, how smart can he really be?

Yes, Reynolds was definitely suggesting that these law professors are being punished for misbehavior in a prior incarnation.

Thanks for alerting us to this, Crack.

Chuck66 said...

The Fed'l government just sued (or fined?) Cargill because of discrimination at a plant in Arkansaw. The plant has 82% minority employees, but the gov't said, based on census stats, it is the wrong mix of minorities. Too many Asians.

If the numbers are true, that only 2% of the staff of Iowa law school is Republican-American, yet about.....40% of Iowa is conservative, I wonder if that can be used as evidence of discrimination.

Squid said...

If a leftie is ok with a Republican governor appointing a school administrator whose job it is to fire every single left-wing professor, and replace them with Republican professors, then they should feel free to oppose this lawsuit. If they don't want that, then they need to keep their side from imposing ideological litmus tests.

I wish that partisans on both sides understood this argument better. Every power that you fight to win for your political allies, will surely also accrue to your opponents when they inevitably come to power.

Dan in Philly said...

Scott, I don't think the points you bring up really address my basic point, but rather introduce new considerations.

Here's a line of thought which is familiar to any activist:
1) Something bad is happening
2) We can do something about it
3) Therefore we must do something about it - to do otherwise is immoral.
While this line of thinking may be true, it does not consider all the evidence, including the cost of doing something, which must be admitted to be unknown in the largest scale. If shown the ultimate cost of his desires to stop one injustice might be a larger injustice, would an activist be so quick to act?

I always like the moral delima of what if you see a train track with a train coming, and you see the train will hit 5 people if you don't throw the swtich, but will hit 1 if you do throw the switch - what do you do? Let's say the situation is the same, but the only way to throw the switch is to push that one man to his death on top of the switch - do you kill the one to save the 5?

This puzzle is one every person who wishes to change things must consider before engaging in the risky task of making the world a better place. Who are you to choose who lives and who dies? What is one of the 5 you saved is Ted Bundy or Hitler and the man you killed was Ghandi? Does that change your moral calculations?

I've gone off far astray again, sorry folks.

Scott M said...

Does that change your moral calculations?

I don't have any moral calculations. All I have to do is glance at my WWTD (What Would Tebow Do) and the answer presents itself. Most of life's problems, including five people at a distance on a train track, can be solved with the proper application of thrown footballs.

Dan in Philly said...

Scott - flippancy does not become you :)

Scott M said...

Scott - flippancy does not become you :)

Absolutely not true. It's one of the few things that does. I look quite dashing decked out in derision.

Canuck said...

I'm unclear on the $$$ liability.

Why is the dean held accountable if a minority of the law faculty can block a hire?

Why is the dean being sued personally and not the Law School?

It also sounds like another assistant dean either tried to help the applicant out of a sense of decency and kindness.

Or, a less charitable read is that Asst. Dean may have intentionally threw the other Dean under the bus by writing the e-mail with the knowledge that legal discover would uncover it.

Yikes. I guess these administrators need legal insurance.

hawkeyedjb said...

Iowa doesn't hire conservatives in its history department either.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222487/27-0-university-iowa/mark-moyar

But then, what do you expect at a University where "Fuck You Republicans" is how professors express themselves. Most profs at U of I (and other schools) have probably never interacted with a conservative colleague, and certainly don't want to start. The University uses words like 'tolerance' and 'diversity' to describe this intellectual isolation.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/04/professors-f-off-republican-students-sparks-free-speech-debate/36972/

(Sorry I don't know how to put a hyperlink in my comments)

Chuck66 said...

Canuck....I wonder if some of this is similiar to Sarbanes-Oxley. If a publically traded company doesn't do proper disclosure, the CFO and maybe the CEO are held liable, even if they had no knowledge of the misstatement.

Or if you sue a large company because they didn't hire enough Hispanics. You don't go after the single hiring manager who filed the resumes away, you sue the company as a whole.

Canuck said...

"Not even sure of the cause of action being asserted here.

Is a 1st Amend claim available only because UI is considered a "state actor"?"

I don't think UI is being sued.

I'm not sure, but I think the suit is saying Dean Wagner is a state actor and can be personally sued.

Yikes! That blows for her if the law faculty are the ones that made the final decision with their vote.

Chuck66 said...

hawkeye...I've only been to Iowa City once. I thought is was a fine city, but noticed one big thing. Many anti-Israel (aka, the Jewish state) posters plastered around downtown. Came across as a typical looney-tune university town with little diversity of thought.

Canuck said...

"You don't go after the single hiring manager who filed the resumes away, you sue the company as a whole."


hope so. else Reynolds has a strong point about expanded liability.


But she is personally named in the suit. It's not Wagner vs. UI, it's Wagner v. Jones.

gregq said...

"Is a 1st Amend claim available only because UI is considered a "state actor"?"

Yes

gregq said...

"Yikes! That blows for her if the law faculty are the ones that made the final decision with their vote."

That was her defense, it was rejected by the appeals court. She had final say, she just chose to go with the desires of the bigoted faculty, rather than hiring the most competent person.

george said...

The law is just political warfare by different means. Yes, the best system is to have no interference in who is hired and fired and for the government to play no role in how schools are funded or accredited. But once the government subsidizes and regulates universities to the extent they do then there is really nothing left to gain by standing on principle because the battle has been lost. You are no longer free men or women in a free country so the only question is whose ox is gored. Were these private entities then they could hire or fire as they will and stand or fall on the quality of the product they produce.

But since universities are more or less indoctrination camps these days, and they are empowered to be the only means of entering certain professions, then they have to be regulated more closely because there is little or no market discipline in place.

This was the same thing that happened with the mortgage meltdown. The government underwrote loans. If you are going to do such a damnably foolish thing then at the very least you have to have standards in place. Unfortunately the standard the government applied was whether the policy was perceived as buying them votes. Inevitably this lead to a meltdown that never would have occurred had private lending institutions been left alone. Bankruptcy of a few banks who make bad decisions is infinitely preferable to entire industries and countries being driven to bankruptcy.

Likewise, in colleges the government has chosen to subsidize ideas and people who are failures in the marketplace and in the real world outside academia. The end result is the intellectual bankruptcy of the nation as we see evidenced by Obama and the OWS movement. If you are going to allow the government to interfere in how people are educated to the extent that it does then it is necessary to require some standards. The least of these should be that people who advocate for economic or social systems that actually work are sought for employment as teachers and people who advocate Marxism or other failed systems are banned and excluded. As it is now the standard is precisely the opposite.

The result will be the same as we saw with the mortgage industry. Indeed we have just made a down payment on our future failure to the tune of several trillion dollars spent in remedial economic education for our current president.

So yeah. Play the same game those bastards do and kill them by holding them to their own putative standards until you are equally represented in academia. Then privatize the whole thing once you get the chance. There is no other way to win because the side you are opposing is using force/government and the only tools you have are words, rationality and persuasion.

Better to own the judges and the law as the left does than the moral high ground. Best to hold both but of the two the former will always trump the latter. Right up until the revolution...

Skookum John said...

In the spirit of the great Saul Alinsky, I'd be in favor of a right wing foundation tasked with the specific agenda of using the courts to harass and torment the lawyer-loving Left. More specifically, instead of the typical craven dropping of named individuals from their suits, it should aim for a fearsome reputation for engineering the financial and professional ruination of the individuals who man the levers of the Bolshevik machine. People can be hurt faster than institutions, after all, and nothing works better than making your enemy live up to his own rule book.

When a conservative professor is blacklisted, or a labor union extorts an employer, or a local government passes anti-Second Amendment legislation, or your kid comes home from school telling you about the anal fisting lesson the teacher gave that day, then the *individuals* responsible should be sued and sued and motherfucking sued, bankrupted, fired, and imprisoned if possible. There should be no presumption of good faith, no gentlemens' agreements to keep it impersonal, no looting the taxpayer's pockets for the actions of the filthy traitor liberal enemy. It should be about scorched earth personal destruction all the time, sowing as much hatred and discord as possible. This seems like a much better use of my limited dollars than giving it to blowhard politicians. Judicial Watch and the Goldwater Institute are a good start, but we need something even less interested in the settlement dollars they can scoop up, less interested in high minded ideology and sweeping judicial precedent, and more interested in carrying the battle right into the teeth of the enemy and fucking their shit up.

RonF said...

Academia wants diversity of race, national origin, religion, etc. down to the "nth" detail, in all but one category. Unfortunately, it's the only category that really counts - diversity of thought.

Pogo said...

Why should the conservatives continue fight by Queensberry rules when the leftists fight by Alinsky rules?

What do they gain by doing so?
Nothing.

Of course it's a terrible precedent, but that noble idea was smashed long ago. It's no longer a precedent at all. The current precedent is to sue, sue, then sue some more.

Cedarford said...

Alex - " Believe me, if you keep your Facebook page private and keep your comments limited to non-political fare no employer will ever get anything on you."

And you miss that the purpose of the lawsuit is hopefully to deter employers from hiring based on the politics and protected speech of the individual. Or other factors important to employers trying to reach out and examine other free associations in a persons private life.
You mask Facebook and obscure photos of friends that an employer thinking they have a carte blanche to examine any ascpect of your private life - might look askence on? They might ask neighbors via an investigator if you are a committed Green recycler. Examine who you contributed to in politics from the public record. Spouses political contributions. Easy to run a credit score check. If any know if you own any firearms. Are you a member of a whacky religious sect, a Jew, or a non-god fearing atheist.

Carol_Herman said...

It's a pretty good idea to eliminate a candidate who doesn't respect our laws! ROE IS THE LAW! Whether this lady likes it or not.

As to "putting things in writing," maybe, that's the dilemma? If you're a lawyer, check your honesty at the door. And, NEVER SAY WHAT YOU'RE THINKING!

On the other hand, respect for our laws have crept so low ... lawyer jokes abound.

By the way, aren't deliberations a secret? Or is this ALSO something this woman is ignorant of?

Who did get hired?

Jose_K said...

if you keep your Facebook page private and keep your comments limited to non-political fare ? why? its a free country , or not?
dont ask, dont tell ?

Kirk Parker said...

Darleen,

"And Facebook settings aren't necessarily that private. Your friends list is available and unless you scrub that..."

Really? Go find mine and report back here.

Alex said...

if you keep your Facebook page private and keep your comments limited to non-political fare ? why? its a free country , or not?

You are free from the government prosecuting you for your online postings, but you are not entitled to employment at any company you want. If a company chooses to be fascist about background checks, that is their right.

n.n said...

There is no dissonance required to appreciate the merit of this case. As I understand it, conservatives support ex post facto reviews when there is probable cause to suggest illegal discrimination has occurred. This is entirely compatible with the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". That the dean was so helpful in making the case only serves to minimize the court's time and expenditure of taxpayer funds, which is a bonus that conservatives can take to the bank.

I am not sure if this reflects more poorly on the dean or of anonymous ideologues who do not entertain collegiality, etc.

Writ Small said...

We're so accustomed to frivolous discrimination suits, we forget there were many legitimate ones that helped tear down the systems of institutional racism that once operated freely. Those early civil rights battles were a good thing whether you're liberal or conservative today.

The question is whether what is happening in academia amounts to institutional bias against a mainstream political view. If so, some pushback lawsuits are warranted. However, if we want to avoid the sordid, low road the left has walked, the grievances must not be institutionalized.

It's also a sad truth that the sort of person who would sue to get hired is generally not one you would want to work with, so if she isn't a kook, she should be supported in her career-limiting, trail blazing efforts.

gadfly said...

Lets see if I remember this correctly. Fake Indian and extreme liberal Ward Churchill sued the University of Colorado for firing him for plagiarism.

How dare he go against collegiality. BTW, Merriam-Webster defines "collegiality" as:

"the cooperative relationship of colleagues; specifically: the participation of bishops in the government of the Roman Catholic Church in collaboration with the pope."

Academia has at last become a religion.

The Crack Emcee said...

Scott M,

If you think he was being serious and not using it as it's commonly used turn of phrase, ie, sarcastically, how smart can you be?

Revenant

Yes, Reynolds was definitely suggesting that these law professors are being punished for misbehavior in a prior incarnation.

Thanks for alerting us to this, Crack.


You know what? Fuck you guys. Scoot M wants to act like I can't read (what the fuck is "sarcastic" about his fucking blurb, asshole?) and Revenant wants to treat me like I don't know my fucking subject or he knows it better - Hey, dickhead, karma means "what goes around comes around" and has NOTHING to do with past lives, you fucking ignorant goose.

You're both as dumb as Reynolds appears to be because none of you understand the first fucking thing about what you're fucking saying - and the two of you are total fucking suck-ups to run to the asshole's defense when that's the case.

You're a couple of fucking idiots.

FUCK, I HATE BEING FUCKING OUTNUMBERED BY IDIOTS!!!!!!!!

Revenant said...

Hey, dickhead, karma means "what goes around comes around" and has NOTHING to do with past lives, you fucking ignorant goose.

I see somebody woke up on the wrong side of the padded cell today.

Revenant said...

Why should the conservatives continue fight by Queensberry rules when the leftists fight by Alinsky rules?

You can fight by Alinsky rules as much as you want, provided you stop claiming to care about things like morality, ethics, tradition, or personal responsibility.

Otherwise one might be tempted to think that the above are just things you talk about to sucker the rubes into handing you political power.

Henry said...

Just don't call it instant karma. That's an oxymoron.

Pogo said...

"provided you stop claiming to care about things like morality, ethics, tradition, or personal responsibility."

Really?

That's a narrow view of war.

JohnJ said...

“…because they so despise her politics…”

“Despise”?

How-in-the-world did we get to a point where presumably intelligent and compassionate people “despise” a prolife perspective?

Lawler Walken said...

Geesh, the women on The View can handle having a pro-life type around (Elizabeth Hasselback), you'd think the highly educated professors of the U of Iowa law school could find a way to cope.

Professors are wimpy. Not all of course, but a lot of them are. I wonder if Althouse's colleagues secretly seethe at her points of view, her visibility, her following (in the blogosphere anyway). Maybe so, but oh well, too bad, so sad. Tenure, baby, tenure. Can't beat it. But would they hire her now??

Spread Eagle said...

KARMA:

kar·ma [kahr-muh]
noun

1. Hinduism, Buddhism . action, seen as bringing upon oneself inevitable results, good or bad, either in this life or in a reincarnation: in Hinduism one of the means of reaching Brahman. Compare bhakti ( def. 1 ) , jnana.

2. Theosophy . the cosmic principle according to which each person is rewarded or punished in one incarnation according to that person's deeds in the previous incarnation.

3. fate; destiny. Synonyms: predestination, predetermination, lot, kismet.

4. the good or bad emanations felt to be generated by someone or something: Lets get out of here. This place has bad karma.

Bob Ellison said...

We must tolerate intolerance, lest we be seen by intolerant people as intolerant. Too meta.

Phil 3:14 said...

I bet it was a pay grade issue.

Revenant said...

Really? That's a narrow view of war.

If this is war, why aren't you out there with a gun killing liberals?

The Crack Emcee said...

Spread Eagle,

You presume to teach me? Fuck you, too, asshole. Reynolds is neither Hindu or anything else and karma - as used by Reynolds - is as I stated it.

Why do you posers, who have spent no time on this subject, trying to challenge me like you don't know my level of knowledge on it? I don't tell you how to be a bunch of dick sucking sycophants, do I? Then what makes you think you're going to explain NewAge to me?

Shut your fucking pie holes because you don't know shit - and it shows with every word you write.

Fuck.

Pogo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pogo said...

"If this is war, why aren't you out there with a gun killing liberals?"

Really? That's a narrow view of tactics.

Bob Ellison said...

Crack, I do appreciate some of your comments (though I can't remember a recent instance), but you should tone it down. I don't want to run past your comments the way I do, because occasionally you say something useful. But it's getting rare. Tone it down.

ElPresidenteCastro said...

My country club was collegial before the blacks got to join.

The Crack Emcee said...

Bob Ellison,

Crack, I do appreciate some of your comments (though I can't remember a recent instance), but you should tone it down. I don't want to run past your comments the way I do, because occasionally you say something useful. But it's getting rare. Tone it down.

I hear that, and I'm sorry, but the level of insult these guys can dish out sometimes - for no other reason than sycophancy - really gets my goat:

First, Scott M lies and claims Reynolds was being sarcastic, when there was absolutely NO sarcasm in his blurb.

Then Revenant comes on - also puffed up on being a sycophant - and implies I was charging Reynolds with speaking about past lives, when there was nothing I or Reynolds said to lead him to state that conclusion.

Then comes Spread Eagle with his nonsense.

So why am I so pissed? because what all of them have in common is a desire to sort-of put me "in my place" because I dare suggest Glenn reynolds isn't the end-all/be-all of thinkers out there.

I have shown Glenn Reynolds regularly falls for quackery, leads people into cultism, and states totally fallacious ideas like karma - in other words, he can be just being plain wrong - but rather than accept that, I have to put up with these creeps acting like I'm off my rocker. Keep something in mind, please:

For three years, before it was discovered I was right and my wife WAS killing people, it was the suggestion I was a "crazy black man" that allowed the truth to be hidden, so anybody who tries that shit now, is immediately going to get on my bad side - I simply won't have it. I've spent 7 years on this subject and know it inside out. I don't need the likes of these amateurs - who understand I know the subject - coming along to tell me I don't see it correctly.

When Glenn Reynolds is wrong, he's wrong, end of story. There's no reason for anybody to come to his defense - other than to be a bunch of little shits primed to attack somebody because they're so enamored of him. Well, sorry, but Glenn Reynolds - for all the good he does - also does a lot of harm, in my book, and somebody ought to call him on it because he's got influence, whether he cares about it's effects or not.

Shit, if I can acknowledge you calling me on my behavior, the least he, and his flunkies, can do is acknowledge when some calls him on his.

Anyway, thanks for the check. While I can't say I didn't mean to offend, I can say I hate being attacked for knowing things and it's a failing of mine I've got to come to terms with.

Thanks again.

Scott M said...

Crack,

Our respective definitions of "sarcastic" must vary wildly.

The Crack Emcee said...

Then show me where you see it in Reynolds' comment. Let's see it.

I say you've still got that latent antagonism for me - even after I asked we bury the hatchet - because, though you claim to admire being humble, you hypocritically aren't humble yourself. And you show it every time you're around my comments. You can't help yourself. You just attack, attack, attack, without me having EVER done anything to you.

You are the problem, Scott, not me.

Now let's see that sarcasm you're so sure is in there - i dare you.

Scott M said...

1 a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain

2 a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual


As I said. The common turn of phrase used by people making glib comments. It doesn't get much more glib than a one-word description, apparently to add something of his own, to a link to Althouse talking about the story.

What do you think he meant by the use of that one word and do you have proof to back it up? Was the sentiment of "what goes around, comes around" used in the old Jewish sense? The Wiccan sense (course it would be x3, I suppose)? It can't be the Hindu sense, as you've already ruled that out upthread.

The Crack Emcee said...

You failed.

I didn't ask you for an explanation of what sarcasm is - like Spread Eagle's lame attempt at educating me, this insistence that I('m such a fool I don't understand the common usage of words is insulting.

Either show the sarcasm or be man enough to admit you lied.

Frankly, based on your behavior - I did ask we stop fighting, not you - I don't think you have any man in you.

Scott M said...

I'm trying to point out to you that he was being glib. Explain to me why you believe that Insta actually believes in the concept of Karma.

David said...

"They’re not really going to ask for an exemption for themselves, are they?”

Ha--of course they are.

The Crack Emcee said...

Scott M,

I'm trying to point out to you that he was being glib.

He was not - you're making an assumption on his behalf.

Explain to me why you believe that Insta actually believes in the concept of Karma.

Because he's fallen for so much of the rest of it - cultism, the quackery that flows from it, and now the language - he's in The Matrix cultism has woven around us. It's not enough to merely say "I know what karma is" to see what's going on. You have to grasp the entire scope of the "spiritual battle" believers are engaged in, to understand how they trap everyone - whether you "believe" or not.

To you, something like The War On Christmas might seem like merely a bunch of people insisting on saying "Happy Holidays" but to, say, Traditional Guy and I, there's much more going on there because we study it - it's an epic centuries-long battle with Paganism that just goes on and on and on, because most aren't aware of it, and are trained to discount it, and, as long as you're ignorant of what they're up to, the Pagans will gladly play you for the fool you are. Reynolds is ignorant of it as well.

They've got most trained to see the foolishness of a Pat Robertson but to be more accepting of their bullshit. So someone like Reynolds will speak of karma - without giving a thought to what he's saying or what the symbolism means to NewAge believers - where he'd never write of Christian beliefs in the same way. That's how it is today and, because of it, these people get away with murder.

Glenn Reynolds isn't immune to NewAge. Only those aware of it and how it's tentacles spread are. I can spot NewAge symbolism like others understand a cross means Christian. The rest of you wear the "peace symbol," not understanding it's really the upside-down and broken "crooked cross," a Pagan symbol mocking Christianity. Imagine how powerful you'd feel if you WERE aware of it, and a believer, seeing it on the backs of people everywhere - while knowing they were ignorant of how they're being used, as your pawns, in the "spiritual" battle. THAT'S what's going on. Hindus are grabbing minds through yoga, as well as Buddhists and all the rest - while many of you are focussed merely on keeping the Catholics or whatever other Christian group you can easily identify in their place.

But I see all of it.

Reynolds wasn't being glib. Like most Americans, he's got a superficial relationship with the concept and he accepts it, so he just spits it out there without thinking about it too much. Well I'm saying TO think about it - all of it - because it's a major source of our problems. One of the primary reasons we aren't critical thinkers. Before this crap was allowed to run rampant through our society - when we were primarily a Christian nation - we didn't have the problems we have today and our trajectory was upwards. Now we can't seem to punch our way out of a wet paper bag and with good reason:

We've been weakened from within.

And the reason why is NewAge.

Xmas said...

Crack,

I hate to point this out, but Instapundit is just quoting Walter Olson directly (check out Olson's Overlawyered blog...it's a fun read).

Revenant said...

Really? That's a narrow view of tactics.

It would appear you've got the "sit on your fat ass doing nothing" tactic down pat. :)

DEEBEE said...

. They’re not really going to ask for an exemption for themselves, are they?
==========================
Of course they are -- congress does that all the time, and given they are mostly lawyers /sarc

JSinAZ said...

Crack, clearly you are experiencing an Imbalance of Humors, a condition which leads to Testy Assholery Syndrome. I've been told that the recommended treatment is to take daily doses of STFU in the highest concentration available, and evaluate the splenetic content of the patients' ventings. If the bile and spite content is too high, repeat as needed. This message brought to you by the College of Stop Taking Yourself So Seriously, Ltd.

Pogo said...

"It would appear you've got the "sit on your fat ass doing nothing" tactic down pat. :)"

So either I shoot people or I'm lazy? Is that your argument?

Someone needs a nap. :)

Scott M said...

He was not - you're making an assumption on his behalf.

Despite the ranting bullshit you leveled at me last night, I'll go ahead and treat you like and adult and try to respond to you. Incidentally, you keep making the mistake that you know me or know what I think outside of words printed on this blog. You do not. I don't pretend to assume things about your life outside your publicly available musings, so do me the same courtesy. Tangentially, you seem to think that I care what you personally think of me. I do not. Any insults thrown at me have all the efficacy grasping at smoke. My having a "latent antagonism", as you put it, toward you would entail my caring what you think about me. I do not. When you exceed my blowhard tolerance, as I've said a couple times before, I'll say something. It's that simple.

He was not - you're making an assumption on his behalf.

Actually, he was. He boiled someone else's quote down to one word and posted it with a link to someone else's blog. If that's not oversimplification, I don't know what is.

Because he's fallen for so much of the rest of it

You're making an assumption on his behalf.

I had actually cited other sentences in the rest of your comments above and replied to them in turn, but what it really boils down to is that 1) you think you know more than everyone else, and 2) think you know the first thing about the rest of us (oh, except for Trad Guy...he's up there on Olympos with you), so I deleted all of it because it's just so much skipping 12".

I think you're on the right track on a few things, but they are generally overshadowed by your rampant elitism.

The Crack Emcee said...

Scott M,

When you exceed my blowhard tolerance, as I've said a couple times before, I'll say something. It's that simple.

Then your word means nothing. As I said, you're hardly a man because you lack integrity.

I will keep it in mind for future reference - thanks for the ambush, asshole. I hope you enjoyed it.

It will not happen again.

Scott M said...

I will keep it in mind for future reference - thanks for the ambush, asshole. I hope you enjoyed it.

What ambush?

The Crack Emcee said...

Read your first comment to me again. Do you call that you and I burying the hatchet - or you deciding to violate the truce at will?

Forget it, Scott, you're a liar - and so we're done.

The Crack Emcee said...

JSinAZ,

This message brought to you by the College of Stop Taking Yourself So Seriously, Ltd.

You're obviously a graduate, so - since I never attended - I'll take you as seriously as you take yourself, which is not at all.

"Virtue is persecuted more by the wicked than it is loved by the good." - Buddha

I'm sure you'll all respect that because of who said it, but Rush Limbaugh makes the same point fairly regularly, so I'll use it.

Scott M said...

Do you call that you and I burying the hatchet - or you deciding to violate the truce at will?

Ah. So nobody can disagree with you, but you can berate and talk down to everyone else at will (recall your derision toward me over rap/hip hop recently)? You have an extremely short memory along with an apparent need to play the constant victim.

SGT Ted said...

If they were actually concerned about 'extreme activism" theyd have to clean out all the neo-Marxists and Commies they have hired over the last 50 years.

Tank said...

Carol_Herman said...
It's a pretty good idea to eliminate a candidate who doesn't respect our laws! ROE IS THE LAW! Whether this lady likes it or not.


No one who has actually read that decision respects it, even those who are pro abortion.

Meanwhile.

Crack wars.

Wow.

Someone needs a twinkie and a glass of milk.

gregq said...

Carol_Herman blathered:
It's a pretty good idea to eliminate a candidate who doesn't respect our laws! ROE IS THE LAW! Whether this lady likes it or not.

I'm trying to figure out if this is just some sort of joke that I dont' get. Because if she means it, then clearly she thinks we should fire every left-wing law school professor who's ever argued against Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, or the Patriot Act, since they're all the "law of the land" too.

What am I missing?

The Crack Emcee said...

Scott M,

recall your derision toward me over rap/hip hop recently?

Wait - all I did was correct on the difference between Rap (a musical genre) and Hip-Hop (a cultural movement) because you mistakenly had the two reversed. If that's all it takes to get on your bad side, then, like I said, fuck you. This isn't about playing the victim - another canard of yours when dealing with black guys (who, as I've said, you have a problem with overall) - but you being a dick. I told you:

You're thye kind of white guy who gets his ass kicked and then claims it was for "no reason" when you were begging for it the whole time.

I'll settle for just leaving your racist I-have-a-problem-with-being-white ass alone,...

The Crack Emcee said...

One more thing - and I mean one:

I'll remind you that, despite having the two topics reversed, I agreed with you that Hip-Hop can be fucked up. So you still being pissed about it, and holding a grudge just to let it re-emerge later like a little bitch, is just more proof you ain't no man:

Men don't play that shit.

Skipper said...

One doesn't forfit the game because the opponent wrote the rules, as distateful as they may be. Play to win.

Scott M said...

Wait - all I did was correct on the difference between Rap (a musical genre) and Hip-Hop (a cultural movement)

Please explain how this apparent "ambush", as you put it;

If you think he was being serious and not using it as it's commonly used turn of phrase, ie, sarcastically, how smart can you be?

...is worse than this;

Scott, now you're talking gibberish to hide your ignorance

Personally I don't see that either one is really all that bad, just calling the other out over this and that. And I didn't really get all twisted up over either one. You see a person say something you perceived as an attack and you went volcanic.

Just remember. An ambush, to use your own terminology requires an ambush'er and an ambush'ee. I categorically reject that I was lying in wait, camouflaged, just biding my time until you passed by in order to engage you in close quarter battle. On the other hand, one sentence from me and that's exactly how you describe it. You were the victim of an ambush that never happened and took that victim-hood momentum and built and built on it. Deal with it.

Spread Eagle said...

Crack Emcee,

You're a little defensive. I'm not taking sides. I just posted the dictionary entry for Karma, so people can pull out of it what they will. Including you. It wasn't meant as a slam. Just more grist for the mill.

Besides, I don't presume to teach anyone anything. When the student is ready, the teacher will appear. Whoever, whenever, wherever. Like that.

Revenant said...

You have an extremely short memory along with an apparent need to play the constant victim.

You can't reason with crazy, dude. That's why they call it "crazy".

grackle said...

Liptak: I have serious misgivings about asking the courts to fix this through lawsuits … [blah, blah and more blah] … At the same time … there’s a karma factor here… [more blah] … They’re not really going to ask for an exemption for themselves, are they?

Trying to have it both ways is not a good way to make a point. Take a position, give reasons, and leave it at that.

Skipper: One doesn't forfeit the game because the opponent wrote the rules, as distasteful as they may be. Play to win.

Wisdom.

Tarzan said...

Every power that you fight to win for your political allies, will surely also accrue to your opponents when they inevitably come to power.

In a word...karma!

Methadras said...

It's the wheel greasing itself and shutting out the dirt particles known as 'conservatives' from it's grinding rotation.

Methadras said...

Crimso said...

There is no dissonance whatsoever when viewed from an Alinsky perspective.

"It's your game, the rules are your own, win or lose." Becker and Fagen.


Leftards are the epitome of cognitive dissonance. They substitute any reality for their own.