Anderson Cooper is saying that CNN has never made any claims against President Trump . . . I’d put my research team to work on that if I had a research team, but since I don’t, I’ll just point out that 99 percent of CNN’s panel guests for the past two years made claims against President Trump, which I don’t think was accidental.
There was a period of several months, for example, where Michael Avenatti was on CNN probably more often than Cooper himself, for no reason other than to make claims against President Trump.
(Whatever happened to Avenatti, by the way? CNN seems to have lost interest in him.)
There’s a technical distinction between making claims against someone and providing two years of airtime to other people making claims, but it’s not a credible distinction.
Cooper also likes to say that President Trump was not cleared of Russian collusion, which is another technicality . . . a two-year investigation that uncovers no illegalities is not exactly the same as being “cleared.” There’s always one more rock somewhere that could be looked under, so it’s never possible to state definitively that nothing happened.
But “not cleared of Russian collusion” is a phony baloney phrase that can be applied to anyone. Has Anderson Cooper been cleared of Russian collusion?
Well, according to the New York Times, some USC students jet to Bali for spring break, while some of their classmates work overnight shifts to pay for books!
Instead of inequality, think of it as diversity. So now it’s a good thing!
The Times for some reason writes USC as U.S.C., even though nobody does that.
I’ve noticed the Times always measures life outcomes in terms of money, like that’s the only possible criterion.
What ‘s so great about jetting to Bali anyway? What are you going to do, lay on a fucking beach? There are 50 beaches within two hours of USC. It’s the same sun up in the sky. You’re the same person with the same problems in Bali as you are here. You jet to Bali, you jet home, absolute waste of time.
In the old party of classic 20th-century Democratic liberalism, they wanted everyone to rise. . . . Now there’s a mood not of Everyone Can Rise but of Some Must Be Taken Down. It’s bitter, resentful, divisive. . . .
America is not good guys in a foxhole to them, it’s crabs in a barrel with the one who gets to the top getting yanked down to the bottom — deservedly.
I think there’s a kind of desperate hope built into poetry that one really wants, hopelessly, to save the world. One is trying to say everything that can be said for the things that one loves while there’s still time.
Now that we have faces and names, sums of money, and details on specific subterfuges, the level of anger, shock and indignation is much higher than I would have expected regarding what I thought was already taken as a truism: that parents with money and influence can get their kids into colleges that they couldn’t get into on their own merits.
Everyone also knows that students are routinely admitted to colleges based on various forms of diversity rather than on academic achievement. Moreover, virtuous Americans agree that tilting the system in this way in favor of academically unqualified individuals is a good thing.
I would have thought that the moral question is whether it’s right to tilt the admissions process at all based on non-meritorious criteria such as demographics, including the demographic of having rich parents.
If everyone agrees that the process should be tilted, I wouldn’t expect the moral compass to oscillate based on the direction of the tilt.
Why would tilting the process in one direction be admirable but tilting it in a different direction be reprehensible?
If it’s admirable for you to put your thumb on the scale, why is it odious and vile for others to do the same?
Outraged parents are filing lawsuits in the college admissions scandal . . .
One parent, Jennifer Kay Toy of Oakland, believes her son Joshua was not admitted to some colleges because wealthy parents thought it was “ok to lie, cheat, steal [steal?] and bribe their children’s way into a good college.”
She has therefore filed a $500 billion lawsuit (sounds reasonable) accusing 45 defendants of defrauding and inflicting emotional distress on everyone whose “rights to a fair chance at entrance to college” were stolen through their alleged conspiracy.
Not reported: where (or if) Joshua is actually attending college, or which colleges Ms. Toy thinks he would have been admitted to if not for the aforementioned skulduggery.
There are also students filing suits, alleging among other things that their degrees have been devalued by skepticism over the validity of the admission process.
I think these lawsuits founder on at least a couple of points:
None of the people or universities involved invented lying, cheating or bribing as a way to get into college. We’re now able to put actual faces to it (William Singer, Lori Loughlin, Felicity Huffman, etc.) but the proposition that the college admission process was untainted until Singer and his fellow fraudsters corrupted it is not going to stand up to scrutiny.
As regards skepticism about academic bona fides, not only have students for decades been routinely admitted to colleges based on criteria other than academic achievement (e.g., “diversity”), but virtuous Americans seem to agree that rigging the system in favor of otherwise unqualified individuals is a good thing. Where are the lawsuits over diversity admits devaluing academic credentials?
I had surgery last week to remove a basal cell carcinoma. It’s a common outpatient procedure but the consent form I was given to sign when I checked in listed out all the worst-case scenarios: I might be disfigured, I might bleed to death, etc.
After signing it, I took the form back up to the nurse and said “This information is so alarming that I changed my mind about doing the surgery. See you later.”
“Ha ha,” she chuckled. “You’re signing your life away.”
“Yes . . . maybe you’re not supposed to say that.”
And yet Pat Sajak is in perfect health . . .this is fair?!
Actually, I’ve never liked Alex Trebek. I used to watch the original version of Jeopardy!, hosted by a guy named Art Fleming, who, unlike Trebek, didn’t act like he was smarter than the contestants just because he had the answers right there in front of him . . .