Commenter Archive

AvatarComments by CJColucci in reply to Jaybird*

On “Socks With Sandals: The Age Old Debated Trudges On

I don't wear socks with sandals myself. Indeed, I rarely wear sandals. But I'll be damned if I can figure out why I should care if anyone else does.

On “How to Lose Friends and Influence No One

I do not criticize people for "voting their conscience" unless they lie to me and tell me their votes might, nevertheless, be had if [fill in unacceptable condition or vacuous plea for "understanding"], which you are not doing. If you believe Tara Reade -- I don't, but we won't get into that -- that is a perfectly acceptable reason not to vote for Biden, as long as you apply the same standard to Trump, which you do.
But that's just me. If other folks take umbrage, that's just the normal cost of conscientious behavior. Always has been, always will be, and there's nothing that can be done about it. At least not consistently with any set of principles involving freedom of speech or conscience. Conscience is not for wimps; fortunately, you aren't one.

On “Biden Picks Kamala Harris

I had predicted this a while back, on this very blog, though I said at the time I didn't have any real basis for it other than that it seemed to make sense to me. Which would normally be a strike against it.

"

If you don't count Texans as westerners, and that is defensible, then no, there hasn't been a westerner on a Democratic ticket in our lifetimes, or in any year since anything that we would now consider a "western" state had been made part of the Union. Before that, there were some candidates from states that were, at the time, considered "western."

"

And that's what I'm going to keep doing. I've done all the work I care to do on the subject. I'm not taking assignments from people who don't want to put in their own work. If they don't want to put in the work, either because they don't care about the subject or because they're lazy, fine, I won't criticize them for it. But I'm not doing it for them.
And you still don't get the joke.

"

Again, I read the 100-odd page report. I've done my work and shared what I found. Others can do theirs.

"

Why ask me? You can read it yourself.

"

No. I posted a resource for those who might be interested. And to make a joke that obviously went over your head, even after a hint. If you want to argue about the Ward Churchill case itself, find someone who cares.

"

I don't have, and never had, any interest in either supporting or rebutting what you characterize as an "argument" about Ward Churchill. I do think that anyone who reads the 100-odd page report will come away with a rather different understanding of the case. I doubt anyone is interested enough to bother, and I said all I care to on it back then. I've supplied a resource in case anyone still cares. Whether anyone uses it is up to them.

"

You're guessing about why I linked to it and whether I read it. That's two bad guesses.

"

You don't have to read anything. I found something on the internet and linked to it. Isn't that how it's done around here?

"

I think so, but anyone who cares need not take my word for it.

"

I'm not telling him to read it. He asked what he was missing and I told him. He can read it or not as he sees fit.

"

Hint-there is a 100-odd page attachment.

"

Some of us read past the first line. Anyone else is welcome to.

"

www.aaup.org/JAF3/report-termination-ward-churchill#.XzBcXkEpBPY

Oh, look. I found something on the internet.

"

No, but he's asking to be believed when he says he knows something that it is unlikely he knows. And people are citing him as proof of this thing he probably doesn't know. Asking "how do you know?" is a far cry from being put on trial.

"

Well, yes, he's "saying" it, but he hasn't given any indication that he was in a position to know whether what he's saying is true.

"

What's the "conspiracy"? It's an open and notorious fact that you don't have to explain yourself when you decide not to re-hire an adjunct. And it's only common sense, reinforced by HR and the damn lawyers, not to.
Just to be clear, I'm not calling the author a liar. He probably thinks he knows what he says he thinks. He just hasn't given us any reason to think so.

"

The other things to ask ourselves is whether the adjunct author actually knows whether the other adjunct was not renewed because (a word he carefully does not use, preferring "after") students complained about exposure to Edward Said and Mark Twain -- both staples of various curricula. It is extremely unlikely that the decision-makers shared their reasoning with the author. And it is extremely unlikely that the decision-makers told the non-renewed adjunct anything of the sort. Normally, they don't have to tell you anything at all, and HR and college lawyers make damn sure the decision-makers know that they shouldn't say anything, let alone anything stupid.
Maybe the non-renewed adjunct thinks he knows why he wasn't renewed, and maybe he shared his suspicions with the author -- or maybe it was third- or fourth-hand gossip. Or maybe the author has sources of information he didn't share. Though what they might be is mysterious.

"

Yes, it was. I reported on it in my college paper in the early 1970's.

"

David, you can't bring basic facts into this.

"

Now Greg, that's not playing fair.

*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.