Check out today's Daily Illini editorial. They make a great point. This is just the latest potentially disastrous bad call by Chancellor Richard Herman who values public relations over sound policy, and in this case, over student safety. Wouldn't a better policy be making it clear to all students in the dorms that they will be held responsible for the actions of their guests, and telling them police will be called immediately if there is disruptive activity in the dorms? Perhaps Chancellor Herman is following the perennially short-sighted advice of Housing Director Jack Collins, but the buck stops with Chancellor Herman. His first charge is keeping the students at the university safe. I hope if there is a rise in injuries, sexual assaults, or fatalities, that Chancellor Herman is held responsible.
Labels: Richard Herman, stupidity, University of Illinois
Practice Pointer: Don't be an insolent little tweak
9 Comments Published by Augur on Tuesday, October 16 at 1:12 PM.
A buddy of mine sent this video of Judge Milan from The People's Court going berserker on a cocky little punk for saying "that's your opinion." She isn't exactly a model of decorum and grace, but he had it coming. (Hat tip: Above the Law)
Labels: Augur, practice pointer, stupidity
It was bad enough when MoveOn.org surrendered the democrats high ground with the General Betrayus ad. What a pack of dumbasses. The surest way to lose a won debate is a mindless personal insult. You sort of expect this kind of thing from time to time from those on the far left. Far lefties, like poets, have a hard time understanding things like consequences.
Today several Democratic Senators are bothering to attack Rush Limbaugh over his phony soldiers comment. Sen. Harkin was probably the funniest when he asked if maybe El Rusho is high on prescription drugs again. But attacking someone like Rush, who pretty much anyone who would ever vote Democrat already considers a douche bag, is a terrible use of time. It makes Democrats seem out of touch and focused on the wrong things. They feel like they have to find any excuse to "defend the troops" because they appear so limp-wristed in pushing the agenda to bring troops home, so they look for totally empty ways to "defend the troops." Most of the comments seemed shrill and aloof, and not a single mind will be changed regarding Mr. Limbaugh.
And for those of you from south of I-80, the Democrats have forsaken George Bernard Shaw's barnyard maxim: "Never wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty, and the pig likes it." No good comes from sparring with Rush Limbaugh.
Today several Democratic Senators are bothering to attack Rush Limbaugh over his phony soldiers comment. Sen. Harkin was probably the funniest when he asked if maybe El Rusho is high on prescription drugs again. But attacking someone like Rush, who pretty much anyone who would ever vote Democrat already considers a douche bag, is a terrible use of time. It makes Democrats seem out of touch and focused on the wrong things. They feel like they have to find any excuse to "defend the troops" because they appear so limp-wristed in pushing the agenda to bring troops home, so they look for totally empty ways to "defend the troops." Most of the comments seemed shrill and aloof, and not a single mind will be changed regarding Mr. Limbaugh.
And for those of you from south of I-80, the Democrats have forsaken George Bernard Shaw's barnyard maxim: "Never wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty, and the pig likes it." No good comes from sparring with Rush Limbaugh.
I've been planning this article for some time, but I've been waiting for something suitably illustrative to show up in order to give it the punch that's really needed to make my point.
Those of you in the know about networks and are computer savvy probably know about what has been happening in Estonia over the past month. For the rest, let me bring you up to speed by linking to this.
The really short version is that it is very likely that the Kremlin has orchestrated a cyber-conflict over the recently independent nation's disrespect for the Russian dead of World War 2. It may be hard for a Westerner to understand, since the realities of the Second World War in the then-Soviet Union are so horrific as to be incomprehensible. Let me give you one simple statistic that should bring it into perspective: The Soviet Union lost more civilians in Leningrad during its siege than the United States did soldiers during the entirety of the War.
Lally would know better than I what the present feelings in Moscow are about The Great Patriotic War for her generation, but the older generations in Russia lionized their war dead.
There is also a lot of remaining hard feelings in the Baltic Republics over the ill-treatment of the intelligensia during their occupation by the Soviet Union for the fifty years following the war. Therefore, the moving of a statue symbolizing the Russian dead was not the trivial thing that one would imagine.
Normally, this would not present a problem for us. Russia has imposed sanctions, there've been some riots in Tallinn, a cyber-attack that might be due to someone getting over-excited in the Security Agency, some border tension. No big deal, right?
WRONG, WRONG AND MORE WRONG
The neo-conservatives within the Bush administration have seen fit that in order to insure the victory of "democracy" in the world, it was necessary for the Baltic states to join NATO.
Let me show you something from the NATO charter:
ARTICLE 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area...
Ladies and gentlemen, what this means is that the United States government, (while you weren't looking) has gotten us into a situation where, if the Russians decide that the Estonians have pissed on their statue and invade, the United States is obligated, by treaty, to go to war with them.
And that, I believe, speaks for itself. You can be horrified now.
Tom
Those of you in the know about networks and are computer savvy probably know about what has been happening in Estonia over the past month. For the rest, let me bring you up to speed by linking to this.
The really short version is that it is very likely that the Kremlin has orchestrated a cyber-conflict over the recently independent nation's disrespect for the Russian dead of World War 2. It may be hard for a Westerner to understand, since the realities of the Second World War in the then-Soviet Union are so horrific as to be incomprehensible. Let me give you one simple statistic that should bring it into perspective: The Soviet Union lost more civilians in Leningrad during its siege than the United States did soldiers during the entirety of the War.
Lally would know better than I what the present feelings in Moscow are about The Great Patriotic War for her generation, but the older generations in Russia lionized their war dead.
There is also a lot of remaining hard feelings in the Baltic Republics over the ill-treatment of the intelligensia during their occupation by the Soviet Union for the fifty years following the war. Therefore, the moving of a statue symbolizing the Russian dead was not the trivial thing that one would imagine.
Normally, this would not present a problem for us. Russia has imposed sanctions, there've been some riots in Tallinn, a cyber-attack that might be due to someone getting over-excited in the Security Agency, some border tension. No big deal, right?
WRONG, WRONG AND MORE WRONG
The neo-conservatives within the Bush administration have seen fit that in order to insure the victory of "democracy" in the world, it was necessary for the Baltic states to join NATO.
Let me show you something from the NATO charter:
ARTICLE 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area...
Ladies and gentlemen, what this means is that the United States government, (while you weren't looking) has gotten us into a situation where, if the Russians decide that the Estonians have pissed on their statue and invade, the United States is obligated, by treaty, to go to war with them.
And that, I believe, speaks for itself. You can be horrified now.
Tom
Labels: Europe, foreign policy, stupidity, Tet
