The local GOP establishment doesn't seem to be circling the wagons around Reeve. On the other hand, Reeve does have the support of such local right-wingers as Barbara Coe. Yeah.
UPDATE: just posted:
• Muslim group wants official to apologize for dog Muhammad (OC Reg)
Islamic Circle of North America’s Southern California chapter praises a council member’s criticism of Councilman Derek Reeve’s comment that he had named his dog Muhammad, after the Muslim prophet. The group says it won’t rule out a protest in San Juan Capistrano against the remark....
See also Offensive 'speech' in SJC poses problems
Also in the news...
• Universities now urging freshmen to consider studying the forgotten humanities (San Jose Mercury)
On 21st century American campuses, is there room for Shakespeare, Sartre and Sondheim?
A declining number of students think so – a trend that worries leaders at many top universities, where engineers often outnumber humanists.
Seeking to reignite interest in the liberal arts, this week Stanford University is welcoming the Class of 2015 with a rich opening volley of literature, film and philosophy designed to elevate freshmen dreams beyond that cool job at Google….
• A Civilized Debate (Inside Higher Ed)
Towson University is the latest battleground in a controversy over a student group whose presence is growing on college campuses.
Youth for Western Civilization appeared on the scene in 2009 as a co-sponsor of the Conservative Political Action Conference, sparking the interest of students across the country to start university chapters of their own. It has grown from about eight college chapters in its first year to about 15 today, with Towson as one of its newest member institutions.
The group has garnered a lot of attention for its stated standpoint – opposing “radical multiculturalism, political correctness, racial preferences, mass immigration, and socialism” – and particularly from hate-awareness groups saying it could have white nationalist ties. The group's leaders vigorously challenge such assertions….
18 comments:
Apparent bigots (usually with blinders on) appear at all time and under all sorts of labels--religious, academic, politicalistic, militaristic, free marketeristic, and the list goes on. They may do some harm even when they believe the words they speak. Look at old Frogue--a babbler of canned platitudes. Sounds like Sir Derek Reeve.
Does he really have a dog?
Such ugliness. I seldom read the Register anymore so I appreciate you giving us the links. My kids won't be signing up for his class.
This is not going to end well. Why do we attract these kind of people?
Oh, other colleges get their share, we just get the special OC variety, that's all.
Yes, Reeve has a dog and that's really the dog's name.
Reeve has the right to name his dog anything he wants. That's free speech. But there's a difference between free speech and appropriate speech, and no one seems to be making that clear.
As I said elsewhere, presumably the married SJC council members have sexual relations with their spouses. However, if they were to talk about such relations from the council dais, that would be inappropriate.
Reeve is a very smart man, and he knew the dog's name was controversial when he chose it. It's still his right. But it's not an appropriate subject for the council dais.
Where's the outrage over a Mexican Fullerton police officer charged with 2nd. degree murder of a White mentally ill man? Why in the beginning did the LA Times ignore it? Why hasn't J. Jackson or A. Sharpton spoken out about this?
9:49, there's plenty of outrage, though I doubt that, in the end, this incident will be viewed as a wrong committed by an individual (or a small group of individuals). It's the culture. That's the problem. With some exceptions, cop culture in the OC has long been scandalously bad.
gj, actually, I did make that distinction, an important one (it's at the end of my Friday post). Perhaps it was not made clearly enough.
But I do tire of having to make it.
Bvt, yes now there's outrage, but initially the LA times reported only what the FPD dictated to them, you consider that journalism? Now after the DA's press conference, where's the outrage over a Mexican cop charged with murdering a white man? Why won't the media highlight the race issue here? Perhaps because to them it's not PC? Then there's the civil rights issue of the guy being handicapped. You'd think the LA Times should be reporting on that... Also, why wasn't this Mexican cop charged with a hate crime, special circumstances? Does that only apply when the victim isn't white? I think this blog discussion about Reeves possibly offending someone pales in comparison to what this Mexican cop did to that poor, helpless, unarmed white white guy.
Bvt, according to your argument about blaming the culture of the PD (not the individual), if we apply your logic to the LAPD and their beating of R. King, then why did it have to be made into a race issue? Sure the culture within LAPD was pretty bad too. Why do you suppose only that case could involve race, but not this one? To you, what is it that qualifies cases for racial hatred?
9:46, I'm not so sure about Reeve being all that smart. If you take a look at his list of standards of governance, they're pretty ridiculous:
1. America Is Good. (What on earth does this mean? That the American government always stands for truth and justice? I really have no idea.)
2. God is the Center of Life. (Which God in particular? I rather like the Greek gods who are much more fun than others.)
3. Your family is sacred and the ultimate authority, not the government.(Completely nonsensical.)
4. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it. (Well, unless you are a serial looter of pension funds.)
5. We have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results. (You have a right to the pursuit of happiness? That opens up some serious considerations. And who said there's a guarantee of equal results? To what?)
6. You work hard for what you have and you will share it with who you want to. Government cannot force you to be charitable. (Unless of course it's cutting hedge fund managers massive tax breaks.)
7. It is not un-American to disagree with authority or to share your personal opinion. (Who ever said it was?)
8. The government works for you. You do not answer to them, they answer to you. (Well, then, stop screwing with NPR and Planned Parenthood.)
9. Semper Fidelis (?)
It's all rather embarrassing.
Thanks, BvT. I either forgot or missed it.
I just deleted a comment that started thus: "1:36, you must be stupid. Why don't you go back to England or France?"
C'mon. If you have a point, make it. This isn't Beck or Limbaugh; this is a college blog
I'd like to go to France, just for a little while. England not so much, but France, yes.
Oh we see, so it's okay for you guys to call conservatives stupid all day long, but when one calls you stupid back, and lays out a pretty good supporting case, well that's just over the top and you can't handle it. Bunch-o-crybabies! How about you guys at dtb advocating for that Mexican cop to be prosecuted for a hate crime? Mexican "PEACE OFFICER" charged with murder of unarmed, peaceful, handicapped, WHITE man.
I wouldn't say no to England. Good beer.
And yes, 1:36's post is pretty dumb. It doesn't make any kind of,case.
There is an incoherent bug buzzing around this blog. Please swat it.
Post a Comment