• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Fresno State Professor Throws Some Shade on Barbara Bush

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Doc Savage Fan said:
Good point. But such is the nature of free speech and all the various forms it takes.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Click to expand...

I think we are headed down the road towards free 1% speech. Huge corporate monoliths look like they will own nearly all of the world media in a decade or so. They are also actively attempting to kill off independent media. I can imagine a day where Western atrocities in Yemen are not just vastly marginalized (as is the case today) but completely unreported on at all. It should concern all Americans that this allowed to happen. It is a horrible thing for free societies, that a few billionaires could be in a position to control and direct all news information on a global scale. It allows for global propaganda and incitement to war.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Sometimes free speech has consequences...especially if this free speech is considered to be highly offensive. She can't be jailed, but she can be fired...which may happen if enough donors force the issue.
Click to expand...

It has already been explained in this thread why she can't be fired based on this. No matter how many donors force what. There are still some rights in this country which money can't take away. Thanks to the founders
 
Noah Abrams said:
It has already been explained in this thread why she can't be fired based on this. No matter how many donors force what. There are still some rights in this country which money can't take away. Thanks to the founders
Click to expand...

Verify: Can a tenured professor be fired?
http://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/verify-can-a-tenured-professor-be-fired/103-542753720

While the situation is ongoing, Fresno state officials made it clear, Jarrar isn't exempt from being fired.

"There are certain processes we have to follow but there are, certainly, situations where a tenured faculty person can be fired," Zelenzy said.​
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Verify: Can a tenured professor be fired?
http://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/verify-can-a-tenured-professor-be-fired/103-542753720

While the situation is ongoing, Fresno state officials made it clear, Jarrar isn't exempt from being fired.

"There are certain processes we have to follow but there are, certainly, situations where a tenured faculty person can be fired," Zelenzy said.​
Click to expand...

Yes that is what he is saying, probably for PR purposes. What the professor said has zero grounds on which she can be fried.
 
bshole said:
I think we are headed down the road towards free 1% speech. Huge corporate monoliths look like they will own nearly all of the world media in a decade or so. They are also actively attempting to kill off independent media. I can imagine a day where Western atrocities in Yemen are not just vastly marginalized (as is the case today) but completely unreported on at all. It should concern all Americans that this allowed to happen. It is a horrible thing for free societies, that a few billionaires could be in a position to control and direct all news information on a global scale. It allows for global propaganda and incitement to war.
Click to expand...

As always nothing is preventing you or anyone else from putting your own capital at risk and starting up your own news organization. But you won't because you speak with you wallet and what you're saying by your inaction is that it's not worth that much to you. Instead what you actually will do is nothing more than complain because you expect someone better and richer than you to do it on your behalf, presumably out of some sort of noblese oblige.
 
bshole said:
I think we are headed down the road towards free 1% speech. Huge corporate monoliths look like they will own nearly all of the world media in a decade or so. They are also actively attempting to kill off independent media. I can imagine a day where Western atrocities in Yemen are not just vastly marginalized (as is the case today) but completely unreported on at all. It should concern all Americans that this allowed to happen. It is a horrible thing for free societies, that a few billionaires could be in a position to control and direct all news information on a global scale. It allows for global propaganda and incitement to war.
Click to expand...

The trend is the opposite actually. The traditional media sources are losing relevance. There is more decentralization going on in terms of information and what people hear. Same reason Oscars are losing relevance.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Sometimes free speech has consequences...especially if this free speech is considered to be highly offensive. She can't be jailed, but she can be fired...which may happen if enough donors force the issue.
Click to expand...

Was she using a university twitter account or her own? If it was her own then she should be allowed to say what she wants without being fired IMO. I mean sure you can hate what she says and be offended etc, but...so?

I think some of the problems today are people giving away their power to social media. Instead of complaining and being offended and making this an issue, its easier to just unfollow or ignore her statement and move on with your life.
 
glenn1 said:
As always nothing is preventing you or anyone else from putting your own capital at risk and starting up your own news organization. But you won't because you speak with you wallet and what you're saying by your inaction is that it's not worth that much to you. Instead what you actually will do is nothing more than complain because you expect someone better and richer than you to do it on your behalf, presumably out of some sort of noblese oblige.
Click to expand...

This is a good point that many people don't realize. Money IS a form of speech.
 
soulcougher73 said:
Was she using a university twitter account or her own? If it was her own then she should be allowed to say what she wants without being fired IMO. I mean sure you can hate what she says and be offended etc, but...so?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what account she was using, personal or official. You guys have completely missed the reason why she cannot be fired even if she speaks in official capacity. Please go through this thread if you can.
 
Indus said:
There's a lot of truth to what she said about W being a war criminal.

There was no need to invade Iraq.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated ... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat ...
In a speech before the World Affairs Council of Charlotte, NC, on April 7, 2006, President Bush stated that he "fully understood that the intelligence was wrong, and [he was] just as disappointed as everybody else" when U.S. troops failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.[81]
Click to expand...
 
Noah Abrams said:
Doesn't matter what account she was using, personal or official. You guys have completely missed the reason why she cannot be fired even if she speaks in official capacity. Please go through this thread if you can.
Click to expand...

You might want to go through it and see my original response that as led to where my posts are at now 🙂
 
Noah Abrams said:
Doesn't matter what account she was using, personal or official. You guys have completely missed the reason why she cannot be fired even if she speaks in official capacity. Please go through this thread if you can.
Click to expand...

That might be true, but I think it remains an important distinction, since the fact that she used her personal account makes the University's response totally inappropriate. They should not have said anything about her comments at all.

SKORPI0 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd be disappointed too if my fig leaf for an illegal war was shown to be utter bullshit. There's no overstating the seriousness of his crime or the severity of his deserved punishment, even if we all know he will never have to face justice. It must be a source of at least some anxiety for most of the world to know that you are guilty of a capital crime.
 
Noah Abrams said:
Doesn't matter what account she was using, personal or official. You guys have completely missed the reason why she cannot be fired even if she speaks in official capacity. Please go through this thread if you can.
Click to expand...

I've seen very few here state she should be fired. That being said, tenure isn't a shield against any and all administrative discipline against her. If she used her official university Twitter account to make this statement and that's against school policy it would certainly be appropriate to give her a written reprimand for it (or whatever sanctions the policy makes available). Tenure also won't stop her career advancement from being brought to a screeching halt either if this act caused embarrassment to the university.
 
mect said:
I think its very different to make inflammatory statements in a private forum compared to a public forum. Kind of like saying stupid shit among friends at home compared to at a public rally.
Click to expand...

I think her personal Twitter account is somewhere in between. No one sees her Tweets unless they have elected to follow her account (or someone else that they follow retweets it).
 
Her opinion was that B.Bush raised a "war criminal". What does ATOT think?

Here's a interesting Sept 2010 article.

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond
Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.
But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.
The price of oil was less than $25 a barrel, and futures markets expected it to remain around that level. With the war, prices started to soar, reaching $140 a barrel by 2008.

That the Iraq war added substantially to the federal debt. This was the first time in American history that the government cut taxes as it went to war. The result: a war completely funded by borrowing. U.S. debt soared from $6.4 trillion in March 2003 to $10 trillion in 2008 (before the financial crisis); at least a quarter of that increase is directly attributable to the war. And that doesn't include future health care and disability payments for veterans, which will add another half-trillion dollars to the debt. As a result of two costly wars funded by debt, our fiscal house was in dismal shape even before the financial crisis -- and those fiscal woes compounded the downturn.
The Iraq war didn't just contribute to the severity of the financial crisis, though; it also kept us from responding to it effectively. Increased indebtedness meant that the government had far less room to maneuver than it otherwise would have had. More specifically, worries about the (war-inflated) debt and deficit constrained the size of the stimulus, and they continue to hamper our ability to respond to the recession.
Click to expand...
 
I don't understand the big deal. It's generally impolite to insult the dead but it's not like all dead people are saints either. I'm sure when Melanie trump is dead people will have pretty nasty things to say about her too. People are still saying nasty things about Michelle Obama .

Are people upset that she used bad language to describe a dead person or more because the professor took a position they personally disagree with?
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
0*NABaGuJPrtsJaM9s.
Click to expand...

You understand that this comment very specifically does not apply to this situation? 1) It is not a government arresting her and 2) it is not a nongovernment deciding not to tolerate her. Seems very much like a Pickering issue.
 
In typical fashion, when something bad happens to conservatives or Repubs, liberals really take the high road.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top