Political/Cultural Chit-Chat

[UTEopia]

For this reason, I think it's quite possible Trump has reduced racism from whites toward non-whites . Things are going in a better direction, the hype about whites becoming a minority in X years is counteracted by the strong advocacy and stated desire to MAGA, fight China, fight Mexico, fight immigration, condemn NFL kneelers, etc. The ship is steering away from the icebergs.

I, for one, believe that this is just a temporary steering away from the iceberg. When Trump needs to make himself feel good, he cannot help but attack those who are weaker and marginalized. This fuels those who are inclined, consciously and sub-consciously, towards racism, homophobia, etc. to speak and act on those beliefs. Admittedly, this is a small minority of the overall population, but it is a minority that is willing to take an automatic rifle/firebomb to a Synagogue, Mosque, Black Church or drive a car into a group on the sidewalk. Living in San Diego part-time has curiously made me more optimistic about people in general. Unlike Utah, San Diego is much more diverse in every measurement possible. This diversity by force of nature demands that we walk, work, eat and play with people who do not look like us and do not share all of the same beliefs. It is refreshing for me to be in this environment. I am sad to report that one group that seems to be more interested in not participating and instead becoming more isolated, is the LDS community. Very few LDS people are involved with the greater community and while the drive to proselyte others into the LDS community is significant, the willingness to participate in shared community activities (charitable and recreational) is lacking.

[LA Ute]

All my kids went to high school in one high school in the Los Angeles suburbs. It is a great high school, annually considered the best public high school in California, and with over 4000 students – the size of many small colleges. So I can’t offer much about the current state of high schools in Utah.

My own high school experience was long, long ago, at a time when the Latter-day Saint group was probably more dominant than it is now. All four of the children in my own nuclear family (my siblings and I) attended Highland over a span of 17 years, and we had four different experiences. My own friends were evenly split among various faiths, maybe because I was involved in a bunch of stuff— sports, debate, the seminary choir, the literary magazine. I had a great experience and actually learned a lot about other faiths and how others kids who grew up in Salt Lake City and were not members of the dominant faith saw the world. (One of them is here on this board.) So for me, high school was an eye-opening experience, because the other children I grew up with in my small neighborhood were all LDS.

My siblings had a different journey. One of my sisters had a “meh” high school experience and wasn’t able to find a group to hang out with. My other sister just got through it in a sort of happy go lucky way, and my older brother, Who was a very serious, sober-minded student in high school, doesn’t seem to care much about his high school experience.

About Salt Lake City.... Cultures are hard to change, but i believe it’s worth the effort because of the individual lives that can be positively affected by even trying to change. I now split my time between Salt Lake and Los Angeles, and the more time I spend back in my home town, the more I see how profound the division is between the LDS community and others. That tension, and the poor behavior on both sides of the divide, are things that I did not miss about living in Utah. Now that I am back, I am resigned to putting up with those things, but I think it is much worse than it was 37 years ago when we left. I hope it gets better. There have been some pretty good efforts, such as this general conference talk by Elder Ballard of the Quorum of 12:

Doctrine of Inclusion

https://www.lds.org/general-conferen...usion?lang=eng

A snip:

Occasionally I hear of members offending those of other faiths by overlooking them and leaving them out. This can occur especially in communities where our members are the majority. I have heard about narrow-minded parents who tell children that they cannot play with a particular child in the neighborhood simply because his or her family does not belong to our Church. This kind of behavior is not in keeping with the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. I cannot comprehend why any member of our Church would allow these kinds of things to happen. I have been a member of this Church my entire life. I have been a full-time missionary, twice a bishop, a mission president, a Seventy, and now an Apostle. I have never taught—nor have I ever heard taught—a doctrine of exclusion. I have never heard the members of this Church urged to be anything but loving, kind, tolerant, and benevolent to our friends and neighbors of other faiths.

The Lord expects a great deal from us. Parents, please teach your children and practice yourselves the principle of inclusion of others and not exclusion because of religious, political, or cultural differences.

I think we LDS folks need to do a lot better this, and I hope we hear more about it over the pulpit.

[Rocker Ute]

All this talk (and maybe this should be migrated out of the political category) actually reminds me of what I think is a pretty humorous story from my youth regarding religious divides. I mentioned the neighborhood I grew up in despite being in SLC was largely not LDS. Legend at the time was that it was marketed and known by realtors as such and that they told people that the Mormons wouldn't bother them there. To give you an idea of the makeup of kids my age, my core group of friends through elementary school to high school kids consisted of me and two other LDS kids, and 10 kids who weren't. Like I said, I would have been a pretty lonely kid otherwise, at least through Jr High.

One of my very best friends was Baptist, and he was very active in his church. Throughout our younger years (before high school - and even a little bit in high school) we would invite each other to our respective church activities. I don't think either of us had a motive behind it, it was more just wanting to hang out together. We were pretty oblivious to what the adults were doing. So I'd invite him to the primary carnival, and he'd invite me to a church bbq and stuff like that. His parents and my parents were friends, his dad was my soccer coach, his mom was a second mom, etc.

I can't remember exactly how old I was, but it was somewhere between 12-14 and he had invited me to a BBQ his church group was having up Millcreek Canyon. I remember that he and I were playing in the creek, stacking rocks to make a dam or something when an adult came down to us and said to me that, I believe, the church elders wanted to talk to me. I had a brother on a mission and so I thought they meant missionaries or something, but as i went up to where they were having the BBQ there were three older guys sitting around in camp chairs and invited me to sit down with them, but not my friend. Still not knowing what was going on I plunked down in a chair.

They started to ask me questions, they knew my dad was a former Bishop and a few other things about me and my family. They asked me how I felt about the Mormon church and I remember kind of shrugging and saying that I liked it. One of the guys said to me, "Well, you need to understand the truth about your church..." and went into this long talk where he kept calling Joseph Smith a charlatan. I remember that because I didn't know what one was, other than one of my other brothers had a tape from a band called "The Charlatans UK" and so to me it wasn't a negative word. So again, I was just kind of oblivious to what they were talking about. Then he told me about how the Book of Mormon was false and that I needed to believe in the Bible. Again, ignorant to what they were talking about I remember saying that I did believe in the Bible, which upset this one guy, and so he started repeating, "What you believe is all false, it is all false!"

At this point I was highly uncomfortable, and another guy leaned in and said, "You need to give up your sins and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior." Again puzzled I kept saying to them, "I do accept Jesus..." and the angry guy kept alternating between, "You are not saved" and "You believe in the wrong Jesus." Which again was puzzling because I was wondering if there were TWO or something, and being 'saved' wasn't a common term used in my church so I had no idea what that even meant. Finally they gave up and the angry one said that I was too far brainwashed, which I remember did actually bother me, but again 'brainwashing' was more of a cartoonish thing to me.

But really, my greatest defense to this (what I now view as highly inappropriate) onslaught was I was just completely clueless as to what they were even driving at. Up to that point, I didn't really get the nuance of what they were saying, so I in my mind it was, "I believe in Jesus, you believe in Jesus, we all believe in Jesus!"

The rest of the night was a little awkward for me and my friend, even though I don't think my friend was in on it or anything. So I went home and asked my parents if there was more than one Jesus or something and spilled the beans. I remember that my dad laughed and asked me if I had given up my sins and accepted Jesus. I laugh now because my parents were surprisingly dismissive of the whole incident. With helicopter parents these days it would have likely been WWIII. A few days later, when my friend's mom got wind of what happened she came by and apologized to me and my parents profusely. I think because of my parents basic non-reaction to it, I remember thinking her apologies were really over the top an unnecessary.

Anyway, I'm sitting her laughing about it. We are all pretty stupid and insensitive human beings. As an LDS missionary in the bible belt, I felt like the evangelical religions were particularly cruel to people outside their faith, and particularly exclusive to the LDS kids in the area (about half of the makeup there was evangelical christian, the other half was mostly non-practicing Catholics). It took me some time to realize that really when there is a group that is massively dominant in an area it is really rough on the minority group.

So I'm always sad to hear about Diehard's high school story because that is members of my faith doing that sort of garbage. Elder Ballard's snippet above in LA Ute's post does need to be preached more from the pulpit, especially in LDS dominant areas.

[sancho]

It took me some time to realize that really when there is a group that is massively dominant in an area it is really rough on the minority group.

That's part of what makes SLC lousy right now (SLC is great in so many ways, but the inversion and the religious aspect are two big negatives) - the LDS group was massively dominant at one point, and now the tables have turned. LDS populations in all SLC high schools are much smaller than secular populations. Turns out the secular populations aren't doing a better job of being the majority than the LDS populations did back in the day.

I think it's much easier to be an LDS youth in Colorado than in SLC. Here, the religion is just some quirk - maybe even an endearing one. In SLC, the religion carries a lot of baggage. And high school kids, as we've pointed out, haven't figured out how to deal with each other well yet.

[Rocker Ute]

That's part of what makes SLC lousy right now (SLC is great in so many ways, but the inversion and the religious aspect are two big negatives) - the LDS group was massively dominant at one point, and now the tables have turned. LDS populations in all SLC high schools are much smaller than secular populations. Turns out the secular populations aren't doing a better job of being the majority than the LDS populations did back in the day.

I think it's much easier to be an LDS youth in Colorado than in SLC. Here, the religion is just some quirk - maybe even an endearing one. In SLC, the religion carries a lot of baggage. And high school kids, as we've pointed out, haven't figured out how to deal with each other well yet.

My sister who lives in CA who was here recently was surprised by the vitriol. She said that in CA most people are indifferent to what you believe or don't believe and there is a general 'live and let live' attitude. It was pretty troubling for her to see things as they are here.

[LA Ute]

I think it's much easier to be an LDS youth in Colorado than in SLC. Here, the religion is just some quirk - maybe even an endearing one. In SLC, the religion carries a lot of baggage. And high school kids, as we've pointed out, haven't figured out how to deal with each other well yet.

My kids all grew up in an environment where their religion came up only rarely, and almost never in a hostile light. They've all gone to school in SLC and all were surprised and very put off at the us vs. them situation. I view it as one of the tradeoffs of living in Utah, especially SLC. When parents from California talk to me about sending their kids to the U., I always urge them to prepare their kids for a different "Zion" than the one they expect or remember. I still think it's a good place to go for an LDS student but like all college experiences it's not for everyone.

[LA Ute]

My sister who lives in CA who was here recently was surprised by the vitriol. She said that in CA most people are indifferent to what you believe or don't believe and there is a general 'live and let live' attitude. It was pretty troubling for her to see things as they are here.

Exactly.

[LA Ute]

Trump has a good speech writer. This is a beautiful speech -- he gave it at the D-Day 75th anniversary celebration today:

___________________________

President Macron, Mrs. Macron, and the people of France; to the First Lady of the United States and members of the United States Congress; to distinguished guests, veterans, and my fellow Americans:

We are gathered here on Freedom’s Altar. On these shores, on these bluffs, on this day 75 years ago, 10,000 men shed their blood, and thousands sacrificed their lives, for their brothers, for their countries, and for the survival of liberty.

Today, we remember those who fell, and we honor all who fought right here in Normandy. They won back this ground for civilization.

To more than 170 veterans of the Second World War who join us today: You are among the very greatest Americans who will ever live. You're the pride of our nation. You are the glory of our republic. And we thank you from the bottom of our hearts. (Applause.)

Here with you are over 60 veterans who landed on D-Day. Our debt to you is everlasting. Today, we express our undying gratitude.

When you were young, these men enlisted their lives in a Great Crusade -- one of the greatest of all times. Their mission is the story of an epic battle and the ferocious, eternal struggle between good and evil.

On the 6th of June, 1944, they joined a liberation force of awesome power and breathtaking scale. After months of planning, the Allies had chosen this ancient coastline to mount their campaign to vanquish the wicked tyranny of the Nazi empire from the face of the Earth.

The battle began in the skies above us. In those first tense midnight hours, 1,000 aircraft roared overhead with 17,000 Allied airborne troops preparing to leap into the darkness beyond these trees.

Then came dawn. The enemy who had occupied these heights saw the largest naval armada in the history of the world. Just a few miles offshore were 7,000 vessels bearing 130,000 warriors. They were the citizens of free and independent nations, united by their duty to their compatriots and to millions yet unborn.

There were the British, whose nobility and fortitude saw them through the worst of Dunkirk and the London Blitz. The full violence of Nazi fury was no match for the full grandeur of British pride. Thank you. (Applause.)

There were the Canadians, whose robust sense of honor and loyalty compelled them to take up arms alongside Britain from the very, very beginning.

There were the fighting Poles, the tough Norwegians, and the intrepid Aussies. There were the gallant French commandos, soon to be met by thousands of their brave countrymen ready to write a new chapter in the long history of French valor. (Applause.)

And, finally, there were the Americans. They came from the farms of a vast heartland, the streets of glowing cities, and the forges of mighty industrial towns. Before the war, many had never ventured beyond their own community. Now they had come to offer their lives half a world from home.

This beach, codenamed Omaha, was defended by the Nazis with monstrous firepower, thousands and thousands of mines and spikes driven into the sand, so deeply. It was here that tens of thousands of the Americans came.

The GIs who boarded the landing craft that morning knew that they carried on their shoulders not just the pack of a soldier, but the fate of the world. Colonel George Taylor, whose 16th Infantry Regiment would join in the first wave, was asked: What would happen if the Germans stopped right then and there, cold on the beach -- just stopped them? What would happen? This great American replied: “Why, the 18th Infantry is coming in right behind us. The 26th Infantry will come on too. Then there is the 2nd Infantry Division already afloat. And the 9th Division. And the 2nd Armored. And the 3rd Armored. And all the rest. Maybe the 16th won’t make it, but someone will.”

One of those men in Taylor’s 16th Regiment was Army medic Ray Lambert. Ray was only 23, but he had already earned three Purple Hearts and two Silver Stars fighting in North Africa and Sicily, where he and his brother Bill, no longer with us, served side by side.

In the early morning hours, the two brothers stood together on the deck of the USS Henrico, before boarding two separate Higgins landing craft. “If I don’t make it,” Bill said, "please, please take care of my family.” Ray asked his brother to do the same.

Of the 31 men on Ray’s landing craft, only Ray and 6 others made it to the beach. There were only a few of them left. They came to the sector right here below us. “Easy Red” it was called. Again and again, Ray ran back into the water. He dragged out one man after another. He was shot through the arm. His leg was ripped open by shrapnel. His back was broken. He nearly drowned.

He had been on the beach for hours, bleeding and saving lives, when he finally lost consciousness. He woke up the next day on a cot beside another badly wounded soldier. He looked over and saw his brother Bill. They made it. They made it. They made it.

At 98 years old, Ray is here with us today, with his fourth Purple Heart and his third Silver Star from Omaha. (Applause.) Ray, the free world salutes you. (Applause.) Thank you, Ray. (Applause.)

Nearly two hours in, unrelenting fire from these bluffs kept the Americans pinned down on the sand now red with our heroes’ blood. Then, just a few hundred yards from where I'm standing, a breakthrough came. The battle turned, and with it, history.

Down on the beach, Captain Joe Dawson, the son of a Texas preacher, led Company G through a minefield to a natural fold in the hillside, still here. Just beyond this path to my right, Captain Dawson snuck beneath an enemy machine gun perch and tossed his grenades. Soon, American troops were charging up “Dawson’s Draw.” What a job he did. What bravery he showed.

Lieutenant Spalding and the men from Company E moved on to crush the enemy strongpoint on the far side of this cemetery, and stop the slaughter on the beach below. Countless more Americans poured out across this ground all over the countryside. They joined fellow American warriors from Utah beach, and Allies from Juno, Sword, and Gold, along with the airborne and the French patriots.

Private First Class Russell Pickett, of the 29th Division’s famed 116th Infantry Regiment, had been wounded in the first wave that landed on Omaha Beach. At a hospital in England, Private Pickett vowed to return to battle. "I'm going to return," he said. "I'm going to return."

Six days after D-Day, he rejoined his company. Two thirds had been killed already; many had been wounded, within 15 minutes of the invasion. They’d lost 19 just from small town of Bedford, Virginia, alone. Before long, a grenade left Private Pickett again gravely wounded. So badly wounded. Again, he chose to return. He didn’t care; he had to be here.

He was then wounded a third time, and laid unconscious for 12 days. They thought he was gone. They thought he had no chance. Russell Pickett is the last known survivor of the legendary Company A. And, today, believe it or not, he has returned once more to these shores to be with his comrades. Private Pickett, you honor us all with your presence. (Applause.) Tough guy. (Laughter.)

By the fourth week of August, Paris was liberated. (Applause.) Some who landed here pushed all the way to the center of Germany. Some threw open the gates of Nazi concentration camps to liberate Jews who had suffered the bottomless horrors of the Holocaust. And some warriors fell on other fields of battle, returning to rest on this soil for eternity.

Before this place was consecrated to history, the land was owned by a French farmer, a member of the French resistance. These were great people. These were strong and tough people. His terrified wife waited out D-Day in a nearby house, holding tight to their little baby girl. The next day, a soldier appeared. “I’m an American,” he said. “I’m here to help.” The French woman was overcome with emotion and cried. Days later, she laid flowers on fresh American graves.

Today, her granddaughter, Stefanie, serves as a guide at this cemetery. This week, Stefanie led 92-year-old Marian Wynn of California to see the grave of her brother Don for the very first time.

Marian and Stefanie are both with us today. And we thank you for keeping alive the memories of our precious heroes. Thank you. (Applause.)

9,388 young Americans rest beneath the white crosses and Stars of David arrayed on these beautiful grounds. Each one has been adopted by a French family that thinks of him as their own. They come from all over France to look after our boys. They kneel. They cry. They pray. They place flowers. And they never forget. Today, America embraces the French people and thanks you for honoring our beloved dead. Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you.

To all of our friends and partners: Our cherished alliance was forged in the heat of battle, tested in the trials of war, and proven in the blessings of peace. Our bond is unbreakable.

From across the Earth, Americans are drawn to this place as though it were a part of our very soul. We come not only because of what they did here. We come because of who they were.

They were young men with their entire lives before them. They were husbands who said goodbye to their young brides and took their duty as their fate. They were fathers who would never meet their infant sons and daughters because they had a job to do. And with God as their witness, they were going to get it done. They came wave after wave, without question, without hesitation, and without complaint.

More powerful than the strength of American arms was the strength of American hearts.

These men ran through the fires of hell moved by a force no weapon could destroy: the fierce patriotism of a free, proud, and sovereign people. (Applause.) They battled not for control and domination, but for liberty, democracy, and self-rule.

They pressed on for love in home and country -- the Main Streets, the schoolyards, the churches and neighbors, the families and communities that gave us men such as these.

They were sustained by the confidence that America can do anything because we are a noble nation, with a virtuous people, praying to a righteous God.

The exceptional might came from a truly exceptional spirit. The abundance of courage came from an abundance of faith. The great deeds of an Army came from the great depths of their love.

As they confronted their fate, the Americans and the Allies placed themselves into the palm of God’s hand.

The men behind me will tell you that they are just the lucky ones. As one of them recently put it, “All the heroes are buried here.” But we know what these men did. We knew how brave they were. They came here and saved freedom, and then, they went home and showed us all what freedom is all about.

The American sons and daughters who saw us to victory were no less extraordinary in peace. They built families. They built industries. They built a national culture that inspired the entire world. In the decades that followed, America defeated communism, secured civil rights, revolutionized science, launched a man to the moon, and then kept on pushing to new frontiers. And, today, America is stronger than ever before. (Applause.)

Seven decades ago, the warriors of D-Day fought a sinister enemy who spoke of a thousand-year empire. In defeating that evil, they left a legacy that will last not only for a thousand years, but for all time -- for as long as the soul knows of duty and honor; for as long as freedom keeps its hold on the human heart.

To the men who sit behind me, and to the boys who rest in the field before me, your example will never, ever grow old. (Applause.) Your legend will never tire. Your spirit -- brave, unyielding, and true -- will never die.

The blood that they spilled, the tears that they shed, the lives that they gave, the sacrifice that they made, did not just win a battle. It did not just win a war. Those who fought here won a future for our nation. They won the survival of our civilization. And they showed us the way to love, cherish, and defend our way of life for many centuries to come.

Today, as we stand together upon this sacred Earth, we pledge that our nations will forever be strong and united. We will forever be together. Our people will forever be bold. Our hearts will forever be loyal. And our children, and their children, will forever and always be free.

May God bless our great veterans. May God bless our Allies. May God bless the heroes of D-Day. And may God bless America. Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you very much.

[UTEopia]

About Salt Lake City.... Cultures are hard to change, but i believe it’s worth the effort because of the individual lives that can be positively affected by even trying to change. I now split my time between Salt Lake and Los Angeles, and the more time I spend back in my home town, the more I see how profound the division is between the LDS community and others.

My wife and I both grew up in SLC and attended Skyline and the U. I attended my first year of law school at USD in San Diego and then transferred and finished at BYU. This was done solely for financial reasons. My first job out of law school was with a large San Diego law firm. I was approached by a SLC to move after a year and after weighing pros and cons, we decided to return. The driving force was for our kids to be close to their grandparents. The LDS Church and our participation in it were definite cons for returning. It had been refreshing to live and work and play in a place where the LDS Church was, for the most part, irrelevant. We have been dividing time between Park City and San Diego the past 2 years and I experience the same things I did 30 years ago. I don't think it will get better before it gets worse. The LDS Church has the power to immerse itself in every political, social and moral issue that arises. More often than not, its position prevails. We have seen some recent issues like medical marijuana where the public went against the LDS Church. However, the Church could not leave well enough alone and exercised its power to motivate the elected officials to disregard the will of the people. Although it has every right to do what it does, in my opinion, it would be better if it sometime simply restrained itself. Actions always speak louder than words, and it is hard for those not in the LDS Church to take statements made from the pulpit serious when the actions tell a different story.

[LA Ute]

What’s the constituency the Democrats are trying to reach with the Equality Act? Martina Navratilova and two others:

Pass the Equality Act, but don’t abandon Title IX

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...879_story.html

In its current form, the Equality Act would do significant damage to Title IX and to the Amateur Sports Act, which governs sports outside of educational settings. The new legislation would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act by redefining “sex” to include “gender identity.” Without an exception, the definition would apply to all amendments to the 1964 act, including Title IX. Most schools, colleges, the NCAA and the Olympic Committee would be affected because they receive federal funds and operate in interstate commerce.

The legislation would make it unlawful to differentiate among girls and women in sports on the basis of sex for any purpose. For example, a sports team couldn’t treat a transgender woman differently from a woman who is not transgender on the grounds that the former is male-bodied. Yet the reality is that putting male- and female-bodied athletes together is co-ed or open sport. And in open sport, females lose.

Some Equality Act advocates argue that this is hyperbole and outdated stereotype. They say, as the ACLU has, that there is “ample evidence that girls can compete and win against boys.” They are wrong. The evidence is unequivocal that starting in puberty, in every sport except sailing, shooting and riding, there will always be significant numbers of boys and men who would beat the best girls and women in head-to-head competition. Claims to the contrary are simply a denial of science.

[UTEopia]

What’s the constituency the Democrats are trying to reach with the Equality Act? Martina Navratilova and two others:

Pass the Equality Act, but don’t abandon Title IX

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...879_story.html

I am probably naive, but I think they are attempting to address actual discrimination affecting a constituent group as opposed to engaging in political game playing to reach a new constituency. I think what we are seeing are the airing of potential unintended consequences of legislation and this illustrates why legislation needs to be open and available for study and debate before it is actually voted on.

[LA Ute]

I am probably naive, but I think they are attempting to address actual discrimination affecting a constituent group as opposed to engaging in political game playing to reach a new constituency. I think what we are seeing are the airing of potential unintended consequences of legislation and this illustrates why legislation needs to be open and available for study and debate before it is actually voted on.

I read that every Democrat in the House voted for this. They must know that it will never pass in its current form. That’s why am wondering what they’re really trying to do.

[sancho]

I read that every Democrat in the House voted for this. They must know that it will never pass in its current form. That’s why am wondering what they’re really trying to do.

They are playing the game. That's what they do. They will use negative votes against political opponents in the future. That was the purpose of the bill/vote. That's cynical, but it's also backed by thousands of years of evidence.

In this case, female voters will be a huge part of 2020. This allows democrats to say "he opposed equal pay for women" or whatever. Isn't that the purpose of all bills and votes?

[LA Ute]

This is from Commentary magazine. I didn't know about this case but the facts as reported are disturbing. I hope the atmosphere on college campuses will start tipping back towards a more balanced ethos.

At Oberlin, a Tipping Point

Conservatives are often scolded for making too much of a fuss about the progressive left’s antics on college campuses and for complaining excessively about the destructive mob mentality that fuels many social-justice-warrior campaigns.

But a recent verdict in a lawsuit filed by a family-owned business in Ohio against Oberlin College reveals that the damage done by campus protestors and woke university administrators has real-world consequences. It also offers a glimmer of hope that we have reached a tipping point in the culture wars on campus.

On November 9, 2016, one day after Donald Trump won the presidential election, Gibson’s Bakery owner Allyn Gibson, who is white, witnessed Oberlin student Jonathan Aladin, who is black, shoplifting two bottles of wine from the store. (Aladin, who was underage, had evidently planned to buy an additional bottle of wine using a fake I.D. but ended up stealing instead).

When Gibson stopped the shoplifter to retrieve the stolen items and call police, the thief attacked him, threw the bottles of wine, and fled the store. Gibson followed him and was attacked further by Aladin and two female friends (also black). As the police incident report reveals, when police arrived, they found Gibson on his back on the ground being kicked and punched by Aladin and the two female accomplices. Gibson told police that Aladin had threatened to kill him during the attack.

In a rational world, this would have been handled as a simple robbery and assault arrest. The facts of the incident were not in doubt, and many witnesses corroborated Gibson’s account.

But this is Oberlin, a campus that has become a caricature of political correctness. It is the place where students protested the school’s food-service providers because of a poorly-executed Banh Mi sandwich (there were also complaints about inauthentic sushi and General Tso’s chicken.) Students declared this an intolerable form of cultural appropriation, and school administrators quickly caved to their demands for more ethnically sensitive cuisine, setting up a meeting where students could air their grievances about the cafeteria menu and telling the school newspaper, “It’s important to us that students feel comfortable when they are here.”

The problem is that they are too comfortable—so comfortable in the knowledge that their feelings and ideological beliefs will be catered to that facts are no longer relevant to any discussion or debate on campus. In the case of Gibson’s, a simple shoplifting incident prompted the Black Student Union, College Democrats, and the student senate to launch a protest and boycott outside the store; the student senate even issued a resolution calling for an end to all financial support for Gibson’s Bakery by anyone at the university.

At the protest, students hurled expletives at customers, entered the store, and waved signs saying, “End Racial Profiling.” And not only students; Oberlin’s dean of students, Meredith Raimondo, attended the protest and passed out leaflets that read, in part: “This is a RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION.”

The school did briefly stop doing business with Gibson’s, offering an unusual reason for doing so in a statement it issued two days after the incident: Donald Trump.

“This has been a difficult few days for our community, not simply because of the events at Gibson’s Bakery, but because of the fears and concerns that many are feeling in response to the outcome of the presidential election,” the statement from Oberlin president Marvin Krislov and Raimondo said. “We write foremost to acknowledge the pain and sadness that many of you are experiencing.”

As for the actual physical pain experienced by Gibson at the hands of Aladin and his accomplices, the school was silent. Students and administrators who protested the store assumed that because the shoplifters happened to be black, the white business owner’s intention in preventing them from stealing must have been racist.

The claims that the store had a “long account” of racially profiling black customers was also repeatedly made without any evidence (a police investigation later revealed that in the past five years, only 6 of the 40 people arrested for shoplifting at Gibson’s were black.) As a long-time Gibson’s employee (who happens to be black) told the student newspaper, “If you’re caught shoplifting, you’re going to end up getting arrested. . . When you steal from the store, it doesn’t matter what color you are. You can be purple, blue, green, if you steal, you get caught, you get arrested.”

The fact that Gibson’s had been serving the community for more than 100 years meant nothing. Nor did the fact that it was Aladin, not Gibson, who broke the law. As the Weekly Standard reported, Oberlin officials even suggested to local businesses that if students were caught shoplifting in the future, the school should be called, not the police, so that the thieves could be given one free pass for their actions.

According to the Legal Insurrection blog, which has followed the case since the beginning, all three of the assailants eventually “would plead guilty to shoplifting and aggravated trespassing, and would avow that Gibson’s was not engaged in racial profiling.” None served any time in jail. Even that non-punishment was too much for Oberlin’s administrator-activists. As Legal Insurrection noted, when news broke that Aladin and his accomplices would receive only probation, “Toni Myers, Oberlin College’s Multicultural Resource Center Director then, send [sic] out a text which said, ‘After a year, I hope we rain fire and brimstone on that store.’”

In 2017, after taking a significant hit to their profits because of the protests, Gibson’s decided to hold Oberlin and its officials accountable for their kowtowing to student protestors. The bakery filed a civil lawsuit against the school (including Raimondo) for “libel, slander, interference with business relationships, interference with contracts, deceptive trade practices, infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring and trespass.” This week, a jury agreed with the bakery’s claim that the school and its officials had acted irresponsibly and awarded Gibson’s $11 million in damages (if you’re concerned about runaway tort judgments, this might seem like a disturbingly high number for a small bakery, but considering that Oberlin claimed Gibson’s was worth less than $35,000, it’s not surprising the jury responded with a large damage verdict).

During the trial, Gibson’s lawyer argued, “When a powerful institution says you’re racist, you’re doomed.” As anyone who has witnessed the mob mentality among campus progressive activists can attest, student mobs only thrive because administrators allow them to do so. With their courtroom victory in Ohio this week, the Gibson family put college officials across the country on notice that people unfairly victimized and libeled by campus activists are done acquiescing to the mob’s demands.

[UTEopia]

I read that every Democrat in the House voted for this. They must know that it will never pass in its current form. That’s why am wondering what they’re really trying to do.

They may just be advocating on behalf of an existing constituent group. They could be trying to get the discussion started because they know the Senate will not pass it in its current form. They may be trying to put the screws to the GOP. They could be doing all of these things at the same time.

I guess I need to put my GOT learning to use and start asking the question of who is really benefiting from this and how are they benefiting? I have tried to avoid cynicism as a knee jerk response to everything, but I guess we have arrived at the point where nothing is ever done simply because it is the right thing to do. Someone has to win and someone has to lose.

[LA Ute]

We think we're polarized as a nation now, but things have been worse. On yesterday's date 163 years ago, this happened:

Caning of Charles Sumner

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cani...Charles_Sumner

I first read about this on high school and it still shocks me to this day.

(Note: I'm not drawing any parallels to any person now living or any current situation. Please resist the temptation to do so.)

[U-Ute]

We think we're polarized as a nation now, but things have been worse. On yesterday's date 163 years ago, this happened:

Caning of Charles Sumner

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cani...Charles_Sumner

I first read about this on high school and it still shocks me to this day.

(Note: I'm not drawing any parallels to any person now living or any current situation. Please resist the temptation to do so.)

Actually, a link on that page sent me to this page about "Bleeding Kanses": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas

There do seem to be a lot parallels about what happened then and what is happening now.

[LA Ute]

Actually, a link on that page sent me to this page about "Bleeding Kanses": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas

There do seem to be a lot parallels about what happened then and what is happening now.

Maybe we can actually learn from the past and not let things get that bad again.

[U-Ute]

Maybe we can actually learn from the past and not let things get that bad again.

One would hope we've moved beyond needing more shipments of Beecher's Bibles.

[LA Ute]

J. D. Williams would approve of this article and the professor‘s experience.

What One Professor Learned While Teaching Conservative Political Theory to Liberal Students

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/...beral-students

[LA Ute]

And another one in J.D.’s honor — an attempt to find a middle ground in the most polarizing debate of our time:

Rethinking Abortion Advocacy

https://quillette.com/2019/05/21/ret...tion-advocacy/

[Ma'ake]

Older folks - 60+ - in my wife's hometown put together a "Remember when..." facebook group where they can reminisce about the past, post old photos, etc.

Somebody posted an old photo of riverboat races on the Ohio River next to town, with 3 boats - one with a US flag and the other two with Confederate flags.

This, of course, led to a discussion / debate about the role of the Confederate flag, and the inevitable claim that the Civil War was not at about slavery, but about states rights, tariffs from the north, etc.

WaPo recently published an article that explains this mythology - https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...=.6f62f16d7a4f

Essentially, young children as young as 2 were joined into a group called "Children of the Confederacy" where they were indoctrinated with the erroneous ideas that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, but was about protecting southern heritage, or whatever. (For some reason no African American children were ever invited, and my wife knew nothing about these educational efforts.)

Fast forward to last week - the "owner" of the Facebook group announced that anyone who wanted to continue the debate about the South, the Civil War, etc, needed to take it off line, as Facebook was threatening to shut down the group.

Maybe... just maybe... a turn in the better direction.

[LA Ute]

Older folks - 60+ - in my wife's hometown put together a "Remember when..." facebook group where they can reminisce about the past, post old photos, etc.

Somebody posted an old photo of riverboat races on the Ohio River next to town, with 3 boats - one with a US flag and the other two with Confederate flags.

This, of course, led to a discussion / debate about the role of the Confederate flag, and the inevitable claim that the Civil War was not at about slavery, but about states rights, tariffs from the north, etc.

WaPo recently published an article that explains this mythology - https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...=.6f62f16d7a4f

Essentially, young children as young as 2 were joined into a group called "Children of the Confederacy" where they were indoctrinated with the erroneous ideas that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, but was about protecting southern heritage, or whatever. (For some reason no African American children were ever invited, and my wife knew nothing about these educational efforts.)

Fast forward to last week - the "owner" of the Facebook group announced that anyone who wanted to continue the debate about the South, the Civil War, etc, needed to take it off line, as Facebook was threatening to shut down the group.

Maybe... just maybe... a turn in the better direction.

I have no patience for the claim that the war was about much more than slavery. No slavery, no Civil War. That is the bottom line. As a Civil War buff, I can’t understand how anyone can be aware of the history and still claim that war was about some type of noble cause. It was not a noble cause.

http://<a href="https://youtu.be/pcy...cy7qV-BGF4</a>

[LA Ute]

This is well worth the 5 minutes it takes to read. I found it eye-opening:

Republicans Don’t Understand Democrats—And Democrats Don’t Understand Republicans


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...KArVx3uLLfBiPg

[UTEopia]

This is well worth the 5 minutes it takes to read. I found it eye-opening:

Republicans Don’t Understand Democrats—And Democrats Don’t Understand Republicans


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...KArVx3uLLfBiPg

I think the average moderates of each party or of each philosophy (liberal or conservative) understand one another fairly well. The problem is that neither party is controlled by the moderates and the elected officials need to pander to the party in order to keep getting that paycheck.

[UTEopia]

I drove to Dino, Colorado, just across the Utah/Colorado border, with a friend who was picking up some THC for use with his medical marijuana letter. First, Dino, has about 100 people tops. It has 3 dispensaries. Of a $300 purchase, about $125 went to State and local taxes.

There are a lot of ways to injest THC. I read a bunch of stuff he had received from the doctor and learned a ton. He has struggled with opiod dependency due to chronic pain for years and is hopeful that this can help him remove opioids from his life.

[LA Ute]

This is for Ma’ake, from SU, vía yours truly.

Socialism in No Country
Why the revolutionary left has always been bad news for democracy

https://newrepublic.com/article/1537...-bad-democracy

[Ma'ake]

This is for Ma’ake, from SU, vía yours truly.

Socialism in No Country
Why the revolutionary left has always been bad news for democracy

https://newrepublic.com/article/1537...-bad-democracy

Good article.

One of my Econ profs, in describing the landscape of the political spectrum left of Ted Kennedy - "who is not a socialist, either by his own definition, nor in the opinion of socialists" - included Chile as an example. (This was in the 80s, when legit socialists envisioned a centrally planned economy as being feasible, given the computing power coming into existence that would facilitate the matrix math a centrally planned economy would require.)

The key difference between true socialists and communists - with Social Democrats a long way to the right of both on the political spectrum - is that communists recognized that the forces that would seek to topple any movement toward "true socialism" would never tolerate incremental movement toward that end. The prime example: what happened to Allende in Chile. (I realize there is a strong, very different view of what happened there, sort of an apologist view of what happened under Pinochet.)

Back in that era, among the far Left, Communists viewed "Socialists" as being naïve, that armed revolution was required. The same professor explained that the USSR was a hideous abomination of what Marx envisioned, and that Cuba may or may not have been able to work toward "true socialism", but the Bay of Pigs and ongoing sanctions made it a sharp uphill proposition. This viewpoint was a pretty sharp contrast to what the consensus from the Right (liberals and conservatives) on these topics, which made it interesting to learn about.

We also learned about other models, like Yugoslavia's more market based approach within a leftist consensus of giving the public most of the economic power, and there was also a description of employee owned businesses & cooperatives, but that they were mostly failing businesses beforehand, like neighborhood grocery stores the national chains abandoned.

Mostly the prof's work was an academic deep dive into human nature and different views of it, with an analysis of the ideological structures that supported different systems. For example, in Utah, the United Order and Brigham Young's strong condemnation of how greed and some of the harsher aspects of Capitalism could be legitimately seen as incompatible with the teachings of Jesus... hence the United Order, which was ditched.

It was all very interesting, but trying to imagine how such a system would exist in the late 20th century was a stretch.

Bottom line: "Socialism" was/is a reaction to the harsher aspects of Capitalism - the same objections many like AOC and Sanders are tapping into today - but I can't think of a single example of true socialism that actually worked, other that very small groups, economies of tribal people.

I think AOC and Sanders are embracing the pejorative "Socialism" in tapping into growing alienation, but realistically, Social Democracy is the only halfway feasible objective. I don't think AOC or Sanders or anyone in the US has seriously contemplated a centrally planned, socialist economy. It's so far out there, on par with proposing "Anarchy" as a serious proposition.

The article you referenced about how the Scandinavians have a national consensus that private enterprise is the economic engine to be harnessed, with a social safety net to take the edges off the Darwinism that accompanies that engine, is right on. I have no idea if we'll ever get around to trying to get to a similar consensus, but that's a far cry from people advocating public ownership of Amazon, or Boeing, or whatever. A centrally planned, socialist economy is such a far fetched notion that whoever advocates it has no idea what the hell they're talking about.

The Norwegians, Swedes, Fins and Danish have zero interest in that kind of system, and third world attempts at "Socialist Revolutions" are badly mangled outcomes of idealistic dreams.

I'm personally far more interested in Teddy Roosevelt's "square deal" that moderated the hard edges of our system, as compared to what the Russians were doing. We all benefitted quite a bit from that moderation, and there might be some opportunities for some similar efforts in the 21st century.

[Rocker Ute]

Reading all of the different failed socialist states in history and thinking about the current fondness on the left by folks like AOC and Sanders and their supporters reminds me of a scene in Arrested Development. Tobias and Lindsay are having serious marital problems and Tobias, an Analyst and Therapist proposes this solution:

" Tobias:
You know, Lindsay, as a therapist, I have advised... a number of couples to explore an open relationship where the couple remains emotionally committed but free to explore extramarital encounters.

Lindsay:
Well, did it work for those people?

Tobias:
No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but... but it might work for us."

In other words, "Socialism doesn't ever work, I mean people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might but... but it might work for us."

I might agree that Sanders is far right of true socialism but I don't agree on that for AOC, at least what I've heard her talk about and what I understand about the Green New Deal. That requires true socialism and is much farther than just safety nets and taking the edges off of capitalism.

I also don't think that the Scandinavian countries that are always cited as successful socialism are really an apt comparison. They are small nations with far different demographics and economies than basically every major nation in the world. I believe that their economic and governments might work in a few select states in the US, but not as a nation as a whole. Why? Because those Scandinavian countries are not central or even essential to the world economy nor do they have major defensive needs like we do.

It's kind of like comparing Park City to Tooele. Park City has the best schools and preserves all this open space and supports the arts and is a tourism Mecca with skyrocketing real estate prices. Why doesn't Tooele do the same thing? I think we know why, it is simply a different place without the same wealth or even the hope of becoming a tourism destination. It doesn't have rich people and pretend rich people to prop up their schools and buy and preserve open space. Yadda yadda.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

I might agree that Sanders is far right of true socialism but I don't agree on that for AOC, at least what I've heard her talk about and what I understand about the Green New Deal. That requires true socialism and is much farther than just safety nets and taking the edges off of capitalism.

I also don't think that the Scandinavian countries that are always cited as successful socialism are really an apt comparison. They are small nations with far different demographics and economies than basically every major nation in the world. I believe that their economic and governments might work in a few select states in the US, but not as a nation as a whole. Why? Because those Scandinavian countries are not central or even essential to the world economy nor do they have major defensive needs like we do.

Uhhh... I think the Scandos are feeling the Russian menace pretty acutely. They can't match up militarily, but Sweden has produced jet fighters for a long time, and I'm sure Germany is losing their national guilt about WWII, as NATO is undermined and Putin freely divides Europe. (The big risk is if Germany aligns with China in producing high tech weaponry.)

On the Green New Deal, I think this is mostly considered an Apollo-like proposal, to address climate change, which is being ignored & the science even now suppressed here, though it's driving farmers out of Central America and making it so our own farmers can plant yet in their new lakes. The GND is also intended to stimulate new opportunities for good jobs, get the Millennials believing in the American Dream again. I haven't seen any proposals for states or the federal government to own these companies in the socialist mold, provide "jobs for life", etc. Jay Inslee of Washington State is a good ambassador for the GND. AOC is good at tapping into Millennial concerns.

Besides the Apollo program and its various spinoffs, the classic example of government initiated economic growth is how we got out of the Great Depression by economic activity to fight WWII. The construction of the Interstate system is another good example. The Internet itself is another good example - was a federal research project (at the U!) to provide mainframe computing resilience to a Soviet attack. (There are limits to the Keynesian stimulus model, of course. There are limits to any framework - eg, supply side economics. We're racking up insane levels of deficit/debt, in a boom economy.)

The challenges of getting a similar consensus about the role of capitalism and social safety nets ala the Scandinavian countries & Canada is a legit issue. Yet it begs the question of how Canada can take in the same number of legal immigrants we do (incl lots of refugees) yet Canada has good social stability, and my colleague from Sweden tells me they have a lot of immigrants there, too.

In the case of Canada, for a long time they've adopted the mindset of taxes being the price of a civilized society, and just watching the NBA games in Toronto, it's evident its a very diverse city. The Sikh under the right basket with his turban, seeing women wearing Hajibs in public, lots of Chinese, Indians, Afro-Canadians to go with plenty of white Canadians.

I like the Park City / Tooele comparison. Very apt. But the middle ground is maybe SLC can borrow some of Park City's recipe, eg, maybe the emphasis on education. The Canyons School District raised their minimum salary for teachers to $50,000, and teachers in my wife's district are thinking about trying to get jobs there. The Jordan parents I'm sure are terrified, but you have to decide what's important and build upward from there.

(Wow - that was a Waltonesque stream of consciousness. I blame coffee. )

EDIT: Do you need some help with a new cert, I'd be happy to pitch in. I hate it when mine expire.