President Obama Wins War on Terror

President Obama chooses to give an important speech on peace the week before the day when Americans remember those who died to save their freedom-loving society, and to save many others (including me). President Obama declares in a recent speech that the war on terror, like all wars, must end. Then he ends it by declaring it ended. This happens about a month after two terrorists who happen to be Muslims blow up a bomb killing children at a public even in Boston. (The act was denounced by representatives of the Boston Muslim community.)

President Obama’s announcement also takes place one day after two men shouting something in Arabic comprising the word “Allah” assassinate a young man in full daylight in London. They use knives and ask passers-by to film the event. The speech happens also one or two days before a similar assassination attempt is carried out in Paris on a French soldier. (The attempt fails because French-grown terrorists are not a so competent.) London Muslim authorities condemn the first attack loudly and clearly. I am awaiting the French Muslim response as I write.

(In the same speech, President Obama also orders restrictions on the use of killer drones. I welcome some of the announced changes. The president is no always wrong, just most of the time.)

In response to President Obama’s announcing the end of the war on terror:

Imams and Muslim theologians in America and in Europe advise all good Muslims to turn anyone making terrorist noises over to the police.

Al Quaida in the Islamic Maghreb” puts down its weapons. Its members ask for government jobs in the post offices of the various countries in North Africa.

The Northern Nigerian violent jihadist movement Boko Haram surrenders to the Nigerian Army in return for a pledge of immunity for their past crimes.

Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula” announces that it will from now on dispute power in Yemen entirely through verbal propaganda and through the ballot box.

The Afghan Taliban (“students”) agree that they will desist from throwing acid in the eyes of little girls who like school. They say that they will just shoot them in the future.

Their neighbors, the Pakistani Taliban ( also “students”), go one better by promising never to shoot schoolgirls in the head again. Instead, they promise they will only beat schoolgirls as a measure of Islamic compassion.

The Ulemas of Saudi Arabia, soon backed by those of Egypt, state unambiguously that Islamic religious doctrine does not require Muslims to regain control of every piece of land that was once under Muslim control. (That would include the suburbs of Vienna in addition to almost all of Spain, and even half of France for a short while.)

The democratically elected government of 85 % Muslim Indonesia declares that it’s unseemly to make illegal the practice of a religion – Judaism – explicitly declared by the Prophet Mohammed to be a respectable religion. It promises to abolish the prohibition of Judaism within months.

The moral and religious leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran formally promise to stop their past practice of tacitly protecting known terrorists living on the Republic’s territory. One ranking mullah also says quietly that it’s time the Republic re-examined its interpretation of sharia demanding that a woman who has sex with a man not her husband be stoned to death in public.

Both Sunni Muslim and Shiite Muslim authorities declare unilaterally that following President Obama’s encouragement, they will now discontinue the practice of setting each other’s faithful on fire during religious services ( a practice designed to protest the American occupation of Muslim lands).

Long live Barack Obama the peace-maker!

In weather news: It snowed on the low mountains of south-central France on May 24th, another proof of global warming, no doubt.

Advertisements

About Jacques Delacroix

I write short stories, current events comments, and sociopolitical essays, mostly in English, some in French. There are other people with the same first name and same last name on the Internet. I am the one who put up on Amazon in 2014: "I Used to Be French: an Immature Autobiography" and also: "Les pumas de grande-banlieue." To my knowledge, I am the only Jacques Delacroix with American and English scholarly publications. In a previous life, I was a teacher and a scholar in Organizational Theory and in the Sociology of Economic Development. (Go ahead, Google me!) I live in the People’s Green Socialist Republic of Santa Cruz, California.
This entry was posted in Current Events and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to President Obama Wins War on Terror

  1. You are so awesome! I don’t think I have read through anything like that before. So good to discover somebody with some unique thoughts on this issue. Seriously.. thank you for starting this up. This site is something that is required on the web, someone with some originality!

  2. Bruce says:

    Yep, everywhere you look the evidence is clear, the war on terror is over. The religion of peace can breathe freely once again. He did it. Now he can focus on the important domestic agenda of getting the wealthy to pay their fair share. After accomplishing this remarkable peacemaking initiative, I hope Barack finds the time to take that long overdue vacation with his wonderful family and friends. Maybe he could ask Joe to fill in for him at that silly Tomb of the Unknown Soldier ceremony scheduled for today. Oh bother. We’re really blessed to have such a remarkable leader at the helm. Hillary has some big shoes to fill in 2016, but I’m confident she’s up to the task.

  3. Terry Amburgey says:

    Jacques is still angry about the ‘hundred years war’ ending back in the mid 1400s. The French won the Battle of Castillon but they didn’t follow up even though the English HAD NOT renounced their claim to the throne! Even after renouncing their claim to the throne in the Treaty of Picquigny, the English kings kept the fleur-de-lis on their coat of arms until 1803 — a clear casus belli!

    The craven policies of the French Kings clearly led to the rise of the British Empire and the decline of France to the point where rich actors have to become Russian citizens to maintain their wealth.

    How dare the President end the War on Terror after only a decade. Even the War on Drugs has gone on for thirty years and the War on Poverty for fifty years. Jacques, see if you and your war-mongering friends can get William Bennett appointed Terrorism Czar. Given his track record on drugs he could stretch out a war on terrorism for centuries.

    • Terry: I could not be more pleased. Intense interaction with me has caused you to acquire a little general culture late in life. As we know, it’s rather scarce in American faculty clubs (I don’t know about Canadian faculty clubs. They just might be better read because of the long winters.) Please, keep reading. I will be glad to explain whatever is beyond your comprehension.

  4. Pingback: President Obama Wins War on Terror | Notes On Liberty

  5. Starting off an opinion piece with a false assertion never bodes well for the rest of one’s argument:

    those who died to save their freedom-loving society, and to save many others (including me).

    This is pure garbage. The United States of America has not been under threat from a foreign state since 1812, well over two hundred years ago. I find the sickening display of cowardice and gold calf-worshipping on behalf of the world’s most notorious murdering machine (the federal government) to be especially immoral. The American military is a sacred calf that needs to be slaughtered. It makes women out of men, fools out of the wise, and murderers out of the productive.

    Soldiers are nothing but glorified welfare queens.

    It would be interesting to see a study done that quantifies the number of murders committed by American soldiers compared to the number of murders committed by Muslim terrorists over the past one hundred years.

    PS: Dr Delacroix’s friend and secret crush, the murderous and loathesome Senator from Arizona, John McCain, spent the weekend in Syria drawing up plans that would arm al-Qaeda and Hizbollah, two Muslim organizations that the State Department considers to be terrorist.

    Islam is no more a threat to the republic or world peace than is Tinkerbell or the tooth fairy.

    • “This is pure garbage. The United States of America has not been under threat from a foreign state since 1812, well over two hundred years ago.”

      No Pearl Harbor, right. It was a self-attack.

      (I actually believe that’s what you are going to argue, Brandon.)

      Hitler did not formally declare war on the US (exactly the way your kind thinks hostilities should be started, by the way)? I am confused!

      What is sickening is the continuing massacre of Syrian civilians by an hereditary fascist dictator. I hope McCain succeeds, of course.

      • Let me get this straight: you believe that the United States of America should arm al-Qaeda?

        If so, could you justify your atrocious beliefs in light of the fact that al-Qaeda is responsible for murdering thousands of innocent civilians on 9/11?

    • Terry Amburgey says:

      @Brandon
      The recent report by the College Republican National Committee paints a dim picture for Republicans amongst younger Americans:

      “In the report, the young Republican activists acknowledge their party has suffered significant damage in recent years. A sampling of the critique on:
      Gay marriage: “On the ‘open-minded’ issue … [w]e will face serious difficulty so long as the issue of gay marriage remains on the table.”
      Hispanics: “Latino voters … tend to think the GOP couldn’t care less about them.”
      Perception of the party’s economic stance: “We’ve become the party that will pat you on your back when you make it, but won’t offer you a hand to help you get there.”
      Big reason for the image problem: The “outrageous statements made by errant Republican voices.”
      Words that up-for-grabs voters associate with the GOP: “The responses were brutal: closed-minded, racist, rigid, old-fashioned.”

      Is there any research out there on how younger citizens view Libertarians? I haven’t seen any but I haven’t really looked.

  6. Terry Amburgey says:

    @Brandon
    Be gentle with Jacques, years of hanging around with teapublicans have not helped his faculties. He probably sincerely believes that Hawaii was a state when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Just be glad he didn’t bring up the Germans landing on the beaches of New Jersey, teapublicans are not known for sticking to actual facts.

  7. Bruce says:

    All the coverage in the press and TV about Memorial Day must have gotten to Brandon for him to say that soldiers are nothing but glorified welfare queens. I disagree. However, I fought for what I believed was his right to say things like this, and would be honored to do it again. Clearly a smart guy, I just wish there was some way I could convince him that there are times when military force is the only option. I would love to believe that everyone would get along if we did not become involved overseas. It would be great if we could spend what we do on the military on more peaceful things, or let people keep their earnings and spend them as they wished. Unfortunately the world is not a gentle place. There are many reasons for this but I don’t think America is the sole source of the hatred. Granted, sometimes we stick our noses in where they don’t belong and we should have a better defined and executed foreign policy. I also know from experience that our military is piled so high in BS by the federal bureaucracy that you need wings to stay above it. We should not be to world’s policeman, but I also suggest our ability to help freedom seeking people should not go unused. Brandon is not living in an idealistic dreamland like I was as an undergrad, and he recognizes how bloated and invasive government has become. He’s way ahead of most, in spite of the political correctness indoctrination he has undergone, there’s hope for him once he gets past the overwhelming urge to support the isolationist agenda. What that wil take remains to be seen.

  8. Terry Amburgey says:

    Looks like President Obama’s call to end the so-called war-on-terror has already encouraged Islamists to launch another attack on western civilization:

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/28/health/france-coronavirus-death/index.html

    Jacques will try to convince you that since the World Health Organization is involved the novel coronavirus is a hoax. However, “The virus had infected 44 people worldwide as of last week, most of them in the Middle East, according to the World Health Organization’s most recent update Thursday. Half of them have died.” Any teapublican worthy of his tinfoil hat that knows having the epicenter in the middle east means that radical Islam is behind it. Our only option is to bomb the entire middle east till the rubble bounces, eh Jacques?

    • CNN is communist front, in case you haven’t woken up to this fact yet.

    • Terry creates crudely false assertions because he has no arguments and no facts at his disposal. It’s irresponsible to do so on a blog that is read in many different countries including by many people who may not be able detect childish sarcasm in English

      For readers from abroad: Of course , I don’t (DO NOT) believe that any sort of Islam has anything to do with the current mini flu-epidemic.

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        Hmm. You recently posted two crudely false assertions:
        “The Obama administration encouraged an already predisposed IRS to strangle democratic dissent on the eve of an election.”
        “This administration practices cover up on a scale not seen since (Republican President) Nixon.. ”
        but you weren’t worried that readers from other countries might mistake them for something with a foundation in fact. Surely your write fiction-as-fact assertions are harder to detect than childish sarcasm.

      • Terry: No, I don’t worry much. The recent three eruptions of Obama mendacity seems to be now well known of alert people worldwide. (I know because I routinely watch the news in several languages.)

        No, you are really not an immigrant in any substantive meaning of the term. Don’t flatter yourself. From the northern American Midwest to English-speaking Ontario, a stone’s throw away, with a good job in your back-pocket, does not count.

  9. To answer Brandon’s ever-breathless admonitions: I understand that deciding whom to arm, with what, in Syria and preventing transfers of weapons between one opposition group and another is quite difficult. (I remember that we armed the Taliban in Afghanistan.) The fallacy consists in believing, or pretending to believe, that doing nothing is necessarily the best course. Right now (5/28/13) it seems that the winning parties in the Syrian civil war are: 1 violent jihadists; 2 the Assad bloody dictatorship. This is close to the worst outcome for American interests and for the interests of those who are opposed to both systemic oppression and massacres.

    I am not accusing Brandon specifically of this, but I suspect a great deal of obscurantist xenophobia underlies the reactions of America opponents to intervention in Syria: All savages! Let them slaughter one another!

    Brandon and I have only one major difference in our understanding of the effect of war on civil society: I remember that some wars have had a hugely beneficial effect on the loser (LOSER); he does not.

    Brandon is often a sophisticated thinker. However, whenever he says anything about war, he seems to abandon his extra-fine marker for the extra-thick variety used to mark egg-cartons. He sounds as if he went on automatic. He is a closet pacifist. Pacifism is an immoral stance adopted by highly moral people. (Commentator Bruce says the same in greater detail in another response.) I imagine (IMAGINE) that a pacifist stance makes one feel so warm inside that it excuses on from exercising ordinary criticality.

    Brandon sounds as if he were opposed to all interventions abroad. I am not. Syrian civilians are dying in large numbers while we stand by. If it is the case (IF) that the US could diminish the massacre with air strikes, we are all complicit of mass murder. I admit that I am not a military expert. I just believe that the topic should be discussed, that it’s not taboo.

    Terry’s suggestion, in another response, that I don’t know that Hawaii was not a state at the time of Pearl Harbor comes quite close to a patronizing comment motivated by the fact that I am an immigrant. Scratch a liberal….

    Prof. Terry: I know more about American history, about world history , about practically everything, than you do because for fifty years I have obtained my information in three languages, while you were struggling in the exiguous jail cell of monolingualism.

    You want patronizing? Here you go! (And don’t forget to look up “exiguous.” I swear it’s an English word.)

    • Terry Amburgey says:

      I would never denigrate immigrants, I am an immigrant.

      Obtaining distorted, biased, misleading, and downright false information in three languages is not much to brag about. You’d be better served with accurate information in only two languages. I googled exiguous but my cognitive capabilities are too scant and meager to grasp the concept. Mort de rire.

  10. Pingback: Jihad – and the Global War on Terror.. | Transhumanisten

  11. I guess I’ll ask the question again:

    Let me get this straight: you believe that the United States of America should arm al-Qaeda?

    If so, could you justify your atrocious beliefs in light of the fact that al-Qaeda is responsible for murdering thousands of innocent civilians on 9/11?

    This is a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question, Dr J…

  12. I don’t know to whom Brandon’s question was addressed. I assumed in my previous answer it was addressed to me. At any rate, and just in case the absurd question was for me: I am against arming Al Quaida or any violent jihadist. I am also against letting them win by default as the US is doing right now in Syria.

  13. Terry Amburgey says:

    “Terry: I don’t know what you are recommending, the current US policy toward the events in Syria?”

    Our ignorance is symmetric; I don’t know what you are recommending either. All I know is that you are against President Obama’s approach to winding down the so-called war on terror and you don’t want to arm the al-Qaeda group in Syria. What specifically should the US do in Syria?

    • Terry: I have written on this several time. Here again:

      I am recommending, I have been hoping, that all the democratic countries that have an air force will bomb the Assad forces from the air, that they, at least destroy as many of Assad’s aircraft as possible. (The aircraft are being used to attack apartment houses filled with civilians all over Syria.)

      It’s true that attacking the Baathist Assad regime may strengthen the hand of violent jihadists. That’s a problem for tomorrow. In the meantime, civilians are dying; that’s today.

      Doing nothing either insures the victory of the current civilian fascists in Syria or that of the religious fascists of Al Quaida.

      Don’t forget to tell us what course you favor, Terry.

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        @Jacques
        I seem to be suffering from a rare bout of insomnia, perhaps this will help me sleep. Outlining what course I favor will take more than 1 post, my apologies.

        “I am recommending, I have been hoping, that all the democratic countries that have an air force will bomb the Assad forces from the air, that they, at least destroy as many of Assad’s aircraft as possible.”

        I’ll leave it to Brandon to point out the pixie dust/unicorn horn nature of this recommendation. One reason my favored course will take more than 1 post is that I want to distinguish what the US should do directly and unilaterally and what it should do diplomatically to try to get other countries to do things. Unfortunately there is much more in the second category than the first.

        The US should not launch air strikes in Syria. While it would be very satisfying emotionally it would not be in our long term interests as a nation-state. Similarly, the US should not establish a ‘no-fly’ zone. Partly because doing so would involve air strikes on air defense systems. Both of these might be possible multi-laterally but that’s for the second category.

        The US should provide both lethal and non-lethal aid to the opposition forces and it should be ‘robust’. By robust I mean man portable anti-armor and man portable anti-air munitions. It would be best done multi-laterally with the gulf states and [especially] Turkey but some of it should come directly from the US and even if transferred covertly it needs to be known that aid is coming from the US.

        It will be difficult to control ‘leakage’ of weapons from the non-jihadist elements to the jihadists. So be it. We do the best we can. It’s not as if the only place they can get weapons is from us; there’s nothing we would be providing that they can’t already get from places like Iran.

      • Terry: Good start. Why not write an OpEd that I will put up with your name attached?

  14. Bruce says:

    Watch for the Obama tail to wag the dog. Progressive presidents are notorious for going to war when scandals threaten their administrations. If his buddy Holder resigns over the wiretapping and the IRS thing blows up watch us go to war in Syria. The government controls war, democrats love government control.

  15. Terry Amburgey says:

    @ Bruce. I fixed it for you.
    Republican presidents are notorious for going to war.

    • How about a simple head count?

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        @Jacques
        An excellent idea. Since the republicans and democrats have been around different lengths of time start with the most recent party so the time is the same. Brandon will object but I don’t think a declared war is necessary, if Americans are in combat it counts. Thanks for volunteering, I await your data.

      • You could use as one basic units (perhaps among others) Rep. Pres. year vs Demo Pres. Year.

        I agree with “Americans in combat.” Brandon will bot object to studying “illegal wars” (all wars since 1812).

  16. Bruce says:

    WWI- Wilson (D)
    WWII- Roosevelt (D)
    Korea- Truman (D)
    Vietnam- Johnson (D)
    Persian Gulf- GHW Bush (R)

    • Terry Amburgey says:

      @Bruce
      Your post had lots of typos so I fixed it for you again:
      WWI- Wilson (D)
      Cuba- Wilson (D)
      Russia- Wilson (D)
      Yugoslavia- Wilson (D)
      China- Harding (R)
      Honduras- Coolidge (R)
      Panama- Coolidge (R)
      China- Coolidge (R)
      WWII- Roosevelt (D)
      Korea- Truman (D)
      Lebanon- Eisenhower (R)
      Vietnam- Johnson (D)
      Dominican Republic- Johnson (D)
      Cambodia- Nixon (R)
      Laos- Nixon (R)
      Lebanon- Reagan (R)
      Grenada- Reagan (R)
      Libya- Reagan (R)
      Panama- GHW Bush (R)
      Persian Gulf- GHW Bush (R)
      Kosovo- Clinton (D)
      Somalia- Clinton (D)
      Afghanistan- GW Bush (R)
      Iraq- GW Bush (R)
      @Jacques
      Pretty distinct temporal trend, wouldn’t you say?

      • Bruce says:

        Wow, Quite a list. Taking care of business is more a part of our national fabric than I thought. God did bless America!
        Return if you will to what I said: “Progressive presidents are notorious for going to war when scandals threaten their administrations.” You need to read the entire sentence. You stopped once your left wing juices began flowing uncontrollably. I understand. Here’s another example for you to try:
        “Michelle Bachmann recently declared she would not be running for a fifth term in Congress, even though she’s among the hottest looking women in politics”. I’m betting you would see yellow (Tea Party flag) and not even acknowledge her better than average looks. Your ideology has put blinders on you and it’s time you took off those pink colored glasses. If you don’t you will be controlled by certain hot button words instead of being the objective and thoughtful scientist you could have been. Out here in the corporate world folks get canned for not presenting the whole fact based picture because the failure to do so negatively impacts the bottom line.

        I recon as an educator, you’re used to true and false and multiple guess questions. Don’t read into these too much. Here are a few quickies:
        1. Obama is in the midst of several scandals threatening his administration. T or F?
        2. Obama may use the opportunity to divert attention from these scandals by going to war in Syria. T or F?
        3. Socialism is for the people (masses), not for the socialist (leaders). T or F?
        4. Utopia is great for the leaders, but sucks if you’re just one of the drones. T or F?
        5. Big government Democrats love to control as much as possible. They have the most control in time of war. Obama is a big government Democrat. Obama has a bias in favor of war. T or F?
        6. 50 million new citizens from Mexico would result in a one party system in America. It would be Democrat and Obaba would like this. T or F?
        7. The government loves the IRS because it’s where a lot of their power and influence is derived. T or F?
        8. You can’t have open borders and a welfare state for long. T or F?
        9. Regardless of what they do wrong, it seems like nobody in the federal bureaucracy gets fired. T or F?
        10. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) mentioned 155 times on CNN for taking a drink of water within 24 hours. Sen. Bob Menendez (D- NJ) mentioned 6 times in a month on CNN for sexual intercourse with children in the Dominican Republic. This is media bias. T or F?

      • No, Bruce. Drinking water awkwardly on television is worse than child molestation. But, there is no proof that he took a glass of water while making a speech except twenty million viewers’ testimonies. How can this be enough?

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        @Bruce
        “Out here in the corporate world folks get canned for not presenting the whole fact based picture because the failure to do so negatively impacts the bottom line.”

        30+ years in Biz schools both in North America and Europe makes it clear that you’re either a total fool or pulling my leg with both hands. Please release my leg.

        Arguably the best part of being in the biz school is interacting with ‘part-time’ MBA students…the ones going to school while already working full time. I’ve had hundreds from all sorts of industries. What you Korporate Klowns don’t seem to realize is that they give away the show while out of the office. “How do you know that your boss is giving you a line of sh1t?” “His mouth is moving”

        Talking with execs in executive mba programs or executives-in-residence is just as good but there are a lot fewer of them.

        ‘Out there in the corporate world’ you have the same mix of fuktards, wankers, and criminals with hardworking, decent, honest people as every other walk of life.

        I hate to be the one to break it to you but someone has to: you ARE NOT special.

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        1. False. The president’s poll numbers haven’t budged at all. I can point you to the numbers if you like.
        2. False. I am hopeful that the recent UN report on chemical weapon use and the call from Islamic countries for a no-fly zone will produce some movement on the administration’s part
        3. We’ve never had a socialist state so who knows. I’m putting true and if marked down will complain during office hours.
        4. We’ve never had a Utopia so who knows. I’m putting false and if marked down will complain during office hours.
        5. False
        6. False. You should’ve included a short essay option.
        7. False. No one loves the IRS. No one.
        8. False.
        9. False. ‘Seems like’ is very poorly worded. I’ve decided to complain to the department chairmen about the quiz.
        10. False. Interestingly the charges against Sen. Menendez turned out the be a conservative fabrication.

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        @Bruce Since you’re in a testing frame of mind today, how about a short essay quiz for you & Jacques.

        “Part A.
        There is a population. The population is divided into 2 groups, we’ll call them consonants and vowels. Both groups have the same proportion of criminals that engage in Lèse-majesté. However vowels are arrested for Lèse-majesté four times as often as consonants. Discuss.
        Part B.
        80% of the population are consonants and 20% are vowels. Discuss”

        Jacques has probably lost his analytic skills but as one of those crackerjack analysts from the corporate you can strut your stuff.

      • Vietnam was Kennedy’s. . What else is false in your list?
        Yugoslavia – Wilson ? Refresh my memory.

        I am not sure there is any trend. Perhaps, you should produce a graph.

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        “Vietnam was Kennedy’s. . What else is false in your list?”

        Really? Who was president in 1965?

        “American military advisors arrived in what was then French Indochina beginning in 1950. U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, with troop levels tripling in 1961 and tripling again in 1962.[31] U.S. combat units were deployed beginning in 1965.”

        “Yugoslavia – Wilson ? Refresh my memory”

        Not a chance, do your own research.

      • Do my own reseach on some obscure real or imagined episode? T Does not make sense.

        YOur response on Kennedy is equivocal.

      • Bruce says:

        Dr. Amburgey, it was not my intention to make you mad and go off on me like my ex-wife used to do. She did not think I was special either. As a rule, progressives have a difficult time celebrating individual exceptionalism. Calling me a “Korporate Klown” reminds me of the leftist material I used to read where America was always spelled Amerika. Thanks for the flashback. I trust the corporations that funded their employees graduate business educations got more for their investment than having their employees learning how to tell if their bosses are lying to them. I know you were kidding right? Life is better when you don’t wander through it with a chip on your shoulder. Beyond simply “dealing with them”, being a part of your student’s future business accomplishments should be a source of pride. Be happy.
        As for your story problem of course there should be the same percentage of convictions amongst vowels and consonants (blacks and whites Im guessing). There must be outside forces skewing the number. I detect a bias in how you framed the question. Is it that old “institutionalized racism” stuff? I guess there’s no end in sight. Maybe you could ask a similar question and substitute affirmative action (reverse discrimination) promotions to tenured positions in Ivy League schools or student admissions. Have you seen less qualified people awarded professorships or minority students that did not pack the gear intellectually? The lesson might just be that life is not fair. Progressives believe in outcome based results, even if it means everyone suffers equally and nobody is exceptional.
        I hope this helps.

      • Bruce: You got it right. Terry reminds everyone of his first wife (even himself, at time, I would guess).

        Why “reverse discrimination”? It’s discrimination (on the basis of race), period.

  17. Terry Amburgey says:

    @Jacques I don’t know for sure but I think you’ve spent almost as much time in biz schools as I have. Based on decades of dealing with current and future corporate types, how would you evaluate Bruce’s claim?

    “Out here in the corporate world folks get canned for not presenting the whole fact based picture because the failure to do so negatively impacts the bottom line.”

  18. Glad you asked. I think academics are held to strict standards in their scholarly work which comprises a very small part of their lives, on the average . In the remainder of their lives and of their academic contexts such as the faculty club, the bullshit flies so thick you would need a raincoat. Contemporary American academia is largely a conspiracy of silence except for what’s in most of the journals. (Even some journals are thoroughly dishonest.

    My guess (guess) about corporate life is that people there are held systematically to standards of rigor although their standards often do no satisfy me. I would guess (GUESS) there is more honor in the corporate world in this respect.

  19. Terry Amburgey says:

    @Bruce
    “Michelle Bachmann recently declared she would not be running for a fifth term in Congress, even though she’s among the hottest looking women in politics”. I’m betting you would see yellow (Tea Party flag) and not even acknowledge her better than average looks.”

    Oh she’s attractive although I think what’s-her-name (the ex-govenor of Alaska) is better. If the rumors below turn out to be true she could win the Prettiest Inmate award for 3-5 years. Hubba hubba.

    “While Congresswoman Michele Bachmann was announcing her retirement to much fanfare in the media, according to information given exclusively to Take Action News, the FBI was busy collecting potentially damaging evidence against her from two former campaign aides.
    According to sources close to the criminal investigation of Bachmann’s presidential campaign, the FBI has now been given sworn testimony and documents alleging Bachmann approved secret payments to Iowa state Senator Kent Sorenson in exchange for his help and support in that state’s 2012 Presidential caucuses. Ethics rules explicitly prohibit Iowa lawmakers from accepting payments from Presidential campaigns or PACs. Investigation sources tell Take Action News the FBI is examining money laundering allegations against Bachmann, as well as possible wire fraud and mail fraud.

    As we detailed on my nationally syndicated radio and YouTube show Take Action News this past Saturday, the key claims against Bachmann are coming from two of her former campaign insiders — former Congressional chief of staff Andy Parrish and former national field coordinator Pete Waldron. Waldron has filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission, alleging the payments to State Senator Sorenson were improper. Parrish has provided an affidavit to investigators, confirming Bachmann knew of and approved the payments.”

  20. Terry Amburgey says:

    @Bruce
    “Calling me a “Korporate Klown” reminds me of the leftist material I used to read where America was always spelled Amerika. Thanks for the flashback.”

    My pleasure, I thought it was a nice touch if I do say so myself.

    “Beyond simply “dealing with them”, being a part of your student’s future business accomplishments should be a source of pride. Be happy.”

    I’m not sure where your quote comes from, certainly not from my post. I mentioned ‘interacting’ with students and, except for rare occaisions, I thoroughly enjoy interacting with my students although undergraduates are the most fun and doctoral students the most work. I have no illusions about being much of a part of their future life but teaching is a hoot.

    “I trust the corporations that funded their employees graduate business educations got more for their investment than having their employees learning how to tell if their bosses are lying to them.”

    You misunderstand me; they tell me about how to tell when their boss/subordinates/co-workers are feeding them a line of BS. BTW the trendline for companies funding education is downward 9at least areound here). Frequently the only support they get is some flexibility at work.

    “Maybe you could ask a similar question and substitute affirmative action (reverse discrimination) promotions to tenured positions in Ivy League schools or student admissions. Have you seen less qualified people awarded professorships or minority students that did not pack the gear intellectually?”

    I was a visiting professor at Dartmouth for a year but I don’t think I can really speak about Ivy League schools. From personal experience I can only speak about Miami University (Ohio), Bowling Green State University, Stanford, Northwestern, University of Texas (Dallas), University of Wisconsin, University of Kentucky, and University of Toronto.
    Reverse discrimination? Not that I’ve seen, although there were a few at Stanford & Northwestern that were there because the parents could pay, not intellectual horsepower. Have I seen less qualified people awarded Professorships? Hell yes!

    • My two bits: I taught at a private university where discrimination in favor of racial minorities and of females was overt, public, evident and major.

      As I said, it was a private university. I think people and organizations can do what they want with their money.

  21. Terry Amburgey says:

    @Bruce
    “As for your story problem of course there should be the same percentage of convictions amongst vowels and consonants (blacks and whites Im guessing). There must be outside forces skewing the number.”

    Well I certainly don’t want to use biased language. How would you describe these ‘outside forces’? What objective language could we use to describe such skewing of observed percentages from the percentages we would expect if categories & convictions were statistically independent? Let me put it in terms you’re probably more comfortable with: if you were in one of your ‘no bs allowed’ corporate meetings and someone put up a powerpoint slide with categories & product purchases what would it mean?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s