|
Post by clmetsfan on Aug 3, 2018 21:42:04 GMT -5
Dean W - He has stated that he doesn’t care if this gets deleted...Can you please oblige him? Yeah, you shouldn't have to hear about how someone with multiple sexual harassment claims against him can be an embarrassment.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Aug 2, 2018 16:24:18 GMT -5
I don't care if this gets deleted -- Clarence Thomas is a stain on Holy Cross's reputation.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jul 30, 2018 11:02:06 GMT -5
If I have an ownership stake in the college, where's my dividend check? Check your soul account—the grace balance should get an infusion each quarter Oh that explains it -- I defaulted on that account years ago.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jul 30, 2018 10:21:45 GMT -5
If I have an ownership stake in the college, where's my dividend check?
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jul 23, 2018 15:31:09 GMT -5
Marriage is fine. Having kids, on the other hand, probably isn't the wisest thing to do these days. We had a child when I was 48. I'll be one year short of a Purple Knight when she graduates college, God willing (both her graduating and me being around to see it). A fellow alum, class of 74, lives a few blocks away. He drastically one upped me. 65 years old, first child born a month ago! 48 sounds more like the new normal if the next generation of men waits until they feel financially stable before having kids. That's what happens when you have rising tuitions, fewer jobs due to automation and outsourcing, and stagnant wages.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jul 12, 2018 12:06:34 GMT -5
LOL PS: I thought marriage was too old fashioned in this "enlightened" age. Marriage is fine. Having kids, on the other hand, probably isn't the wisest thing to do these days.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Apr 30, 2018 15:58:03 GMT -5
A longstanding and now retired member of the Jesuit community recently shared this comment in regard to Professor Liew: "What a knucklehead. He was brought on against the recommendation of most members of the Jesuit community at Holy Cross."Put that on a low simmer and stir periodically. Simmer and stir it as much as you want; an anonymous quote that mentions other nameless people still tastes pretty bland and pointless.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Apr 16, 2018 9:00:00 GMT -5
Making statements like "Blasphemy is worse than murder" is a perfect example of why Christians are being taken less and less seriously in this country.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Apr 11, 2018 13:03:27 GMT -5
And the walls came tumbling down...
Is my diploma still valid?
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Apr 10, 2018 10:40:29 GMT -5
Anyone who wants to know what he wrote and why he wrote it has the opportunity and ability to do so. But this whole situation is based upon people taking things out of context in order to drum up controversy. Trying to justify a complicated academic argument to a group of internet trolls is an exercise in futility and would be completely counter-productive. So now Benny's nonsense has been classified as "cutting edge research" and a "complex academic argument." Outstanding. Pro tip: if you're going to put something in quotes, make sure you're actually quoting something. Did you read Liew's original paper? Somehow I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Apr 10, 2018 9:53:41 GMT -5
“This is what I wrote. This is why I wrote it. Now you guys can take a hike!” Anyone who wants to know what he wrote and why he wrote it has the opportunity and ability to do so. But this whole situation is based upon people taking things out of context in order to drum up controversy. Trying to justify a complicated academic argument to a group of internet trolls is an exercise in futility and would be completely counter-productive.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Apr 9, 2018 16:39:08 GMT -5
I was able to dig up Liew's now infamous article online and found it to be a typically academic exercise aimed at other professors who share the author's approach to gospels, i.e., applying trendy topics of concern -- gay issues, colonialism, gender rights, etc. -- to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Anyone other than this group would find Liew's article and others like it to be tedious to the extreme and thoroughly unconvincing. That said, the compilation that includes the Liew article, They Were All Together in One Place? Toward Minority Biblical Criticism (which includes numerous other articles with similar, non-traditional themes) is available online at over 1,200 libraries, including those at large numbers of Catholic colleges, universities and seminaries, as well as some Jewish institutions (Brandeis and Yeshiva). Two of these were very religiously conservative: Ave Maria and Liberty University. In short, Liew's article is just academic theorizing aimed at like-minded audiences and hardly rates all the attention it's currently getting. Thank you ... it took us 16 pages and 14 days to come to this conclusion It's almost as if the Fenwick Review cherry-picked a topic in an attempt cause a s---storm. How very on-brand.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Apr 9, 2018 16:21:49 GMT -5
"That Jesus of Nazareth was not a drag king is a matter of faith." Actually, the truth and the authority to teach the truth is vested in the Catholic Church. It's one of the reasons Christ founded a Church and why he explicitly told Peter "Feed my lambs" and "Tend my sheep" This sorry episode has to be one of the most indicative examples of why sola scriptura is a bad idea. If you want to believe in the drag king theory you have the right to believe that, just as scientologists have the right to believe that humans evolved from clams or the mormons right to believe in golden plates and that they can become god's of their own planet after they die. But these beliefs do not belong in any catholic setting! Well, since you used the lower-case catholic, which is defined as "including a wide variety of things; all-embracing," then your statement is 100% inaccurate. If you intended to use the upper-case Catholic, then I'd ask you to explain what constitutes a "Catholic setting." Is it one in which people are taught nothing but that which is derived from dogmatic law, then you seem to have attended a different college from the rest of us. There are seminaries for that. However, exposing young minds to new ideas and teaching them to look at issues and events in ways that they haven't before is very much in line with a Jesuit setting.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 30, 2018 17:46:16 GMT -5
Apparently Tom understood my point. My post was no more serious than the pretend baseball caps. The absurdity of those caps deserved a similarly absurd response.
When and if an ethnic group is offended, I support them but it is not up to me to be offended on behalf of another group. Specific example was referenced about the Sioux and North Dakota and the NCAA deciding that their mascot was offensive while the Sioux actually take pride in that representation. The absurdity of those caps is a perfect correlation to the absurdity of the fact that a professional sports team has been represented by a racist caricature for such a long time. One can be offended by racism whether or not they're a member of the group being marginalized. For example, the white supremacist rallies in Charlottesville were offensive to me not on behalf of black people, but on behalf of all people.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 30, 2018 17:42:20 GMT -5
That perspective is a bit troubling. You only have a problem with racist caricatures if you personally belong to that race? I Sader70's point was that even though he doesn't have a problem with Notre Dame's racist caricature even though he belongs to that race Considering Notre Dame is historically a school run and attended by Irish-Americans, it's really not a good comparison. If Chief Wahoo had been designed by an American Indian and the franchise run by American Indians, then we can talk about comparing the two. That logo and the Washington football team is cultural appropriation at its most fundamental level.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 30, 2018 14:34:45 GMT -5
Since I am not a Jew, chinaman or Indian (Native American or otherwise), they would not personally bother me. Even though I hate Notre Dame, it has nothing to do with their dopey Irish mascot and I AM Irish. Pretty sure I don’t associate either Jews or Chinamen with athletics and outside of lacrosse, not so much Native Americans either except Cleveland supposedly named their team after great HC athlete, Lou Sockalexus. Now a Crusader on the other hand . . . . . 😂 That perspective is a bit troubling. You only have a problem with racist caricatures if you personally belong to that race?
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 30, 2018 13:59:01 GMT -5
Anyone have a problem with hats 1 and 2?
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 4, 2018 18:13:02 GMT -5
Why does that matter? Really? Well, because there's a big difference between saying that someone is a biased journalist and that they're a fake journalist. Maybe it's the ex-journalist in me, but when someone makes outlandish statements like that, I want to know how much weight their opinion actually carries. So if one says that a reporter or publication don't practice "real journalism," I'm interested to see if that person has any experience being a "real journalist." So when 92 admits that he has no experience in that field, it tells me that his statement that none of the publications he can think of practice real journalism isn't a very informed one. Put it this way. If I were to declare that a person with an MD doesn't practice real medicine, wouldn't you want to know what qualifies me to make that statement? But if Dr. Chu made the same statement, it would carry a lot more weight. Make sense? Decaf, CL! My point is that these “real journalists” are all biased and their “news” stories should be read with the understanding that their journalism is heavily influenced by their own personal feelings re: the issues they are covering. I hope you are okay with me having this view despite never having written for The Crusader or a sports blog. The point is that by essentially claiming that there's no such thing as real journalism because human beings have opinions, you're taking a radically nihilistic position that discredits every piece of news that every single person consumes, and doing so based on exactly zero first-hand knowledge. It essentially supports anyone who dismisses facts that they don't like as "fake news." After all, if they're all fake journalists, then it's all fake news.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 4, 2018 18:01:30 GMT -5
Great discussion, everyone. This is the source of the media bias chart: www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.comI do not ask my sources of news to be unbiased. Rather, I expect a point of view as inherent, and i try to understand it. Broad based, real journalism will tend to look left leaning to those on the right, simply because they do not adhere to the right wing agenda of what stories to harp on or the right wing talking points. Just tune into Hannity or Brietbart or Daily Caller to see what I mean. Right now, paying for your news is a radical and revolutionary act, in keeping with the constitution and the finest traditions of our country. I support the news I consume, and urge all of you to do the same, and not rely on the free Internet sources. When it is free to you, the agenda is from someone else. You are the product they deliver to the real boss. If you want to actually be exposed to an actual, activist Democratic, left leaning point of view that has become insanely popular over the last year with young people especially, I recommend the Podcast "Pod Save America", hosted by 2003 Holy Cross Alum, and former Obama speechwriter, John Favreau. Also on the program are other Obama alumni: Dan Pfeiffer, Jon Lovett, and Tommy Vietor. They host and interview journalists and politicians with an advocacy bent, and the results are often very entertaining and informative. You can subscribe on the Apple or Google store, or at: crooked.com/podcast-series/pod-save-america/And if you have a hard time listening to it (I struggle with Lovett and Favreau's levels of arrogance sometimes), definitely give Pod Save the World a try. It's a foreign policy-focused pod hosted solely by Vietor (who used to work for the National Security Council) with a lot of great guests from both sides of the spectrum.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 4, 2018 10:25:08 GMT -5
Why does that matter? Really? Well, because there's a big difference between saying that someone is a biased journalist and that they're a fake journalist. Maybe it's the ex-journalist in me, but when someone makes outlandish statements like that, I want to know how much weight their opinion actually carries. So if one says that a reporter or publication don't practice "real journalism," I'm interested to see if that person has any experience being a "real journalist." So when 92 admits that he'd never been a journalist, it tells me that his statement that none of the publications he can think of practice real journalism isn't a very informed one. Put it this way. If I were to declare that a person with an MD doesn't practice real medicine, wouldn't you want to know what qualifies me to make that statement? But if Dr. Chu made the same statement, it would carry a lot more weight. Make sense?
You seem to be suggesting that if one has never been a journalist, he/she might not be qualified to draw conclusions on who is a real journalist, in the same way that someone who is not a MD cannot determine if someone with an MD practices real medicine. Here's what I see as a fallacy in your argument: I don't have a medical degree, but if I went to a physician who told me, say, to treat a broken leg by running three miles or pneumonia by taking a swim in the Atlantic in January I'd conclude, despite having no MD degree, that the doctor was not practicing real medicine. In like fashion, even though I have not been a journalist, I can tell that some of the ludicrous crap that I read, see, and hear is not real journalism. I need not have worked for a major newspaper, radio station, or tv station to draw that conclusion in some cases. However, maybe the issue is "good vs bad journalism" not "real vs not real journalism"That's why I said there's a big difference between declaring someone to be a biased journalist vs. a fake journalist. When it comes to spotting crap stories, I find some of the most effective methods to be seeing how many sources are cited, whether they're named or anonymous, and whether or not other publications confirm a story after it's broken (related to your example, like getting a second opinion from a different doctor who hopefully tells you not to run three miles on a broken leg). For example, when the story about Roy Moore's alleged underage harassment first broke, the prudent thing to do was wait until other publications investigated as well and see if they reached the same conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 4, 2018 10:14:49 GMT -5
Fair enough and thanks for the explanation. But, the idea that one can only really judge if one has actually been in that position is a slippery slope. Anyone can question and form opinions about the output of anyone's job. But I think you better be speaking from experience if you question the methods, process, and legitimacy of that job.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 4, 2018 10:08:11 GMT -5
Two questions for those who don't consider WaPo and NYT real journalism: 1. Have you ever worked as a journalist? 2. What outlets do you consider to practice "real journalism"? OK, I'll bite. 1. Yes, for several New Jersey newpapers (and as an occasional photographer). Why does that matter?2. The NYT is clearly "real journalism"...but I do not believe some of the reporters/editors are currently doing their jobs in a fair and balanced manner for the "Old Gray Lady." The Washington Post has a long history of editorial bias but has still seen some outstanding work from members of its staff. Why does that matter? Really? Well, because there's a big difference between saying that someone is a biased journalist and that they're a fake journalist. Maybe it's the ex-journalist in me, but when someone makes outlandish statements like that, I want to know how much weight their opinion actually carries. So if one says that a reporter or publication don't practice "real journalism," I'm interested to see if that person has any experience being a "real journalist." So when 92 admits that he has no experience in that field, it tells me that his statement that none of the publications he can think of practice real journalism isn't a very informed one. Put it this way. If I were to declare that a person with an MD doesn't practice real medicine, wouldn't you want to know what qualifies me to make that statement? But if Dr. Chu made the same statement, it would carry a lot more weight. Make sense?
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 3, 2018 17:43:26 GMT -5
Two questions for those who don't consider WaPo and NYT real journalism:
1. Have you ever worked as a journalist? 2. What outlets do you consider to practice "real journalism"?
I would suggest reading about how the Post, using journalistic standards like vetting sources and getting multiple confirmations of stories, exposed that little twerp James O'Keefe's attempts to entrap them into a fake story about a new woman accusing Roy Moore of misconduct.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Dec 10, 2017 15:52:03 GMT -5
We were on Watters’ World tonight. Jesse was making fun of us for considering changing the mascot while interviewing some Young Republican. What does Rob Schneider think about it?
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Nov 30, 2017 14:15:19 GMT -5
The "Greek System" is moronic-- The Crusader is good and a part of the college's tapestry I agree with you (no Greek life was one of the biggest reasons I chose HC), but most of those who take part in it absolutely love it. I'm with Phreek on this one -- frats and sororities have a much greater effect on campus life, and eliminating them from a school that has long had them seems much more likely to cause alumni backlash than a mascot change would.
|
|