|
Post by newfieguy74 on Sept 29, 2021 8:21:39 GMT -5
Are you now that an unproven accusation is the same as guilty? Let's remember that Dr F has been the. victim of some really "wacko" accusations himself. I didn't say he was guilty. His Senate hearing wasn't a trial per se, but many people found (and still find) Anita Hill's sworn testimony credible. People can choose to believe or disbelieve her, but she's not a "wacko."
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Sept 29, 2021 8:39:01 GMT -5
The author of the article made a statement as absolute that was incorrect. It then makes me wonder about his other statements.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Sept 29, 2021 15:33:21 GMT -5
If someone else own the enslaved persons and only after the sale gave the money to HC, would not that be INDIRECT benefit to the college and not, as the author states, direct benefit? You are probably right, but does it make it better? Flash forward to today. Should the College accept a gift of shares of stock of a porn website (legal but morally objectionable?) What if the donor sold the shares and then gave the proceeds telling the college the origin of the funds? What if the donor sold the shares and gave the proceeds without telling the college the source? What if ten years later the college learns of the source of the funds? Should it act then? No one said this stuff was easy. Solution: Take the money and run. If an HC grad was an early investor in Google, which owns YouTube (I think) and wants to donate a chunk of appreciated shares to Holy Cross, does a committee have to view every YouTube video to make sure nothing is immoral?
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Sept 29, 2021 15:48:21 GMT -5
Apparently they do...in the eyes of Mr. Hill.
|
|
|
Post by dadominate on Sept 30, 2021 12:37:40 GMT -5
It’s about time some rich HC donor gives a building named along the lines of “The Clarence Thomas-Anthony Fauci Public Policy Center”. I realize either one (or both) of these fellas may be disliked by alums and society writ large but it would certainly send many positive messages regarding the achievements of two of our most prominent grads. And the message we are a liberal (in the old fashioned sense) school. (No doubt folks like the author would do the usual foot-stomping outrage dance - reason enough to start construction.) It would be a terrible mistake to link these two. Dr. F. has never been accused of sexual harassment. In addition, many people of all colors are appalled by his judicial opinions and court demeanor. fauci is maligned by at least as many people as is thomas. actually, he is is likely far more divisive at present after his handling of covid. though he was also widely disliked by another entire generation for his AZT and HIV decisions. these are both divisive figures, no matter where anyone stands on either.
|
|
|
Post by sader81 on Oct 2, 2021 7:07:07 GMT -5
Being a member of the Supreme Court who is perceived as being either right or left wing, such as Thomas or Ginsberg, is being like a parent who has two young children and only one ice cream cone. Like them or not, it is important that the Court have eloquent voices from both sides.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Oct 2, 2021 9:11:54 GMT -5
Comparing Fauci and Thomas is false equivalence. I'm sure Fauci is reviled by more people than Thomas but that's because Dr. F is on TV every day advocating ways to defeat a deadly virus, and Thomas is never on TV (nor should he be), and except for people who read Supreme Court decisions is out of the spotlight. It should also be pointed out that while Dr. F. was initially despised by AIDS activists he was subsequently revered. Larry Kramer called him a murderer, only to later become a close friend when Dr. F. led the charge to come up with treatments for AIDS. As we all know, much of the criticism of Dr. F. is unhinged lunacy, though some is not. Thomas is criticized because he was credibly accused of sexual harassment by an accomplished woman. He's also criticized by some because his decisions are so hard right, and on issues of race some feel he opposes policies that he himself benefited from.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Oct 2, 2021 10:36:42 GMT -5
Alas, Thomas' overall body of work on the Court has not been noteworthy. For many years he was the quiet, reticent acolyte of Justice Scalia. Quite frankly, he was considered by many on all sides to be an intellectual lightweight. However, in all fairness to Clarence, after nearly 30 years, his recent opinions have begun to display more heft and have a greater impact on the legal community. Whereas Dr. Fauci is recognized internationally as one of the world's leading epidemiologists. He is widely revered around the entire planet. Most (not all) criticisms have come from a relatively small, insignificant group in the US. Dr. Fauci has taken the criticisms in stride with great dignity. Whereas, Clarence has come across merely as an angry, frustrated man. God Bless both of them.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Oct 2, 2021 18:32:17 GMT -5
Comparing Fauci and Thomas is false equivalence. I'm sure Fauci is reviled by more people than Thomas but that's because Dr. F is on TV every day advocating ways to defeat a deadly virus, and Thomas is never on TV (nor should he be), and except for people who read Supreme Court decisions is out of the spotlight. It should also be pointed out that while Dr. F. was initially despised by AIDS activists he was subsequently revered. Larry Kramer called him a murderer, only to later become a close friend when Dr. F. led the charge to come up with treatments for AIDS. As we all know, much of the criticism of Dr. F. is unhinged lunacy, though some is not. Thomas is criticized because he was credibly accused of sexual harassment by an accomplished woman. He's also criticized by some because his decisions are so hard right, and on issues of race some feel he opposes policies that he himself benefited from. "credibly accused of sexual harassment by a credible woman." I remember those hearings. My take-away was Anita was an attractive, well educated young black professional woman and Clarence was an attractive, well educated young black professional man and they both worked together at a time when there was far less diversity in professional ranks and sexual harassment was far less well defined and understood. I thought he tried to initiate a dating relationship with her and I could see his logic in attempting that, but she rebuffed him. Not being an attorney perhaps I didn't follow it that closely, but I didn't find his interest inherently wrong. Did he try to punish her professionally for rebuffing him? Was the harassment because he didn't read her signals well and persisted? I could see Anita being hard to read because I don't think she announced her claims of being harmed until Clarence was nominated for the Supreme Court. I do remember siding with him more than her during the hearings. It could be because I am an HC grad and was proud of him, it could be because Father Brooks and Stan Grayson stood up for him, it could be because I am male, it could be because Anita Hill came off as calculated to me and it may be because the very legitimate concept of sexual harassment was relatively new. But I think Clarence Thomas has been as pure as Caesar's wife in his deportment ever since.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Oct 2, 2021 19:37:42 GMT -5
Fair or not, the Anita Hill narrative will be in the first paragraph of Thomas' obit. Am not aware that any of his judicial opinions or legal writings will have the same import as has Hill v. Thomas. The Hill - Thomas controversy is long past. Positions have hardened. History, such as it is, will be the final arbiter.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Oct 2, 2021 22:35:09 GMT -5
Fair or not, the Anita Hill narrative will be in the first paragraph of Thomas' obit. Am not aware that any of his judicial opinions or legal writings will have the same import as has Hill v. Thomas. The Hill - Thomas controversy is long past. Positions have hardened. History, such as it is, will be the final arbiter. True that about his judicial opinions and writing.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Oct 3, 2021 5:53:34 GMT -5
Fair or not, the Anita Hill narrative will be in the first paragraph of Thomas' obit. Am not aware that any of his judicial opinions or legal writings will have the same import as has Hill v. Thomas. The Hill - Thomas controversy is long past. Positions have hardened. History, such as it is, will be the final arbiter. True that about his judicial opinions and writing. I am not a big Thomas fan but he is currently the most prolific writer on the court with plenty of separate dissents and concurrences and we probably should watch what happens going forward. If the court moves more sharply to the right than Roberts is comfortable with, our fellow alum will be assigning the majority opinions on some ground breaking cases. He may well assign some to himself.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Oct 3, 2021 10:51:54 GMT -5
True that about his judicial opinions and writing. I am not a big Thomas fan but he is currently the most prolific writer on the court with plenty of separate dissents and concurrences and we probably should watch what happens going forward. If the court moves more sharply to the right than Roberts is comfortable with, our fellow alum will be assigning the majority opinions on some ground breaking cases. He may well assign some to himself. Glad to know that he is a prolific writer. I follow the Court lightly so I was only aware he doesn't ask many questions during Court sessions.
|
|
|
Post by dadominate on Oct 4, 2021 8:39:04 GMT -5
i repeat, from one in the medical scientific trenches, that there are many scientists and clinicians who think fauci has handled covid (and HIV/AIDS before that) in an absolutely dishonest, unscientific manner that wreaks of protectionism for his colleagues and industry partners.
i can't speak as much to clarence thomas, but there does not seem to be anywhere near consensus opinion on him, either.
my view is that we will heal as a society when we stop pretending that people/causes/institutions are either "angels" or "devils", as the absolutely toxic poison that mainstream media has led many to believe.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 4, 2021 8:43:57 GMT -5
I believe we will begin to "heal" once we stop trying to look for scapegoats to explain every unpleasantness. (The "Devil Theory" of history.) While there are certainly some who agree with your opinion about Fauci's handling of the issues, there appear more of those who would disagree with that opinion.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Oct 4, 2021 22:05:23 GMT -5
Fauci has a tough nut to crack: The hundred million or so who are getting more creative by the day in trying to discredit the vaccine.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Oct 5, 2021 4:21:00 GMT -5
I do hear severe criticism of Fauci for his very early commentary and advice regarding the virus; his position (s) on gain-of- function coronavirus research, apparent love of the limelight and microphone, his view (s) and backtracking on the origin of covid, perceived friendship with the Cuomo’s, his tendency to label criticism of his shifting advice as ‘attacks on science’, some selectivity regarding tut-tutting, and recent gloom in the face of improving numbers. None of the criticism shocks me - we have a proud history of mocking, skewering, and ignoring the advice and opinions of federal bureaucrats.
I still believe, despite their hinged and unhinged critics, Thomas and Fauci merit some sort of public service-related building up on Mount Saint James. They are very prominent graduates held in high esteem by vast segments of the population.
|
|
|
Post by dadominate on Oct 5, 2021 6:29:37 GMT -5
I do hear severe criticism of Fauci for his very early commentary and advice regarding the virus; his position (s) on gain-of- function coronavirus research, apparent love of the limelight and microphone, his view (s) and backtracking on the origin of covid, perceived friendship with the Cuomo’s, his tendency to label criticism of his shifting advice as ‘attacks on science’, some selectivity regarding tut-tutting, and recent gloom in the face of improving numbers. None of the criticism shocks me - we have a proud history of mocking, skewering, and ignoring the advice and opinions of federal bureaucrats. I still believe, despite their hinged and unhinged critics, Thomas and Fauci merit some sort of public service-related building up on Mount Saint James. They are very prominent graduates held in high esteem by vast segments of the population. agreed. a jointly-named building (while admittedly rare for non-donors these days) would also unintentionally serve as a magnifying glass for polarizing beliefs. anyone who reveres one and demonizes the other of these hc alums should likely broaden their sources of information as they are likely residing in an echochamber of opinion.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Oct 5, 2021 6:56:26 GMT -5
I do hear severe criticism of Fauci for his very early commentary and advice regarding the virus; his position (s) on gain-of- function coronavirus research, apparent love of the limelight and microphone, his view (s) and backtracking on the origin of covid, perceived friendship with the Cuomo’s, his tendency to label criticism of his shifting advice as ‘attacks on science’, some selectivity regarding tut-tutting, and recent gloom in the face of improving numbers. None of the criticism shocks me - we have a proud history of mocking, skewering, and ignoring the advice and opinions of federal bureaucrats. I still believe, despite their hinged and unhinged critics, Thomas and Fauci merit some sort of public service-related building up on Mount Saint James. They are very prominent graduates held in high esteem by vast segments of the population. I do not agree that Clarence Thomas is "held in high esteem by vast segments of the population." I actually don't know anyone who holds him in high esteem (although I've read articles by people who admire his opinions). At a time when HC is concerned about the number of applicants, and when most applicants are young women, I can't imagine a worse idea than naming a building after an alum who was credibly accused under oath of sexual harassment by a woman.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 5, 2021 7:21:25 GMT -5
"Credibly accused?" What do you mean by that. Yes, there was an accusation and those who heard that out did not choose to act on it since they, for the most part, did not give it much credit. Remember that was at a time when any conservative nominee to the supreme court was subject to an all-out attack by the opposition. In that negative atmosphere Thomas stood his ground and achieved his place on the court. I listened to almost all of the hearings (my era's equivalent to the McCarthy hearings I suppose). I personally (opinion only, of course) did not find her accusations creditable. You say you don't know anyone who holds Thomas in high esteem. Well, we know each other through Crossports and I do hold him in high esteem so you may want to modify that in the future. In regard to the naming of a building for Thomas and Fauci, I have to say that sounds to me like a good idea and one that would bring notoriety to the school and could help with raising funds.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Oct 5, 2021 9:11:52 GMT -5
I do hear severe criticism of Fauci for his very early commentary and advice regarding the virus; his position (s) on gain-of- function coronavirus research, apparent love of the limelight and microphone, his view (s) and backtracking on the origin of covid, perceived friendship with the Cuomo’s, his tendency to label criticism of his shifting advice as ‘attacks on science’, some selectivity regarding tut-tutting, and recent gloom in the face of improving numbers. None of the criticism shocks me - we have a proud history of mocking, skewering, and ignoring the advice and opinions of federal bureaucrats. I still believe, despite their hinged and unhinged critics, Thomas and Fauci merit some sort of public service-related building up on Mount Saint James. They are very prominent graduates held in high esteem by vast segments of the population. I do not agree that Clarence Thomas is "held in high esteem by vast segments of the population." I actually don't know anyone who holds him in high esteem (although I've read articles by people who admire his opinions). At a time when HC is concerned about the number of applicants, and when most applicants are young women, I can't imagine a worse idea than naming a building after an alum who was credibly accused under oath of sexual harassment by a woman. "credibly accused under oath" ? Are you not aware that some people will lie under oath to advance a political agenda?
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Oct 5, 2021 10:41:11 GMT -5
I do hear severe criticism of Fauci for his very early commentary and advice regarding the virus; his position (s) on gain-of- function coronavirus research, apparent love of the limelight and microphone, his view (s) and backtracking on the origin of covid, perceived friendship with the Cuomo’s, his tendency to label criticism of his shifting advice as ‘attacks on science’, some selectivity regarding tut-tutting, and recent gloom in the face of improving numbers. None of the criticism shocks me - we have a proud history of mocking, skewering, and ignoring the advice and opinions of federal bureaucrats. I still believe, despite their hinged and unhinged critics, Thomas and Fauci merit some sort of public service-related building up on Mount Saint James. They are very prominent graduates held in high esteem by vast segments of the population. I do not agree that Clarence Thomas is "held in high esteem by vast segments of the population." I actually don't know anyone who holds him in high esteem (although I've read articles by people who admire his opinions). At a time when HC is concerned about the number of applicants, and when most applicants are young women, I can't imagine a worse idea than naming a building after an alum who was credibly accused under oath of sexual harassment by a woman. This brings to mind the story of the shocked liberal newscaster who was flabbergasted that Reagan was winning state after state on election night since everyone she knew and everything she read was unanimous in the opinion he was awful. Just awful. Reagan won 49 of 50 states that evening.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Oct 5, 2021 11:05:30 GMT -5
I do not agree that Clarence Thomas is "held in high esteem by vast segments of the population." I actually don't know anyone who holds him in high esteem (although I've read articles by people who admire his opinions). At a time when HC is concerned about the number of applicants, and when most applicants are young women, I can't imagine a worse idea than naming a building after an alum who was credibly accused under oath of sexual harassment by a woman. This brings to mind the story of the shocked liberal newscaster who was flabbergasted that Reagan was winning state after state on election night since everyone she knew and everything she read was unanimous in the opinion he was awful. Just awful. Reagan won 49 of 50 states that evening. I was in on a brand plans presentation one year for a very blue collar brand. We wanted to tie in with bowling nationally as one of our field guys had done so very successfully in his market. One of the senior executives in the meeting, an upscale guy, said "Bowling??? Nobody bowls. I don't bowl, Tina (his wife) doesn't bowl. I don't know anyone who bowls". We responded that bowling was the second highest participation sport in the country (I think softball was first) . I've always believed that the biggest mistake a marketer can make is marketing the brand to him/herself, i.e. building plans that have personal appeal. In like fashion, some newscasters, perhaps especially the network people who are so highly compensated, are just out of touch with the "common man" as you note.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Oct 5, 2021 13:08:53 GMT -5
I do not agree that Clarence Thomas is "held in high esteem by vast segments of the population." I actually don't know anyone who holds him in high esteem (although I've read articles by people who admire his opinions). At a time when HC is concerned about the number of applicants, and when most applicants are young women, I can't imagine a worse idea than naming a building after an alum who was credibly accused under oath of sexual harassment by a woman. This brings to mind the story of the shock ed liberal newscaster who was flabbergasted that Reagan was winning state after state on election night since everyone she knew and everything she read was unanimous in the opinion he was awful. Just awful. Reagan won 49 of 50 states that evening. www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/10/The-Fraudulent-Factoid-That-Refuses-to-Die
|
|
|
Post by Chu Chu on Oct 5, 2021 13:37:03 GMT -5
i repeat, from one in the medical scientific trenches, that there are many scientists and clinicians who think fauci has handled covid (and HIV/AIDS before that) in an absolutely dishonest, unscientific manner that wreaks of protectionism for his colleagues and industry partners. i can't speak as much to clarence thomas, but there does not seem to be anywhere near consensus opinion on him, either. my view is that we will heal as a society when we stop pretending that people/causes/institutions are either "angels" or "devils", as the absolutely toxic poison that mainstream media has led many to believe. dadominate, I don't know what "trench" you are in, but your comments shock me. He literally wrote the book on immunology, and is one of the current authors of Harrison's Textbook of Internal Medicine. It's one thing to talk about policy disagreements, but what are you talking about when you say "absolutely dishonest, unscientific"?
|
|