Glenn Beck: Fooled by Facebook?

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke5/26/16
In the wake of reports that Facebook censors conservative voices, media figure Glenn Beck met with company chairman Mark Zuckerberg and emerged from the meeting, as he put it, “convinced that Facebook is behaving appropriately and trying to do the right thing.” Nothing to see here, move along. Unfortunately, this is nonsense.

Beck admits in his article on this subject, “I am not an expert on data or AI or algorithms.” Neither am I. But the Facebook censorship in the news isn’t about artificial intelligence but human intelligence — and its biases. In fact, the focus on technology could be (I’m not implying this is the case with Beck) an effort at Machiavellian misdirection: “Watch what the machine is doing, watch the machine, so you don’t see the man behind the curtain.

I’ll get right to the point. Fraudbook employs a group of young journalists, known as “news curators,” who are empowered to manage the algorithmic results and “refine” what qualifies for the site’s “Trending Topics” section. As company vice president of search Tom Stocky put it, the curators “audit topics surfaced algorithmically: reviewers are required to accept topics that reflect real world events, and are instructed to disregard junk or duplicate topics, hoaxes, or subjects with insufficient sources.”

So already evident is a Fraudbook deception: the Trending Topics section is supposed to reflect “popularity,” not politically correctness. Who decides what constitute “real world events”? What is a “junk” topic and who defines such? Should “duplicate topics” be disregarded if that duplication reflects trends and popularity? Why should “insufficient sources” disqualify a story, given that great breakthroughs — in science and news — often begin with one person’s endeavors? (When the story becomes well known, or “popular,” other journalists investigate the matter and separate fact from fiction; this can’t happen if it’s suppressed in the first place.) And while no one wants hoaxes promoted, we could even wonder how often incredible but true stories are labeled hoaxes by credulous or biased curators.

And who are these people empowered to decide who is an unreal-world, junky, topic-duplicating, insufficiently-sourced, possible hoaxer? Gizmodo.com, which broke the recent Fraudbook story, tells us they are “a small group of young journalists, primarily educated at Ivy League or private East Coast universities, who curate the ‘trending’ module on the upper-right-hand corner of the site.”  LOL, c’mon, Glenn, are you gonna let these people spit down your back and tell you it’s rainin’? While tech workers are notoriously liberal, as the statistics here show, journalism majors from “Ivy League or private East Coast universities” make them look like William F. Buckley2. Fact: giving people the power to “refine” news is synonymous with human bias entering the equation.

And you cannot give young, hardcore liberal journalists from “elite” schools that power without a strong liberal bias entering the equation.

Of course, the nature of biases is that people generally aren’t aware, at least not fully, of their biases. Just consider a Guardian defense of Fraudbook. The news organ interviewed an ex-Fraudbook curator who challenged Gizmodo’s report and related, writes the paper, “that newsworthiness was determined by how often a story appeared on a list of trusted news outlets including this publication [the Guardian], the New York Times and the BBC.” Are you getting this, Glenn?

That the ex-employee and Guardian consider this exculpatory of Fraudbook tells the tale: they’re so oblivious to their own biases they consider left-wing, mainstream-media news sources “unbiased” arbiters of newsworthiness. Obviously, if you use leftist entities to “refine” your algorithmic results, you’ll get Al Gore-rhythmic results.

So as Gizmodo put it, “In other words, Facebook’s news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation.” Without a doubt. Liberal journalists censoring the news? Check. Institutional guidelines elevating supposed real-world events and disqualifying supposed junk? Check. Reliance upon other left-wing sources to determine real-world quality, junkiness and newsworthiness, creating a liberal echo chamber? Check. Fraudbook’s trending team couldn’t be more like a traditional newsroom if it tried.

So while a selling point of big social media is that it’s a democratic arena in which “the people” determine what’s seen and heard, it’s instead more like professional wrestling circa 1980: certainly fake but still claiming authenticity. Of course, Fraudbook has a right (at least under our system, as opposed to the statist one Zuckerberg is working to visit upon us) to adopt whatever policies it wishes. But how about some truth in advertising? Don’t claim to be presenting merely what’s “popular.”

Beck should also note that Fraudbook has been caught censoring news time and again. As the Gatestone Institute wrote in February, “It was only a few weeks ago that Facebook was forced to back down when caught permitting anti-Israel postings, but censoring equivalent anti-Palestinian postings.” Even more damning, at a UN development summit in New York in September, Zuckerberg met with German chancellor Angela Merkel. “As they sat down,” continued Gatestone, “Chancellor Merkel’s microphone, still on, recorded Merkel asking Zuckerberg what could be done to stop anti-immigration postings being written on Facebook. She asked if it was something he was working on, and he assured her it was.”

And I’m sure Merkel would describe Zuckerberg as someone who was “humble, open, and listened intently,” which, by the way, are the precise words Beck used to describe the Fraudbook figures (including Zuck) he met with. Zuck told Merkel what she wanted to hear, which happened to be the truth; and Zuck told Beck what he wanted to hear, which happened to not be. Zuck is concerned about making money and Fraudbook’s stock price, you see.

Having said this, I doubt Zuck is fully aware of the news curators’ shenanigans. Again, people, liberals especially, are often blithely unaware of emotionally satisfying biases woven into organizations. Stories of Fraudbook censorship of conservatives are legion, however. And while it involves not censorship but an effort at undermining, I have one myself.

Aside from my syndicated pieces, I write exclusive news/commentary articles for The New American (TNA), which has both a website and hard-copy magazine. And as many sites do, TNA has Fraudbook’s “Like” button at the top of every article; it indicates how many Fraudbook users read, liked the piece and chose to click the button. Well, for more than a year and ending only about a year ago, I and members of TNA’s staff noticed a strange and consistent phenomenon: likes would accumulate on a piece and then “poof!” they’d disappear with the counter having been dialed back to zero. This happened consistently across all TNA articles; in one case, one of my pieces had 30,000 likes before they were sent to the gulag.

One might consider this a glitch, but I never observed the phenomenon at any liberal/mainstream-media site. And why does it matter? Because likes are a good metric for not just popularity but also level of readership, and people are influenced by what’s popular. Make an article’s content appear unread and unpopular and people are more likely to dismiss it as a fringe view.

I always assumed, and this accords with Gizmodo’s findings, that the like-button manipulation was the work of one or two rogue (and petty) employees — who were operating in a liberal organization that would turn a blind eye to such shenanigans. Yet Beck’s thoughts are different. In a further glowing endorsement of Fraudbook, he was quoted in a May 19 Time piece as saying about his meeting with the company’s representatives, “I thought it was great. I thought they were sincere. And as I was leaving, I thought: ‘What company has done that with conservatives?’ Especially a media company.” That’s what he thought, alright. And here’s what I think: that Facebook has two faces, and one of them is seen only by big names that Zuck et al. can use for photo-ops and public-relations purposes.

And that’s likely what happened with you, Mr. Beck. You found Zuck and Company cordial — they just find you useful.


Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com • (818 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Glenn Beck: Fooled by Facebook?

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Liberals are incapable of noticing biases in their favor because they think theirs is the only legitimate viewpoint. It would be like observing that The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich has an anti-Nazi bias. Yes, it does, but what else should it do? This is why they’ll never observe even the most obvious bias and even censorship.

    The shenanigans with “likes” are probably rogue acts, as you say. We see the same things when some stores quietly hide popular conservative books in order to reduce their readership. Most liberals don’t (yet) go that far.

    It should be noted that a private institution has a legal right to behave this way. Such bias/censorship may be unethical, but it’s legal — unless they sell their service as being unbiased. That at least borders on fraud.

    • David Ray says:

      Agreed. It’s not a problem in that I’ve never visited “facebook” and never will.
      Needless to say, neither do I waste too much time with CNN, MSNBC, The NY Times, CBS, Brian Williams, . . . .
      (I’m like Hillary contemplating a debate stage; I’ll get around to it when my arm gets twisted enough.)

  2. This was a mistake for Beck. He makes them. Right up there with marching arm in arm with Al Sharpton when everyone else knew he was being had – but he had to find out for himself – and now of course regrets it. He’s not infallible. Beck was wooed by Zuck but will eventually open his eyes. I’ve been listening to him for 12 years – this is his M.O. Sometimes he is a genius that teaches millions, other times some of us are waiting for him to catch up with us. What is really sick is how Alex Jones, Gary Heavin, Roger Stone and Trump destroyed Ted Cruz. Now Alex Jones is going in for the kill with Beck – he’s hated Beck openly for many years. Jones is circling Beck in a mad shark frenzy – using the Trump mob to try to destroy him personally. Jones has the full help of Breitbart.com to boot . Jones has used this recent Facebook mistake against him yet again. Even before that, he declared Beck to be Satan, so undeniably evil that he “could not even look at him because I might get sick”; demonic…it goes on and on. I actually kind of feel sorry for Beck, Jones and his cabal have pounced on every little thing he does – he can’t have a learning curve in public. His timing for sounding like he was sucking up to Zuckerberg couldn’t have been worse. And yet – there was something that happened in that room with the other Conservatives that pissed Beck off more than Zuckerberg. Their talk of quotas and sensitivity training – unconservative balking and squaking. I think Beck ultimately rebelled against THEM. As for me, I’ve had my Facebook page shutdown three times for no apparent reason. I hated it anyway, so eventually gave up.

  3. Another point that Glenn Beck is totally clueless on is why it matters. I don’t know the stats, but most of the websites I visit only allow comments if you have a Facebook account. So, if you don’t participate in the global narcissist game, you don’t have a voice. Everyone is being forced – if they want to participate in public discussion – to have a Facebook page. With that in mind, the accusations against Facebook take on implications no one has even thought of yet.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Currently, Town Hall, NRO, and the Daily Caller all use Disqus for comments, not Facebook. (Oddly, Hot Air does use Facebook.) There are others as well (such as RealClearPolitics), but those 3 are the main ones I comment at. There are many other sites, including Reason, Washington Post, and this one, which have their own separate account (and I’m on all 3, though mostly StubbornThings).

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Susan, first off, nice to see you commenting here. You’re always welcome.

      So, if you don’t participate in the global narcissist game, you don’t have a voice. Everyone is being forced – if they want to participate in public discussion – to have a Facebook page. With that in mind, the accusations against Facebook take on implications no one has even thought of yet.

      Well said. I was thinking on this general subject the other day. Glenn Beck has his own issues with conservatism. Many conservatives have jumped whole-hog on the Trump bandwagon. And not just as a hedge against Hillary but with what I think is clearly undue enthusiasm. Jonah Goldberg moved to support homosexual marriage a couple years ago. The very publication (National Review) whose noble principle is “Standing athwart history” has instead been populated by various shades of libertarians or Progressives. Trump, and other events, have shown that much of the conservative media is not died-in-the-wool. I’ve long likened it to a mere book club. It’s where people go to sell books or gain face time so that it bolsters their speaking fees. It’s about climbing the greasy pole, not restoring America. Exceptions such as Mark Levin are becoming few and far between.

      I think there is plenty of room for differences of opinion under the conservative umbrella, particularly because conservatism, unlike Leftism or Islam, is not a totalitarian ideology. It is a broad set of guidelines and principles to be applied with guts and wisdom.

      But we don’t live in a conservative America anymore. We live in a pop-culture America made shallow, if not also dumb, by the stream of inanities that passes for culture. And it has had an effect, and not just in dumbing-down the populace, but in changing the very playing field.

      I don’t think Jonah Goldberg, for example, changed his views on homosexual marriage because he had any grand revelation that suddenly it was a good and necessary thing. I think he was merely tacking (Left, of course) with the culture, because (wait for it) the biggest sin of this age, amongst this people who measure themselves by the second-hand fumes of pop culture, is to be outside of that culture.

      I think this explains some of the appeal of Trump. It’s like people are tired of being outcasts. With Trump, even though he likely shares very little ideology with conservatives, he is at least a big fishy swimming in the stream of popular culture. And conservatives have seemingly turned from god-fearing, faithful, principled fighters to mere remoras content to swing in the big fishie’s wake.

      We are living in a post-principled America. It’s now about who can crow the loudest. And that is the #1 talent of both Hillary and Trump. They can both bluster. That’s about all Obama had too. And his bluster connected with the conceits of popular Progressive culture. No thinking was needed. In fact, no thinking was often allowed.

      One thing Jonah did get right was calling Facebook “Satan’s Urinal.” I don’t frequent it at all anymore except when trying to communicate with someone who I don’t otherwise have an email address for. Facebook is lousy, but in large part because — good god, have you seen what people use it for? — we have become lousy, trivial, and inane. For Facebook to steer the sheep this way or that through content filtering is almost irrelevant. The sheep are already sheep, and I think Facebook’s main purpose is drama — drama, mind you, that some employer somewhere (and there must be millions of them) are paying for through lost employee time.

      It is indeed a global narcissist game. I refuse to play. That puts me, and this site, outside of pop culture which means it’s worse than irrelevant. It’s uncool. But surely life can be measured by something more than nipple rings, tattooed comic book characters on one’s behind, and sharing pictures of what one is having for breakfast this morning at Starbucks.

      It’s ironic because I’m a Mac fan from way back. It may have been an unrealistic, even conceited, vision that computers would unleash people and set them at creative tasks. But for a while, that was indeed what Apple was all about. And although it was a good business for a number of years, it only really took off when it started creating passive entertainment devices. Gone was the push for creating your own this, that, or the other thing. It’s all passive entertainment. And if creativity is involved these days, it’s usually of the Guitar Hero variety where the “creative” is pre-packaged to the extent where it’s all just another pleasing lie in a culture that loves lying to itself.

      Facebook, at heart, is mere passive entertainment. It’s fluff. Frankly, if I’m some big media star I wouldn’t sit down with a Zuckerberg. Why waste your time? In this country of over 300 million people, that schmuck is the best you can do?

      But you must “do” if you wish to remain inside the only paradigm that matters anymore: pop culture. Measuring life and worth by that is bound to degrade everything it touches…unfortunately including Glenn Beck.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Everyone is being forced – if they want to participate in public discussion – to have a Facebook page. With that in mind, the accusations against Facebook take on implications no one has even thought of yet.

      The implications are much larger than you imagine. For example, do people realize than Google, Yahoo and others are scanning all of one’s emails? This is how they determine what is “spam” and what isn’t.

      Yesterday, I sent an email from my business email address to someone regarding a business transaction. I sent a cc to my gmail account. This morning, I opened my gmail account and noticed that this email had a “warning” attachment with it, saying that it is possible that someone had captured the originating email account and that I should be careful about replying to the email.

      The only way Google could come up with this comment is by reading the email’s content. (It was part of a string of three or four emails and the others had not been flagged, only the last msg.) So people need to realize that everything they send on the internet is being viewed. And while this practice may presently be, more or less, benign it could be less so in future.

      I have never had a Facebook page and don’t know exactly how it works. Surprisingly, I do not feel I have been missing out on life’s bounty. And my privacy is just that little bit more secure.

  4. I can’t resist one more comment. I don’t think anyone thinks of East Coast universities or Ivy League colleges as William F. Buckley Jr. territory anymore. Buckley blasted that stereotype in “God and Man at Yale.” A book that still kicks butt today!

    • Anniel says:

      I left Beck when he took teddy bears and soccer balls to the border, with Cruz helping. Where are those children today? How many were coopted by the drug cartels, or sold into sexual slavery?

      And who is he to tell us who is ordained by God? I thought that information comes through a religious authority to be accepted, or not, by believers.

      Oh well, I guess he means well, but he tends to go overboard sometimes.

  5. Rosalys says:

    “…we could even wonder how often incredible but true stories are labeled hoaxes by credulous or biased curators.”

    Or how often hoaxes are promoted as the truth!

    I left FB almost three years ago. To me it was a place to have discussions and conversations with friends, like a modern day party line. Sometimes this would spill over into debate. People didn’t always like this, especially because my views are not mainstream liberal. I was told by one person (and no doubt many others agreed) that I wasn’t using FB properly. One guy unfriended me because I posted a negative Obama meme. Then one day a friend of mine (a real friend – not a FB “friend”) misinterpreted and took offense at something I wrote – and it wasn’t even political. That was it! I’d had it! I was outta there! Too much stupid going on.

    My brother has seen a number of his posts disappear. They are manipulative and dishonest. But they are liberals, so what do you expect?

    As for Glenn Beck, when his show was on Fox, I watched him just about every day and learned a lot of stuff I probably never would have heard about otherwise. I credit him with much of my modern day education; and so it doesn’t bother me that he sometimes errs, and is human. I don’t agree with everything he is, says, and does; and I don’t have to, to still appreciate what he has done.

  6. GHG says:

    I’ve see the term psychological scotoma used to describe the inability of a liberal to see anything that conflicts with their views. They have a blind spot where unbiased truth would be. It’s why reasoning with a liberal is so rarely fruitful, they can’t see the truth.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Mr. Lesser, read this chilling account of life in the Progressive Utopia on campus. We are willfully creating a generation of little monsters.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        A true horror story, and all too plausible. The left is truly demonic, and nowhere more so than where there inclinations are unchecked, as is the case all too often in academia.

      • Rosalys says:

        I just spent the last 45 minutes reading the article and probably 70% of the comments. One commenter said:

        “They’re all in charge until they get a busted nose. Then they realize what most of us learn on the playground.”

        He’s absolutely correct! These people are having their bully way because no one has been fighting back. I’m thinking (probably it’s wishful thinking!) that maybe the tide is beginning to turn. You cannot, I repeat cannot play nice with these people. They are not interested in engaging meaningful discourse, they do not deserve respect. They deserve ridicule, scorn, and a good kick in the pants! They gleefully speed down the road to hell, taking with them as many souls as they possibly can.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I couldn’t agree with you more, Rosalys. It’s not personal. For the good of society, for the good of these people, and to protect my own rights and sanity, these people should not be catered to. They should be opposed and even ridiculed.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            For a long time now, I have been saying these people need to be opposed in the most straightforward manner. Some have probably thought me strident, but I think they are finally waking up to the situation and realize there is no reasoning with these scoundrels. Crushing them is the only option.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              When the dog pisses on the carpet, you need to box his nose with a rolled-up newspaper, not take a photo of the mess, frame it, and put it in an art museum. Conservatives are for the former. Liberals are for the latter. And don’t bog me down with pedantic discussions about the best way to house-train a pet. I’m speaking metaphorically. And I’m not yelling at you, Mr. Kung. 🙂

              In a sane world, a host of a news show would take one look at Bruce Jenner and bust out laughing. And when that portion was over, he would ask him if he has ever tried any counseling or other treatment for his delusion.

              Instead, we frame the piss and put it on the wall of the museum.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                We have let things slide so far that I suspect the only thing which will stop this is bloodshed.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Don’t make suggestions like that. Modern art is often crappy enough as it is. You don’t need to give the avan-garde any new ideas. Fortunately, they’re not likely to be reading this.

            • Rosalys says:

              The best thing that can happen to a young punk headed down the wrong road in life, is to have the tar beat out of him. The modern day proverb, “spare the rod and spoil the child,” is a very weak paraphrase of the biblical warning,
              “He who spares his rod hates his son,
              But he who loves him disciplines him promptly.”
              (Proverbs 13:24)
              Got that, you lovey-dovey, namby-pamby, self righteous, satanic morons? YOU are the haters! And it’s your own progeny you hate the most!

              To the progressive mind, that proverb is proof positive that the Bible is an antiquated book, and God is a cruel, vindictive taskmaster. To them God gives license for abuse. It’s just the opposite. A well timed smack on six year old Johnny’s backside, just might spare thirty-six year old John from a lethal injection.

              Another thing you have to realize is that most of these bullies are cowards. They derive their bravado from numbers, and an unwillingness on the part of the bullied to push back. In high school, my brother would walk down the hall and find that he would have to make his way around the “big guys on campus,” who would not move an inch to make passage easier for anyone. In his junior year he started taking karate lessons, because he just wanted to learn karate, not because he wanted to show anybody who’s boss. He never attacked anyone. He never pushed anyone aside. He never did anything. Nevertheless, when word got around that he was taking karate, he started noticing that the “big guys” were stepping out of his way.

              This is way off topic from “Glenn Beck and FB.” Sorry about that.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                History and psychology teach us that no matter how much we advance technologically, humanity only learns from pain.

                Even then, most seem to forget the lesson.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                If someone was reading over my shoulder, this is what I would have to say regarding “spare the rod, spoil the child”:

                1) Do not hit your child because you have issues with your own parents. My own father was about as blinkered and un-self-aware as you could get. He had tons of unresolved issues with his father and just blindly passed many of them on.

                2) You are doing your child no favors by being lovey-dovey lovey-dovey all the time. As Rosalys wisely said, “A well timed smack on six year old Johnny’s backside, just might spare thirty-six year old John from a lethal injection.” This is no exaggeration. The lack of discipline given to kids now is turning them all into little monsters. There is this handicapped lady who lives across the street from me. There but for the grace of God I go. She takes care of her even more severely (basically all but incapacitated) brother. She is deaf. She has her quirks (one of them is blowing on a whistle at times, which can be annoying). But she is good, harmless, and a good neighbor…at least to me. But I’ve seen the neighbors (all yutes in the teens, twenties, and early thirties) treat her and talk about her cruelly. She is but an inconvenience, an easy target for scorn. These are the types of beasts who did not learn that the world does not revolve around them. And their type is growing rapidly. We are all in danger because of it. Despite all the lovey-dovey “Progressive” indoctrination they are subject too, the lack of character-building in that indoctrination is leaving them to be little monsters despite the lofty Progressive rhetoric about how damn much they supposedly love everyone. Evil often comes in the form of neglect. It certainly comes in the form of self-deceit.

                3) The only language some kids (especially boys) understand is a little physical correction.

                4) With #3 in mind, all children respond differently to different kinds of discipline and incentives. If you are the type of person who cannot make even such obvious distinctions then you probably should spare the rod because you are likely a low-brow knucklehead. Use a time-out corner or take away privileges. But if you’re the kind of person who can’t see a moral difference between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, I frankly don’t trust you to spank anyone “for their own good.”

                5) If you are a single-mother, get married. You are most likely out of your depth when it comes to disciplining boys. The boys need a father, a bull elephant. Boys will not respect their mothers in the same way. But beware of abusive boyfriends and step-fathers. Don’t spread your legs for just anyone, although you may have already made that mistake.

                6) Love your children. A lot of the “acting out” of children is because you are a bad and uncaring parent. You don’t have to be perfect. But maybe if you put your children before your own career you wouldn’t find so many problems that needed disciplining in the first place. Children cannot raise themselves. And if you are not there to keep a close watch on who their friends are, you will lose all control over them. Spank them all you want, at some point it won’t matter if they become lost.

                7) Limit the amount of time your children can spend playing video games or texting. Encourage them toward healthier activities such as hobbies, sports, reading, etc. Ultimately you have to put good things *into* a person. You can beat them all you want, but that is no substitute for inculcating good values and habits in the first place. But then, you’re likely a modern mother and father and are just as lost as your children, so maybe you need to seek out someone to help you lose the awful values you’ve picked up in this polluted “Progressive” culture.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                That sounds like a nice set of lessons. It’s especially important to keep in mind that discipline is not child abuse — and vice versa. So it’s good that you started with that first point.

                I recall from my childhood the admonition “This hurts me more than it hurts you.” I would say that, true or not, this is utterly silly since no child will ever believe it (I remember a nice parody of it in MAD Magazine.)

                Of course, today there are “studies” that clam such discipline is unnecessary and harmful. I can see how they could prove the latter, at least in theory, but I wonder how they can prove corporal punishment never does any good in discipline. As you point out, people are different — including both those who discipline and those who receive it.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Yeah, I’ve heard the ol’ “It hurts me more than you.” No child believes it and it’s probably not the moment for parents to try to gain absolution from their children. (“Gee, you’re right, dad. I won’t steal any money from your wallet again because I know how much it hurts you to spank me.”)

                Parents shouldn’t strike purely out of anger. But when they do have to mete out a little discipline, don’t blur the message with a bunch of psychobabble about “It hurst me more than you.” This is all about the child being punished for bad behavior. It’s not about absolving yourself from needing to play the adult.

              • Rosalys says:

                I knew a woman who had two bratty little girls. Though she was always slapping them, she never disciplined them. They were so used to being slapped that they wouldn’t cry – they laughed!

                Reminds me of Eustace in “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.” He finely got the message and learned a good lesson (no thanks to his progressive parents!) after living as a dragon for a few weeks.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                “There was a boy named Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it.” But he was a dragon only a few hours, and might not have learned his lesson so well if one of his wrists hadn’t been caught up in a gold bracelet meant for human rather than dragon arms.

              • Rosalys says:

                No, Eustace was left a dragon for a few weeks. He helped in the repair of the Dawn Treader and there was some concern that they may have had to leave him behind.

      • GHG says:

        I’m saddened that Dr. Lopez had to suffer for his beliefs and pay a heavy price to stand on his convictions. I’ve been reading him at American Thinker for quite a while and hope he continues to be a voice shouting in the wilderness. We need more Dr. Lopez’ with the courage to shine light in the darkness no matter the cost.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          What Dr. Lopez needs to do is get together with some like-minded educators and professors and start a college. He can’t be the only one suffering under the yoke of liberal fascism. There is no rescuing higher eduction. It can only be replaced and competed with.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *