Mini-Carnival of the Wingnuts
Because laughing is better than crying.
1. Dr. Mike S. Adams, Ph.D. has unfair demands placed on him by his female boss, as he details in "It's my party and you'll come if I tell you."
No, she really doesn't require that he, uh, "come," since she presumably knows that vaginas give him E.D. She just gives him a bad performance evaluation for not attending her party. At least, that's what Dr. Mike says when he tattles on her to the president of the university.
Dear President Broad
Last week, I went to work to examine a copy of my 2004 performance evaluation. For the first time in 12 years, my evaluation contained some negative remarks.
Okay, let's stop right there, because if this is true, there is something VERY wrong with the UNCW evaluation system. I'm tempted to email President Broad myself, and ask him what kind of a liberal, kumbaya-singing, esteem-building evaluation system they have down there, because if anybody has deserved a verbal savaging in his evaluations for at least the past four years, it's Dr. Mike.
Among those was the criticism that during the last year I did not take part in the “ongoing life” of my department.
The others were presumably comments such as the following, which urban legend holds were included in real performane evalutions:
I wouldn't let this employee reproduce.
This employee should go far. The sooner the better.
Somewhere, a village is missing its idiot
A gross ignoramus: 144 times dumber than a regular ignoramus.
If brains were taxed, he'd get a rebate.
Hard to believe that of 1 million sperm, he got there first.
But did Dr. Mike's boss say that Mike doesn't take part in the "ongoing life" of his department, or that he's "destroying the will to live of everyone" in his deparment? I'd like to see a copy of Mike's evalution to settle this question.
Anyway, Mike says the crack about his lack of "ongoing life" was the boss's way of punishing him because he didn't go to her party -- however, I'd bet money that not attending the shindig was the only thing she felt he'd done right that semester.
This form of evaluation is unacceptable for a number of reasons.
[...]
Imagine that alcohol is served at departmental parties (they usually are), making a professor unable to attend for religious reasons. Would he not prevail in a suit charging religious discrimination if his absence was later recorded in his performance evaluation? You should immediately consult your attorneys on this one, President Broad.
You know, people who don't drink for religious reasons can still attend parties where alcohol is served. I personally don't drink, and yet there have been occasions when it was part of my job duties to socialize with drunken foreign government officials. Nobody poured any booze down my throat, I wasn't morally contaminated by the presence of alcohol, and because I did my job and wasn't a jerk, I got good performance evaluations. That's how it works in the real world, Dr. Mike.
Similarly, some professors might not want to attend parties at the homes of other professors who are cohabitating outside of marriage, or involved in homosexual relationships. They may have young children they do not want exposed to such lifestyles at an early age. Perhaps they should not have to spend money for a baby sitter just to keep from getting a negative performance evaluation.
Is Dr. Mike recommending that parents demand that all couples throwing parties show their marriage licenses to any children who may be present, so that the tikes don't have their little minds warped by possible cohabitation? (And is he also requring everyone at the party swear on a Bible that they are not now, and never have been, involved in homosexual relationships?) I guess so -- because otherwise, the kids could be exposed to somebody's lifestyle.
Hypothetical situations aside, I have a very real reason for avoiding these kinds of gatherings. Some years ago, a fellow professor began harboring the delusion that I was trying to poison her with tear gas. Do you consider it wise to require both of us to attend the same social gatherings?
Hypothetical situations aside, I don't think that anyone should be penalized for not attending a party thrown by the boss. However, since Dr. Mike regularly makes nasty remarks in his columns about people with whom he works, I think that the comment about him not taking part in the ongoing life of the department might mean something more than that he didn't go to the party -- it might mean that he's rude and obnoxious to his colleagues, seems to shun them, and treats them like lepers, and that he's thereby causing friction in the workplace. That could be a relevant concern to an employer.
I would advise the UNC administration to nullify these inappropriate, immoral, and illegal evaluations. Otherwise, the stakes may soon be much higher.
And I would advise the UNC administration to try to have Dr. Mike committed. You know you want to, and it would be in his (and the public's) best interests.
2. A MensNewsDaily columnist named James Hickey (::snicker::) has a column called "Kitten News." It's just too adorable for words.
Ever since becoming aware of the feminist movement, I often had an uneasy feeling that something was missing! The feminist arguments often sounded plausible, yet somehow never seemed to be entirely accurate.
The Internet has spawned a new form of feminist. The feminist blogger!
Yes, we now have the apotheosis of the Internet, in that it spawned Amanda Marcotte!
Anyway, I imagine Amanda will address Mr. Hickey's column at "Amanda's blog" (formerly known as Pandagon), but I did want to share with you this line:
Miss Amanda Marcotte bestows men with much more mythical power, than men actually have.
Just how much mythical power do men actually possess? Well, apparently just the abilities possessed by the Norse gods, but not the powers of the Greek gods.
3. And in Amanda's honor, here's some more wisdom from our favorite Concerned Woman, Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D (I think she must be Dr. Mike, Ph.D's mother),
Clearly, current trends are passing the feminists by and they are out-of-step with the concerns and issues that are important to women today. Mothers don’t want federally funded day care; they want the opportunity to nurture their own children without government interference.
Well, of the mothers I know, some would like federally funded day care, some would to nurture their own children by staying home with them, some would like the opportunity to keep their kids locked in the closet all day without government interference, and most would like to take a nap. Mothers are a varied lot.
Women don’t want abortion-on-demand; they want a husband who will cherish them and be committed to wife and children for a lifetime. Girls don’t want a one-night stand; they want a great guy to take them out for a nice dinner, pleasing conversation or good entertainment and not have to worry about fighting off a jerk who treats them like a sex object and won’t be calling the next day.
Some want abortions, some want cherishing husbands, and some want abortions AND husbands. And yes, some girls want a nice, respectful guy, but others want a one-night stand (and some want a one-night stand and a husband, although hopefully not at the same time).
Janice, you claim that the feminists are out-of-step with today's gals, but honey, you need to get out more (and not just to judge the women in airports and cafes) if you think you speak for all women.
While feminists have been marching for abortion, young women have been earning law degrees, becoming doctors and getting their PhDs in record numbers, and they have been entering occupations with better training than many of the men they compete against. The “choice” that these women long for is to have honorable men for friends and from which to choose a husband.
Yes, all women want to get married so that they can get out of the icky, uncomfy work place and stay home, like God intended. They would lots rather meet some nice men than have the right to legal abortion, because young women today live in some fantasyland where people only get pregnant with perfect babies, and only get pregnant when they are ready physically, emotionally, and financially to have those perfect babies. So, if feminists were really in touch with what today's young women want, they would propose legislation requring employers to hire only handsome, rich, honorable, dreamy young men that the women can choose as their husbands.
4. Over at Don Wildmon's American Family Association, they have a form letter you can send to the chairman of Allstate insurance, demanding that he rehire Matt "Bam-Bam" Barber, and stop supporting groups that favor gay marriage. I used the AFA form, but changed the heading to encourage Allstate not to buckle under the wingnut pressure -- and then I changed the wording to reflect reality rather than the AFA spin. I added that I was glad that Matt didn't speak for their company, and said that I appreciated them donating money to a variety of worthy causes. And then I sent it. You can too, if you want.
8:35:24 AM 
|
