<< News Scan | Main | Research Changing the Researcher's Mind >>


The Pride of Columbia Law

| 0 Comments
I've often published entries here questioning top-ranked law schools, Manhattan liberals, and the media for their carefree bias, breathtaking mendacity, and phony "compassion."  Some might think I've overdone it.

I thus submit this most recent example of just how bad it is:  The former (as of a couple of days ago) vice-president and senior counsel for CBS was hurriedly let go after she published on her Facebook page that she was, "not even sympathetic" to victims of the Las Vegas rampage because "country music fans often are Republican..." 

This lady's name, as reported in the story, is Hayley Geftman-Gold.  She is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania (full disclosure:  so was my father) and Columbia Law School, two of the most prestigious schools in the country.  

Ms. Geftman-Gold is a wonderfully apt representative of what has gone wrong. I won't even get into the vileness of her statements.  More interesting, because more revealing, is the deceitfulness of the damage control and, yes, the startling stupidity of Ms. Geftman-Gold's original (and only authentic) remark.
Here's the news report, which is worth dissecting in detail.  It starts of with what is said to be an "apology":

[Ms.] Gold, the network's now-former vice president and senior counsel, said, "Earlier today I posted an indefensible post in a Facebook discussion thread concerning the tragic Las Vegas shooting, a statement I sincerely regret. I am deeply sorry for diminishing the significance of every life affected by Stephen Paddock's terrorism last night and for the pain my words have inflicted on the loved ones of the victims. My shameful comments do not reflect the beliefs of my former employer, colleagues, family, and friends. Nor do they reflect my actual beliefs -- this senseless violence warrants the deepest empathy. I understand and accept all consequences that my words have incurred."

A CBS spokeswoman told Fox News that Geftman-Gold, "who was with us for approximately one year, violated the standards of our company and is no longer an employee of CBS. Her views as expressed on social media are deeply unacceptable to all of us at CBS. Our hearts go out to the victims in Las Vegas and their families."

Geftman-Gold took to Facebook after a gunman opened fire at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas, killing at least 59 people and sending more than 510 others to hospitals.

"If they wouldn't do anything when children were murdered I have no hope that Repugs [sic] will ever do the right thing," Geftman-Gold wrote in a now-deleted message that was first reported and captured by The Daily Caller.

Geftman-Gold continued: "I'm actually not even sympathetic bc [sic] country music fans often are Republican gun toters [sic]."

Geftman-Gold is presumably referring to Sandy Hook, which occurred in Newtown, Conn. back in 2012. A 20-year-old gunman, Adam Lanza, killed 20 children and six adults during the tragic event that sparked intense political debates regarding gun control....

Geftman-Gold did not work directly with the network's news division. According to her LinkedIn bio, Geftman-Gold worked at CBS since September 2016 and graduated from the prestigious Columbia University law school in 2000.


First, let's go to the stupidity of Ms. Geftman-Gold's remark.  She said that she was unsympathetic to the Las Vegas victims because, "country music fans often are Republican gun toters "

I doubt she has anything beyond an impressionistic idea about whether country music fans are Republicans or "gun toters," but let's not be distracted by that.  What's revealing here is that she has no sympathy for the Las Vegas victims because country music fans are often Republican gun toters.  

In other words, she understands that some are not Republican gun toters.

Lets assume, very generously to her position, that 90% of the victims were said gun-toters.  That means that 10%, or approximately six of the dead, and approximately fifty of the injured, were "innocent" of these dreadful characteristics.

Ms. Geftman-Gold, by her own account, is willing to accept six corpses of people more on her side of the issues, and fifty wounded, as, hey, the price to be paid so that the Republican gun-toter crowd can get what they have coming.

Now let's think about that.  Suppose any prominent person supporting the death penalty said that he would accept executing six innocent people and subjecting fifty others to horrible death row conditions as simply the price we have to pay for giving the bad guys their due.

That person would be done the next day as a public advocate, and the pro-death penalty forces would be beaten over the head with those comments in perpetuity.

So it's not mainly that Ms. Geftman-Gold might be thought to be vile.  It's that this Penn and Columbia Law graduate cannot think her way out of a paper bag.  I'll concede that it's theoretically possible she's actually so sadistic that she'd give up six "innocents" to wreak revenge on "guilty" Republicans, but that seems improbable.  The far more likely prospect, amazing as this is, is that she just doesn't get the difference between most country music fans versus all country music fans being "Republican gun-toters."

This was last week's senior legal counsel for CBS, mind you.

Now as to the mendacity of the attempt at damage control:

First, let's be clear about this.  She didn't get fired because of her views.  She got fired because her views became public.   Her fellow leftists at CBS are aware, however dimly, that these murder-deserving country music fans also occasionally watch TV.

Second, her "apology" is so much self-serving tripe.  So far as anyone has been able to find out, the killer's work was not "terrorism" any more than the Connecticut school shooting was terrorism.  She's invoking "terrorism" in a dishonest ploy to make her snickering comments seem merely over-wrought rather than calculated.

In addition, it's simply false to assert that her comments "do not reflect the beliefs of [her] former employer, colleagues, family, and friends."  There are certainly some of these who don't agree with her, yes, but there are plenty who do  --  which is, in signifcant part, why she became their employee, colleague, and friend to start with.  She's just posturing as the "I-take-all-the-blame" outlier.  And in her candor, that's true.  In her underlying, Republicans-should-be-killed sentiments, it isn't. 

Nor it is remotely truthful for her to protest that her comments do not reflect her "actual beliefs."

Whose beliefs, exactly, do they reflect?  Was someone forcing her to write this stuff?  Was there no thinking, no attitude and no politics that produced it?  And, while we're at it, no education? 

*************************************************

I have written so extensively about this because it's a uniquiely revealing window into the hate bubble the Manhattan/Ivy-League-Law/Media-Business has become.  For months, it has spawned not merely doubt and shock with Donald Trump, but hate.  For years before then, and now, it incubates similar broad-brush hate toward prosecutors and police, all the while happily pocketing the security they provide.

It doesn't like it when its real thinking gets exposed, and scrambles to cover up.  It does so by telling more of the same sort of lies from which its original narrative was and continues to be built.  And by this afternoon, it will be lecturing us again on how compassionate it is, most especially compared to those troglodyte, know-nothing, Big Hair, trailer park, gun-toting, deserve-to-be-dead Republicans.



Leave a comment

Monthly Archives