Fred Snowflack is an idiot. That is the only way to explain the InsiderNJ operative’s statement that denies the central tenant of all religions, which is that the religious belief they offer is the one and true way to salvation.
Who goes to the church of “maybe this is the right way”?
Are the people who own InsiderNJ too stupid to understand that this is how religions work or do they just hate the very concept of religion? Perhaps in the Graham family what they worship is money and power and ass? Hey, that is okay, but maybe you should employ open-minded people who understand that not everybody shares the same view.
Apparently at the church of the sacred orgasm – or whatever equivalent Mr. Snowflack attends – they have never heard of the “lake of fire” – also known as something called “hell”. How is it that a man as old as Fred Snowflack has never encountered Dante’s Divine Comedy? That he has somehow gone through life without ever coming across the concept of hell… even in the movies?
Or maybe Snowflack knows exactly what the Christian pastor he smeared meant but pretended he didn’t so that Snowflack could appear “cool” and “oh so cosmopolitan”? Face it Fred, you are neither. You are just a persnickety old puritan. You can’t help sticking your little old pecker into a story.
Snowflack attended a meeting of the Sussex County Community College Board of Trustees on Tuesday night to… well, “report the news” wouldn’t be quite accurate. Fred makes up his stories beforehand and then fills in the blanks with his own brand of witty opinion. Of course, one man’s wit is another man’s hate.
And Fred Snowflack shows us what he “hates” every time he posts a new story. Of course, being a servile creature, Fred’s hates mirror those of his masters – the family of insurance vendors who own the InsiderNJ blog.
When inconvenient facts pop up – like the poor job Sussex Democrats did in turning people out for the meeting or that half those present spoke up for and supported Sussex GOP Chairman Jerry Scanlan – Snowflack inflates the first by counting orifices and simply ignores the second.
Real journalists never describe things using subjective terms. Real journalists might report that Mr. X or Ms. Y called something “hate” but real journalists don’t simply assign unprovable subjective terms to what is being reported on. That isn’t newsworthy reportage, it is just opinion having a go at cross-dressing in order to look like news. But here is Fred Snowflack…
“…after (GOP Chairman) Scanlan’s sexist and homophobic tweets, they (trustees) took the only action they could.” Applying lines like “sexist” and “homophobic” doesn’t belong in a news report, it belongs on a piece of political campaign mail. As for “the only action they could” – a reporter would report what a participant said. In this case, Snowflack is the participant. He’s become part of the story.
Why is the Graham family content to pay for such poor and unconvincing work?
Snowflack writes that (GOP Chairman) Scanlan “retweeted a series of offensive messages”. Why the judgment? Once again, Fred Snowflack has stuck his pecker in the story. Wouldn’t a proper reporter write, “messages that some have found offensive”? Why does Fred need feel the need to burden us with his pecker? He should be an observer, not a participant.
Then Snowflack makes the claim that neither he or Bill Curcio, or Howard Burrell, or Tyler Morgus or Michael Spekhardt have ever used or considered using the words “whore” or “bitch” or “lesbian” or “hag”. Snowflack seems to believe that these words possess such power that their use turns the user into someone who must be shunned by all “good” society. What a quaint puritan concept! Besides which, it is a lie.
It is a great pity that someone hasn’t invented a convenient boardroom polygraph machine. Something with a single prod, neat and tidy. In this way, before handing down such a ridiculous pronouncement, SCCC Chairman Bill Curcio could have inserted it into the anus of each and every board member, while the SCCC counsel asked them whether or not they had ever uttered any of those grave words. After which, they could adjourn the meeting and all resign.
Think Snowflack’s writing couldn’t get weaker, check this out… “This became your proverbial hot potato for college trustees, who are not normally entwined in such controversies.” “Proverbial hot potato”? Maybe he meant “pecker”?
Well, there have been a few other “hot potatoes” that we can bring up from memory, like the time a Trustee was caught voting on SCCC contracts while taking monetary payments from the company being hired by the college. Maybe – in the mind of a guy like Fred Snowflack – such conduct doesn’t rise to the level of a “hot potato” or a “re-tweet” or even a “hot pecker”, but it doesn’t sound very ethical to us. But what are ethics when you work for government contractors yourself?
And now for the final insertion of the Snowflack pecker into the story… “But freedom of speech doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The trustees also had the right and the freedom to say that Scanlan’s tweets were incompatible with a college environment.”
What’s wrong here, aside from the insertion of the pecker, is that somehow Snowflack misses the fact that the trustees didn’t merely give their opinion, they labeled someone and punished him absent a written policy and outside the written rules of their organization. Here, in America – in this country – we don’t punish people because other people think they should be punished. It would be better that people go unpunished than to allow them to be punished at the whim of others.
Bill Curcio, Howard Burrell, Tyler Morgus, Michael Spekhardt, and the other members of the SCCC Board of Trustees failed to create a policy to deal with the private misuse of social media by trustees, faculty, and staff. It is legally, morally, and ethically wrong to come up with an ad-hoc punishment, absent a written policy, simply because some people demanded it.
Even if the demand for punishment was popular (which, in this case, it is not), in America we don’t punish people simply because other people hold an opinion that they have done something wrong. That is an evil precedent.
The courts have ruled that calling someone a racist is every bit as damaging as calling someone a pedophile. When Oberlin College tried to label someone a racist the college ended up getting hit with a $44 million judgment.
We expect to see legal action taken against Sussex County Community College over the trustees’ institutional failures and unprofessional, irrational handling of this matter. With spending out of control and enrollment declining, it will be a very high price to pay for making a fashion statement.