As IF Times

link Extra hot sauce: Harvard Biz profs $4 food fight.

On a slow news day, we find this little gem.  It’s not as if Harvard graduates don’t already convey the perception of insular, entitled and arrogant jerks already, but along comes this story which pretty much seals the deal.

This associate professor, Ben Edelman found it sufficiently galling that a Chinese restaurant overcharged him 4 bucks on his take out order that he decides to make a federal case out of it; or at least a State case by invoking Massachusetts law upon the restaurant’s owner.   It should be noted that this guy is supposed to be a negotiation guru teaching at Old Crimson.  Even more arrogantly, he offers that for a measly ransom of triple the 4 dollar overcharge, he can be persuaded to look the other way.

First thing to note for everyone out there; no Asian person would eat out of a bunch of cardboard boxes.  The fact that he is too lazy to actually sit down in a restaurant and eat like a civilized person already says a lot about his likely wanting social skills.  The only thing that can be legitimately eaten from boxes is pizza.  Despite the portrayal in TV and movies, eating Chinese food from boxes is déclassé in the worst way.

Secondly, Edelman probably suffers from small member syndrome or was perhaps beaten by his older siblings. He feels the need to flex his “obviously” superior position in society to essentially bully the regular folk to remind them of their status.  There’s a very popular description for people like this.  It starts with a “d” and ends in “bag”.  In a recent book, The Seven Deadly Virtues, the author Andrew Ferguson writes that:

” certain forms of ignorance are available exclusively to intellectuals who know so much that they have forgotten how much they don’t know ”

This description seems apt for Edelman who, while possibly is adept at teaching negotiation, is most certainly a boor in real life and not really that good at it himself.  I’m sure his classes will be the hot ticket on campus now. Amusingly, this follows right on the heels of the outing of his kindred spirit  over at MIT, the now infamous Jonathan Gruber.  He of course publicly stated that the American voters were “too stupid” to understand the Obamacare construct.

Thirdly, since Edelman offers to be mollified by payment by the restaurant of an amount triple the offending error, I would think that opens him up for a charge of extortion.  Perhaps some of his Harvard Law buddies can make an example out of him.

link Ferguson Decision Protesters Target Black Friday Sales.

One of the most useful techniques employed in the influencing of public perception is the shrewd use of language.  As we all know by now, nobody ever calls a spade, a spade.  It’s called a personal dirt removal apparatus, or a suit other than hearts, clubs or diamonds as the case may be. When you go to rent a car these days, the “mid size sedan” is actually a Mini Cooper.  It’s hard to buy a plain hamburger anymore, the entry level is always the “deluxe” burger. The Rolling Stones go on their farewell tour…number 4.

In politics, the labelling of policies with Orwellian gibberish is standard operating procedure.  Take for example, the “Affordable Care Act”; “Global Warming”; “man caused disaster” and of course, “Democratic Party”.

The recent violence in Ferguson, Missouri erupted after a grand jury verdict found no fault with the police officer involved in a deadly shooting of a black man.  This provided the news starved media with 24 hour coverage that has been shamelessly portrayed through their prism.  Despite overwhelming testimony by eye witnesses that Mr. Brown was shot dead because of his criminal actions and not because of his race, the narrative has morphed into a case of institutionalized racial oppression.  What’s amusing is that the perpetrators of burning buildings and police cars and destroyers of businesses are benignly labeled as “protesters”.  This is akin to calling the thugs who went on the riotous tear through Vancouver after a loss in a Stanley cup game years ago, hockey fans.  In labelling the thugs who are destroying their community, “protesters”, they dignify the jerks who happen to enjoy a good wilding under pretext of a legitimate cause.

I’m not so sure that the public would be so accepting of their actions if they were labeled as what they actually are: criminal activities.  What if the headlines read “Missouri town invaded by looters and hooligans”?  Or how about “All you can smash day declared for Ferguson”.  Or they could simply rename the town of Ferguson; call it Mad Maxville.

What if people had a bad meal at PF Chang’s and decided to ransack the town— and towns all over the country? What about annoying people who are only doing their Christmas shopping? People have cut these “protesters” lots of slack because the media has portrayed them as exponents of a festering racial issue.  But they’re not; they’re simply criminals being allowed to run amok. I wonder if the media can be sued for aiding and abetting?  It’s also going to be curious to see how long the thugs can go on creating havoc under cover of their cause.  We’re  not sure what the statute of limitations is on legitimate protest versus garden variety breaking and entering.  I wonder if people can still run around causing havoc in “protest” over the O.J. Simpson verdict.