I know I shouldn't be wasting my time reading stuff intended for the kool-aid krusaders of the world, but I can't help myself. I read the stuff hoping to learn some new tidbit of information. All I ever learn is that these people are living in their own bizarro world where the rules of logic and common sense do not apply. Yet I still read the stuff. I must be an idiot to keep banging my head against the same brick wall.
The piece that inspired my latest intellectual concussion is from David Corn, WMD Commission Stonewalls
On Thursday, President Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction intelligence released a 692-page report that harshly criticizes the US intelligence establishment. It notes that "the Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of it pre-war judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This was a major intelligence failure." That's no news flash. The Senate intelligence committee issued a report last July that said the same. But like the Senate committee, Bush's commission--cochaired by Judge Laurence Silberman, a Republican, and former Senator Chuck Robb, a Democrat--ignored a key issue: whether Bush and his aides overstated and misrepresented the flawed intelligence they received from the intelligence agencies.
Alright, fabulous! Corn is about to show us exactly where Bush lied! Finally! Corn has to know where Bush lied, right? Hell, Corn wrote a whole book called The Lies Of George W. Bush (as the web page states over and over - we get it, you want us to buy your book!), so he is about to deliver the goods, right?
The commission, which claimed it found no evidence that Bush officials pressured intelligence analysts to rig their reports, notes in a footnote,
Our review has been limited by our charter to the question of alleged policymaker pressure on the Intelligence Community to shape its conclusions to conform to the policy preferences of the Administration. There is a separate issue of how policymakers used the intelligence they were given and how they reflected it in their presentations to Congress and the public. That issue is not within our charter and we therefore did not consider it nor do we express a view on it.
So two years after Bush launched the invasion of Iraq, there still has been no official inquiry into how he and his lieutenants handled the prewar intelligence. The question is whether Bush and other administration officials exaggerated the intelligence community's overstatements.
Is it? Since when? We have been told repeatedly that Bush invented claims about Iraq's WMD programs without a shred of evidence. When the evidentiary committees return with findings proving conclusively that the Bush administration neither invented intelligence reports nor coerced intelligence agencies to alter their estimates we are then told that wasn't the issue.
In fact the claim is now made that Bush's lies consist not in the coercing of intelligence agencies but in leaving them alone.
When the intelligence report states:
The Intelligence Community needs to be pushed. It will not do its best unless it is pressed by policymakers-sometimes to the point of discomfort. Analysts must be pressed to explain how much they don't know; the collection agencies must be pressed to explain why they don't have better information on key topics. While policymakers must be prepared to credit intelligence that doesn't fit their preferences, no important intelligence assessment should be accepted without sharp questioning that forces the community to explain exactly how it came to that assessment and what alternatives might also be true.
Corn responds with:
It's obvious that Bush did not push the intelligence services in this fashion.
It's funny. Last year the Bush administration were supposedly all in the face of the intelligence agencies telling them to respond with what the Bushies wanted to hear or else, and that was what proved that they were liars. This year the Bush administration is supposedly guilty of not being all in the face of the intelligence community and now that is what proves that they are liars.
I wish they would pick a story and stick to it. Otherwise one is forced to think that they are merely wanting to get Bush either coming or going.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Friday, April 01, 2005
But Who Is Going To Edit The Editors?
Funny stuff from Patterico: Those Experienced Times Editors
As I noted the other day, the L.A. Times's David Shaw recently had a silly article about bloggers. In that piece, he said:
Remember that quote. I'll probably be alluding to it several times throughout the course of this year.
In an unrelated point, I was perusing the corrections today when I noticed this gem:
See, I'm just a blogger, but I could give you a million examples of towns that are not in the San Gabriel Valley - and I'd get them all right. Watch, as I list just five of them: San Francisco. Modesto. Sacramento. Eureka. San Diego.
I just did that without the benefit of four experienced Times editors. Impressed?
Very.
As I noted the other day, the L.A. Times's David Shaw recently had a silly article about bloggers. In that piece, he said:
When I or virtually any other mainstream journalist writes something, it goes through several filters before the reader sees it. At least four experienced Times editors will have examined this column, for example. They will have checked it for accuracy, fairness, grammar, taste and libel, among other things.
Remember that quote. I'll probably be alluding to it several times throughout the course of this year.
In an unrelated point, I was perusing the corrections today when I noticed this gem:
Restaurant review - In last week's Food section, the restaurant review listed Covina as an example of towns that are not in the San Gabriel Valley. Covina is in the San Gabriel Valley.
See, I'm just a blogger, but I could give you a million examples of towns that are not in the San Gabriel Valley - and I'd get them all right. Watch, as I list just five of them: San Francisco. Modesto. Sacramento. Eureka. San Diego.
I just did that without the benefit of four experienced Times editors. Impressed?
Very.
The Ol' College Witch Hunt
From Campus Magazine Online: 2005 Campus Outrage Awards
At the University of Nevada Las Vegas, Economics Professor Hans Hoppe received disciplinary sanctions for making an economically verifiable argument that homosexuals engage less in long-term financial planning than heterosexuals because they typically do not have children. One of Hoppe's students, Michael Knight, filed a complaint leading to a yearlong battle between Hoppe and the University (which Hoppe eventually won). Knight accused Hoppe of "stereotyping homosexuals...When the door closes and the lecture began [sic], he needs to make sure he is remaining as politically correct as possible." In an interview with Professor Hoppe by the Collegiate Network, Professor Hoppe believes he lost a year of his life to the entire affair. The University’s Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity Officer affirmed the complaint by Knight and recommended that Hoppe receive a reprimand and be suspended without pay for one week. A grievance committee made up of one student and Hoppe's faculty peers was held on November 18, 2004. The committee upheld the original grievance and recommended that Hoppe be reprimanded and forfeit any merit pay for the current academic year. On February 9, 2005, Hoppe received "a non-disciplinary letter of instruction" from Raymond W. Alden, III, the university's Executive Vice President and Provost, affirming the decision of the grievance committee, stating that Hoppe had created "a hostile learning environment" in his classroom, and instructing Hoppe "to cease mischaracterizing opinion as objective fact in the educational environment." However, nine days later, the university's president, Dr. Carol Harter, released a statement in which she acknowledged that professors "are entitled the freedom to teach theories and to espouse opinions that are out of the mainstream or are controversial..." nowhere in the statement did Harter apologize to Hoppe for what university officials put him through, nor were any individual university officials singled out for criticism.
I don't have any commentary really. I just didn't want to shake my head alone.
(Gleaned from The Torch)
At the University of Nevada Las Vegas, Economics Professor Hans Hoppe received disciplinary sanctions for making an economically verifiable argument that homosexuals engage less in long-term financial planning than heterosexuals because they typically do not have children. One of Hoppe's students, Michael Knight, filed a complaint leading to a yearlong battle between Hoppe and the University (which Hoppe eventually won). Knight accused Hoppe of "stereotyping homosexuals...When the door closes and the lecture began [sic], he needs to make sure he is remaining as politically correct as possible." In an interview with Professor Hoppe by the Collegiate Network, Professor Hoppe believes he lost a year of his life to the entire affair. The University’s Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity Officer affirmed the complaint by Knight and recommended that Hoppe receive a reprimand and be suspended without pay for one week. A grievance committee made up of one student and Hoppe's faculty peers was held on November 18, 2004. The committee upheld the original grievance and recommended that Hoppe be reprimanded and forfeit any merit pay for the current academic year. On February 9, 2005, Hoppe received "a non-disciplinary letter of instruction" from Raymond W. Alden, III, the university's Executive Vice President and Provost, affirming the decision of the grievance committee, stating that Hoppe had created "a hostile learning environment" in his classroom, and instructing Hoppe "to cease mischaracterizing opinion as objective fact in the educational environment." However, nine days later, the university's president, Dr. Carol Harter, released a statement in which she acknowledged that professors "are entitled the freedom to teach theories and to espouse opinions that are out of the mainstream or are controversial..." nowhere in the statement did Harter apologize to Hoppe for what university officials put him through, nor were any individual university officials singled out for criticism.
I don't have any commentary really. I just didn't want to shake my head alone.
(Gleaned from The Torch)
One Berger, Hold The Honesty
Lots of reaction today to the not-so-surprising guilty plea of Sandy Berger to charges of intentionally removing and destroying documents from the National Archive. I say "not-so-surprising" because there never was a rational explanation given for his actions that didn't involve criminal intent. Oh, there were plenty of irrational (and illogical) explanations out there, mostly by friends of Berger or those partisans who believe that all Democrats are saintly creations that would never put a foot wrong, but they always seemed half-hearted to me.
From the Washington Post:
Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism.
Berger's plea agreement, which was described yesterday by his advisers and was confirmed by Justice Department officials, will have one of former president Bill Clinton's most influential advisers and one of the Democratic Party's leading foreign policy advisers in a federal court this afternoon.
The deal's terms make clear that Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them.
He described the episode last summer as "an honest mistake." Yesterday, a Berger associate who declined to be identified by name but was speaking with Berger's permission said: "He recognizes what he did was wrong. . . . It was not inadvertent."
It is hard to be more unequivocal than that.
From around the blogs:
The Moderate Voice-
1. Berger needs to be condemned by Democrats and independents who must demand the same Zero Tolerance towards him that they are insisting be applied towards DeLay (who is not accused of a crime as serious as Berger's at this point, by the way). And GOPers who are dumping on Berger must demand laws should be applied to DeLay (we already know DeLay's answer: see below) just as they are to Berger.
2. Berger should never EVER be allowed to be a part in any way, shape or form of ANY future administration.
3. Historians should and will most assuredly take note of this. What more confirmation is necessary that Berger & Co did not quite do all that in retrospect they should have done on terrorism?
TMV is being a bit more sanguine than I can be. I don't think the excuse making for Berger will stop even now. Democrats can always just say "Well, Republicans are worse and evil and stuff!" And all the little kool-aid drinkers will smile and nod their heads in unison.
Power Line-
It is undisputed that Berger illegally stuffed original documents relating to America's response to the threat of Islamic terrorism into his coat, pants and briefcase. Berger then destroyed a number of these top-secret documents, so that they will never see the light of day. The idea that this was "an honest mistake," as Berger now claims, is ridiculous. Obviously, he was trying to destroy documents that showed the negligence of the Clinton administration--of which he was a key member--in dealing with the threat of terrorism. Key documents relating to our government's inadequate reaction to the threat of Islamic terrorism prior to Sept. 11 are now gone forever, successfully purged from the historical record by one of Bill Clinton's most loyal servants. This plea bargain appears, on its face, to be a disgrace. If anyone can think of a reason why this is not correct, please let us know.
The usual braying for blood from Power Line. I'm not saying they don't have a point (after all, Berger was stealing from all of us), but this gives the Republicans all the political capital they were ever going to get from the matter. Do you really need the man's carcass?
Outside The Beltway-
Rather clearly, this was an attempt to cover something up. What, exactly, I haven't the foggiest. Previous to this incident, Berger had, so far as I was aware (and I follow national security policy rather closely) an impeccable reputation for integrity. The loss of that will surely hurt more than the $10,000 fine.
American Future-
Berger's archives visit occurred as he was reviewing materials as a designated representative of the Clinton administration to the national commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The question of what Clinton knew and did about the emerging al Qaeda threat before leaving office in January 2001 was acutely sensitive, as suggested by Berger's determination to spend hours poring over the Clarke report before his testimony.
If Berger had returned the documents after doing his homework, perhaps a slap on the wrist would suffice. But he destroyed them instead. Something very embarassing to the Clinton Administration must have been in them. It's a cover-up -- a sloppy one, but a cover-up nonetheless. At a minimum, Richard Clarke should be called upon to testify under oath to the appropriate Congressional Committee.
Will the MSM get up-in-arms about this? Don't bet on it. We can only hope that Fox News, the Weekly Standard, and the National Review decide to dig, and dig deep. Among the questions that need to be answered is whether Berger acted on his own intiative or was encouraged by others.
I understand the outrage, but I just don't think this can lead to anywhere but semi-founded speculation at best. The only way it could be otherwise is if there exists duplicates of the items Berger destroyed. Otherwise we shall have to wait until Berger's on his deathbed. Sad. True.
The Daily Kos-
[The sound of crickets]
Actually the DK is taking (to this point, 11:30 AM central time) the famous Ravenous Bug Blatter Beast of Traal approach to this issue, pretending that if they can't see it than it can't see them. Well, why not? It has worked for them so well in the past.
From the Washington Post:
Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism.
Berger's plea agreement, which was described yesterday by his advisers and was confirmed by Justice Department officials, will have one of former president Bill Clinton's most influential advisers and one of the Democratic Party's leading foreign policy advisers in a federal court this afternoon.
The deal's terms make clear that Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them.
He described the episode last summer as "an honest mistake." Yesterday, a Berger associate who declined to be identified by name but was speaking with Berger's permission said: "He recognizes what he did was wrong. . . . It was not inadvertent."
It is hard to be more unequivocal than that.
From around the blogs:
The Moderate Voice-
1. Berger needs to be condemned by Democrats and independents who must demand the same Zero Tolerance towards him that they are insisting be applied towards DeLay (who is not accused of a crime as serious as Berger's at this point, by the way). And GOPers who are dumping on Berger must demand laws should be applied to DeLay (we already know DeLay's answer: see below) just as they are to Berger.
2. Berger should never EVER be allowed to be a part in any way, shape or form of ANY future administration.
3. Historians should and will most assuredly take note of this. What more confirmation is necessary that Berger & Co did not quite do all that in retrospect they should have done on terrorism?
TMV is being a bit more sanguine than I can be. I don't think the excuse making for Berger will stop even now. Democrats can always just say "Well, Republicans are worse and evil and stuff!" And all the little kool-aid drinkers will smile and nod their heads in unison.
Power Line-
It is undisputed that Berger illegally stuffed original documents relating to America's response to the threat of Islamic terrorism into his coat, pants and briefcase. Berger then destroyed a number of these top-secret documents, so that they will never see the light of day. The idea that this was "an honest mistake," as Berger now claims, is ridiculous. Obviously, he was trying to destroy documents that showed the negligence of the Clinton administration--of which he was a key member--in dealing with the threat of terrorism. Key documents relating to our government's inadequate reaction to the threat of Islamic terrorism prior to Sept. 11 are now gone forever, successfully purged from the historical record by one of Bill Clinton's most loyal servants. This plea bargain appears, on its face, to be a disgrace. If anyone can think of a reason why this is not correct, please let us know.
The usual braying for blood from Power Line. I'm not saying they don't have a point (after all, Berger was stealing from all of us), but this gives the Republicans all the political capital they were ever going to get from the matter. Do you really need the man's carcass?
Outside The Beltway-
Rather clearly, this was an attempt to cover something up. What, exactly, I haven't the foggiest. Previous to this incident, Berger had, so far as I was aware (and I follow national security policy rather closely) an impeccable reputation for integrity. The loss of that will surely hurt more than the $10,000 fine.
American Future-
Berger's archives visit occurred as he was reviewing materials as a designated representative of the Clinton administration to the national commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The question of what Clinton knew and did about the emerging al Qaeda threat before leaving office in January 2001 was acutely sensitive, as suggested by Berger's determination to spend hours poring over the Clarke report before his testimony.
If Berger had returned the documents after doing his homework, perhaps a slap on the wrist would suffice. But he destroyed them instead. Something very embarassing to the Clinton Administration must have been in them. It's a cover-up -- a sloppy one, but a cover-up nonetheless. At a minimum, Richard Clarke should be called upon to testify under oath to the appropriate Congressional Committee.
Will the MSM get up-in-arms about this? Don't bet on it. We can only hope that Fox News, the Weekly Standard, and the National Review decide to dig, and dig deep. Among the questions that need to be answered is whether Berger acted on his own intiative or was encouraged by others.
I understand the outrage, but I just don't think this can lead to anywhere but semi-founded speculation at best. The only way it could be otherwise is if there exists duplicates of the items Berger destroyed. Otherwise we shall have to wait until Berger's on his deathbed. Sad. True.
The Daily Kos-
[The sound of crickets]
Actually the DK is taking (to this point, 11:30 AM central time) the famous Ravenous Bug Blatter Beast of Traal approach to this issue, pretending that if they can't see it than it can't see them. Well, why not? It has worked for them so well in the past.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Where There Is Fire There Is A Torch
I would be quite remiss if I didn't mention the good work being done by the folks at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (or F.I.R.E.). They have recently started their own blog, The Torch. I'm sure I'll be using them quite a bit in the future.
Here is a good starter post to check out: The AAUP's Ringing Defense of Diversity
In response to this startling evidence of political and intellectual uniformity on our nation's campuses, the American Association of University Professors issued a strong call for a renewed emphasis on diversity and an end to viewpoint discrimination:
A diverse educational environment challenges [students] to explore ideas and arguments at a deeper level, to see issues from various sides, to rethink their own premises.
We learn when shaken by new facts, beliefs, experiences, and viewpoints. The student assimilates the new data so that they fit the existing conception, or revises the conception to accommodate the new data. [Emphasis added.]
My mistake. Those comments were not from the AAUP's response to the ideological uniformity on campus. The comments instead come from the AAUP's amicus brief in the case of Gratz v. Bollinger and relate to racial diversity, not intellectual diversity. When it comes to intellectual diversity, the AAUP's response is a bit different:
When asked about the findings, Jonathan Knight, director of academic freedom and tenure for the American Association of University Professors, said, "The question is how this translates into what happens within the academic community on such issues as curriculum, admission of students, evaluation of students, evaluation of faculty for salary and promotion." Knight said he isn't aware of "any good evidence" that personal views are having an impact on campus policies.
"It's hard to see that these liberal views cut very deeply into the education of students. In fact, a number of studies show the core values that students bring into the university are not very much altered by being in college."
No evidence that personal views are having an impact on campus policies? Has Knight read a modern speech code lately?
There is plenty more of this over at The Torch.
Irony Overload Cripples Indiana Town
Federal officials have informed the town of Richmond, Indiana that the area's yearly allotment of irony is already nearly depleted. Administrators in Washington blame a recent incident at Earlham College, a small Quaker school famed for their Peace Studies Program, where an Earlham student attacked conservative pundit William Kristol with an ice cream pie, for the shortfall.
"We just don't budget for this kind of irony use in midwestern towns." stated an EPA spokesperson. "We haven't seen this type of shortfall since the Durham, North Carolina situation of 1995."
The spokesperson was referring to the infamous baseball brawl between the Durham Bulls and the Winston-Salem Warthogs on "Strike Out Domestic Violence Night" at the ballpark. That single incident depleted Durham's irony reserves for fiscal 1995, 19996 and 1997.
"It was horrible!" stated Durham sportswriter Buzz Needer. "Nothing could be ironical after that. We had to resort to calling everything 'coincidental,' because it's far cheaper."
There are some hopes that such a fate can be avoided in Richmond. The EPA is working on a proposal that would shift some of Seattle, Washington's irony quotient to Indiana. In return Richmond would transfer some of their "all American wholesomeness" out to Washington state.
"It might be a nice change of pace for the folks out in Seattle." said Richmond mayor Sally Hutton. "EPA documents show there hasn't been an unironical moment out there since the late 80's."
Public relation officials in Seattle could not be reached for comment.
"We just don't budget for this kind of irony use in midwestern towns." stated an EPA spokesperson. "We haven't seen this type of shortfall since the Durham, North Carolina situation of 1995."
The spokesperson was referring to the infamous baseball brawl between the Durham Bulls and the Winston-Salem Warthogs on "Strike Out Domestic Violence Night" at the ballpark. That single incident depleted Durham's irony reserves for fiscal 1995, 19996 and 1997.
"It was horrible!" stated Durham sportswriter Buzz Needer. "Nothing could be ironical after that. We had to resort to calling everything 'coincidental,' because it's far cheaper."
There are some hopes that such a fate can be avoided in Richmond. The EPA is working on a proposal that would shift some of Seattle, Washington's irony quotient to Indiana. In return Richmond would transfer some of their "all American wholesomeness" out to Washington state.
"It might be a nice change of pace for the folks out in Seattle." said Richmond mayor Sally Hutton. "EPA documents show there hasn't been an unironical moment out there since the late 80's."
Public relation officials in Seattle could not be reached for comment.
Columbia University: Anti-Semitic Police State
Now there is a slogan for you. I hope the dumb bastards try to sue me too.
In case you don't remember (read my earlier posts here and here) Columbia U. had impaneled an anti-Israeli comission to look at charges of anti-Semitism at the university. Lo! and Behold! They didn't find any! (What were the chances?)
Instead the panel faulted, as I predicted, the Jewish students. From the New York Sun:
The faculty committee appointed by Columbia's president, Lee Bollinger, to investigate a series of student allegations against professors in the Middle Eastern studies department issued a report yesterday largely clearing the accused scholars of blame. At the same time, committee members described a polarized classroom environment in which pro-Israel students disturbed lectures and seminars with inappropriate interruptions.
The message is clear: If you are going to persist in being a damn dirty Jew at Columbia University you better learn how to take it and don't you dare get uppity.
According to one student, senior Ariel Beery, one of the campus's most outspoken critics of the professors, a Columbia spokeswoman told him that students were not being shown the report yesterday "for your own good."
Late last night, however, after some of the students who made the charges demanded to see the report, the administration relented and showed it to them.
"The report only focuses on three incidents, and we brought to them a lot more incidents that were not reported and they made no mention of them," Mr. Beery said.
The public complaints, aired in a documentary video, "Columbia Unbecoming," produced by a pro-Israel group based in Boston, have focused national attention on the treatment of Jewish students and how Israel is portrayed and researched at one of the nation's most prestigious universities.
The committee's report - four months in the making and the product of dozens of interviews with students and faculty members - represents a significant victory for Columbia's Department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures.
One of the incidents not mentioned by the report involves assistant professor Joseph Massad, who allegedly told a class that it was Israelis - not Germans or Palestinians - who shot to death the Israeli Olympic athletes in the 1972 Munich Massacre, according to one of Mr. Massad's former students.
Mr. Massad's alleged interpretation of events is sharply contradicted by historians, who say the 11 Olympic athletes were murdered by their Palestinian hostage-takers in a botched rescue operation conducted by German authorities. Historians have debated whether some of the athletes died in the crossfire between German police and the kidnappers, but the notion that the athletes were killed by Israeli gunfire has not been given credence.
The committee gently criticized Mr. Massad in its report for purportedly threatening to expel a female Jewish student, Deena Shanker, from his classroom in 2002 when she asked him whether the Israeli military warned Palestinian Arab civilians of the West Bank before launching military strikes there. "That provoked him to start screaming, 'If you're going to deny the atrocities being committed against the Palestinians then you could leave the class,'" Ms. Shanker told the Sun last fall.
Yep. Nobody here but us non anti-Semites.
So where does the "police state" part come in? Also from the Sun:
In an effort to manage favorable coverage of its investigation into the complaints, the university disclosed a summary of the committee's report only to the Columbia Spectator, the campus newspaper, and the New York Times. Those newspapers, sources indicated to The New York Sun last night, made an agreement with the central administration that they would not speak to the students who made the complaints against the professors.
The Sun obtained a copy of the report without the permission of the university administration. Last night, when a reporter from the Sun came to Low Library, the central administration building, for a copy of the report, a security guard threatened to arrest the reporter if she did not leave the building.
Isn't Columbia University's commitment to the central tenets of American democratic society heart warming?
It is sad to say but maybe Jewish students should think twice about going to Columbia University. Actually, maybe they simply shouldn't go to Columbia. I can understand not wanting to be intimidated off of campus, and I applaud the courage to stay in such a climate, but on the other hand it is the Jewish student's tuition that is helping to pay the salaries of these bigots. I cannot think of a better place to begin divestment.
The whole thing makes me sick.
In case you don't remember (read my earlier posts here and here) Columbia U. had impaneled an anti-Israeli comission to look at charges of anti-Semitism at the university. Lo! and Behold! They didn't find any! (What were the chances?)
Instead the panel faulted, as I predicted, the Jewish students. From the New York Sun:
The faculty committee appointed by Columbia's president, Lee Bollinger, to investigate a series of student allegations against professors in the Middle Eastern studies department issued a report yesterday largely clearing the accused scholars of blame. At the same time, committee members described a polarized classroom environment in which pro-Israel students disturbed lectures and seminars with inappropriate interruptions.
The message is clear: If you are going to persist in being a damn dirty Jew at Columbia University you better learn how to take it and don't you dare get uppity.
According to one student, senior Ariel Beery, one of the campus's most outspoken critics of the professors, a Columbia spokeswoman told him that students were not being shown the report yesterday "for your own good."
Late last night, however, after some of the students who made the charges demanded to see the report, the administration relented and showed it to them.
"The report only focuses on three incidents, and we brought to them a lot more incidents that were not reported and they made no mention of them," Mr. Beery said.
The public complaints, aired in a documentary video, "Columbia Unbecoming," produced by a pro-Israel group based in Boston, have focused national attention on the treatment of Jewish students and how Israel is portrayed and researched at one of the nation's most prestigious universities.
The committee's report - four months in the making and the product of dozens of interviews with students and faculty members - represents a significant victory for Columbia's Department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures.
One of the incidents not mentioned by the report involves assistant professor Joseph Massad, who allegedly told a class that it was Israelis - not Germans or Palestinians - who shot to death the Israeli Olympic athletes in the 1972 Munich Massacre, according to one of Mr. Massad's former students.
Mr. Massad's alleged interpretation of events is sharply contradicted by historians, who say the 11 Olympic athletes were murdered by their Palestinian hostage-takers in a botched rescue operation conducted by German authorities. Historians have debated whether some of the athletes died in the crossfire between German police and the kidnappers, but the notion that the athletes were killed by Israeli gunfire has not been given credence.
The committee gently criticized Mr. Massad in its report for purportedly threatening to expel a female Jewish student, Deena Shanker, from his classroom in 2002 when she asked him whether the Israeli military warned Palestinian Arab civilians of the West Bank before launching military strikes there. "That provoked him to start screaming, 'If you're going to deny the atrocities being committed against the Palestinians then you could leave the class,'" Ms. Shanker told the Sun last fall.
Yep. Nobody here but us non anti-Semites.
So where does the "police state" part come in? Also from the Sun:
In an effort to manage favorable coverage of its investigation into the complaints, the university disclosed a summary of the committee's report only to the Columbia Spectator, the campus newspaper, and the New York Times. Those newspapers, sources indicated to The New York Sun last night, made an agreement with the central administration that they would not speak to the students who made the complaints against the professors.
The Sun obtained a copy of the report without the permission of the university administration. Last night, when a reporter from the Sun came to Low Library, the central administration building, for a copy of the report, a security guard threatened to arrest the reporter if she did not leave the building.
Isn't Columbia University's commitment to the central tenets of American democratic society heart warming?
It is sad to say but maybe Jewish students should think twice about going to Columbia University. Actually, maybe they simply shouldn't go to Columbia. I can understand not wanting to be intimidated off of campus, and I applaud the courage to stay in such a climate, but on the other hand it is the Jewish student's tuition that is helping to pay the salaries of these bigots. I cannot think of a better place to begin divestment.
The whole thing makes me sick.
A Libertarian Leaning Judiciary...
...would be quite a nice thing I believe. From QandO: The Imperial Judiciary
At the heart of this debate is something that Pepperdine Law Professor Douglas Kmiec suggested when responding to the court's decision in Roper v. Simmons, several days ago:
Nor is this a new concern. It has been present since the founding. "It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions," said Thoman Jefferson. "It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." James Madison, writing in The Federalist, wrote that the combination of legislative and judicial power in one body was "the very definition of tyranny." Abraham Lincoln, referring obliquely to the Dredd Scott decision in his First Inaugural Address, said, "[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
Defenders of the court often respond that an independent judiciary is critical the the operation of our government-which is true-but, it seems problematic to me to argue that usurping the legislative power by ordering tax increases is a legitimate power of an independent judiciary. Is it even possible to argue seriously that the founders, who fought for a decade to gain independence from England under the slogan, "Taxation without representation is tyranny", ever seriously intended for an unelected judge to levy taxes?
I believe that has it exactly right. Many people in this country may be quite content to live in an enlightened oligarchic tyranny, but I find it does not lead to my contentment. I kind of like the democratic aspects of our Constitution. (I know, I know, I'm nutty that way.)
Part of this comes from growing up in Missouri where one could see first hand that judicial power was untrammeled. The taxes that the judge imposed to pay for the Kansas City school districts were payed by the entire state. Why people in St. Louis or in poorer rural counties in Missouri, who were having their own difficulties paying for their own schools, were supposed to pay for Kansas City schools was never made clear. And in the end the whole thing turned out to be a swindle. Billions (with a "B") were put into the KC schools, and, man, did they build schools: modern buildings with wall-to-wall computer labs, sculpture gardens and artificial rivers, and all this at a time when St. Louis schools were having difficulty getting enough textbooks for their students.
But didn't the new schools improve the lot of the Kansas City students? Based on test scores the answer was a clear "no." Scores in the KC school plummeted. Maybe the kids were too distracted by the artifical river.
All the whole episode taught me was that the judge involved was not only a tyrant but also an idiot.
And that's the point. There are lots of idiots out there in all walks of life. At least when we have legislatures making the laws and raising the taxes, we the people have some hope of making sure the idiots do not rule the day and ruin our fate. But when you place that power in a judiciary far removed from democratic checks and balances you've got no chance.
I'm no libertarian, but I'd gladly accept an entire judiciary of libertarian leaning justices. In a heartbeat.
At the heart of this debate is something that Pepperdine Law Professor Douglas Kmiec suggested when responding to the court's decision in Roper v. Simmons, several days ago:
The court's decision fans the flames of a long-standing dispute over how the Constitution is to be viewed. Should it be treated as an enacted law-that is, something to be fairly interpreted and evenhandedly applied-or is it an open-ended document for the court to interpret as it sees fit? The first methodology is democratic self-government; the second-in which an elite body is invited to impose binding pronouncements about how the rest of us are to live-is something else.
Nor is this a new concern. It has been present since the founding. "It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions," said Thoman Jefferson. "It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." James Madison, writing in The Federalist, wrote that the combination of legislative and judicial power in one body was "the very definition of tyranny." Abraham Lincoln, referring obliquely to the Dredd Scott decision in his First Inaugural Address, said, "[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
Defenders of the court often respond that an independent judiciary is critical the the operation of our government-which is true-but, it seems problematic to me to argue that usurping the legislative power by ordering tax increases is a legitimate power of an independent judiciary. Is it even possible to argue seriously that the founders, who fought for a decade to gain independence from England under the slogan, "Taxation without representation is tyranny", ever seriously intended for an unelected judge to levy taxes?
I believe that has it exactly right. Many people in this country may be quite content to live in an enlightened oligarchic tyranny, but I find it does not lead to my contentment. I kind of like the democratic aspects of our Constitution. (I know, I know, I'm nutty that way.)
Part of this comes from growing up in Missouri where one could see first hand that judicial power was untrammeled. The taxes that the judge imposed to pay for the Kansas City school districts were payed by the entire state. Why people in St. Louis or in poorer rural counties in Missouri, who were having their own difficulties paying for their own schools, were supposed to pay for Kansas City schools was never made clear. And in the end the whole thing turned out to be a swindle. Billions (with a "B") were put into the KC schools, and, man, did they build schools: modern buildings with wall-to-wall computer labs, sculpture gardens and artificial rivers, and all this at a time when St. Louis schools were having difficulty getting enough textbooks for their students.
But didn't the new schools improve the lot of the Kansas City students? Based on test scores the answer was a clear "no." Scores in the KC school plummeted. Maybe the kids were too distracted by the artifical river.
All the whole episode taught me was that the judge involved was not only a tyrant but also an idiot.
And that's the point. There are lots of idiots out there in all walks of life. At least when we have legislatures making the laws and raising the taxes, we the people have some hope of making sure the idiots do not rule the day and ruin our fate. But when you place that power in a judiciary far removed from democratic checks and balances you've got no chance.
I'm no libertarian, but I'd gladly accept an entire judiciary of libertarian leaning justices. In a heartbeat.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Is This Post Mind-Numbingly Intellectual?
Uh...not as such. But I can't help myself. Iowahawk says, Profs Gone Wild: Extreme Ultimate Spring Break Volume 6 - It's Hot, Tenured, and Out of Control!
Next, the Profs Gone Wild crew hits the hot beaches of Daytona... along with special guest star Snoop Dogg! You won't believe the uncensored academic craziness behind the scenes at the Modern Language Association Jello Shotz Party!
Next, the Profs Gone Wild crew hits the hot beaches of Daytona... along with special guest star Snoop Dogg! You won't believe the uncensored academic craziness behind the scenes at the Modern Language Association Jello Shotz Party!
Dave (whispering): Snoop and I just shared some 'special herb' with these profs, and now we've got a bet to see which one will say and do the craziest shit! Keep the video rolling Duane...
Snoop: Hey dog, where you teach?
Professor #1: Michigan... Go Blue! Beat the Buckeye Zionist Tools!
Snoop: Say what you gotta say, bitch.
Professor #1: The rightwing Zionists want to racialize the Sudan conflict in American terms, as "Arab" versus "black African" because they want to use it to play American domestic politics, and create a rift among African-Americans and Arab-Americans.
Snoop: Damn, that's some crazy ass shiznit. How 'bout you?
Professor #2 (grabbing microphone): I'm Noam from MIT, and I just gotta say that if the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.
Snoop: Show me some more of that, ho.
Professor #2: I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to exist, then it would choose the American system.
Snoop: Man, you is one crunk bitch. Where'd you get that pizimped-out Audi?
Professor #2: My daddy bought it for me. Under capitalism, we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Wanna see my tenure? It's completely shaved!
Snoop: That's some badonka donk, know what I'm sayn'? What up witchu, girl?
Professor #3: I'm Bernadine from Northwestern, and I like to say hi to my boyfriend Bomber back at UIC in Chicago.
Snoop: Show me you got your freak goin' on, woman.
Professor #3: I just want to say that Dig It. First the Manson family killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim's stomach! Wild!
Dave: I think we have a winner, Snoop!
AUGH!!
Great. I post something critical of Che Guevara and the stupid Google adbot puts Guevara mechandise ads on the site!
(In my best faux William Shatner voice)
Must...find...way...to...undo!
George Washington!
James Madison!
The great liberal Gigwan from Zanthor 5!
John Stuart Mill!
Algernon Sidney!
Maggie Thatcher!
Ronald Reagan!
One of those should work as an antidote. At least I hope so.
Alright, I admit it. If I see an ad for a site selling Algernon Sidney merchandise I'll fall out of my chair.
(In my best faux William Shatner voice)
Must...find...way...to...undo!
George Washington!
James Madison!
The great liberal Gigwan from Zanthor 5!
John Stuart Mill!
Algernon Sidney!
Maggie Thatcher!
Ronald Reagan!
One of those should work as an antidote. At least I hope so.
Alright, I admit it. If I see an ad for a site selling Algernon Sidney merchandise I'll fall out of my chair.
What Your T-Shirt Says About You
I've never understood the liberal wing in America's hero worship of communist villains such as Lenin or Che Guevara. Whenever I see some kid (or adult) walking around with their Che T-Shirt it always strikes me the same way; I wonder why they just don't walk around with a Jeffrey Dahmer shirt instead. As butchers they are of a kind. That one of them spouted Marxist slogans while murdering people elevates them to some sort of sainthood?
I'll never understand it.
I'm not alone in wondering about this phenomona. Red Dusk: It's time Hollywood gave up its love affair with communism.
Noting that no less than two biopics of Che Guevara are in production, on top of the release last year of The Motorcycle Diaries, writer Bridget Johnson notes:
I'll bet the big studio execs have never thought--or cared--to do a big-screen adaptation of "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression," by Stephane Courtois, et al. The book's 1997 publishing in France touched off a firestorm of controversy--mostly from offended French commies--and it stands as an astonishing comprehensive account of what this political ideology has wreaked on mankind in less than a century. The film version of this 800-plus-page account would be excruciatingly long and painful--too long for a 32-ounce soda and too nauseating for popcorn. So since Hollywood is all about franchises now anyway, the book could be adapted into several movies, each covering a corner of the globe and that region's own unique suffering under communism.
Name a film centered around the Hungarian invasion of 1956? How about one about the "Prague Spring"? Chinese re-education camps? A film version of Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago? Come up with one or two? None? I know these topics are all downers, but no more so than films about the Holocaust. So why aren't they being made?
Hollywood's position vis-a-vis communism reminds me of a heartbreaking section of Solzhenitsyn's The Red Wheel: August 1914. In it an educated but naive character named Varya attepts to convince a young Anarcho-Commuist that she is on his side.
Yet, all her sympathy for the Communist does her little good as the man takes her into a back room and rapes her.
I'll never understand it.
I'm not alone in wondering about this phenomona. Red Dusk: It's time Hollywood gave up its love affair with communism.
Noting that no less than two biopics of Che Guevara are in production, on top of the release last year of The Motorcycle Diaries, writer Bridget Johnson notes:
I'll bet the big studio execs have never thought--or cared--to do a big-screen adaptation of "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression," by Stephane Courtois, et al. The book's 1997 publishing in France touched off a firestorm of controversy--mostly from offended French commies--and it stands as an astonishing comprehensive account of what this political ideology has wreaked on mankind in less than a century. The film version of this 800-plus-page account would be excruciatingly long and painful--too long for a 32-ounce soda and too nauseating for popcorn. So since Hollywood is all about franchises now anyway, the book could be adapted into several movies, each covering a corner of the globe and that region's own unique suffering under communism.
Name a film centered around the Hungarian invasion of 1956? How about one about the "Prague Spring"? Chinese re-education camps? A film version of Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago? Come up with one or two? None? I know these topics are all downers, but no more so than films about the Holocaust. So why aren't they being made?
Hollywood's position vis-a-vis communism reminds me of a heartbreaking section of Solzhenitsyn's The Red Wheel: August 1914. In it an educated but naive character named Varya attepts to convince a young Anarcho-Commuist that she is on his side.
"You can rely on me!" Varya said, still more earnestly and enthusiastically, still leaning heavily on the counter, noticing briefly and forgetting at once that her bare elbow had crushed a stray smut from the Primus mender's booth.
People walked behind her. None of them was a would-be customer. She stood, elbows on the counter, head in hands, staring at the desperate anarchist. She remembered more.
"A revolutionary knows only the science of destruction...All tender feelings must be surpressed with cold passion...He is no revolutionary if he feels pity for anything in this world..."
Of course! It was so obvious! He had voluntarily renounced everything in this world. But surely a sympathetic friend would not be in his way? A disinterested helper? Varya, an orphan herself, understood only too well how lonely an orphan could be.
She looked closely at him. There was so much bitterness, so much pent-up suffering in his brooding, unshaven face and his dark stare.
Yet, all her sympathy for the Communist does her little good as the man takes her into a back room and rapes her.
Head Spinning Moment Of The Day
Grab your cranium, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.
This paragraph comes from a preliminary report issued by the University of Colorado on angry white guy Ward Churchill. Enjoy!
The question of Professor Churchill's Indian status raises two separate but related issues. First, did Professor Churchill misrepresent his Indian status on an employment application and, as a result, gain an employment advantage? This question arose in 1994 when certain Indian leaders communicated with the University claiming, among other things, that Professor Churchill lied on his application about his Indian heritage. The then Boulder campus chancellor reviewed this complaint and concluded that University policy permitted self-identification. The chancellor noted that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission took the position that observation and self identification are the most reliable indicators of ethnicity. The chancellor declined to pursue the matter. The question about Professor Churchill's employment application must be considered closed as a result of this ten-year old review.
Do you have a Master's degree but worry that you might not be hired for that tenure track position at a major research university without a Ph.D.? Well, why not improve your chances by taking advantage of generous affirmative actions opportunities? I myself will start applying for jobs at Colorado as a black female. Why not? As long as I self identify myself that way the university is bound by precedent to accept it. Why is that? Well, self indentification is the most accurate measure of ethnicity. So if I claim to be a black woman, despite the actual color of my skin and the fact I have a penis, that is most likely correct, right? Unbelievably, Colorado states this is what they think. Colorado even goes a step further to imply that actual evidence can be ignored. Phew! I was worried for a second that my white skin and my genitalia would get in the way of my university career as a black woman.
The stupidity of Colorado's position is breathtaking. It's almost beautifully stupid. Just take a moment to step back and marvel at it. You won't see its like very often.
Just think of its larger implications! As long as something is generally true you have to assume it is true in every specific instance, logic be damned! Contradicting evidence be damned! Just imagine all the interesting historical possibilities this can open up.
* It's generally true that world leaders do not engage in genocidal campaigns. Therefore we have to assume that Hitler and Pol Pot are not guilty of genocide.
* It's generally true that citizens do not rob banks. Therefore we can assume that no specific individual is a bank robber.
* It's generally true that terrorists do not hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Therefore it is safe to assume that no individual terrorist would do such a thing.
Isn't modern scholarship exciting?
The idea that it is the actual policy of the University of Colorado to remain open to fraud needs to be retired to some stupidity hall of fame. The idea that because a question was looked at (and swept under the rug) ten years ago it mandates that no new evidence can be looked at, is almost nearly as dumb. Incredible.
Colorado should change their mascot from the Buffaloes to the Deuling Stupidities.
This paragraph comes from a preliminary report issued by the University of Colorado on angry white guy Ward Churchill. Enjoy!
The question of Professor Churchill's Indian status raises two separate but related issues. First, did Professor Churchill misrepresent his Indian status on an employment application and, as a result, gain an employment advantage? This question arose in 1994 when certain Indian leaders communicated with the University claiming, among other things, that Professor Churchill lied on his application about his Indian heritage. The then Boulder campus chancellor reviewed this complaint and concluded that University policy permitted self-identification. The chancellor noted that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission took the position that observation and self identification are the most reliable indicators of ethnicity. The chancellor declined to pursue the matter. The question about Professor Churchill's employment application must be considered closed as a result of this ten-year old review.
Do you have a Master's degree but worry that you might not be hired for that tenure track position at a major research university without a Ph.D.? Well, why not improve your chances by taking advantage of generous affirmative actions opportunities? I myself will start applying for jobs at Colorado as a black female. Why not? As long as I self identify myself that way the university is bound by precedent to accept it. Why is that? Well, self indentification is the most accurate measure of ethnicity. So if I claim to be a black woman, despite the actual color of my skin and the fact I have a penis, that is most likely correct, right? Unbelievably, Colorado states this is what they think. Colorado even goes a step further to imply that actual evidence can be ignored. Phew! I was worried for a second that my white skin and my genitalia would get in the way of my university career as a black woman.
The stupidity of Colorado's position is breathtaking. It's almost beautifully stupid. Just take a moment to step back and marvel at it. You won't see its like very often.
Just think of its larger implications! As long as something is generally true you have to assume it is true in every specific instance, logic be damned! Contradicting evidence be damned! Just imagine all the interesting historical possibilities this can open up.
* It's generally true that world leaders do not engage in genocidal campaigns. Therefore we have to assume that Hitler and Pol Pot are not guilty of genocide.
* It's generally true that citizens do not rob banks. Therefore we can assume that no specific individual is a bank robber.
* It's generally true that terrorists do not hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Therefore it is safe to assume that no individual terrorist would do such a thing.
Isn't modern scholarship exciting?
The idea that it is the actual policy of the University of Colorado to remain open to fraud needs to be retired to some stupidity hall of fame. The idea that because a question was looked at (and swept under the rug) ten years ago it mandates that no new evidence can be looked at, is almost nearly as dumb. Incredible.
Colorado should change their mascot from the Buffaloes to the Deuling Stupidities.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
The Limits Of Space & Time (O.K. Just Time)
I've been meaning to write a little something about two thought provoking posts by Marc over at American Future (see, The EU and The Arabs, Part I and Part II). Unfortunately, I seem to be a little pressed for time this week so I doubt that I will be able to give it the serious attention it deserves, at least in the short run. I wanted to make sure that everyone who drops by here took the time to check them out.
Sunday, March 27, 2005
Opinion Or Screed?
Granted, picking an intellectual argument with Maureen Dowd is a little unfair as she is unarmed, but it hasn't stopped me before. Her latest effort The Vatican Code is almost not worth the effort. Almost.
It evokes the Dan Quayle-Murphy Brown flap for a Vatican official to slam Dan Brown's fictional characters, but a former Vatican reporter explained it this way: "The church is founded on a story that some people believe and some people don't, so the Vatican tends to get very threatened by other versions of that story, especially racier ones."
Mr. Brown's zippy version has Jesus and Mary Magdalene marrying and having children. This "perverts the story of the Holy Grail, which most certainly does not refer to the descendants of Mary Magdalene," Cardinal Bertone said. "It astonishes and worries me that so many people believe these lies."
The novelist is not the first one to conjure romantic sparks between the woman usually painted as what one writer calls "the Jessica Rabbit of the Gospels" and the eligible young Jewish carpenter and part-time miracle worker.
For years, female historians and novelists have been making the case that Mr. Brown makes, that Mary Magdalene was framed and defamed, that the men who run Christianity obliterated her role as an influential apostle and reduced her to a metaphor for sexual guilt.
The church refuses to allow women to be ordained as priests because there were no female apostles. So if Mary Magdalene was a madonna rather than a whore, the church loses its fig leaf of justification for male domination and exclusion.
The utter vacuousness of comparing this with the Murphy Brown flap should be enough to send any thinking person to the sports page. And excuse me for doubting that Dowd has any credentials whatsoever to speak as a theologian. I am forced to wonder what exactly is her "fig leaf justification" for even calling herself an intellectual?
And, for a kicker:
After whipping you into a feminist frenzy over the hidden agenda of the church's unjustly perpetuating itself as an all-male, all "celibate" institution - precepts that have clearly led to some unnatural perversions and attracted a disproportionate number of priests fleeing sexual confusion
So according to Dowd, it is the Catholic Church that makes priests assault young boys. It's too stupid and openly bigoted to be believed, and very much at home in the Times. Arguing with Dowd would be like arguing with David Duke. It is simply pointless.
Over at Captain's Quarters they haven't thought it entirely pointless. In their nice post they present this handy list of some of the troubling anti-Catholic aspects of The Da Vinci Code that have caused this whole thing, including:
Why exactly isn't the Catholic Church, or any other institution for that matter, entitled to defend itself from this kind of crap? Because such a defense would upset anti-Catholic bigots like Dowd? I'm sorry, but no one gets a free pass on their hatred. Not even Maureen Dowd of the New York Times.
On second thought maybe this is the Times and Dowd's way of telling all their Catholic readers "Happy %$#^ing Easter, You Dumb %$#holes."
It evokes the Dan Quayle-Murphy Brown flap for a Vatican official to slam Dan Brown's fictional characters, but a former Vatican reporter explained it this way: "The church is founded on a story that some people believe and some people don't, so the Vatican tends to get very threatened by other versions of that story, especially racier ones."
Mr. Brown's zippy version has Jesus and Mary Magdalene marrying and having children. This "perverts the story of the Holy Grail, which most certainly does not refer to the descendants of Mary Magdalene," Cardinal Bertone said. "It astonishes and worries me that so many people believe these lies."
The novelist is not the first one to conjure romantic sparks between the woman usually painted as what one writer calls "the Jessica Rabbit of the Gospels" and the eligible young Jewish carpenter and part-time miracle worker.
For years, female historians and novelists have been making the case that Mr. Brown makes, that Mary Magdalene was framed and defamed, that the men who run Christianity obliterated her role as an influential apostle and reduced her to a metaphor for sexual guilt.
The church refuses to allow women to be ordained as priests because there were no female apostles. So if Mary Magdalene was a madonna rather than a whore, the church loses its fig leaf of justification for male domination and exclusion.
The utter vacuousness of comparing this with the Murphy Brown flap should be enough to send any thinking person to the sports page. And excuse me for doubting that Dowd has any credentials whatsoever to speak as a theologian. I am forced to wonder what exactly is her "fig leaf justification" for even calling herself an intellectual?
And, for a kicker:
After whipping you into a feminist frenzy over the hidden agenda of the church's unjustly perpetuating itself as an all-male, all "celibate" institution - precepts that have clearly led to some unnatural perversions and attracted a disproportionate number of priests fleeing sexual confusion
So according to Dowd, it is the Catholic Church that makes priests assault young boys. It's too stupid and openly bigoted to be believed, and very much at home in the Times. Arguing with Dowd would be like arguing with David Duke. It is simply pointless.
Over at Captain's Quarters they haven't thought it entirely pointless. In their nice post they present this handy list of some of the troubling anti-Catholic aspects of The Da Vinci Code that have caused this whole thing, including:
The problem is that many of the ideas that the book promotes are anything but fact, and they go directly to the heart of the Catholic faith. For example, the book promotes these ideas:
* Jesus is not God; he was only a man.
* Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.
* She is to be worshiped as a goddess.
* Jesus got her pregnant, and the two had a daughter.
* That daughter gave rise to a prominent family line that is still present in Europe today.
* The Bible was put together by a pagan Roman emperor.
* Jesus was viewed as a man and not as God until the fourth century, when he was deified by the emperor Constantine.
* The Gospels have been edited to support the claims of later Christians.
* In the original Gospels, Mary Magdalene rather than Peter was directed to establish the Church.
* There is a secret society known as the Priory of Sion that still worships Mary Magdalene as a goddess and is trying to keep the truth alive.
* The Catholic Church is aware of all this and has been fighting for centuries to keep it suppressed. It often has committed murder to do so.
* The Catholic Church is willing to and often has assassinated the descendents of Christ to keep his bloodline from growing.
Catholics should be concerned about the book because it not only misrepresents their Church as a murderous institution but also implies that the Christian faith itself is utterly false.
Why exactly isn't the Catholic Church, or any other institution for that matter, entitled to defend itself from this kind of crap? Because such a defense would upset anti-Catholic bigots like Dowd? I'm sorry, but no one gets a free pass on their hatred. Not even Maureen Dowd of the New York Times.
On second thought maybe this is the Times and Dowd's way of telling all their Catholic readers "Happy %$#^ing Easter, You Dumb %$#holes."
Friday, March 25, 2005
Washington Post Smacks Dems On Nose
From the editorial Dishonest Debate:
Over the next 75 years, as the Social Security trustees reported on Wednesday, the program has a projected deficit of $4 trillion; the longer the nation waits to address this problem, the nastier the tax hikes or benefit reductions that will result. But that's not the impression conveyed by some Democratic leaders. The trustees' report, according to Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), "confirms that the so-called Social Security crisis exists in only one place: the minds of Republicans." The senator's desire to score political points is understandable. His willingness to do so by implying that Social Security is healthy is not.
Democrats defend this opportunism by saying the president is worse. President Bush, they complain, is talking up an alleged Social Security "crisis" in order to ram through an unrelated proposal to create personal accounts. But, in addressing Social Security, Mr. Bush is taking on an issue that the Clinton administration also regarded as important; he is not inventing a problem.
...
It is also true that Medicare poses more of a problem than Social Security. Mr. Bush dodges that larger problem, pretending that he put Medicare on the road to reform when, in fact, he and Congress mostly added to its fiscal problems by creating a new entitlement for drug reimbursements. But it's hard to take seriously the Democrats who say that Mr. Bush should switch focus from Social Security to the much bigger problem of Medicare: If they aren't willing to play a constructive role on the supposedly "minor" challenge of Social Security, why should anyone believe that they would behave constructively if the administration wanted to fix Medicare?
The nation faces a severe economic threat from the aging of its population combined with escalating health costs. The sooner it begins to grapple with this problem, the less painful the solution will be. For Mr. Bush, that would mean acknowledging the need for more revenue. For the Democrats, it would require for a smidgeon of honesty about Social Security's state.
I'd say the Post has it just about right. They might have added that the Dems play a dishonest game about the Medicare drug coverage as well. They complain that it is more expensive of a program than the Bush administration originally said it was going to be, but there is no indication that the Democrats would have done anything differently. If the Democrats are really against the drug benefit, which they obviously are not, they should speak up about it. Since when has an expansion in Medicare not been outrageously expensive? And since when have the Democrats not been on the side wanting to expand Medicare? (In case you didn't know the answers are "never" and "never.")
It seems clear that Bush is not going to get the Social Security "reform" he wants. The Democrats are now in a position where they might be able to wrangle real concessions from Bush and congressional Republicans. Why they instead prefer to stick their heads in the sand is anyone's guess. I'm fairly confident they could even get the Republicans to raise the income levels on Social Security tax above the $100,000 mark.
Why would that be a bad thing?
Over the next 75 years, as the Social Security trustees reported on Wednesday, the program has a projected deficit of $4 trillion; the longer the nation waits to address this problem, the nastier the tax hikes or benefit reductions that will result. But that's not the impression conveyed by some Democratic leaders. The trustees' report, according to Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), "confirms that the so-called Social Security crisis exists in only one place: the minds of Republicans." The senator's desire to score political points is understandable. His willingness to do so by implying that Social Security is healthy is not.
Democrats defend this opportunism by saying the president is worse. President Bush, they complain, is talking up an alleged Social Security "crisis" in order to ram through an unrelated proposal to create personal accounts. But, in addressing Social Security, Mr. Bush is taking on an issue that the Clinton administration also regarded as important; he is not inventing a problem.
...
It is also true that Medicare poses more of a problem than Social Security. Mr. Bush dodges that larger problem, pretending that he put Medicare on the road to reform when, in fact, he and Congress mostly added to its fiscal problems by creating a new entitlement for drug reimbursements. But it's hard to take seriously the Democrats who say that Mr. Bush should switch focus from Social Security to the much bigger problem of Medicare: If they aren't willing to play a constructive role on the supposedly "minor" challenge of Social Security, why should anyone believe that they would behave constructively if the administration wanted to fix Medicare?
The nation faces a severe economic threat from the aging of its population combined with escalating health costs. The sooner it begins to grapple with this problem, the less painful the solution will be. For Mr. Bush, that would mean acknowledging the need for more revenue. For the Democrats, it would require for a smidgeon of honesty about Social Security's state.
I'd say the Post has it just about right. They might have added that the Dems play a dishonest game about the Medicare drug coverage as well. They complain that it is more expensive of a program than the Bush administration originally said it was going to be, but there is no indication that the Democrats would have done anything differently. If the Democrats are really against the drug benefit, which they obviously are not, they should speak up about it. Since when has an expansion in Medicare not been outrageously expensive? And since when have the Democrats not been on the side wanting to expand Medicare? (In case you didn't know the answers are "never" and "never.")
It seems clear that Bush is not going to get the Social Security "reform" he wants. The Democrats are now in a position where they might be able to wrangle real concessions from Bush and congressional Republicans. Why they instead prefer to stick their heads in the sand is anyone's guess. I'm fairly confident they could even get the Republicans to raise the income levels on Social Security tax above the $100,000 mark.
Why would that be a bad thing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)