Srinivas Rao's Blog

Abusing Tragedy, Part 4

Rao — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:44:56 EDT

Following up on posts by Jr, Dana, and Siddique, I'd like to add Ken Ham, President of Answers in Genesis, to the list of conservative commentators lacking shame and tact:

We live in an era when public high schools and colleges have all but banned God from science classes. In these classrooms, students are taught that the whole universe, including plants and animals—and humans—arose by natural processes. Naturalism (in essence, atheism) has become the religion of the day and has become the foundation of the education system (and Western culture as a whole). The more such a philosophy permeates the culture, the more we would expect to see a sense of purposelessness and hopelessness that pervades people’s thinking. In fact, the more a culture allows the killing of the unborn, the more we will see people treating life in general as “cheap.”
I’m not at all saying that the person who committed these murders at Virginia Tech was driven by a belief in millions of years or evolution.[**really? THEN WHY DID YOU WRITE THAT LAST PARAGRAPH?] I don’t know why this person did what he did, except the obvious: that it was a result of sin. However, when we see such death and violence, it is a reminder to us that without God’s Word (and the literal history in Genesis 1–11), people will not understand why such things happen.

The real criminals here? the separation of church and state, Roe v. Wade, and atheism. Outside of this being entirely untrue -- I'll point you to the work of Gary Jensen, Steven Levitt, and, yes, Immanuel Kant -- Mr. Ham's little screed is profoundly insulting to the victims of Monday's tragedy.

Ugh. Rule 1 of blogging: If you don't have anything constructive to say, shut the hell up.

Getting to Know Your Administration.

Rao — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:43:37 EDT

A recent poll comissioned by CBS News found that 31% of the country approves of the job that President Bush is doing.

In its poll, the Pew Research Center found that 31% of Americans don't know that Dick Cheney is the vice president.

Just sayin'.

Shooting at Virginia Tech

Rao — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:13:54 EDT

CNN is reporting that there are at least 22 fatalities and 21 injuries in a pair of shootings early this morning at the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg. One gunman is confirmed dead, another is reported to still be on the loose. Make no mistake, this is the deadliest school shooting in American history.

Here is the statement by University President Charles W. Steger:

The university was struck today with a tragedy of monumental proportions. There were two shootings on campus. In each case, there were fatalities. The university is shocked and horrified that this would befall our campus. I want to extend my deepest, sincerest and most profound sympathies to the families of these victims which include students There are 22 confirmed deaths.
We currently are in the process of notifying families of victims. The Virginia Tech Police are being assisted by numerous other jurisdictions. Crime scenes are being investigated by the FBI, University Police, and State Police. We continue to work to identify the victims impacted by this tragedy. I cannot begin to covey my own personal sense of loss over this senselessness of such an incomprehensible and heinous act The university will immediately set up counseling centers. So far centers have been identified in Ambler Johnson and the Cook Counseling Center to work with our campus community and families.
Here are some of the facts we know:
At about 7:15 a.m. this morning a 911 call came to the University Police Department concerning an event in West Amber Johnston Hall. There were multiple shooting victims. While in the process of investigating, about two hours later the university received reports of a shooting in Norris Hall. The police immediately responded. Victims have been transported to various hospitals in the immediate area in the region to receive emergency treatment.
We will proceed to contact the families of victims as identities are available.
All classes are cancelled and the university is closed for the remainder for the today. The university will open tomorrow at 8 a.m. but classes will be cancelled on Tuesday. The police are currently staging the release of people from campus buildings.
Families wishing to reunite with the students are suggested to meet at the Inn at Virginia Tech. We are making plans for a convocation tomorrow (Tuesday) at noon at Cassell Coliseum for the university community to come together to begin to deal with the tragedy.

My Faith in Sunday Talk Shows Restored.

Rao — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:01:09 EDT

It's safe to say that everyone I came into contact with last week knows that I am entirely annoyed by the Don Imus scandal. Frankly, I could have done without the canned outrage spewing from the mouths of the news media's token minorities. By the end of the week, I found myself hoping for another astronaut in diapers -- at least that was funny.

But I changed my mind after watching Meet The Press on Sunday morning. Tim Russert brought on Gwen Ifill, a senior correspondent for The NewsHour with JimLehrer, Eugene Robinson, a left-leaning Washington Post columnist, John Harwood, the chief Washington correspondent for CNBC, and David Brooks, a conservative columnist for The New York Times. What followed was a civil and intelligent debate on whether the Don Imus ordeal was handled properly and what it means for our culture -- Ifill, in particular, brought important insights into discussion that would have been drowned out by the hyper-partisanship of cable news.

The roundtable devoted an entire 30 minutes to the topic, accidentally skipping over their planned discussion of the 2008 election and Department of Justice scandal -- but, after watching the entire program, even I agreed with Tim Russert that "this is a lot more important." I encourage you all to watch the full show or read the transcript at MSNBC's website. Below are the highlights from the the discussion.

What Not to Learn From the Duke Lacrosse Case

Rao — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:57:09 EDT

Its official -- as of today, the members of the Duke University lacrosse team are innocent of all charges brought against them by North Carolina District Attorney Mike Nifong. The case, which dealt with an alleged sexual assault of a poor black stripper on March 13th of last year, had been the source of a media frenzy for months. While the media all but indicted defendants Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann, and David Evans early on in the saga, questions started to emerge when DNA evidence didn't corroborate the alleged victim's story. Her credibility was increasingly called into question, and by December of 2006 the media had decided the case again, this time in favor of the defendants.

The charges caused Duke to cancel the season for the lacrosse team, and it also cost Coach Mike Pressler his job. But those things can be undone; the case also unfairly put these three college students in the spotlight -- sure, they're not going to jail, but what will remedy the year they lost hiding from the media? What about their tarnished reputations? The ordeals their families had to go through?

Rape charges were dropped against them late last year, and Nifong had to remove himself from the case in shame. Today, the North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper declared all charges dropped against the three, and offered a blistering rebuke of Nifong's actions. "There were many points in the case where caution would have served justice better than bravado," he explained; Nifong will face the North Carolina state bar ethics board in June.

So, the question is: Now what? Will we learn anything, or will this just become yet another media frenzy about a media frenzy? In the coming weeks, I know CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC will definitely provide more analysis than we would ever want or need -- so let me instead explain what we shouldn't learn from the Duke lacrosse case.

1. Victims of sexual assault should not be trusted. If anything, this episode proved that jumping to conclusions is not good journalism -- if the media immediately exonerated the defendants, it would have also been illegitimate. This one victim was untrustworthy, and these defendants are innocent -- this has no bearing on any other rape case, any other lacrosse team, or any other stripper. In a perfect world, the media would not jump to conclusions -- but if they must, I would rather they take the side of potential victims and not potential criminals.

2. Lacrosse is more important than war. As Anderson Cooper pointed out when we were in the middle of another media frenzy, "there's a war on, there's a war on, there's a war on." There are many important things happening in the world, from the Washington showdown over the Iraq supplemental, to the North Korea deal, to climate change. While corruption in the judicial system is important, why not spend more time on bigger cases of corruption, like the one at Department of Justice? This media frenzy has done nothing but hurt everyone involved -- letting it continue would be doing an even greater disservice to the defendants and to an Attorney General's office that has already cleaned itself up.

3. The media is liberal. Conservative or liberal, virtually everyone -- unless you were Ann Coulter -- responded the same way to the allegations in March of last year: with disgust. We are a society that has decided to give rape victims the benefit of the doubt; if the colors, ages, or genders were different, the result would have been the same. The media just reflects what society as a whole thinks: if everyone agrees that the defendants were guilty, its what Wolf Blitzer tells us, and he'll change his tune if the public decides the other way. The press can't sustain opposition to conventional wisdom if it doesn't have support from people in power (its called the indexing hypothesis). So don't blame the media -- blame Washington, pundits, and corrupt attorneys.

A Feminist War on Terror?

Rao — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:56:31 EDT

Dissent has a great article about European Islam -- after reading an unhealthy amount of conversative literature on the topic, author Johann Hari concludes the supposed "clash of civilizations" between the East and West is nonsense. There is radical Islam, and its currently prevailing over moderate muslims -- but Hari points to an little-discussed trend as a source of hope:

"On the streets and in the mosques outside, jihadi young men distributing 'death to democracy' leaflets subtly clash with young Muslim feminists who want an open, liberal Islam. Kaffiyas and headscarves contrast with makeup and wonderbras in a bewildering Islamic cacophony. [...] Here is an authentic Islamic Reformation on the streets of Europe. Here is the development of a strain of Islam fiercely committed to democratic values. Yet those who suggest that the birth of every new European Muslim is a problem—another tick from the time-bomb—treat [Fadela Armana, a leader of the Muslim Feminist movement] as akin to Osama. This mind-set is (at best) a distraction from the real fight: across the continent, groups of Muslim women are rebelling in the same way against the literalist, quasi-fascist interpretation of the Koran popularized by the mullahs. Tired of being its first victims, they are creating their own liberal lived Islams as an alternative. And if this rebellion is completed, European jihadism will be left literally unable to reproduce itself."

The people of "the West" have tried for years to combat radicalized Islam -- first we ignored it, then we bombed it. We even tried to hand the problem off to Vatican City -- if the pope is a source of moral clarity to Christians, he probably has credibility with muslims, right? -- but maybe the answer to fundamentalist Islam has been in our backyard the whole time. It seems like the formation of a homegrown, moderate muslim reform movement is the event most likely to take the steam out of fundamentalist Islam -- just as the organized labor movement undercut communism in Africa during the Cold War, feminist Islam can offer an alternative to Muslim youth somewhere between the evils of an authoritarian reading of the Koran and an unequivocal acceptance of western society.

When I was at the Academic Freedom Conference last month, Rick Santorum made a comment about how conservatives should engage feminists on Islam's treatment of women. While I disagreed almost entirely with the rest of his speech -- his basic policy prescription: we should say "Islamic Facsicm" as many times as humanly possible -- I do think international feminism has a role to play in reforming Islam. What's ironic, however, is that the same conservatives who have spent their entire political careers fighting "Feminazis" now need their help in their crusade against radical Islam.

Telepathy: a Symptom of Obamamania

Rao — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:11:20 EDT

Why release a health care plan when your supporters can imagine one for you? The Kaiser Family Foundation recently released an opinion poll on health care, asking respondents which of the 2008 presidential candidates, regardless of party, best represents their views on the issue. The results were surprising: Hillary Clinton took the lead with 15%, flanked by Barack Obama with 5%, and followed by the rest of the pack (Rudy Giuliani at 3%, John McCain and John Edwards at 2%).

Its easy to rationalize Clinton's lead -- her claim to national fame, remember, was her 1990's health care reform proposal -- but Obama's support is surprising. For starters, Obama doesn't have a health care plan, so its unclear what five percent of the population is thinking. He even places 4th among Republican voters, and doubles Edwards in the Democratic field. What's going on here?

My first reaction was to question the validity of the poll; when asked a difficult question, respondents will often just name the candidate they know of or support. But even that doesn't explain why Obama's nonexistent health care policy comes in second place -- According to a recent Time poll, 31% of Americans don't know very much about, just know the name of, or have never heard of Barack Obama. The respective numbers are lower for Giuliani (16%), McCain (20%), and Edwards (25%) -- meaning Obama actually overcame a deficit in name recognition. And in terms of general support, Obama tied McCain and Edwards with 48% of the population saying they would support him in the general election, while Guiliani actually scored 2% higher. Obama has the least name recognition and public support of the four candidates, yet he somehow comes out on top on the issue health care. Does the public know something we don't know?

My theory is that, to five percent of the population, the fact that Obama does not have a health care plan is insignificant to their support of it. They know him so well from his social networking site and his resemblance to the messiah that they are sure he represents their views on health care. That John Edwards has made the issue a central part of his campaign or that the press has routinely criticized Obama for his lack of a health care plan does nothing to change their minds -- the public has Obamamania, and reality only gets in the way.

Freedom of Hypocrisy

Rao — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:43:04 EDT

The terrorists are winning! As conservative columnist Linda Chavez explains, if Muslim cab drivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport can refuse to carry passengers with alcohol, we might as well have Sharia. [She also keeps on trying to make an argument about pork and seeing-eye dogs, and I keep on not believing her.]

“Today, these drivers are objecting to contact with customers who have alcohol, pork or dogs with them; tomorrow it may be refusing to allow women with bare heads in their cabs. [...] No one has forced the Somalis to become taxi drivers. If their religious views prohibit them from having any contact with people who do not share those views, they shouldn’t choose jobs in the public service sector.”

Take that, cabbies! Don't bring your religion into the workplace! If your beliefs make those around you feel uncomfortable, then you should stop whining and quit.

I'd respond to this ridiculousness, but Chavez is perfectly capable of doing that herself. From her May 2001 article about John Ashcroft's bible study group:

"The fact is, Ashcroft's overt religiosity unnerves secularists, and even those Christians and other believers who think religion belongs in church, or perhaps at home, but never in the workplace. But for the very devout – whether they be Christian, Jew, Muslim, Sikh or Buddhist -- their religion permeates all they do. For some, it affects the way they dress. For others, the way they speak. For all, the way they behave. [...] The free exercise clause of the First Amendment guarantees...[citizens] the right to practice as much or as little religion, and in whatever manner, as they see fit."

Take that, liberals! Banning religion from the workplace is unconstitutional! If the beliefs of those around you make you feel uncomfortable, then you should stop whining and quit.

…Some might say Chavez is being hypocritical, but those people just don’t understand the Constitution. Another passage from her article about terrori-- I mean, cabbies:

"Of course the Somali drivers could have sought a reasonable accommodation for their scruples. They could have courteously explained to passengers that they can’t touch alcohol and asked if the passengers would carry the bags containing alcohol themselves. If they did so with genuine civility, I expect most passengers would oblige."

Ah yes, the courtesy doctrine of Constitutional law! With that in the mix, I think its possible to form The Unified Theory of Linda Chavez: Your religious freedom is proportional to how nice you are (but being a Christian and a Republican helps).

Iraq Vote Rundown

Rao — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:42:42 EDT

A bill providing supplemental funding for the Iraq War passed in the House today, with a Democratic proposal attached that would have all American troops redployed from Iraq by 2008. While there was a threat that liberals who saw the bill as too weak would jump ship, the vote ended up being almost on party lines, splitting 218-212-1-3. 14 Democrats still voted in opposition, however, and 2 Republicans voted in favor. Here's a rundown of who cast these irregular votes and why they did it:

Republicans who voted for the supplemental:

Walter Jones (North Carolina 3rd) He claims that rising casualties forced him to follow his conscience; pretty good for someone in a conservative district. Link

Wayne Gilchrest (Maryland 1st) He first defected earlier this year on the nonbinding resolution and is pushing a diplomatic alternative to the surge. Link

Democrats who voted against the supplemental:

Lincoln Davis (Tennessee 4th) He is a member of the Blue Dog coalition and consistently votes with Republicans on everything, understandable for a southern representative. Outside of the normal ideological grounds, Davis opposes the bill because of earmarks. Link

John Barrow (Georgia 12th) He is a solid conservative Blue Dog who stood his ground, even when Democrats tried to buy him off $3.7 billion in Agricultural Assistance in the bill. You may not agree with him, but you have to respect his dedication to his ideas. Link

Dan Boren (Oklahoma 2nd) A Blue Dog claims to have made up his mind after visiting Iraq just last week. Link

Dennis Kucinich (ohio 10th) Enough said. Link

Barbara Lee (California 9th) One of the four main liberals who lead opposition to the bill from the left. She pledged to support the supplemental yesterday, but most likely swung back to the opposition when it was clear that the bill would pass. Link

John Lewis (Georgia 5th) Unexpected for a Georgia Democrat, Lewis opposes the bill from the left. From a conservative district and a member of the leadership whip team, it was pretty courageous of him to vote his conscience on this one. Link

Gene Marshall (Mississippi 8th) He is a Democrat facing a difficult reelection in a conservative district. it’s unclear if he actually believes in his vote or if he only voted no for political gain. Link

Jim Matheson (Utah 2nd) He is also a Blue Dog who consistently votes with Republicans on security issues. Link

Michael McNulty (New York 21st) Opposed to the bill from the left, he wants troop withdrawal as soon as possible. Link

Gene Taylor (Mississippi 4th) A Blue Dog who votes conservative on national security. One of the biggest critics of the administration’s failure to provide adequate equipment to the soldiers, Taylor believes in his ideas and not simply the conservative talking points. Link

Maxine Waters (California 35th) Also on of the four liberal leaders on the issue who agreed to stop encouraging others to vote against the bill as a concession to the caucus on Thursday. Link

Diana Watson (California 33rd) Another one of the four liberal leaders, she also accommodated Pelosi and stopped lobbying against the bill. Link

Lynn Woolsey (California 8th) The last of the four liberal anti-war leaders, she followed Watson and Waters in their pledge to stop active lobbying while personally voted against the bill. Link

Michael Michaud (Maine 2nd) Opposed the bill from the left, he was always against the Iraq War and he even voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2001. Link

Voting “Present” (basically an abstention):

Democrat Pete Stark (California 13th) Opposed from the left, Stark often uses the "present" vote as a way to protest the discussion altogether. While the exact motives are unclear, it may be related to the fact that his district is pretty conservative.

Not Voting:

Democrat Paul Kanjorski (Pennsylvania 11th) He just had triple bypass surgery and is recovering. Link

Democrat Mel Watt (North Carolina 12th) He accidentally missed the vote and said afterwards that he would have voted for the bill.

Republican Jo Ann Davis (Virginia 1st) She is recovering from surgery for a ruptured ureter; she was also diagnosed with breast cancer. Link

The Entire Iraq War is Now Classified

Rao — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:33:33 EDT

Newsweek reports that the Bush's surge will include 6,500 previously unmentioned troops, bringing the total number of soldiers in Iraq to a record 173,000. Apparently, military strategies now come with hidden fees -- which, incidentally, makes my checking account functionally superior to the Bush Administration. But at least banks notify you when the screw you over:

"When all this is complete, sometime in July, the grand total of U.S. troops in Iraq will be 173,000, U.S. military officials here confirmed on background, apparently because of the sensitivity of these details."

In case you missed the memo, the total number of troops in Iraq is top secret information and you're a traitor for even asking about it.

Granted, the Administration has a history of classifying everything in sight (unless it belongs to Bill Clinton) but when did it become alright to hide 6,500 people -- let alone soldiers -- from the American public?

I Bet Miss Manners Hates America, Too.

Rao — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:55:23 EDT

I feel sorry for those who live in the dystopian world of the Emily Post Institute. The family of etiquette writers has developed detailed rules for everything that could ever happen to you. Ever. (How do you tell someone they smell? In a condescending, 100-word lecture, that’s how.) And, in true WASP fashion, the family also discourages the expression of opinions on anything that isn’t related to the placement of a salad fork. However, an article on the Emily Post Institute’s website is proof that the group is actually a bunch of liberal, anti-freedom, blame-America-firsters in disguise. Here are some excerpts from “Etiquette Tips: When the Conversation Turns to War” – which, among other things, tells readers to change the subject to “the fish you caught this weekend” if confronted with the subject of Iraq – interspersed with some wonderfully ironic quotes from conservative politicians:

Academic Freedom Conference: David Horowitz Says Hello From Alternate Universe

Rao — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:09:49 EST

The Second Annual Academic Freedom Conference came to an unceremonious close with a "debate" between David Horowitz and President of the American Association of University Professors Cary Nelson. And by "debate," I mean "an oppurtunity for Horowitz and his supporters to make ad hominem attacks against the AAUP and liberals."

Horowitz chided Nelson for not partaking in intelligent discourse on at least three occasions, and, each time, preceeded to call the AAUP anti-freedom, supporters of terrorists, or holocaust deniers. And I guess that's what passed for intelligent discourse, since one of the 30 people still in the room after the debate confronted Nelson about AAUP taking "a third of its budget" from terrorist groups. My guess is that the only way this could have been less intelligent is if Horowitz and co. insulted the moderator -- oh wait, that happened. Now Scott Smallwood of the Chronicle of Higher Education knows that he, too, is opposed to academic freedom.

Horowitz had obviously lost his grip on reality, but by his closing statements, he really let loose. He began by complaining that he was only one man and therefore couldn't be expected to actually verify anything he says (even though he has his own magazine, a student organization, and a budget of $14.5 million). He then went on a tangential rant about how corporations are funding....liberals? Some great moments:

"Everyone knows that businesses fund liberals."
So thats why businesses gave over $600 million to Republican candidates in 2004, $200 million more than they gave to Democrats and more than 65% of the republican party's budget. It was an elaborate ruse, some sort of double-cross -- good work, Horowitz!

"Businesses do business, not politics."
Just because the Students for Academic Freedom can't walk and chew gum at the same time, doesn't mean that corporations can't do it. They gave more 60% of all political donations in 2004, totalling more than $1.5 billion and far surpassing any other group.

"95% of all CEO's are liberal."
This is just a dirty, dirty lie. Business associations provide more than 80% of their political donations to Republicans, and CEO's of the automotive, tobacco, food, chemical and waste industries all give substantially more money to Republicans than Democrats. Out of top 20 most pro-Democratic industries, the only groups with CEOs to speak of are the entertainment and media industries.

Now this all would have been insulting if anyone cared. But Cary Nelson, who looks like Santa Claus raised in the 60's, spent the whole debate chuckling, and our undercover blogger contigent already had their brains melted by four hours of wingnuttery. So congratulations, David Horowitz, you successfully preached to the choir and that one guy watching you on C-SPAN. You can put this one in the win column.

Academic Freedom Conference: Chairman Horowitz

Rao — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:21:31 EST

Finally, David Horowitz' membership in an American Maoist Communist group at Columbia University is paying off.

His attempt at indoctrination:

And Mao ZeDong's attempt at indoctrination (and violent revolution, I guess):

COINCIDENCE?

Rule number one of youth indoctrination: Don't call your philosophical manifesto the "little red book." Needless to say, David Horowitz broke this rule within 30 seconds of taking the mic at the Second Annual Academic Freedom Conference this Saturday -- and seriously, did a movement that wants to muzzle free speech on campus really need more authoritarian overtones?

Academic Freedom Conference: Haters of Freedom, Sign Up Here!

Rao — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:12:28 EST

Good news everyone! Democrats are invited to join the Students for Academic Freedom, and all they have to do is to concede that they are bad people who hate America! While Joe Lieberman may still want to join up, it was pretty clear to everyone at the conference that Democrats were either a) not fit to be in the presence of Mr. Horowitz or b) too busy aiding terrorists to come out to the conference.

David Horowitz introduced the second panel by saying that "it was always my ambition to make this a nonpartisan organization" -- and then the panel proceeded to tell us that we should join the College Republicans on campus and make 9/11 memorials that aren't "politically correct" like the liberals want (I'm still trying to figure out what the difference is between a liberal and a conservative 9/11 memorial). Only one speaker talked about professor bias at all, and even he explained that College Republicans was "a great organization."

Former Pennsylvania Rep. Gib Armstrong out-wingnut-ed the rest of the panel, though, by saying that "it's a great irony that people whose fundamental instinct is totalitarianism are called liberals." He also explained that liberals "hate freedom" because they want to allow professors to express their opinions in the classroom and that its no wonder that they support terrorists. He also said that "those who trade freedom for security deserve neither" -- which was totally irrelevant to the rest of his speech and a wonderfully ironic move for a Bush "let's wiretap and torture everything" Republican.

This is a conference where, when a veteran was explaining how he was called a "baby killer" by a socialist (who has no connection to the college's administration, but its somehow their fault anyway), a member of the audience called out "just like those abortionists!" Horowitz, who admits to getting millions of dollars from conservative donors, is pretending to be non-partisan; but when liberals are treated as totalitarian, evil, anti-american baby killers at his conference, its a hard sell.

Academic Freedom Conference: David Horowitz Loses to Sleep

Rao — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 16:01:53 EST

Against all odds, I was awake at 9 am on a Sunday morning to attend day two of the Second Annual Academic Freedom Conference. Unfortunately for David Horowitz, it seems like no one else decided to get out of bed. More than 200 people attended the start of the conference yesterday -- which, it is important to note, had an open bar -- but only 25 people showed up today, and most of them were members of panels or friends of David Horowitz. One of the panelists even chose to sleep in, forcing an embarrassing moment when Horowitz had to frantically search for a replacement speaker.

The first panel on faculty and administration "harassment" was basically an excuse for students to complain about professors who dared to express their political opinions. With a whole conference set up to combat the problem, you'd think there would be dozens of people ready to share their experiences, if not more. Horowitz, though, was only able to find eight people (including one who decided not to show up) who had anything to close to first hand experience of the issue. And even within this group, most didn't even have a real grievance with a professor, but were just reacting to rumors of liberal bias or just random people on campus:

Matt Sanchez, fighting the good fight against the International Socialist Organization, which is apparently synonymous with the administration of Columbia University.
Michael Abdurakhmanov, got into yelling match with the Muslim Students Association, blames Pace University.
Matt Ferrar, angry about the evil liberal professors that he's never had, angrier than the people who actually had these professors and who didn't feel the need to show up forth is conference.
Logan Fischer, pissed off that teachers might express their political opinions when they are not in class.
Jason Walter, skipped a class two days a week to go to ROTC training, is now angry that his professor gave him a D for the semester.
Ruth Malhotra, sued Georgia Tech because it was constraining her Christian duty to speak out against homosexuality, is now fighting the "Conservatives and Liberals Against Malhotra."
Brad Alexander, disagreed with his history teacher, who had the audacity to say that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

So, at a conference centered around the evils of liberal professors, David Horowitz wasn't even able to find one concrete and credible example of the problem. Maybe things will be better next year.

Racism, Still Not Hilarious.

Rao — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:10:51 EST

AsianWeek Magazine got in trouble this week for publishing Kenneth Eng's article entitled -- and i'm not making this up -- "Why I Hate Black People." I guess he was trying to be funny, if Eng's version of a joke is a totally serious racist tract. Some highlights:

"Contrary to media depictions, I would argue that blacks are weak-willed. They are the only race that has been enslaved for 300 years. It’s unbelievable that it took them that long to fight back."

He has another "article" -- or at least another series of bullet points -- at AsianWeek, here. Eng is obviously off-kilter, but the real question is: Why did his editors think this was ok to print? If Eng was funny or provacative, I wouldn't really mind the racism -- Dave Chappelle, for instance, plays off our stereotypes to make us reexamine our ideas about race relations while we laugh. But racism simply for racism's sake is never funny, and its never ok to print.

Similarly, bad writing shouldn't be ok to print. Eng is, apparently, also a fledgling science fiction writer -- his book Dragons: Lexicon Triumvirate is about dragons...fighting technodragons (?)...fighting all that is good in the literary world. The dragons are also objectivist (surprise, surprise) and really nerdy. My favorite part:

...His green eyes were fixated on a book in his emerald-scaled talons, deepy engrossed in the physical and scientific laws it dictated upon its pages. He was aware that his actions were an explicit violation of the collective code...
"Interesting," muttered Dennagon to himself. "The force of gravity is 9.8 meters per second squared on this planet, but not in space. I wonder if 'space' actually exists."

Why is Eng published, again?

Missouri Families Don't Have Family Values

Rao — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:45:48 EST

Missouri conservatives, in a stunning display of democracy, want to protect Missourians from themselves.

...and clones.

Baby Back Blowhards

Rao — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:06:09 EST

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick fights the power -- if the power constitutes an overexposed Tex Mex restaurant and The Weekly Standard.

If that doesn't make any sense, don't worry -- it shouldn't.

Good Grammar Costs Nothing

Rao — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:50:23 EST

Armstrong Williams over at The Hill's Pundit Blog is furious -- simply furious -- that the democratic party would object to being called "the democrat party."

“Student’s Recording of Teacher’s Views Leads to a Ban on Crazy”

Rao — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:26:52 EST

In a perfect world, that would be the headline of this New York Times article.

Instead, we live in a world where a breakdown of the First Amendment led to a ban on tape recorders.