Saturday, February 15, 2003 trouble in nyc I was at the anti-war rally today in nyc. the times reported at least 400,000 but probably more in attendance, which is way up from last time. many of you may have heard that the mayor, along with the nypd, blocked permission for a march in conjuction with the rally. the plan was to have a rally starting at about 52nd st on first ave with the people extending north. when I arrived shortly before the noon start time, police were preventing people from getting to 1st ave. we were corralled onto 2nd ave. at 57th street and second ave, we were first told to go north to 69th street to go over to 1st ave, then the police directed the crowd south down 2nd ave, where we would eventually be allowed to go east to 1st ave near the stage. at 54th street the crowd that we had become part of at the suggestion of the nypd, was stopped. when we turned around to look back, we realized that we had been separated from the large mass of people still north of where we were. a line of police was standing across the street preventing us from making further progress south. police were preventing the crowd from moving north, south, or east to the sanctioned rally sight. to our west, 54th street was packed with people trying to get east to 1st ave for the rally. instead of allowing the protestors to join in their planned peaceful rally, the police took a disturbing course of action. First, a group of mounted police came down second ave, directly into the crowd. this was obviously a dangerous, unnecessary thing to do by the police. they rode their modern day war horses into a trapped crowd of peaceful rally-goers with no place to move. Immediately the mounted cops, adorned with helmets and some with black face masks were surrounded by the crowd. the horses were obviously agitated. the police crashed their horses into people. I was about 5 feet from a man who got knocked back by a police horse. the crowd grew angry, but nothing more than chanting at the police followed as a response. most people couldn't believe what was happening. once the mounted police were surrounded by the crowd, they chose to escalate the situation. they called in squad cars and more mounted police. my father (who is taller than I am) claims that about 10 squad cars drove uptown on second ave. this prevented the crowd from dispersing south, where the next several blocks were completely empty. at the same time, another troop of mounted police charged into the crowd. riot police wearing helmets with full face shields came in on foot to join their mounted counterparts. one over zealous cop galloped his horse back and forth through the crowd screaming profanity with spit flying from his lips as his horse jerked around back and forth into the people, who still had no place to go. at this point, the mounted cops had now cleared a path down the middle of the street and some cars began to try to drive through. next they began to arrest people at the front edge of the crowd. we saw at least 4 people get arrested while we were there. one was a man older than my father, probably about 60 years old. another was a girl who looked younger than me, putting her in her late teens. we also saw a man of about 30 grabbed by several cops and thrown to the pavement. the new york times reported several dozen arrests made between 53 and 54th streets on 2nd ave. this incident should not be let to die easily. it was an embarrassment to the police department and the entire city. it demonstrates a lack of foresight by the mayor for blocking the marching permit and setting a confrontational tone between the police and protestors. it also demonstrates a dangerous attitude among the police officers. either they are trained to treat every citizen as a suspect, or they are just plain dumb or prone to violence. regardless of the reason, the behavior of the police calls into question what type of law enforcement we want in this country. seems to me like they should be around to help the people (a group which they are part of) not brow beat them and answer simple questions with sarcasm, profanity, and callous laughter. I think it sets an awful precedent to patrol our nation with police dressed as storm troopers. On a note of optism, at the protest in DC on january 18th, the police were very hospitable and the event went off nearly without incident. Also, many people experienced the rally today in NYC without incident. that however, is no excuse for the way that one group of police conducted themselves.
The escalation towards scare tactics and arrests today by the nypd was shameful. why meet peaceful protestors with violence? what happened to the right to assemble? This should not mar the memory of the day, which saw record numbers gather on the city streets to register their opposition to the pending unjust war against Iraq.
I don't necessarily applaud such activity, but why aren't people condemning the frats, the male sex, alcohol, something for this happening? Does a sexual assault not seem suprising/shocking any more?
I think he partially hits the nail on the head with his rhetorical question. One might additionally assert, however, that the lack of outcry against frats, the male sex, alcohol, or a nebulous "something" is perhaps a good thing. To pin the event on any of those elements - which is not to say that they may not have had aggrevating effects - would be pretty much the same as making the statement "It happened because she was asking for it, she was dressed provocatively" except pointing it at a gender, an institution, or a chemical. Sexual assault occurs because of a sick and deviant mindset that some males have. You can blame its persistence on the Greek system, you can blame its instantiation on alcohol, you can blame the entire male sex just because they statistically commit sexual assault more often - but you would really just be making pointless - perhaps true, but as regards a specific case, irrelevant - assertions. The only condemnation worth issuing is on the individual at fault, who is nameless. I think the better question would be why the D printed an article about the girl refusing, at this time, to continue a case against the suspect. That sort of refusal is very common, and I can't see it serving any point to print that. I can only think of negative consequences as a result of that article (i.e.: the girl feels pressured to push for legal action against the individual against her will, an innocent individual resembling the perpetrator is unfairly stigmatized by rumor, etc.)
Posted by Jonathan,
4:53 PM
-
Town-Gown Relations I was reading the January 2003 issue of the Alumni magazine and came across its article on the Hanover community's growing opposition to the College's expansion plans. The article discusses how Hanover has become an ideal place to live because of its great medical facilities, a good quality of life, cultural options and good schools. Many of these advantages are directly due to the College's presence. The same people who came to Hanover for these reasons are now resisting that College's attempts to improve and expand.
This seems quite selfish and short-sighted to me.
Posted by Kumar,
4:09 PM
-
Lack of Outrage: Good or Bad? The sexual assault at Gamma Delt is now a week old and I begin to wonder why this campus did not really react to the news. I don't necessarily applaud such activity, but why aren't people condemning the frats, the male sex, alcohol, something for this happening? Does a sexual assault not seem suprising/shocking any more? There have been no Op-eds in the D, no discussion among friends that I have heard. Why the silence? Why not the outrage? Thoughts?
Posted by Kumar,
2:00 PM
-
What Waligore didn't want you to see Or, as Garg says, Tim's real thoughts on the land down under... Tim posted this initially, then retracted to the much less striking post below...
Jon Eisenman says: "Ladies, I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that there are very few heterosexual men who don't like looking at vaginas." Eisenman must not know a lot of straight men; If he has never heard a man say he loves blow jobs but would never go down on a women, then I have to commend him for the high caliber of men he restricts his conversation to. But he is blissfully ignorant. It is sort of sad that I have to inform Jon that despite 'his high degree of certainty,' too many men think vaginas are nasty (and I would hope Jon would rely on women's word, for example, on how many guys reciprocate). Maybe Jon would liked and better appreciated the vagina monlogues had he knew about and acknowledged some the attitudes the monologues were rebelling against. There's obviously more to it, but I saw the monologues two years ago and leave it to other to explain if they wish. All I have to say is 'too bad' that Jon didn't enjoy them thoroughly.
Posted by Jared,
11:57 AM
-
Re: The Vagina Monologues
This is the end of the last dispensation. Clearly. Look at this nonsense. By "nonsense" I mean something shockingly disgusting, of course.
Posted by Jonathan,
1:23 AM
-
Friday, February 14, 2003 The Vagina Monologues
I attended The Vagina Monologues tonight, and I have to say, I left feeling quite disconcerted. Not as a male, but rather for the direction the Monologues have women taking. I hope someone like Laura can "deprogram" me, a la John Stevenson, if I'm somehow fundamentally misperceiving things as pertains to the following remarks.
Basically my biggest complaint with The Vagina Monologues is that, metaphorically at the very least, it reduces women to giant walking vaginas. This seems, to me, antithetical to the notion that women should be perceived as something other than sex objects. When I am having a bad day, I don't often write a two hour diatribe about how my penis is having a bad day. In light of that, I find it puzzling that in several of the dialogues, i.e.: "The Vagina Workshop," "Because he liked to look at it," and particularly "The woman who loved to make vaginas happy," women happily reduced themselves to nothing more than their vaginas. While some women may see men as walking penises, and perhaps this is what they are emulating in this vaginal glorification, I, for one, would not appreciate being my penis being a synecdoche for me. Furthermore, the needless misandry of comments such as those made in the introduction to "Because he liked to look at it" alienate the people that are probably most likely to perceive of women as anything more than penile receptacles. To say 'And here's a monologue about women that actually found something good about men' is needlessly abrasive, especially because they "good" that they found were men who were enthralled by their vaginas, telling them that they could read a woman's soul from her labia. Ladies, I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that there are very few heterosexual men who don't like looking at vaginas. It's nothing worth giving a soliloquy over. At any rate, as I stated previously, I found "The woman who loved to make vaginas happy" to be particularly interesting per this vein of criticism, because its speaker notes:
"I love vaginas. I love women. I don't see them as separate things."
Now, I'm not anatomist, but I am pretty sure women and vaginas do tend to appear in roughly the same places. However, if I were to walk up to a lovely young lady on the street and tell her that when I looked at her I saw a vagina, I'm sure the result would be both painful for me and rather comical for you all. An experiment I will be sure to attempt when the weather is more favorable and I have someone following me with a video camera.
There was one other portion of the Monologues (as opposed to the personal testimonials, which I would actually like to discuss as well) that I found disturbing. The performance, in the piece "The little coochi snorcher that could," celebrated child molestation. The piece takes it as a positive thing that a teenager, after having negative experiences with both her parents and other abusive men in her early childhood, is literally molested by a lesbian. The girl enjoys it, so it is portrayed as an awakening rather than a molestation, but I find it hard to picture a 13 year old girl, picked up by a 24 year old neighbor, given alcohol, and then touched, fondled, etc. being the recipient of anything other than a bout of child abuse.
But now on to the testimonials. I have to say, for anyone who did not attend, that they were very moving. This, however, makes them that much more troubling for me, in light of the problem I've been expressing throughout. When one girl told the story of her mother's suicide, bringing tears to the eyes of many - including me - I could not square this with it being about a vagina. Noting that her vagina would not suffer the same fate as her mother's...it's just beyond me. It seems to depersonalize the whole experience to somehow make it about female genitalia. I fear that the paradigm established by the Monologues caused the girl to frame her loss in terms of her sexuality. While her mother's depression was brought on by a case of sexual discrimination, this seems only tangentially related to her daughter's vagina, metaphorical or otherwise. I sympathized with the speaker as a subject, as a fellow human being - not as a vagina. It is for this reason that I think that reducing so many complex issues, even metaphorically, to being "vaginal" is troubling. I am not trying to argue, I am not trying to attack anyone, and I am not trying to delegitimize the issues at stake - I would like to stress that. I am merely strongly questioning the mise en scene, if you will. I invite further comment on this, please, although I would like to state now that I have no intention of engaging in debate on the matter.
It states clearly that people should condemn each other, but only after they've absolved themselves of related "sins".
I would respond to this only by noting that per Christian doctrine, everyone is inherently sinful. However, as I have conceded religious relativism, I would be committing hypocrisy to continue this argument (even though I'm not Christian, per religion qua religion - not coincident with secular morals - I respect this teaching immensely). Suffice to say I think I have made my objection, and hope it falls on ears that will at least send it for some thoughtful introspection in a few brains. If not, well, just as long as no one blocks my Sun to tell me of my impending doom, as far as this issue is concerned on the blog scene, I'm done.
Yes, Justin, I am. But if that sin is blasphemy or sacrilege, which is what the proselytizers are accusing others of, then they are commiting sacrilege themselves by disobeying the injunction not to issue such condemnations. Does that clarify things a bit? - Jon Eisenman
No, I don't think it does. There was no "injunction not to issue such condemnation" in your bible quote. In fact, it said: "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye." This quote actually suggests the opposite of your interpretation. It states clearly that people should condemn each other, but only after they've absolved themselves of related "sins". So according to your own quote, there is no "injunction not to issue such condemnation".
The Chronicle of Higher Education's website has a summary of The Nation article on campus publications.
Posted by Timothy,
8:39 PM
-
Roger Ailes on Bill O'Reilly and 'wetback'
Remember how Bill O'Reilly had used the term 'wetback' and later claimed he was searching for a word and that's what came out? Here's Roger Ailes' comments on 'Bill O'Racist' having used the term before:
According to an Allentown Morning Call article that's only on LEXIS, a local journalist who attended the event heard the following: "About protecting U.S. borders, O'Reilly criticized the Immigration and Naturalization Service for not doing its job and not keeping out 'the wetbacks.' He has often blasted the INS for allowing illegal immigration." Can any intelligent person now believe that O'Reilly's on-air statement was a slip of the tounge, which wasn't meant to disparage anyone? Even the intolerant Sean Hannity admits that "wetback" is a racial slur, at least when a Democrat allegedly utters it. Will Hannity denounce O'Reilly?
Posted by Timothy,
8:06 PM
-
More on universal jurisdiction not being unprecedented
From the New York Times January 25, 2003:
Originally used to prosecute pirates, the principle of universal jurisdiction allows any country to prosecute a small number of crimes -- regardless of where, when or by whom committed -- that are considered so heinous, dangerous and internationally condemned that they offend all of humanity. Although arguably the basis for Israel's trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961, it seemed largely forgotten until 1998, when a Spanish judge invoked universal jurisdiction to extradite Mr. Pinochet from London to stand trial in Spain.
Also, it appears Castro and Arafat also have suits against them in Belgian courts:
By the end of the 1990's, some 25 cases were pending there, charging the most heinous international crimes against leaders like Yasir Arafat and Fidel Castro. But now, that law is the subject of a bitter legal and political dispute, which it may not survive.
Posted by Timothy,
7:31 PM
-
Addendum to the Addendum
Belgium is certainly willing to try any case, even if its citizens, interests, or country was not affected at all. Brad says that is unique. I gave examples of suits against foreign leaders in the American courts, but they are civil suits: they result in fines, but I don't believe criminal action is pursued (unless we are talking when the U.S. invaded Panama to capture President Noriega in "Operation Just Cause"). My point was that Emmett was wrong to say "I never heard of any nation 'opting in' to another country's legal system." That ignores the many precedents of countries 'interfering' with other countries' legal systems. What is different with Belgium is that there seems to be no limit to that interference, and a willingness to impose criminal penalties on any war criminal. When I said what Belgium was doing "is hardly a completely new thing" I meant that other countries have done what Emmett might consider 'opting in' to another countries legal system. But I awkardly phrased it, and you can say there are new elements to what Belgium is doing in that its unlimited scope (Spain wanted Pinochet because of the murder of Spanish citizens in Chile, for example). Perhaps I shouldn't have screamed that Emmett was 'dead wrong' in the way I did and accordingly I have changed the title of my previously post. But still stand by him being merely 'wrong' and forgetful of things like the Pinochet affair. I am not saying you couldn't draw a line between Belgium's actions and other interferences, but we should realize that such interferences are NOT unprecedented. I have heard about debates over 'universal juristiction' long before I heard about the Belgian court.
I am not saying you couldn't draw a line between Belgium's actions and other interferences, but I think from Emmett's perspective it would be one of degree rather than kind. Israeli officials have referred to Belgium's action as 'blood libel.' Here is why one Isreali lawmaker thinks Israel's judgment of Eichmann was different (from the Boston Globe):
The matter of war criminals being tried in international courts has been a complex issue for Israel. Israel itself went so far as to abduct Nazi official Adolf Eichmann from Argentina in 1960 to stand trial in the Jewish state. He later was hanged. "The whole issue that there are no borders when it comes to crimes against humanity, I think, is a Jewish cause that stems in large party from the Jewish history and the Holocaust," said Michael Melchior, an Israeli lawmaker who until recently served as deputy foreign minister. But Melchior said that situation was different because Israel had a stake in seeing justice meted out to Eichmann, who engineered the murder of 6 million Jews - while Belgium has no stake in the Lebanon affair. Melchior is among the few Israeli officials who support the country's involvement in the International Criminal Court. But he draws a distinction between that institution and the courts in Belgium. "Belgium is trying to create its own international justice. It's not right," he said.
This reminds of the controversy over Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jeruselem where she argued that Eichmann's trial should be seen not simply as a crime against the Jewish people, but as a crime against humanity committed on the body of the Jewish people. What do you think: does a country need a stake in the crime to give punishment in a crime against humanity? Does the 'internationa community' have such a stake?
My previous post about the Belgian court was a bit muddled (hey, I've been up for two straight nights proving theorems on field extensions, cut me some slack!).
Tim, as far as I can tell, almost every site/news agency/commentator I've seen calls the Belgian law "unique," but I'm not sure why. You bring up some interesting counterexamples, and alas, I lack the legal sophistication to know how/why the Belgian courts differ. If anyone could find this out, I would be much obliged. (Oh, and Jon, the Belgian courts can try anyone in the world, so Mr. Arafat is certainly eligible).
On the latter point, I agree, former imperialist nations should not feel obligated to remain isolationist. But considering that Belgium originally empowered these courts to cast blame for a genocidal war that they created, the charges of hypocrisy are not purely outlandish. After a decade of incompetence, corruption and rampant anti-Semitism, Belgium is suddenly being cheered on by internationalists as a hero of the free world (first for thwarting NATO, now for indicting Sharon while giving Arafat a pass). Am I really the only one who finds this bizarre?
Edit: I suppose I'm also being somewhat incoherent conflating Belgium with the Belgian courts. The judicial branch is, after all, independent. Um, yes, well...
Posted by Brad Plumer,
6:31 PM
-
Belgium: worse than the Campus Crusade for Christ?
Emmett Hogan shows a suprising degree of ignorance about international affairs when he says there " is not some international criminal court seated in Belgium -- it's actually just the Belgian supreme court, which (curiously) claims global jurisdiction. I never heard of any nation "opting in" to another country's legal system. Am I wrong, Brad?"
How could Emmett forget the Pinochet case, where a Spanish court issued a warrant for his arrest and he was held in Britain for quite a while? Also France has a warrant out for Henry Kissinger. Tons of people sue in U.S. courts for violations in other countries (such as a sucessful, though obviously unpaid, claim against the leader of the Bosnian Serbs for perpetrating mass rape). Nazi Eichmann was tried in Israel (and kidnapped in Argentina!) for crimes committed before Israel existed. Sharon is accused of being responsible for massacres that took place, I believe, in Lebanon. So it is hardly a completely new thing for Belgium to invoke universal jurisdiction and Emmett is dead wrong.
Emmett ends with "Heh, I guess the Belgians feel that if they can't tyrannize by rapine and colonization, they'll do it in the courts." Gee, is Emmett adopting the line that former colonial powers which in any way interfere with the internal affairs of other countries are being imperial once again? Better explain that logic to Bush.... (Oh, and by the way Emmett, I find it interesting that you find the mere association of the CCC and the KKK in Jared's post as abhorent. Even after Jared explains why he could put the CCC and the KKK side by side, you think you don't need to refute Jared and you 'rest your case'. If we adopt your simplistic empty logic, you've just indicted yourself as well: you compare attempts to prosecute accussed violaters of human rights to rape, tyranny, and colonization. Good luck in law school!)
Posted by Timothy,
5:50 PM
-
Dartmouth and its own Pork
In the NYT today: To Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, pork is not the $18 million he helped win for the Dartmouth Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection. He said the consortium of schools and high-technology companies centered at Dartmouth was making important advances in preventing attacks on the nation's computer networks, and called it "an important component in our overall counterterrorism preparedness."
House Republicans who first brought the Dartmouth earmarked project to light were not convinced, saying it ran against his Mr. Gregg's reputation as a fiscal conservative.
I find that since I am engaged in a rather constructive bout of discussion with Emmett over at Dartlog, I am laying aside my normal personal restriction concerning not merely posting in response to other blogs. George W. Bush, take a lesson. Now, to continue building on that dialog, Emmett writes:
Jon Eisenman is claiming that those evangelicals who warn of eternal damnation violate Christ's injunction, "judge not, lest ye be judged." Here's the quick response: that's phooey. Christ's injunction is, as Justin Sarma points out, against hypocrisy, not judgment. The example of Christ's own life shows that he did not want us to be moral relativists incapable of condemning evil. Who was it, after all, that through the moneylenders out of the Temple? He was being quite judgmental there, wasn't he? Did any of the moneylenders appeal to his Sermon on the Mount?
While my response to Justin Sarma somewhat addresses this (but Emmett leaves that out), I will try to put it more concisely:
1. Are you Jesus? No. 2. Did Jesus pass judgment? Sure. 3. Are you Jesus? No. 4. Jesus enjoined you not to pass judgment, because, being inherently sinful (ah, Christianity), you will undoubtedly be commiting hypocrisy in assuming you have the moral purity to judge others. Let he without sin cast the first stone. It's not moral relativism, it's religious relativism. There's a difference. 5. Are you Jesus (once more for good measure)? No.
Per my understanding of Plumer's post, I didn't make any distinction about the Belgian court because, admittedly, I don't know anything about it. I was merely saying that the reason leaders like Sharon manage to get indicted is because they live within the law. Living within the law makes one responsible to it, and so at times one is occassionally unfairly punished by it. For those who ignore the law, it is unfortunate that at many times, the law ignores them. By the way, I did not mean to imply that Sharon is being unfairly indicted. I don't have an opinion as regards that matter.
And, just as an aside, I do not believe I have seen much correspondence funnier than that Emmett received from Dean Larimore. He really rochambeau'd you on that one, Emmett.
Posted by Jonathan,
11:39 AM
-
Gloria in excelsis Plumer
I agree with your "Farce!" post, Plumer, but unfortunately being taken through the mud by systems of accountability happens more frequently for those people who opt in to (i.e. an Israeli court finding Sharon somewhat accountable lays the groundwork for this) such systems than for those who live in anarchy. Nice guys finish last (not that Sharon is particularly nice).
And no one's mentioned that the Belgian courts have summoned Mr. Sharon to court, for his negligence in the Sabra/Shatila massacres.
Explain to me again why the Belgians aren't serving Mr. Arafat his summons? Lawsuits against Mr. Arafat were filed a year and a half ago. What's the holdup? Are we giving a free pass to "freedom fighters?" Brilliant. More compelling reasons why the US should really stop stalling and submit to international law.
Seriously, though, what's with the Belgians these days? Are they just bored, now that there are no more Nazis to collaborate with, or African countries in which to oversee genocide? Hm?
Posted by Brad Plumer,
3:04 AM
-
A kinder, gentler reaper...?
(Disclaimer: No, I don't think this is a reason to support war. No, I don't think that "Bombing Lite" is, like, totally humane and stuff. Yes, I understand that people will still die. But at least it seems the Bush administration may be willing to learn from gruesome mistakes past...)
But John, when you say these prothelytizers are being hypocritical, aren't you assuming that they are criticizing others for "sin" of which they themselves are guilty? Only then would the biblical quote you site apply. Yet you give no examples of any such hypocrisy, so I don't see how you can conclude that Christian prosthelytizers are disobeying Christ's words.
Yes, Justin, I am. But if that sin is blasphemy or sacrilege, which is what the proselytizers are accusing others of, then they are commiting sacrilege themselves by disobeying the injunction not to issue such condemnations. Does that clarify things a bit?
"Now correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not), but Matthew is supposed to be quoting Christ directly in this account. So Jesus says "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged." See if you can follow my logic: there are many evangelists - some of whom, CCC members (although this is on other campuses) - travel to places to condemn-and-pray for people...Now it seems to me that condemning people - or telling them they will face God's condemnation - is against the words right from Jesus's mouth. " - Jon Eisenman
First of all believe me when I say that I'm the last person who would want this site turned into a bible studies group. Nonetheless, I can't help critiquing John's argument. John points out the hypocrisy of Christian evangelists who are all too ready to point out other's "sins" before addressing their own "sins". He sites the biblical analogy of the criticizer with the "log" in his/her eye hypocritically focusing on the "speck" in other's eyes, concluding that prosthelytizers have no divine mandate to prosthelytize.
But John, when you say these prothelytizers are being hypocritical, aren't you assuming that they are criticizing others for "sin" of which they themselves are guilty? Only then would the biblical quote you site apply. Yet you give no examples of any such hypocrisy, so I don't see how you can conclude that Christian prosthelytizers are disobeying Christ's words.
Aside: Personally, I've always wondered why the pamphlets all those groups pass out, depicting people with pained expressions on their faces about to be tortured in the fires of hell, don't qualify as illegal threats. I guess it's a crime to make a threat on someone's life, but their afterlife is considered fair game. It's a creepy loophole if you ask me.
Posted by Justin Sarma,
12:06 AM
-
Thursday, February 13, 2003 Does America Have Alzheimers?
Way back in another era, corporate scandal was actually an issue that captured the nation's attention. Well, the investigation has finally neared an end (at least for Enron), and no one can even remember who Kenneth Lay is anymore. Don't tell me that corporate America doesn't realize this and take advantage of the complete lack of short-term memory in this country of ours.
Posted by Laura,
7:15 PM
-
Oh and I love that he asked for prayers for his wife. Howabout prayers for you when she takes all your money and slaps your ass with a divorce?
Reminded me - what kind of law is that? The guy had already been punished and might be charged for "loitering with the intent to solicit" - I mean, think about that. He was hanging around looking for a hooker. First of all, how can they prove that he wasn't hanging around pondering these women's lives in an existential way. And, what if he'd hired one of them just to say, talk to her, or write poetry with her. Even if you believe that the of buying or selling sex should be illegal, shouldn't there be proof? And, second, much more importantly is that very question - why is that illegal? If it is, what part of it? It is legal to date someone or even marry them and then rely entirely on them for money -- a situtation I'd be happy with - ladies? -- and it happens all the time. In fact, until the 60s, it was the only really accepted lifestyle. Why, then, is it illegal with a prostitute? And, no AIDS arguments without the blatantly obvious note that every AIDS expert on the planet knows it's easier to stop disease when you legalize and control it. Anyway, why why?
Posted by Jared,
1:49 PM
-
Hailstorm in the Heartland
California State University Fresno is in the opening hours of a two-day conference on radical environmentalism sponsored by the political science department.
Valley farmers and researchers using GMO technology have been issued warnings by police, as well as SUV dealerships near the university. However, it strikes me as ridiculous that police would expect violence by the spokesmen of these groups. The event is closed to the public, by the way.
The provost offers his defense of the school's sponsorship here . The Fresno Bee article about concerned fundraisers (especially agricultural industry reps) is pretty interesting.
Here in CA's Central Valley, environmentalists are few and far between, politics runs conservative/libertarian, and agricultural interests dominate. In such a context, what is surprising is not that the conference is drawing fire but that the university dared to sponsor the event in the first place. I think it's a tremendously daring and important move away from the pervasive provincialism of Fresno (population: 500,000).
In other news, a local Republican congressman has been shunned by his party colleagues for being pulled over in a part of Fresno notorious for prostitution (the second time in several years). You should have seen the press conference held by the indignant college Republicans... they were SO earnest.
Posted by Karsten Barde,
12:42 PM
-
Protecting Yourself from Chemical Warfare!
On Tuesday, less than 24 hours after U.S. Fire Administrator David Paulison described a list of useful items, stores in the greater Washington, D.C. area reported a surge in sales of plastic sheeting, duct tape, and other emergency items. These items, Paulison said, can be helpful after a biological, chemical or radiological attack.
It's good to know that all I need is a bit of duct tape and plastic, and I'm prepared to survive any nuclear holocaust / anthrax outbreak. Oh! And I have to remember to hide under my desk!
Posted by Nick,
12:05 PM
-
"...if the world is watching America’s commitment to post-Taliban Afghanistan as a sign of what might happen in post-Saddam Iraq, it is likely to be disappointed..."
Despite the rhetoric to the contrary, America’s attention has undoubtedly switched to Iraq over the past year, and Afghanistan is largely presented to the American public as a problem that has been solved. Ironically, Zalmay Khalilzad, the American special envoy to Afghanistan, recently lectured the Afghan government on the poor progress it was making on institution-building, on security, and even on the “quality of service you still get from government departments”. Mr Karzai is due to visit George Bush in Washington at the end of the month. Perhaps by then he will have drawn up a reciprocal list of complaints.
-----
I can almost support war from a moral perspective, and in fact I do support Mill's view that (paraphrasing) war is ugly but there's nothing uglier than running from a war that must be fought... (think WWII)... but when this administration has proved that even justifiable wars will have their humanitarian aspects dropped... what's the point, for Iraq, of getting rid of Saddam?
A CNN Article on those 'enemy combatant' detainees at Guantanamo. We're now offering them rewards such as an extra blanket or, perhaps more useful, particularily because they are being "confined to solitary cells," a soccer ball. Aren't we just so nice?
Reminds me of those "earn great prizes by selling things to your neighbors" ads in children's magazines. Maybe if the detainees save up to 1,000 points, we'll let them speak to a lawyer.
Emmet Hogan is waiting with bated breath for my response for my response to his post. I'm sorry, Emmet, for the delay - I don't read your blog as avidly, it seems, as you do ours.
Do I defend my statements? Well, you said statements, but you were refering to my ironic juxtoposition of KKK and CCC (a joke that only like three people got, but whatever), and my argument about the insidiousness of the CCC's tactics, I assume. If so, then yes, I do.
You claimed that I was comparing the two right-wing Southern-based self-proclaimed Christian organizations whose work is based entirely on the salvation of their archaic and intolerant worldview? Well, no, Emmet, I'm sure the correlation is so outlandish that it didn't even occur to me. In fact, I didn't say the KKK and the CCC were similar; I compared, in response to Tim's earlier post, the arguments for their respective innocence. Tim said, well, they haven't hurt anyone as far as we know, and I said, well, neither has the KKK for awhile, but that doesn't make them any less disgusting. I was working on the assumption of concrete operational thought on the part of the reader, hoping that they could understand the abract notion of a judgment point - that a group doesn't have to actually go out and hurt people to be dangerous - by using an example of a group that doesn't hurt people, but that still can be very harmful to society.
As for my other statement, maybe again I assumed too much on the part of the reader. The problem is, I write my posts for the FreeDartmouth, and I take for granted an articulate audience that understands nuance and context. When I said
See, it's one thing to go in with swords and armor, clanging around about what you believe. But a crusade of thought, against other people's beliefs and ideals, this is in some ways even worse.
I wasn't advocating violence. The irony of a Dartlogger accusing me of advocating violence has to have occured to you. Well, maybe not. But, anyway, no, I was again referencing my own and previous posts. The context was a defense of the Crusaders for the - hopefully - inapplicable assumptions that came with their name - Tim's post. My point was that many people, like him, don't see anything wrong with this kind of thought crusade because it's not manifest in violence. Well, I believe that it's not okay in any case, that the intolerance and judgment - ironic given, as Jon noted, the teachings of Christ - of people of other religions is disgusting in any case. Now, if they were flashing weapons around, at least then they're out there, openly on the attack. When it's subversive, when they ask Freshmen to fill out a little survey for candy, when they try to casually depose a Mormon from a leadership position, it's harder to trace, easier for them to deny. I thought that the simple image I'd attempted to create, a half-witted Knight-crusader "clanging around" was enough to explain this. It's about the transparency of that. Christianity and guile really don't belong together, but neither to most of the Right's hateful judgments. It's a shame that they, along with many similarly repugnant Catholics, give such a foul name to the Lord. In any case, I apologize for any confusion or lost sleep.
Posted by Jared,
1:55 AM
-
So Much For International Law
Just a little reminder that the current administration is simply going through the motions with the UN and NATO.
The first is Patriot II - most of us knew it was coming, but here are the details.
The other is the finding that one of Iraq's missiles is in violation of UN standards. The missile, which is supposed to only go 90 miles goes 114. Now, forgive me if I'm taking this the wrong way, but, that's like a town further away. Who the Hell cares? But, not only that, the US expects them to relinquish this already deployed weapon immediately. Now, if you're not a conservative and thus have the cabability to experience empathy, imagine that you're Iraq. You publish in your report weeks ago that you have these missiles which go a bit further than expected. Now, for reasons that still have never been clarified, a major country is planning with or without support to attack you for real in the near future. If this is the case, why in the world would you give up those weapons? Right, it would be stupid. So, here's the thing - if you don't give them up, you give the country who's going to attack you anyway more justification, if you do, you make it easier for them to kill you. I can't wait to see the headling Saddam refuses to cooperate with the UN and the killer is that so many people will read that and say, figures.
Posted by Jared,
12:52 AM
-
agent orange this is from the white house website and I don't think they are joking:
What to do to prepare for a chemical or biological attack
* Assemble a disaster supply kit (see the “Emergency Planning and Disaster Supplies” chapter for more information) and be sure to include: * Battery-powered commercial radio with extra batteries. * Non-perishable food and drinking water. * Roll of duct tape and scissors. * Plastic for doors, windows and vents for the room in which you will shelter in place—this should be an internal room where you can block out air that may contain hazardous chemical or biological agents. To save critical time during an emergency, sheeting should be pre-measured and cut for each opening. * First aid kit. * Sanitation supplies including soap, water and bleach.
everyone got soap, a radio, and duct tape? you should be all set then. is the "president" supplying paranoia or policy?
Posted by Graham,
12:34 AM
-
Wednesday, February 12, 2003 Amen![d]
Over at Dartlog, Emmett asks me if I'd care to amend my earlier statements. I would actually just like to come back to the initial way in which I brought up the statement I once heard - "the biggest obstacles to understanding and appreciating the teachings of Christ are Christians." I'd like to turn to my friendly Bible, in a way that will hopefully address my concerns. I am citing from the NSRV, for those concerned.
Matthew 7:1-5:
"Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye."
Now correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not), but Matthew is supposed to be quoting Christ directly in this account. So Jesus says "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged." See if you can follow my logic: there are many evangelists - some of whom, CCC members (although this is on other campuses) - travel to places to condemn-and-pray for people. CCC from Purdue, for instance, visited my hometown of Myrtle Beach (as if we didn't have enough evangelists) to randomly approach beachgoers and inform them of their damnation lest they become "doctrinally realigned." Now it seems to me that condemning people - or telling them they will face God's condemnation - is against the words right from Jesus's mouth. So Jesus says one thing, his proclaimed "followers" do the opposite...you can see now why someone might say that Christians can get in the way of understanding Christ. However, far be it for me to offer an authoritative interpretation. But then again, far be it for anyone else to do so, either. That is the petty infighting (I don't know that it's so petty) to which Emmett refers. Yet, I find it hard to interpret that verse with too much latitude. If you accept my premise, then maybe you will conclude with me that if, as Emmett says, "the core of the faith remains: Christ died for our sins," yet people seem to be disregarding the very words of the God they worship, that those people may as well be idolators. Their faith would be in an effigy, just any person that died on a cross, lest they actually see why they should revere Christ as more than a person. If you're willing to disregard the words right from His mouth (yes, I'm agnostic, but I respect Christianity enough for the capitalization), then why worship Him and not any one of the others crucified with Him? I guess someone could make the rejoinder that they worship Christ because he is the Son of God and a one way ticket out of Hell, but I would posit that any individual who says something like that should learn that the value of Christianity is in the teachings of Christ, not the mindless worship of an idol. But to return to the point...doctrinary differences...this is more of a personal interpretation, and probably more contentious, but combine it with Matthew 7, if you would (this is Matthew 15:21-29):
Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon." But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, "Send her away, she keeps shouting after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me." He answered, "It is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs." She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." Then Jesus answered her, "Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed instantly.
My exegesis would suggest, vis-a-vis the Crusaders, that even if they wish to think others not "of the house of Israel," they would value the faith of those others as their Boss did, and cut said others some slack. Especially when He also told them that they certainly ought not be judging those others. Again, I suppose this could be interpreted differently, but it seems to me, on the whole, my point is that some Christians-as-people tend to ignore the teachings of Christ and instead focus on the value they get from His death. I don't think you would disagree with this, Emmett, but if you do, I'd be fascinated to hear how/why.
Addendum: I'd also like to add, in reference to Emmett's post, that I don't believe I said that condemning others was the core of Protestant faith. I believe I was speaking in reference to a certain group of evangelicals, and even then, I believe my statement was made as a conditional. Emmett wonders how many people of the kind of which I've spoken that I actually know. While I have tended to avoid proselytizers here, I hope that the small anecdote above might give you some idea of how many I've encountered - many belonging to various CCC chapters - in my life. I would also like to add, because I think it might be becoming necessary given the level of rhetoric at this point, that I have nothing against the belief of any individual who can honestly say to themselves, in light of my statements here, that they do not condemn other people to Hell in their hearts and minds. Regardless of their religious affiliation or group membership, anyone of such an inclination is someone with whom I have an issue, and, as I have previously noted, if I have mischaracterized the actions of groups, then I am happy to have inadvertently libelled them rather than to have spoken an unfortunate truth.
Posted by Jonathan,
10:28 PM
-
Eviscerating Emmett
First I’d like to extend my thanks to Emmett and the other various Bloggers that commented on my post from yesterday. Given that this is the first time my words have been de-constructed line by line on the internet, I find the whole experience quite flattering. (I almost feel like a celebrity…almost)
Emmett writes: “The law is, of course, the legal standard at public schools -- but it is the moral standard at private schools.”
According to Emmett, there is a moral prerogative to allow un-mitigated access to students by religious or political groups intent on proselytizing. I would argue that the moral standard must be one that permits equal access to any and all religious information. Likewise, it seems immoral to violate an individual’s rights to abstain from religious exchanges altogether.
We need to look at the limits on content neutrality. The First amendment allows at least two major violations of content neutrality in restricting speech: one, to distinguish commercial from political speech and second, to protect people from harm. Hence, the reason companies cannot say anything they want about their products and lunatics can’t scream “Anthrax!” in a crowded post office.
Now, clearly handing out bibles or subtle endorsements of a particular religion falls well short of inciting riot and making false product claims (I’ll leave the question of whether Christianity makes false product promises about heaven for another debate). But does proselytizing inflict damage of any kind on the person at the receiving end? The answer is yes. Proselytizing has the potential to inflict harm as soon as the proselytizer begins to believe they he is at risk unless he successfully converts others to the cause. The writers for the Dartmouth Free Press or the Dartmouth Review don’t have any fear of monetary, spiritual, or financial loss if their readers decide to ignore their “doctrines.” But the devout religious fanatic worries about his own soul when the converts refuse and may take any and all steps to achieve that conversion.
Emmett will argue that if the proselytizer is dangerous, he should be punished as soon as he commits a violent act and not a moment sooner. But the potential for violence can sometimes be just as effective as violence. Yes, receiving a bible is tame. What scares me is thinking about how far the person who sent me the bible will go to in order to force me to read it. Cults and other fringe religious groups use more frightening tactics to achieve their goals (like the so-called faith-based service provider which denies drug treatment to a person who refuses to attend bible class, but I digress). Members (or former members) of religious groups at Dartmouth have crossed the line in the past with activities like anti-Semitic slogans on doors. (In fairness, CCC denounced these actions). But would they denounce such actions if the standards for religious groups were less than strict? Seeing CCC members in Food Court should continue to be less troubling than seeing the Branch Dividians out on a recruiting trip.
I am not advocating outlawing of free speech on campus nor outlawing passionate advocacy. I’m saying reasonable standards must exist to allow a free expression of religious beliefs for everyone and to prevent truly violent or dangerous groups from manipulating that freedom to achieve their aims. If CCC wants to gain membership, they can put up posters. If they want to have a march that decries the lack of Christian authors in the library collection, they can march on Parkhurst. But they don’t need my personal mailing information to have a healthy exchange of ideas.
Posted by Dan,
9:15 PM
-
I would also like to point out that, as anyone who saw Larry King Live saturday night will know, Dr. Hager also advocates the parents of homosexuals sending their children to "christian councilling" and the use of medication as the primary method of treating everything from bipolar disease in teenagers (he advocates Prozak) to ADHD. Not auxillary to councilling, but the primary method.
Posted by Nikhil,
9:07 PM
-
Any faith whatsoever that I ever had in the ability of George Bush to recognize and respect that he wasn't governing a country of born again christians has evaporated.
> President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to > head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs > Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two years, > during which time its charter has lapsed. As a result, the Bush > Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new > members. > > This position does not require Congressional approval. The FDA's > Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes crucial decisions on > matters relating to drugs used in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology > and > related specialties, including hormone therapy, contraception, treatment > for > infertility, and medical alternatives to surgical procedures for > sterilization and pregnancy termination. > > Dr. Hager's views of reproductive health care are far outside the > mainstream of setback for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a > practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to > prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. Hager is the author of "As > Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." The book blends > biblical accounts of Christ healing women with case studies from Hager's > practice. > > In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the > Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual > syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an > editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A > Christian Appraisal of Sexuality, Reproductive Technologies and the > Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate > assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient. Hagar's > mission is religiously motivated. He has an ardent interest in revoking > approval for mifepristone (formerly known as RU-486) as a safe and early > form of medical abortion. Hagar recently assisted the Christian Medical > Association in a "citizen's petition" which calls upon the FDA to revoke > its > approval of mifepristone in the name of women's health. > > Hager's desire to overturn mifepristone's approval on religious grounds > rather than scientific merit would halt the development of mifepristone as > a > treatment for numerous medical conditions disproportionately affecting > women, including breast cancer, uterine cancer, uterine fibroid tumors, > psychotic depression, bipolar depression and Cushing's syndrome. > > Women rely on the FDA to ensure their access to safe and effective > drugs for reproductive health care including products that prevent > pregnancy. For some women, such as those with certain types of diabetes > and those undergoing treatment for cancer pregnancy can be a > life-threatening condition. > > We are concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious beliefs may color > his assessment of technologies that are necessary to protect women's > lives or to preserve and promote women's health. Hager's track record of > using religious beliefs to guide his medical decision-making makes him a > dangerous and inappropriate candidate to serve as chair of this > committee. Critical drug public policy and research must not be held > hostage by antiabortion politics. > > Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of > science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women > deserve no less. > > WHAT CAN YOU DO? 1. SEND THIS TO EVERY PERSON WHO IS CONCERNED ABOUT > WOMEN'S RIGHTS. 2. OPPOSE THE PLACEMENT OF THIS MAN BY CONTACTING THE > WHITE HOUSE AND TELL THEM HE IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE ON ANY LEVEL. > > Please email President Bush at president@whitehouse.gov or call the > White House at (202) 456-1111 or (202) 456-1414 and say "I oppose the > appointment of Dr. Hager to the FDA Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory > Committee. Mixing religion and medicine is unacceptable. Using the FDA to > promote a political agenda is inappropriate and seriously threatens all > women's health."
I think the piece from Center for Repro Rights is a bit overblown: "neutral names to lure in unsuspecting women", etc. It seems to me that private clinics, unless they receive some sort of strings-attached government funding, are entitled to offer whatever services they want. If women think they can get "a full range of reproductive services, including abortions" and that's not the case, there's not much one can do about it. Do I think pregnant women should be presented with all their options, e.g. not just abstinence-only counseling? Certainly. But private clinics are private clinics. On the same grounds, Planned Parenthood can choose not to offer ultrasounds.
Intuition supports the assertion that ultrasounds would, indeed, have a deterrent effect on women seeking or considering abortions. However, I would argue that PP would be a more effective clinic if it did not limit its offerings. Giving a woman a view of her fetus, in the absence of other anti-abortion counseling, is not "manipulation," by my book.
Nevertheless, I could imagine fiscal reasons (expensive machinery, etc.) why a Planned Parenthood clinic would not offer ultrasounds. Actually, what pre-natal care, if any, does PP offer? Are they only in the business of providing birth control, emergency pregnancy counseling and abortions? Is there evidence to support the assertion that Planned Parenthood more readily advocates abortion over other alternatives?
UPDATE Re: Planned Parenthood pushing abortion: I have little doubt that Planned Parenthood, as a national organization and at most of its local offices, offers appropriate, informed and balanced counseling. Any implications to the contrary were not the intention of my inquiry.
Posted by Karsten Barde,
7:44 PM
-
Is it manipulative?
A pro-life friend of mine recently told me of her shock at the fact that Planned Parenthood does not provide ultra-sounds to pregnant would-be mothers on grounds that they are "manipulative." It seems that women that see an ultrasound are far less likely to have an abortion.
Now, on the face of it, it seems to me that if one is comfortable having an abortion (seeing the fetus as just a fetus), they should be comfortable with seeing an ultrasound.
The Center for Reproductive Rights wrote: "What's perhaps even more appalling is how many other women are unwittingly finding themselves in similar situations. Anti-choice activists are setting up these phony clinics all over the country, often naming them "pregnancy crisis centers," or giving them other neutral names to lure in unsuspecting women. Women enter thinking the center is staffed by medical professionals who can offer a full range of reproductive services, including abortions. Instead they get treated to anti-abortion propaganda, abstinence-only counseling, and a range of intimidation tactics. When we called A Community Pregnancy Center in Winter Haven, we were told their services included free baby clothes and food, and free ultrasound. That's because many of these anti-choice activists believe that once they get a woman with an unintended pregnancy to undergo ultrasound, she won't consider exercising her right to choose an abortion."
Where do people come down on this?
Posted by Kumar,
6:29 PM
-
If you're going to play pedant...
Karsten, your Govy 3 prof would be very disappointed.
Posted by Clint,
4:13 PM
-
Cheap Whine at the White House
There was no shortage of bellyaching coming from the President about the senate filibuster currently postponing a vote on the conservative judicial nominee Estrada, who has refused to answer questions about his views on controversial issues.
President Bush complained to reporters today: "A handful of Democrats in the Senate are playing politics with his nomination. And it's shameful politics." He said he wanted Mr. Estrada "to get fairer treatment than he's getting from those who are really against the spirit of the United States Senate."
Posted by Karsten Barde,
3:34 PM
-
Couldn't have said it better myself
"They've got some crazy people over there." Rep. Murtha (D-PA), senior Democrat on the defense appropriations subcommittee
Posted by Karsten Barde,
3:21 PM
-
Trust the government and the media
Colin Powell is claiming the new 'Bin Laden' message shows the nexus between Iraq and terrorists. Yet Bin Laden says he would be happy if Saddam's regime didn't exist, and he calls them infidels and 'communists': "Socialists are infidels wherever they are, whether they are in Baghdad or Aden." Bin Laden says Muslims can defend Iraq against the greater enemy of America, but he siding with the 'people of Iraq' rather than Saddam. Sounds like a real tight connection, huh? If you were Saddam, would you give weapons to a man still hoping for a pan-Islamic world where you didn't exist? Tom Tomorrow puts it: "Now I get it. We must go to war with Iraq because of the link between al Qaeda and Iraq which will be forged...as a result of our war with Iraq. " See also his other posts at atrios on MSNBC's 'retraction' of its earlier story saying Saddam had called for the overthrow of Saddam.
Posted by Timothy,
3:57 AM
-
Tuesday, February 11, 2003 convert to homosexuality!
Emmett Hogan on dartlog is worried about Homosexuals seeking recruits amongst the ranks of previously straight Dartmouth students. Well, that is not exactly what he says, but here is his response to Dan Pollock's comments about the Campus Crusade for Christ mailing "Mere Christianity" to the entire freshman class:
This was one of the silliest flaps from my Dartmouth days. Did you ever -- ever -- here of anyone crying foul when those gay pride stickers appeared in our HBs? No, of course not, that would be absurd. Would any Christian student stand a chance of convincing the College to force the Rainbow Alliance to pass them out at a nearby table? No way.
So are gays seeking to 'convert' people in the same way Christians are? Please. What if the stickers said 'end racism'? Would Emmett's passage above make its point in the same way? Or if the flyers had come from Young Democrats? Emmett's passage wouldn't be as 'funny' that's for sure...
Emmett, how could anyone claim that the Rainbow Alliance should not be able to distribute lit and stickers through the Hinman boxes, given that political groups like the Young Democrats are allowed to do so? On the other hand, I can see genuine arguments about religious prostelyzation on college campuses, even if I don't agree with all of them. Maybe you think political and religious speech should be regulated in the same way, but political and religious 'conversion' are not the same thing. And I don't think the Rainbow Alliance should be made to be an analogized to the Campus Crusade for Christ, rather it should be analogized to the Young Democrats or perhaps AGORA or ASGARD (by the way, Dartmouth DOES put restrictions on what kind of political solicitation can be done on College grounds). Emmett can argue that religious speech should be treated in the same manner as secular speech, contrary to what he says is current college practice . But please don't keep spreading something that can be read as 'gays trying to convert people.' If your analogy works just as well with lit from Young Dems, use that example. But if doesn't work as well, you have to ask yourself why that is....
Posted by Timothy,
8:56 PM
-
Financial Success! (For MBNA)
This isn't a half-bad idea for a program. But I love how it has a corporate sponsor who also just happens to have won the "Dartmouth Credit Card" deal. What's next, Dartmouth College (brought to you by Coca-Cola)?
>From: 03-Class-Council@Dartmouth.EDU (03-Class-Council) >Subject: Financial Success >Date: 11 Feb 2003 18:44:39 -0500 >Bulletin Topic: 2003 Class Activities >Expires: 18 Feb 2003 18:44:04 -0500 >Reply-To: bestclassever
*************************************** Come learn about the building blocks of a healthy credit history......
"TOP 10 WAYS TO ACHIEVE FINANCIAL SUCCESS"
Monday, February 17 7pm-8pm 113 Silsby
a presentation by MBNA sponsored by Dartmouth College
FREE Dartmouth seat cushions for all participants! (please contact Lynne Gaudet in the Alumni Relations Office with any questions) ****************************************
I didn't attend Harvard so I'd never seen its alumni mag until a colleague handed me three issues. "Check out the personal ads," she said. "You won't believe it." Well, I was skeptical. Like most sophisticated intellectuals, I believed that America's best personal ads appeared in America's best transportation magazine, Outlaw Biker, where incarcerated women advertise for Harley-riding studs:
"Caged Kitten, 30, 5-10, 165 lbs., 38-D, 30-32, Blonde Looking for a new home . . . If you are a man between 35-99, secure mentally, physically and financially, then drop me a line! My release date is 2004."
It's hard to beat the ads in Outlaw Biker, but I picked up Harvard and gave it a look. Within minutes, I was stunned, amazed, transfixed. The women of every red-blooded man's dreams were advertising their availability...more
Clint wrote: one might think Conservative Chirac would be quite worse than Labour's Tony Blair. Indeed.
Here's today's Krugman: Why might Europeans not trust Mr. Bush to follow through after an Iraq war? One answer is that they've been mightily unimpressed with his follow-through in Afghanistan. Another is that they've noticed that promises the Bush administration makes when it needs military allies tend to become inoperative once the shooting stops — just ask General Musharraf about Pakistan's textile exports.
But more broadly, they may have noticed something that is becoming apparent to more and more people here: the Bush administration's consistent unwillingness to take responsibility for solving difficult problems. When the going gets tough, it seems, Mr. Bush changes the subject.
My favorite group of totalitarian socialist organizers, ANSWER, has refused to allow Rabbi Michael Lerner the opportunity to speak at their rally in San Francisco this Saturday.
An ANSWER representative said on a New York radio program "I know that the ANSWER coalition would not have a pro-Israel speaker on its platform."
Well, yes, Lerner is pro-Israel in the sense that he doesn't mind the existence of a Jewish state; but Lerner is one the harshest critics of Israel’s brutal in American Jewry.
Perhaps they were more concerned about having a speaker that had in the past criticized the radically anti-Israeli--some would say anti-Semitic--tenor of past ANSWER events.
Lerner is thoroughly against the occupation; he's the publisher of Tikkun magazine--the number one forum for progressive Jewish thought; the co-author with Cornel West of a book on Black-Jewish relations; he is a co-chair, along with West, and Dartmouth's own Susannah Heshcel of the Tikkun Community, a multi-faith network for progressives. He addressed the Green Party of the United States at their 2002 convention--where he bragged about his Green registration.
Lerner is still calling on like minded Jews to attend the rally--despite this rather ridiculous snub. That is quite an application of the Christian adage of turning the other cheek. A petition, calling "ANSWER [unfit] to lead mass mobilizations against war in Iraq" has been started--and it's got some heavies like Howard Zinn, Barbara Ehrenreich, Robert McChesney, Todd Gitlin, Stanley Aronowitz, and nearly all of The Nation folks like Marc Cooper, Katha Pollitt, Eric Alterman, John Nichols, and Richard Falk.
Not to dive into this CCC debate, because I think some of the analogies have been overly harsh, and I'm sort of agnostic on the issue (pun intended), but in response to Dan's query, here is Tucker's policy on proselytization as it applies to ministers and religious advisors affiliated with the college in any way (the rule is not explicitly stated for students, at least nowhere I could find):
"In keeping with the spirit of the United Campus Ministry, members of the UCM shall acknowledge and welcome religious diversity and shall respect the sanctity of religious and spiritual conscience for each individual."
Posted by Richie Jay,
6:12 PM
-
Response to the CNN article:
If Osama Bin Laden is alive what the hell are we doing igonring Al Qaeda and attack Iraq? Isn't Al Qaeda the threat and the justification for attacking Iraq? And what's so much more urgent about Iraq, save oil, territory, and a presence in the Middle East?
Additionally, the United States in its anti terrorism measures, profiling (im afraid after I and the only other brown skinned person on a thirty person bus back from montreal this weekend were the only passangers to be questioned by customs as well as immigration, and after flying into the country after winter break, no matter what anyone says i wont believe that racial profiling isn't at least unofficially supported and widespread) - including its internal policies on the tracking of international students from muslim countries - and the linking of those policies with Iraq by justifying the raise in the terrorism alert level through the Iraq situation, is asking for an attack on Iraq to be seen as an attack on Islam.
Advertisments of smiling muslim members of the FDNY, etc aired on Saudi television can only do so much in the current atmosphere, and the U.S. isn't exactly helping itself there.
I am not sure that political 'proselytization' is always in the same category as religious proselytization. Politicians can want someone's vote, not their soul. But with some organizing and advocacy, you can see similarity. (And there is a reason why 'religion and politics' are said to be something you shouldn't discuss on a first date--- b.s. I say, but I like talking about controversial things). I definitely see a difference when we are talking about young children, and would not support for example public prayer in schools. But in college?
Religion can be a very personal thing. But no one has a right not to have their religion challenged, do they? Well, at least those who attack CCC and those who sincerely believe non-Christians (including Catholics) are going to hell cannot say religions can never be challenged. Why should you not be able to convince other people your religion is right? I think effectively most religious literature at Dartmouth ends up being a nuisance, as if this one thing will suddenly convince someone of another faith. I have to admit I wasn't so sure it was wrong for copies of 'Mere Christianity' to be mailed out to the freshman class. I find it ironic that a Chrisitian who was considered liberal in his day is now considered offensive (it may be so, but that is still funny to me...). Now I think proselytizing has the problem that it does not respect the other's religion (could it ever do so?). But I shouldn't have to be harassed. But I disagree with any notion that someone should never be able to say my religion is wrong, or even that I'm damned. More to the point, I have wondered whether it is coherant to demand that your group be counted as 'Christian': I think the people who exclude do so often for bigotted reasons, but what right do you have to be included in an exlusionary group? (As for Tucker and the Summer Christian Fellowship, they were hypocritical in not saying what they were doing at all so it could be openly criticized. They ducked the issues as if they could grasp as vague platitudes) On the other hand, religious groups often do sign 'non-offensive pacts' such as when evangelical christian groups agree not to try to convert Jews. But Phil Donahue once said something like how can you tell me I'm not going to heaven? Well, that's what religion says, no? Phil's point was that you would look at me as less of a person. That may be a problem if it is enacted in law, but privately is it??
PS. I just saw Emmett Hogan on dartlog saying people on FreeDartmouth are "looking to see who can make the most boneheaded statements with respects to the Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC) -- statements that will reveal the speakers' numbing ignorance, their blind bigotry, or maybe even both." I wish Emmett would show the same sensativity to racial issues that he shows here. He denied that Trent Lott's statement last year was an example of 'numbing ignorance' or 'blind bigotry' yet he proclaims it so starkly here. Pretty soon he'll be accusing liberals of hypocrisy for offending Christians while not realizing he's also hypocritical for ONLY defending groups like Christians. Worse, if the same thing were said about Muslims, Emmett might be laughing his ass off.
Posted by Timothy,
5:59 PM
-
Les possibilités perdues
Well, one might think Conservative Chirac would be quite worse than Labour's Tony Blair. If it weren't for Le Pen and a poorly designed voting system, it's quite possible we'd be dealing with a Socialist Jospin right now....
According to CNN. Who the Hell is shocked by that?
This is one of this giant reasons we shouldn't be going to war - we're like begging for a terrorist attack. Of course, the article doesn't really go into that - because, well, reason is unpatriotic.
Posted by Jared,
4:54 PM
-
Religion on Campus - Where do we draw the line ?
The real issue in thinking about religious groups on campus shouldn't be their name, but the actions taken in support of the name.
Everyone clearly has a right to worship as they please. But to what extent should that worship involve interfering with another person's beliefs. "Proselytizing" -- by its very definition, includes attempts at both religious and/or political conversion. So in a sense, it is difficult to restrict groups like CCC without restricting groups like the Free Press. Nonetheless, I do think it's possible and appropriate to have strict standards for the activities of religious groups on campus, most importantly to prevent the growth of on-campus cults . I'm not kidding about this, a friend of mine was sucked into one of these ultra-extremist quasi-Christian groups in high school. They pose in the guise of support groups and peer counselors, all the while preying on people going through emotional stress (my friend's parents were in the process of getting divorced).
Although it's clearly not a cult, groups like CCC can cross the line when they engage in aggressive proselytizing activities that go beyond information dissemination. For example, mailing out copies of "Mere Christianity" to the entire freshman class. Or forcing copies of the bible at people in front of Food Court, etc. I think proselytizing or sending information of a religious nature that is unsolicited violates college policy but i couldn't find the exact language in the code. If anyone knows what it is let me know.
This is too funny... does anyone actually like France?
Posted by Michael,
3:33 PM
-
By the way I wish this were a joke...
Posted by Jared,
2:02 PM
-
Campus Crusade for Christ
Karsten asks me to say my true feelings about the CCC. I can see why 'crusade' might have historical connotations and can certainly appreciate Karsten's point about the CCC lacking a sense of irony (though who knows for sure...). I don't agree in this case (if there really is a tie between true fervant belief and wrong actions, why not let the name stand out?) We can argue about the labelling of the group, and I am willing to concede Tim-like logic could be used to attack the name, but the discussion has turned not to the name of the CCC, but to the group itself. Here I must strongly disagree with much of what has been said.
My dad says he met some nice Campus Crusaders for Christ when he was at Dartmouth. [Last sentence has been edited slightly-TW] My father has never been a fundamentalist Christian, but he appreciated their spirituality (though they may not have appreciated his viewpoint on this). And despite my (and his) lack of shared belief with CCC, I can appreciate their zeal. Let us not forget that the term 'liberal crusader' or 'crusader for social justice' has some of the same connotations: someone who is sure they are right and are trying to convince other people. This idea of religious pluralism that Karsten mentions: is there a necessary connection between trying to convert other people and a problem with religious pluralism? It may work that way sometimes, I suppose, but it doesn't in all cases, and certainly not here at Dartmouth. Karsten brings up a point worth considering about funding from outside groups. As for Christian groups targeting non-Christians... well, from their vantage point who else do they target? I mean, I don't agree with their theology, but if I did, logic would say I should do the same, no? Of course, I can understand, given the history, why Jews, for example, wouldn't want to be barraged with conversion literature. But fundamentalist or evangelical Christians can believe that you or I are not going to heaven. I daresay they can even declare people non-Christian. What do you care if they think you are going to hell if you think it doesn't exist? I am not sure this is to some organized religion's credit, but religion's essence is often said to be to draw a line and exclude the non-believers. Now, I am not saying that all groups that try to convert by definition cannot be bigotted. See Jack Chick tracts for a repulsive example. But is the CCC really like that? What are the boundaries of 'intolerance' such that one can justify being intolerant of a group? (finally before I head to class, for those of you who have complained about the possible connotations of the word 'crusade', there have been other comments on the board that are not exactly 'soft' and 'sensative')
I spoke with the author of the CCC article about this debate, and this is what he had to say:
In response: my article was meant as a news piece, comparing past and present Christian crusades. Nothing more, nothing less. After I earned my stripes as a reporter in the gulf, I got to wondering: why are there so many olive-skinned minorities over there? The conclusions I came to were shocking -- Crusades for Christ used to make good business of lopping the heads off infidels, but now these infidels are allowed to eat, go to the bathroom, and, yes, even proliferate. If the CCC would just embrace its heritage -- and how stupid do you have to be to choose that name if it's not a reference to the biggest religious actions ever perpetrated? -- rather than drinking soda pop and having unhygienic penises, then I think the world would be a better place.
...being actually very Christian myself, that I never could find it in me to associate Catholicism to Evangelistic Christianity. I mean, besides hating gay people and treating women like crap, which really only puts them on the FoxNews viewer-list, there's not too much between the Sunday-Goers and the CCC types who, as Jon noted, await your flames to toast their Heavenly marshmellows. The truth is that most Catholics in fact don't espouse these views - they go their own way. Unlike the conservative zealout evangalists, the Catholic Church doesn't really require such indoctrination - and really, given how many Catholics stay home on Sunday, it wouldn't really work anyway. Especially, the numbers note, for Catholic men, religion's kinda optional.
Which is why it's sort of funny that Emmet was thus disturbed. He bemoans, in his typically mastubatory prose, how Karsten makes the easy equation of religious belief with religious intolerance. It's an interesting commentary - that a belief can't exist without, as the CCC does with the blind if perhaps admirable tenacity, an active aggressive encroachment on other people's conflicting beliefs - as if the belief couldn't exist on its own. There's a bit of insecurity here, no? As I'm sure we all know, Christianity has a long evangelistic history. The thing is, that doesn't mean we target people and actively attack what they believe, just that we leave the door open with a light on. It's not a valid part of your belief system to encroach on others' beliefs, others' personal understandings of the universe. So they think that Jews and Mormons and Catholics - ha - are going to Hell - well, I think I-bankers are or at least should - I'm not knocking on doors.
Posted by Jared,
1:54 PM
-
Platitudinous Repudiation I apologize for the disjointedness of this post, but I am frantically working on something else and just sort of spewed it up as it came to me.
My friends at Dartlog never cease to delight me with their colorful adjectives. Emmett Hogan writes:
Jonathan Eisenman's platitudinous repudiation of Christian who (Heaven forbid!) actually live by their faith wins him second place.
This was in response, I gather, to my remark that "the biggest obstacles to understanding and appreciating the teachings of Christ are Christians."
The irony, coming from Emmett (Irish Catholic, correct?), who I am assuming lives by his faith (or truly believes he does, which is really what matters), is that CCC thinks he is going to Hell. He's one of them there Papists. Maybe the individual members of CCC don't think that, and perhaps the Dartmouth group doesn't think about it at all, but CCC as an organization, in embodying fundamentalist Protestant values, does (hence my use of the italics in the original). The reason? He's not a "true" Christian. Fundamentalists make a distinction between "Catholic" and "true Christian," conveniently forgetting who was around first. What do you think, Emmett, are you not actually a Christian?
And so we come to the obvious meaning of my original statement, which is that Emmett could literally be Christ incarnate and be condemned to eternal Hell by those who wish to put a little (tm) behind Christian and profess to tell others what true Christianity is about. If the core of one's faith is the condemnation of others, sometimes those professing the same faith but not screamingly as loudly, then I have no problem unequivocally denouncing that core. Perhaps I have mischaracterized CCC, perhaps it's changed in some way of which I am not aware. That's fine, I would rather this be misguided and look foolish than be right about it, at the rate that fundamentalist denominations are increasing in this country. I suspect that Emmett would rightly point out that even if I am correct, these people are free to practice their religion, free to proselytize, and in doing so, I suppose free to inspire some degree of fear. I would agree. But Emmett cannot tell me that I have to like what they say.
Of course, Emmett would have no way of knowing (since I didn't make the statement originally, figuring it to be irrelevant) that when I said "I once heard," that I was talking to an evangelist who was lamenting to me that the dogmatic adherence to Protestant doctrinal minutiae was against the true spirit of Christianity and the biggest obstacle to others appreciating that message. One is preaching by example, the other is preaching by fear. At any rate, I happened to agree with the assessment of said individual, but then again, I'm already going to Hell. I guess I'll see you there, Emmett.
Posted by Jonathan,
12:29 PM
-
Hopefully it moves faster than the Berry elevators
Ultimately, however, the easiest, cheapest way to get into space may be by elevator. The concept, first explored in science fiction novels, is simple. Put a large satellite in orbit 22,300 miles above the Equator. At that altitude, satellites circle the Earth in exactly one day, and that means that they continuously hover over the same spot on the surface. Drop a very long cable to the surface and tie it down. Build an elevator to travel up and down the cable.
Dr. Bradley C. Edwards, chief technology officer for HighLift Systems in Seattle, said all the technology existed, except for the cable. But, he said, composites of epoxy and nanotubes, rolled-up tubes of carbon that are stronger than steel, may be available in a few years, he said.
NASA paid $570,000 to study the concept. "We think we can have one up and operational in about 15 years," Dr. Edwards said.
I have no love of CCC, or the values they seem to espouse as an organization. I am reminded of something I once heard - the biggest obstacles to understanding and appreciating the teachings of Christ are Christians.
Well, no, they've never actually enacted violence as a tactic. But, I mean, the KKK hasn't for awhile either.
Anyway, I've always thought of them as worse in a way because they're insidious - they don't wear the white masks, they wear fake smiles that belie the intolerance and perverted faux-benevolence of their creed.
I can't believe that Tim, who was hear for even more of it, can ignore the Jew Boxes - at least, as they were called. This was back in the beginning of Freshman year for us '03s, when they took that survey at a table in the Hop - tell us your religion and we'll give you chocolate or the like. They did it the next year as well, I think. In any case, our year, they compiled a list of all the people who didn't put Christian, and, if I rememember, Meredith, for putting Mormon. Then, a bit later, these nice little boxes came to everyone's door, attached to a zealout or two, proclaiming the Word. Thing is, by everyone, of course, I mean only the Jews, the Muslims, the Mormon. They targeted non-Christians and knocked on their doors. It'd be like if the Review found a DFP list and started knocking. They just believe in a worldview that protects their shallow and petty existence - the CCC people are different - they believe that everyone else is doomed, and that they will stay thus until they change their way of thing - to the CCC way.
See, it's one thing to go in with swords and armor, clanging around about what you believe. But a crusade of thought, against other people's beliefs and ideals, this is in some ways even worse.
Posted by Jared,
4:11 AM
-
Ther'es a nasty part of me... That feels like the Democrats have made their bed, and if Bush wins, they deserve it. In reference, that is, to the last point on Karsten's post - I was one of those people who was pissed because Nader lost the election for Gore, which was half-true. I mean, Gore lost the election, but Nader and his ego caused Bush to win the election - it's six of one. Anyway, the Democratic party, weakly fighting the tax plan, bowing down to Bush's obscene scare tactics, and letting some of the most major environmental and educational absurdities ever concocted pass unnoticed, the Party deserves to lose, and I almost feel like a traitor to sense and progressiveness supporting almost any of them. This time, they really are just weak - and Bush deserves it kind of like the kid who beat you up for your lunch money, because at this point he's already got all the money, and the other kid really was asking for it.
Posted by Jared,
3:56 AM
-
More on Liberal Religion
Here is a nifty blog from an editor of UU World, the bimonthly publication of the Unitarian Universalist Association. His blog includes references to things we've been discussing here lately, including Pelletiere and the Kurds and the professor who wouldn't write letters of rec for creationists.
Here are his priorities on what to do if war is certain:
* International commitment to minimize the humanitarian catastrophe of war and to insure Iraq's successful reconstruction after the war.
* Improved security for Afghanistan. After all, the war with al Qaeda isn't over. Hamid Karzi's government still needs tremendous support from the rest of the world. Critics are right to ask, What about Osama bin Laden?
* Democratic and economic reforms in the Middle East, especially in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. This requires U.S. support for resolving tensions between Israel and the Palestinians.
* Electing a Democrat in 2004. Bush's foreign policy achievements are coming at an extraordinary price. Liberals must come up with a viable foreign policy that provides real security. They must stop letting Republicans dominate military and foreign policy discussions; it isn't just about the economy.
Posted by Karsten Barde,
2:13 AM
-
Someone Needs To Stop Posting and Write Her Thesis
Browsing FD a few minutes ago, I noticed this response of Jon's to my post about using new drugs in Africa to fight AIDS:
I'd rather see money going to education and prevention than to antiretrovirals that really work wonders on your health (read: make you feel like someone gave you a Zhenka (tm) enema) and that require a good amount of scheduling and discipline in administration to be effective. Giving people antiretrovirals does not "stem an epidemic," it merely prolongs the lives of its carriers and, if the US is an example, might contribute to a more careless attitude toward sex.
Though I certainly agree with you that, in general, prevention is a far better approach than throwing expensive drugs at the AIDS epidemic in Africa, I have to return to that 42 million orphans statistic I discovered. A continent that faces 42 millions orphans by 2010, and has little to no support systems in place to provide for them, is in dire need of drugs, even just to prolong life to allow parents to care for their children. If Bush follows up on his promise to fund the fight against AIDS in Africa, then there should be money for both drugs and prevention programs that make an impact.
Posted by Laura,
2:07 AM
-
Latest Death Penalty Outrage
No one's saying move to Canada, but it is a nice place.
Posted by Laura,
1:51 AM
-
Not So Benign After All
Tim wrote: "Now, there has never been any hint the Campus Crusade for Christ supported violence and the like... Here it is a cool name with nice alliteration. It is a nice Jacko parody, but beyond that..."
After having received a fair amount of heat on this blog for being "too sensitive", it might sound strange for me to take this position, but I think Tim (a fellow softie) is being overly sympathetic to the Campus Crusade for Christ.
In my opinion, it's fair to be critical of a group that (at the very least) has no sense of irony about the use of that moniker. Is Tim trying to equivocate on the topic of religious evangelism so as to avoid stepping on the toes of politically liberal religious types? If so, I wish he would reconsider: we deserve to hear his true thoughts about the matter.
To defend Campus Crusade for Christ on the basis that it has "never...supported violence and the like" is a pretty meaningless defense, in any case. I would hope there are more consequential reasons Tim or fellow bloggers might condone a religious organization's activities on campus.
To provide perspective... this nation suffers in the hands of those conservative Protestants who dominate in Congress, and we owe it to ourselves to fight the spread of religious intolerance tooth and nail. While CCC may be a sufficiently circumspect and politically cautious organization on the Dartmouth campus, religious pluralism is under direct threat from CCC and other fundamentalist "student evangelists" (read well-funded apparatchiks) on campuses around the country.
Religious pluralism is pretty securely established in liberal Hanover, but venture out into other parts of NH and VT and you'll find out what the climate is like for non-Christians. Perhaps this makes clear something I firmly believe: our job as campus progressives is not so much to effect change at Dartmouth, but to prepare ourselves for the world beyond. We cannot afford to let struggles against reactionary conservatism on campus frustrate us and drain our energies when the real world is full of so many more important challenges.
Posted by Karsten Barde,
1:47 AM
-
Monday, February 10, 2003
It's not a serious point as such, it's just a tad annoying that legacies aren't recognized.
On a more serious note, however:
BRUSSELS - Nato was plunged into crisis yesterday after three of its European members - France, Germany and Belgium - blocked an American request for allied help that was seen as supporting its push for a war on Iraq.
MUNICH - US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has issued uncompromising challenges to both the United Nations and Nato over Iraq. He warned the global body that it risked ridicule and cautioned three of America's European partners that delaying plans to defend Turkey was weakening the Atlantic alliance.
WASHINGTON - Saudi Arabia will ask the United States to withdraw its military forces from the country after an Iraq conflict. It will be the first step in a larger effort at political reform in the kingdom that will, among other things, rein in the power of the conservative clergy.
LONDON - The United States and Britain are drawing up plans to give Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as little as 48 hours to flee Baghdad or face war, as part of a second UN resolution.
KUALA LUMPUR - Organisers of a peace campaign in Malaysia have collected more than a million signatures of people opposed to a US attack on Iraq Mr Mohamad Ali Rustam, president of the national 4B youth movement, said the aim of the campaign was to demonstrate to the world that Malaysians are peace-loving.
BAGHDAD -- With more Iraqi documents in hand, and new ideas for tracking old weapons, the chief UN inspectors said they sense a 'good beginning' and a changed 'positive attitude' in Baghdad towards their job of ensuring Iraq is free of banned arms.
JAKARTA - In the biggest anti-American protest yet in the world's most populous Muslim country, tens of thousands of Indonesians yesterday staged a peaceful protest against a possible US attack on Iraq.
I have seen the others And I have discovered that this fight is not worth fighting And I've seen their mothers And I will no other to follow me where I'm going.
Just as Jihad can mean internal struggle for the soul, so can crusade mean other things. Now, there has never been any hint the Campus Crusade for Christ supported violence and the like. I can see why 'crusade' might have that connotation associated with football teams or U.S. operations in the middle east. Here it is a cool name with nice alliteration. It is a nice Jacko parody, but beyond that...
The coming issue of the Jacko-Lantern makes fun of the student group, Campus Crusade for Christ, for its use of the word Crusade in its name. The mock Jacko article remembers back to the rather bloody Crusades of a thousand years ago, and asks if the current group has similarly intolerant, bloody and potentially anti-Islam aspirations.
I was wondering if you all thought the Jacko is being too hard, or if this group opens itself to such criticism with such a 'proselytizing' name?
While I expect that the Campus Crusade for Christ chose its name for alliterative reasons, the implication is rather... millitant. I dont know that we'd tolerate a Mujahedeens for Mohammed, if you see what I mean.
Crusade itself is defined as: 1. often Crusade Any of the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims. 2. A holy war undertaken with papal sanction. 3. A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse. See Synonyms at campaign.
Now I'm assuming that the Campus Crusade International movement aims itself at #3, but when you mix Christ & Crusade... well the first thing I thought was 1095.
I dont expect too much sensitivity or understanding there from ardent Christians who no longer associate their faith with militancy; but for me from a country/countries where missionaries are intrusively active it certainly has that connotation.
Posted by Nikhil,
7:02 PM
-
If You Missed Out on "Ronald Reagan Day" Festivities....
Here is yet another College-funded opportunity to celebrate.
>From: Student.Activities@Dartmouth.EDU (Student Activities) >Subject: Ronald Reagan Party >Date: 10 Feb 2003 16:45:25 -0500 >Bulletin Topic: Activities for Students >Expires: 15 Feb 2003 16:45:07 -0500
Ronald Reagan Birthday Party Tuesday, Feb 11 8-10 PM FUEL Fun includes food, pinata, games, movies, The Extensions Jazz Combo, and possibly, The Aires. Sponsored by the College Republicans COSO and the 04 Class Council helped to fund this event
There have now been two (yes, two) Reagan-inspired parties held in Fuel within 2 weeks on this campus. I'm speechless.
That article of Laura's was damn interesting. I hadn't thought about this:
Not too long ago, the United States had virtual control of the region through compliant rulers in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. But Iran overthrew the shah, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are also vulnerable to Islamic revolution, and Iraq acquired its own ambitions. So if the United States wants global hegemony, it must step in and take the reins in its own hands.
Makes you wonder what Bush will actually do when we do "win" the war.
Posted by Jared,
3:46 PM
-
Dude, you're getting a cell!
That is what I hope the arresting officer said as he busted Steve, the dell guy, for pot. I don't think this arrest comes as a shock to anyone who has seen thse Dell commercials.
Posted by Timothy,
3:25 PM
-
Strange Bedfellows In the Anti-War Movement
My ultra-conservative uncle just sent me an anti-war article written from a self-described "utopian conservative" perspective. Now, to give you an idea of this guy's political affiliations, Joe Sobran, the writer, has written an book entitled "Hustler: The Clinton Legacy." Regardless, he makes the astute argument that the war in Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with the "War on Terrorism". (Remember that one? It's been a long time) Anyway, if even the reactionaries are revolting, it seems to me that Bush will have a tougher time with this "pre-emptive" and "non-aggressive" war than he thinks.
Posted by Laura,
1:31 PM
-
"We talked about...reparations, blue colors"
Dare I start the reparations debate up again? The NYT has an article about a museum exhibit at that Anacostia Museum and Center for African American History and Culture in Washington, DC. What makes this exhibit unique is that explores the economic dimension of slavery, rather than the human suffering aspect. This raises the question: how much research has really been done about the economics behind the 400 years of the slave trade? Surely, it must have been incredibly lucrative to become such a booming business for such a long period of time. Perhaps this is my own ignorance, but there seems to be a dearth of research into the mechanics and wealth of slave traders and, later, slaveowners, while well-publicized studies by the likes of Dartmouth's own Bruce Sacerdote focus on freed slaves' resiliency, thereby implying that the idea behind reparations is fundamentally misguided. I'm not saying that paying reparations is an easy or even a worthwhile idea at this point. I am saying that the debate is skewed, and that we should be mindful of the centuries of wealth that slavetraders and owners accumulated, and that has largely gone unacknowledged.
Encouraging kids to snoop on their parents, neighbors, equating terrorists with bullies and software pirates, there's so much here - it's fucking sick.
EDIT: Go try to report a crime - look at the pull down menu for possible offenses... God...
Posted by Jared,
3:45 AM
-
Hell and Logic: a diversion
Bonus Question on a chemistry mid-term at the University of Washington: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
"First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.
As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.
With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.
Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This leaves two possibilities:
1) If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2) If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over...
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "...it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having an affair with her, then #2 above cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze over."
After reading this, I have a problem with this answer.
First, there must have been people that have said "I will sleep with you when hell freezes over' to someone who they later did sleep with. Unless we have reason to take Teresa's word over theres this does nothing to resolve the choice between the two possibilities at the end of the essay.
Second, even if we accept the postulate about Teresa's word being determinate, we cannot conclude that hell is not expanding. Teresa could sleep with the author or the exam in the future: we do not know that. Hell could freeze over tomorrow and teresa could sleep with him tomorrow. If that is the case, then today hell would be expanding, on its way to freezing over! Or hell could be expanding at such a rate that by the time it freezes over, noth Teresa and the exam's author will be dead. So the student cannot be sure that hell will not freeze over.
You know, last time Al Qaeda-linked operatives assassinated a "resistance" leader in a country in which said Al Qaeda operatives were likely to be attacked, a few days later they flew commercial jetliners into the World Trade Center. Like I said, broad brushing, but just something worth pointing out.
Posted by Jonathan,
12:19 AM
-
Sunday, February 09, 2003 The Term Crusade
The coming issue of the Jacko-Lantern makes fun of the student group, Campus Crusade for Christ, for its use of the word Crusade in its name. The mock Jacko article remembers back to the rather bloody Crusades of a thousand years ago, and asks if the current group has similarly intolerant, bloody and potentially anti-Islam aspirations.
I was wondering if you all thought the Jacko is being too hard, or if this group opens itself to such criticism with such a 'proselytizing' name?
Posted by Jared,
11:02 PM
-
Experimentally Reproducable Phenomenon Discovered by Hendler!
Now we just need to figure out how to fix the endemic infighting and maybe we can get things done. I think the solution is to appoint a Communist Ruling Committee to govern us all with an iron fist : )
Herr Alessandroni, it's ad hominem in the accusative. Not ad hominim, which can't exist. Anyway...yawn. Stop boring me.
Posted by Michael,
7:49 PM
-
Well, given that we're a nation founded by terrorists...
Well, depends on the definition, but it might be interesting to see what would happen if we called them all "Patriots".
This week, 14 patriots were taken prisoner without legal representation or formal accusation. Other patriots responded - We will not give up our fight against the oppressors. The oppressors responded, saying, Yeah, but you'll lose, wahahahah. It would make a great epic movie, except we'd have to find big-name actors who weren't white, black, or J-Lo.
Posted by Jared,
7:23 PM
-
If you're going to comment
On a post, you should read it. I said, [paraphrasing] that you can't assign some chimerical inherent desire for space travel to humanity in response to an unfounded statement that you made to the contrary. Then I said - you half-quoted again as apparently actual quoting would be too hard for your argument - that "I think there's a lot more that's noble..." etc. Just like Pyrrhic and your ridiculous repitition of the phrase ad hominim, the word "cockshure" [sic - it's hyphenated] are archaic and sound ridiculous and contrived coming from you, but, it's really ridiculous to call any phrase "cock-shure" that begins with I think. And that's more than a typo.
Anyway, no, namby-pamby [another silly word] refers to simple and sentimental; saying that there are more noble things than the sheer thrill of new discoveries [itself a sentimental and childish thing] can't in its saying be namby-pamby, nor can any sweeping generalization. Anyway, that's a semantic point, but an argument that we develop our interests as part of our life-experiences - that they are not in-born - is only relativistic if you're bitterly trying to make a point about your own interests, pin those interests on others, and in doing so ignore basic scientific and logical arguments. Otherwise, it's just fact, cock-shure or not.
Posted by Jared,
7:13 PM
-
So... Norman Schwarzkopf and Madeline Albright on NBC's "Meet the Press".
Iraq, war, taken by Schwarzkopf who says that war is sometimes neccessary but (...paraphrazing...) that Donald Rumsfeld is starting (to do what Napoleon warned against by) enjoy the attention, politics and general excitement of war for those leading it... If the democrats continue to be able to find and convince moderate generals to speak for us/them, maybe people will begin to take our military/defense recommendations seriously? Bodes well for the world... and I MISS ALBRIGHT.
Posted by Nikhil,
7:00 PM
-
Space Program Analysis
Eh, nothing new there. If it hadn't been for that silly Vietnam conflict... ;-) If only they had listened to me, we'd have colonized the lunar surface and Mars by now. But I think the next decade shows a lot of promise, especially with the introduction of the Chinese manned space program this October. Ad Astra Per (Aspera | Cupiditatem)....not that the Romans had regular expressions.
When troops arrive in Kuwait -- usually in cargo planes or in commercial jets chartered by the military -- they travel to base camps in civilian buses with curtains that are drawn so potential terrorists don't see in. - NYT
That's interesting. Now if you attack military units deploying for war, you're also a terrorist.
Posted by Jonathan,
3:14 PM
-
And Noah Webster says...
...that "Phyrrhic," as you've written it, capped or uncapped, is not a word, period. It helps, if you want to play pedant, not to f*ck it up. As for my point - you make the implication that "following the things that we're taught to follow" in diametrical opposition to the idea of the inherent worth of things, yet you then follow with a cocksure statement about there being "a lot more that's noble...and a lot to be said about people who can't think beyond it." By devaluing the assignment of worth to exploration as a "mere product" of what we're taught, you've also forfeited your own right to make sweeping claims, lest you provide some criteria from outside the epistemic paradigm you've created that justifies the value of your claim over others. Otherwise, it's the same namby-pamby relativistic bullshit of which you're accusing others. Or perhaps, as usual, I've "misinterpreted you." Perhaps this blog should be a case study for Wittgenstein?
On a completely unrelated subject, as for AIDS in Africa, I'd rather see money going to education and prevention than to antiretrovirals that really work wonders on your health (read: make you feel like someone gave you a Zhenka (tm) enema) and that require a good amount of scheduling and discipline in administration to be effective. Giving people antiretrovirals does not "stem an epidemic," it merely prolongs the lives of its carriers and, if the US is an example, might contribute to a more careless attitude toward sex. Maybe you think it's a good thing, but a great many people have argued that the fact that people think "AIDS is no longer a big deal if you can get the drugs" is leading to increasing infection rates...by the way, does anyone know how most people in the US that are infected contract AIDS? I'm curious. I am assuming that in Africa it is unprotected sex? I'd like some more information, particularly on the US side of things.
Two excellent articles from yesterday's New York Times:
A heartening account of fighting the AIDS crisis in Africa. With a little money and the latest retrovirals, it becomes surprisingly easy to stem the epidemic there. We just need enough bigwigs behind the cause, from those in the pharmaceutical companies to those in local African government. Doctors Without Borders is doing incredible things in Africa (and elsewhere).
Here is a thoughtful analysis of the space program. Let's just say no one should be planning on a trip to Mars anytime soon (ahem, Mr. Shafer).
Posted by Laura,
2:19 PM
-
I think you meant... Phyrrhic - if it's not capped, it refers to metrical notation, says my 10th grade English self. As for my argumentative self, it says your point?
Posted by Jared,
12:16 PM
-
The Importance of Being Self-Important
In light of this:
It is, in response to our esteemed New York Times editors, in terms of silly little things like science and logic, a blatant lie. We follow the things that we've been taught to follow. Some of us care about life, some about computers, some about abstract metaphysics. It's not in-born, it's a product of our lives.
Wave high the flag of pyrrhic victory as this is written:
Space is any more important? We don't stop the world when a few scientists or teachers die, or thousands of poor people in an earthquake. Some people prefer purple prose and icons when they look for what matters, don't they? Well, as thousands of people die every day with noone noticing, as countries dicate and children are abused, weapons are built and dictators like our own "president" give hollow people meaning through these symbols. And you call it noble - the "sheer thrill of exploration and new discoveries". I think there's a lot more that's noble, and there's a lot to be said about people who can't think beyond it.
