History Channel Fact

"Moonshine" - following the American Revolution, we were in big time debt so the first congress decided to tax distilled alcohol. Naturally, liquor producers moved their stills into the woods and conducted their business at night "by the light of the moon." Lesson: Americans have never liked taxes (a.k.a. the United States has always been conservative).

Biased Professor - Monica Casper: Women's Studies

Required Readings

WS 265: Politics of Reproductive Rights
Killing the Black Body by Dorothy Roberts
Geek Love by Katherine Dunn
Testing Women, Testing the Fetus by Rayna Rapp (feminist)
Conceiving the New World Order by Faye Ginsburg, Rayna Rapp (feminist)
Fetal Subjects and Feminist Positions by Lynn Marie Morgan
Undivided Rights: Women of Color Organize for Reproductive Justice by Jael Silliman

Conceiving the New World Order: The feminist vision here is large, theoretically incisive, detailed, empirically deep, and politically inspiring.

Rapp, a feminist anthropologist at the New School for Social Research; Her analysis of the intersection of reproductive and disability rights and their links to feminist and power issues is interesting. This timely work provides scholars and reproductive rights activists a forum for dialogue about fetuses without conceding to a moral or political agenda that would sanctify them at women’s expense (Fetal Subjects).

Killing the Black Body: The denial of Black reproductive autonomy serves the interests of white supremacy,'' using a black feminist lens and the issue of the impact of recent legislation, social policy, and welfare "reform" on black women's--especially poor black women's--control over their bodies' autonomy and their freedom to bear and raise children with respect and dignity in a society whose white mainstream is determined to demonize, even criminalize their lives. It gives its readers a cogent legal and historical argument for a radically new , and socially transformative, definition of "liberty" and "equality" for the American polity from a black feminist perspective. The author is able to combine the most innovative and radical thinking on several fronts--racial theory, feminist, and legal--to produce a work that is at once history and political treatise.

• When I went to Undivided Rights at Amazon, one of the books listed on "Customers who bought this book also bought:" was Killing the Black Body. Likewise, when I went to Testing Women, Testing the Fetus, the list included Conceiving the New World Order. It doesn't appear there's a whole lot of diversity here.

Biased Professor - Brooke Ackerly: Political Science

Required Readings

PSCI 201: Contemporary Political Theory
Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era by Seyla Benhabib
Justice as Fairness by John Rawls
Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights by Will Kymlicka (liberal)
Justice, Gender, and Family by Susan Moller Okin (feminist)

PSCI 209: Issues Political Theory
Feminist Thought by Rosemarie Putnam Tong

From Library Journal: Okin, also author of Women in Western Political Thought ( LJ 1/15/80), here is concerned with the lack of justice experienced by American women in both the public and private spheres. Lack of justice in the private sphere of gender-structured marriage leads to a lack of justice in the public sphere of the work place, the professions, and politics. Marriage makes women vulnerable due to the devaluation of human reproductive work and the persistence of a traditional division of labor within marriage. Divorce compounds the problem since it results in poverty for many women. This is a strong study of the contradictions in a democratic form of government, but Okin's recommendations lack analysis and are not fully linked to the political and economic arena... this is the first feminist critique of modern political theory that in shows why and how in order to include all of us, theories of justice need to apply their standards to the family itself.

Book Description: Multicultural Citizenship. It argues that certain "collective rights" of minority cultures are consistent with liberal democratic principles, and that standard liberal objections to such rights can be answered. However, the author emphasizes that no single formula can be applied to all groups, and that the needs and aspirations of immigrants are very different from those of indigenous peoples and national minorities. He looks at issues such as language rights, group representation, religious education, federalism, and secession--issues central to an understanding of multicultural politics, but which have been neglected in contemporary liberal theory.

Biased Professor: Elizabeth Boyd - American and Southern Studies

Required Readings

AMST 110: Intro to American and Southern Studies
Global Woman by Barbara Ehrenreich
Crossing the Boulevard by Warren Lehrer
Beyond Borders: Thinking Critically About Global Issues by Paula Rothenberg
The Impossible Will Take a Little While by Paul Rogat Loeb

AMST 226: Gender, Race, and Class
Where we Stand: Class Matters by bell hooks
Seeing a Color-Blind Future: The Paradox of Race by Patricia Williams (race theory, leftist)
White Privilege by Paula Rothenberg (ideologically extreme; neo-marxist)
Race, Class, and Gender by Margaret Andersen
Without a Net: The Female Experience of Growing up Working Class by Michelle Tea

From Publishers Weekly: The Impossible Will Take a Little While
In this uneven collection, Loeb, author of Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time, gathers together over sixty poems, memoirs and essays tailored to buck up the spirits of a left-liberal audience depressed by the sorry state of the world. Although generally in favor of justice and democracy and against the "runaway global market," the selection of writers includes a wide range of environmentalists, civil rights crusaders, anti-poverty activists and dissidents against both fascism and communism. From these eclectic offerings some hopeful, albeit familiar themes assert themselves: ordinary people can make a difference, every little bit counts, in solidarity there is strength, a positive attitude is half the battle, the powers that be are unexpectedly vulnerable, and history is full of surprising victories of the weak over the strong. Not surprisingly, many of the pieces amount to motivational lectures, while others inflate the notion of hope into tiresome dilations on, for example, the links between information processing, daydreams and butterflies. But the articles that deal with concrete struggles and achievements—Nelson Mandela’s memoir of imprisonment on Robben Island, Vaclav Havel’s account of the ant-like construction of civil society and a dissident political culture in Communist Czechoslovakia, Bill McKibben’s homage to the urban planning triumphs of Curitiba, Brazil—deliver real inspiration.

Seeing a Color-Blind Future comprises five essays that author Patricia J. Williams presented at the highly prestigious Reith lectures in Britain. Erroneously perceived by some conservative British papers as a "militant black feminist" Williams proves in these highly readable and intelligent essays that she is an influential and important voice in race theory. Williams and other left law professionals theorize on "quiet racism." This is a racism that doesn't make newspaper headlines but occurs all the time. It is the taunting of black children by white children in the playground, it is being singled out in a crowd because you are black, it is not being viewed as the "norm." Williams asks, "How can it be that so many well meaning white people have never thought about race when so few blacks pass a single day without being reminded of it?" Reviewed by Cornel West, Gloria Steinem, Studs Terkel

Academic Freedom: Questions of Principle

1. Do you agree that the fundamental mission of the university in the Western tradition is and should continue to be the fulfillment of the following general principles:

(a) the disinterested pursuit of truth;
(b) educating in the classical liberal tradition;
(c) the advancement of mankind's general knowledge;

2. Do you agree with John Stuart Mill that advancements in mankind's knowledge of "truth" depend on an intellectual environment with:

(a) unrestrained freedom of speech
(b) a diversity of views being that truth requires ideas to continuously undergo challenge and be exposed to competition;
(c) an absence of censorship, intimidation, or other attempt to silence thought and stifle competition.

Or similarly with Justice Powell's view that:

"The Nation's future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth`out of a multitude of tongues,[rather] than through any kind of authoritative selection."

3. If you agree with this mission for the university (1) and believe Mill's analysis to be correct -to make progress in the search for "truth" and increase mankind's general knowledge requires a liberally educated society committed to individual liberty - (2) , would it be fair to characterize "academic freedom" as the means of achieving the university's desired ends as opposed to some transcendent principle which has value whether it aids or hinders the mission of the university?

In other words, is academic freedom a privilege which society bestowed upon college professors with the understanding and expectation that by providing intellectuals with the security of not having to fear repercussions or censorship, the free discussion of diverse ideas could thrive and produce new knowledge? Does academic freedom hinge on a presumption of good faith on the behalf of universities?

Or as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor suggested in the court's Grutter v. Bollinger opinion regarding the University of Michigan's use of affirmative action in its admissions policies:

"Our conclusion that the Law School has a compelling interest in a diverse student body is informed by our view that attaining a diverse student body is at the heart of the Law School's proper institutional mission, and that ‘good faith' on the part of a university is ‘presumed' absent ‘a showing to the contrary.'"

I believe this is a good place for me to stop and wait for your response lest I spend several thousand words trying to persuade you on something we already agree on. I'm sure you had no problem discerning how I would've answered those questions so if you disagree in all or in part about anything I'll be looking forward to proving you wrong. Otherwise, it's okay to admit how frustrating it is for me to always be right, and I'll go on with my argument. Because I'm nice, I've ended with an excerpt from a 1915 statement of principles issued by the AAUP that might figure into your answer to my third question. And since you are, after all, not kidding about being a liberal, I thought I would bring special attention to those parts you're likely to find foreign and hard to relate to.

Fondly, The Conservative

"Since there are no rights without corresponding duties, the considerations heretofore set down with respect to the freedom of the academic teacher entail certain correlative obligations. The claim to freedom of teaching is made in the interest of integrity and of the progress of scientific inquiry...The university teacher, in giving instructions upon controversial matters, while he is under no obligation to hide his own opinion under a mountain of equivocal verbiage, should, if he is fit in dealing with such subjects, set forth justly, without suppression or innuendo, the divergent opinions of other investigators; he should cause his students to become familiar with the best published expressions of the great historic types of doctrine upon the questions at issue; and he should, above all, remember that his business is not to provide his students with ready-made conclusions, but to train them to think for themselves, and to provide them access to those materials which they need if they are to think intelligently."

Students for Academic Freedom Report

Students for Academic Freedom is exclusively dedicated to the following goals:

1. To promote intellectual diversity on campus.
2. To defend the right of students to be treated with respect by faculty and administrators, regardless of their political or religious beliefs.
3. To promote fairness, civility, and inclusion in student affairs.
4. To secure adoption of the Academic Bill of Rights as official university policy, and the Student Bill of Rights as a resolution in student governments.
   

What is an Abuse of Academic Freedom?

Students for Academic Freedom supports the free speech rights of professors and believes that faculty members should be able to determine the content of their courses. These rights, however, do not provide a license to use the classroom as a political soapbox, or provide an excuse for a professor to ridicule or otherwise demean particular religious or cultural views
a student may hold. Nor do they supersede professors’ obligations to uphold professional educational standards. These include fairness to all students. They include the responsibility to make students aware of the spectrum of scholarly viewpoints on any given subject. They include the responsibility to counsel students and to encourage their intellectual development. Treating students as political adversaries is counter-productive to this task. These professional standards are recognized by the American Association of University Professors and have been since 1915.

In 1915, the American Association of University Professors issued its first report on Academic Freedom and Tenure. The premise of this report was that human knowledge is a never-ending pursuit of the truth; that there is no humanly accessible truth that is not in principle open to challenge; and that no party or intellectual faction can be assumed to have a monopoly on wisdom. Therefore, learning is most likely to thrive in an environment of intellectual diversity that protects and fosters independence of thought and speech.

According to the AAUP’s professional guidelines, professors have an obligation to present their students with a diverse range of scholarly opinions on the subjects that they teach and should not deviate from their lesson plan to bring up controversial matters that have no bearing on the subjects. Violations of this professional conduct code include:

a. Assigning required readings or texts covering only one side of controversial issues (e.g., texts that are only pro- or anti-affirmative action)

b. Introducing controversial material that has no relation to the subject of the course (ex: making remarks on political issues in a math or science class; lecturing on the war in a class that is not about the war or about international relations)

c. Compelling students to express a certain point of view in assignments (e.g., at a college in Colorado a professor assigned students in a mid-term evaluation to explain why George W. Bush is a war criminal.)

d. Mocking national political or religious figures in a onesided manner (e.g., singling out only liberals for riducule or only conservatives)

e. Conducting political activities in class (e.g., recruiting students to attend political demonstrations or providing extra credit for political activism-type assignments)

f. Grading a students' political or religious beliefs (e.g., grading a student more leniently when they agree with the professor’s viewpoint on matters of opinion)

Academic Bill of Rights

I. Mission of the University

The central purposes of a University are the pursuit of truth, the discovery of new knowledge through scholarship and research, the study and reasoned criticism of intellectual and cultural traditions, the teaching and general development of students to help them become creative individuals and productive citizens of a pluralistic democracy, and the transmission of knowledge and learning to a society at large. Free inquiry and free speech within the academic community are indispensable to the achievement of these goals. The freedom to teach and to learn depend upon the creation of appropriate conditions and opportunities on the campus as a whole as well as in the classrooms and lecture halls. These purposes reflect the values—pluralism, diversity, opportunity, critical intelligence, openness and fairness—that are the cornerstones of American society.

II. Academic Freedom

1. The Concept. Academic freedom and intellectual diversity are values indispensable to the American university. From its first formulation in the General Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure of the American Association of University Professors, the concept of academic freedom has been premised on the idea that human knowledge is a never-ending pursuit of the truth, that there is no humanly accessible truth that is not in principle open to challenge, and that no party or intellectual faction has a monopoly on wisdom. Therefore, academic freedom is most likely to thrive in an environment of intellectual diversity that protects and fosters independence of thought and speech. In the words of the General Report, it is vital to protect Òas the first condition of progress, [a] complete and unlimited freedom to pursue inquiry and publish its results. Because free inquiry and its fruits are crucial to the democratic enterprise itself, academic freedom is a national value as well. In a historic 1967 decision ( Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York ) the Supreme Court of the United States overturned a New York State loyalty provision for teachers with these words: Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, [a] transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned. In Sweezy v. New Hampshire, (1957) the Court observed that the essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities [was] almost self-evident.

2. The Practice. Academic freedom consists in protecting the intellectual independence of professors, researchers and students in the pursuit of knowledge and the expression of ideas from interference by legislators or authorities within the institution itself. This means that no political, ideological or religious orthodoxy will be imposed on professors and researchers through the hiring or tenure or termination process, or through any other administrative means by the academic institution. Nor shall legislatures impose any such orthodoxy through their control of the university budget. This protection includes students. From the first statement on academic freedom, it has been recognized that intellectual independence means the protection of students—as well as faculty—from the imposition of any orthodoxy of a political, religious or ideological nature. The 1915 General Report admonished faculty to avoid taking unfair advantage of the student’s immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher’s own opinions before the student has had an opportunity fairly to examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before he has sufficient knowledge and ripeness of judgment to be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his own. In 1967, the AAUP’s Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students reinforced and amplified this injunction by affirming the inseparability of the freedom to teach and freedom to learn. In the words of the report, Students should be free to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in any course of study and to reserve judgment about matters of opinion.

Therefore, to secure the intellectual independence of faculty and students and to protect the principle of intellectual diversity, the following principles and procedures shall be observed.

These principles fully apply only to public universities and to private universities that present themselves as bound by the canons of academic freedom. Private institutions choosing to restrict academic freedom on the basis of creed have an obligation to be as explicit as is possible about the scope and nature of these restrictions.

Political Conformity on College Campuses Unacceptable

According to a survey conducted by Frank Luntz following the 2000 Presidential elections, 84% of Ivy League professors voted for Al Gore whereas only 7% admitted to casting their ballots for George W. Bush. Similar, if not more lopsided, results recurred 4 years later in the ‘04 race.

Opensecrets.org, a website that tracks federal campaign contributions made by both individuals and institutions reported the 20 colleges and universities which donated the most in this past presidential election cycle. Leading the pack were the University of California at Berkeley, Harvard, and Stanford which favored Democratic candidates by 92%, 96%, and 92% respectively. Democrats received majority contributions from all 20 schools. 12 schools favored Democrats by over 90% and all but 2 of the 20 institutions of higher learning donated more than 84% of funds to Democrats. The most pro-Republican school which made the list was the University of Texas, and although George W. Bush is a Texan native, the 38% of funds he received from his state’s largest public university was approximately the same as the support he received from Massachusetts in the official election (37%).

As these results demonstrate, America’s institutions of higher learning consist of faculties which overwhelmingly hold liberal political views. And if you doubt or question these results, there are multitudinous other studies that confirm these conclusions. So, what does this mean and why is extreme conformity of intellectual thought on college campuses so unacceptable?

The homogeneity of political views on college campuses is problematic because it interferes with the central purpose intended for the university according to the Western tradition: the disinterested pursuit of “truth.” In order to faithfully carry out this mission, conditions amenable to the search for truth must be present. What are these conditions and what environment is required? When answering this question, it’s useful to recall the wisdom expressed by John Stuart Mill in his famous essay On Liberty.

In this seminal masterpiece, the 19th century’s greatest champion of individual liberty laid out a compelling case that one of the prerequisites for the triumph of truth is the presence of diverse viewpoints because otherwise orthodox opinion, whatever it may be at any particular time and among any particular group, will gain a monopoly and go unchallenged. That is to say, if any one belief is shared by all or a large enough percentage of individuals whereby the small minority of those who dissent are intimidated or prevented from presenting their alternate perspective, the accepted belief will be assumed to be true beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore cease to receive the scrutiny it deserves. And why does this matter?

Because, as J.S. Mill so thoughtfully noted, few if any opinions are entirely true, and likewise, few if any opinions are wholly false. In other words, even those views which enjoy clear consensus support almost certainly are incomplete and would benefit from challenges by opposing arguments which might lead to amendments to the orthodox view or their reconfirmation which would further cement their validity. In either case, the incentives to include diverse perspectives, and the academic value gained from the presence of heterogenous political ideas are undeniable.

Additionally, the educational disservice and the psychological damage visited upon college students who are exposed to only one political ideology register additional strikes against acquiescing to the status quo - liberal dominance in the world of academia. What message is the university currently sending to conservative minded students whose deeply held beliefs (although shared by a majority of Americans) are consistently derided and uniformly subjugated to secondary if not tertiary status by their professors? The answer is that it sends a message that is antithetical to accomplishing one of the most cherished goals espoused by the university: diversity.

The Supreme Court has rejected the argument that affirmative action is necessary to correct historical discrimination. The sole justification for using racial preferences in college admissions recognized by the Supreme Court in the landmark Bakke case (1978) was the educational benefit of having diverse views represented in the classroom. However, while colleges throughout the United States routinely lower their academic standards when considering "minority" applicants (read: everyone who is not a white male), they have, in fact, done everything possible to discourage true diversity - diversity of thought. Moreover, they have yet to offer any indication that, if left to their own devices, plans to remedy the widespread ideological conformity would be on the horizon. So, how does this conformity undermine the goal of diversity?

(1) Conservative students come to realize that their professors - intellectuals they look to as role models during a period when they are attempting to determine what to do with their lives - consistently hold political views alien to their own. In the absence of political opinions among faculty members which resemble or correspond with their own, conservative undergraduates naturally are left with the impression that, among academics, their views are considered (a) intellectually inferior, (b) unfit in the world of serious scholarship, and (c) effectively disqualifying them from an academic career.

(2) it creates an ideologically homogenous enclave which gives rise to the perception of consensus on topics which are, in actuality, widely disputed in the arena of public opinion. This false impression breeds an overconfidence that encourages the hostile, mocking, and derisive treatment of contrary positions.

Both of these effects, thus, make the present intellectual climate self-perpetuating and unlikely to improve absent some form of external pressure. Political homogeneity will continue to have an unwelcoming impact on conservative college students who, in terms of intellectual merit, are perfectly capable yet in terms of their political sentiments, totally anomalous. In addition to creating an uninviting environment (due to the high probability of colleague ostracism and exclusion) for potential conservative academics, this monopoly shelters academics from opposing views and leads them to assume there is consensus on various issues (after all, all of their colleagues agree) which (in the real world outside the ivory tower) the American public is sharply divided over... (to be continued)

Eminent Domain

Since the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, I've already seen several instances of "eminent domain" being used to confiscate private property. One of the guests on Hannity & Colmes tonight formerly owned a small tire shop but was forced to sell his property so Sears could move in and take his place. This should be intolerable for both liberals and conservatives alike. Private property is the foundation of our freedoms, and the Kelo decision has bastardized the entire concept.

Herding Cats: A Life in Politics, by Trent Lott

Question: Senator, do you think in our congress we'll ever be able to get rid of the pork situation?

Senator Trent Lott: Well, first of all, you'd have to define what is pork. I have quite often defined it as federal spending north of Memphis.

Mary Mapes, OMG

RUSH: Okay, gotta hear this. We got a lot more sound bites of this, but this is the money sound bite. Brian Ross today talking to Mary Mapes of CBS says, "After 12 years of defending him, CBS and Dan Rather later admitted they couldn't vouch for the authenticity of the documents, Bill Burkett's documents, and that they should not have been used and the story should not have aired. Do you," Mary Mapes, "still think the story was true?"

MAPES: The story? Absolutely.

ROSS: This seems remarkable to me that you would sit here now and say you still find that story to be up to your standards.

MAPES: I'm perfectly willing to believe those documents are forgeries if there's proof that I haven't seen.

ROSS: But isn't it the other way around? Don't you have to prove they're authentic?

MAPES: Well, I think that's what critics of the story would say. I know more now than I did then, and I think -- I think -- they have not been proved to be false yet.

ROSS: Have they proved to be authentic, though? Isn't that really what journalists do?

MAPES: No, I don't think that's the standard.

RUSH: No, she doesn't think that's the standard! Do you understand what you just heard? Mary Mapes, Dan Rather's producer, 60 Minutes II: no, the standard is not on us to prove they're authentic. What she's saying is the standard is on critics to prove that they're not. She can take anything she wants, put it on the air, without authenticating it, without verifying it, and it's up to critics to disprove it. Now, I think what's going on here, I don't think she's that far out when it comes to all these people in the mainstream press. I think this is the way they look at things. I really do! It's up to the critics to prove this is not true. That's why Rather is out there still saying he wishes he could pursue the story. He still believes it's true even though the documents may be forged. He still thinks the story is true because nobody's proven the story isn't true even though they've proven the documents are forgeries, which Mary Mapes still can't admit. I mean, this is a true basket case in front of your eyes.

Daily Journal Entries

• Tax Gouging – $.63 = taxes (local+state+federal) on 1 gallon of gasoline in NY; national average = ±$.45/gallon. If "Big Oil" is making 10% profits on each gallon of gasoline sold, and that is considered excessive, what do we make of government profits that are 4-6 times that?
• 3 bombs detonated in American hotels in Jordan; one suicide bomber blew himself up after walking into a Muslim wedding party — illustrative of terrorist outlook. In my opinion, this contradicts those who are of the mindset that Americans are primarily responsible for the terrorists' actions. Why would they deliberately murder fellow Muslims if they were simply "insurgents?"

Federal Income Taxes Charts (updated)

The Content of Our Character, by Shelby Steele

"Social victims may be collectively entitled, but they are all too often individually demoralized. Since the social victim has been oppressed by society, he comes to feel that his individual life will be improved more by changes in society than by his own initiative. Without realizing it, he makes society rather than himself the agent of change." p. 14.

"Personal responsibility is the brick and mortar of power." p. 33

"Another liability of affirmative action comes from the fact that it indirectly encourages blacks to exploit their own past victimization as a source of power and privilege. Victimization, like implied inferiority, is what justifies preference, so that to receive the benefits of preferential treatment one must, to some extent, become invested in the view of one's self as a victim. In this way, affirmative action nurtures a victim-focused identity in blacks. The obvious irony here is that we become inadvertently invested in the very condition we are trying to overcome." p. 118

"It is certainly true that white maleness has long been an unfair source of power. But the sin of white male power is precisely its use of race and gender as a source of entitlement. When minorities and women use their race, ethnicity, and gender in the same way, they not only commit the same sin but also, indirectly, sanction the very form of power that oppressed them in the first place." p. 141

I Love Black Conservatives Part 1

Clarence Thomas

Federal Income Taxes Charts

The rich don't pay enough in taxes?

YUCK

Bill and Hillary kissing

Sociology 102 Assignment #2

Assignment: How would I respond to that bitch's statement on the inner-city poor using information from assigned readings and discussing crime and cultural theories. (And be sure to sound liberal because this is a sociology class)

"Finished" and Printed by 8:01 A.M.

Woman: "I’ve read some Anderson. I think that if that’s the way those people want to live, then we should just let them alone. I mean, it’s their choice."

William: Slow down. I need you to define "those people," tell me how it is they live, and then give your reasons for why we should leave them alone.

Woman: The niggardly conditions of impoverished inner-cities are the inevitable result of the self-destructive behaviors practiced by its inhabitants. Individuals who graduate from high school, hold steady employment, and marry without first having children are virtually guaranteed a middle-class life. In the inner-cities, people seem almost oblivious to these realities. Individuals place little value on education, choose street life and crime over legitimate occupations, and the single-parent household has become the norm.

Public education offers universal access to the first condition. Census Bureau surveys suggest the number of involuntarily unemployed is small, and no one has a child without choosing to have sex. Students of inner-city schools are far more likely to drop out, and while young black males are far less likely to be employed than their Hispanic and white counterparts, one third of them will spend time in prison at some point in life. Two-thirds of black children are born out of wedlock. These are choices with predictable outcomes which only the individual can make, and until urban communities’ behavior changes, there’s nothing we can do.

William: Everyone agrees that behavior needs to change, but people don’t act in a vacuum. Decisions are made within a context of constraints and opportunities, and inner-city residents encounter obstacles that those in the middle-class do not. Moreover, the paucity of material and non-material resources available to individuals living in areas of concentrated poverty constricts the role of agency in determining outcomes. As Anderson points out, this means "decent" families that promote mainstream values suffer for reasons they have no ability to control (Anderson, 267). We seem to agree on some of the most important problems: schools, jobs, violent crime, and family deterioration. However, I believe we should focus on the culture of poverty instead of the faults of the individual. The failure to appreciate the central role of ghetto culture in shaping these choices, leads us to stereotype all urban families as degenerate and blinds us to possibilities for improvement.

Woman: It sounds like you’re saying we shouldn’t place any responsibility on the individual. How does this differ from shifting blame away from criminals and absent fathers and placing it on abstract forces beyond anyone’s control? Perhaps I overgeneralized by implying all inner-city residents placed themselves in that position, but I don’t think poverty or the criminal behavior of others determines one’s outcome. Why do you think these external cultural conditions are so important, how do you see their impact?

William: A look into violent crime’s importance in poor urban neighborhoods highlights the host of ways that inner-city residents are harmed by the rippling cultural effects beyond their control. Due to proximity, the most frequent victims of criminal acts are other poor people living in the ghetto. This threat increases incentives not to appear vulnerable and to convey an aura of toughness. As Elijah Anderson describes, this often means familiarizing oneself with the "code of the street" and adopting to its modes of behavior. Respect becomes key. The indirect consequences of crime, on the other hand, can often be more devastating.

Finding a job is an important way of distancing onself from the influences of street life; however, the concentration of violence deters businesses from entering their neighborhoods and thus makes it even harder to escape. Gang presences near inner-city schools result in an unruly and ineffective learning environment. As a result, decent inner-city kids are less likely to gain the skills and forms of human capital that are necessary for a life in the middle-class.

As crime grows, those who are capable leave. This further increases the concentration of poverty and bad role-models. Because cultural capital is transformed through life’s experiences and observations, poor youths are now less likely to acquire resources that apply away from the context of street life. The complexity of the causes and effects of crime on the well-being of inner-city persons demonstrates how cultural changes often victimize decent people unrelated to deviance in the form of losses in capital and opportunities to make the best choices. It also underscores the importance of addressing problems of the ghetto poor in a variety of what might seem to be unrelated areas.

Woman: If these problems are so interrelated, how can we realistically hope to fix them? What role can schools play in ending the present cycle?

William: Probably not much right now. The creation of voucher programs carry the potential to reverse this, and parents of children caught in failing schools overwhelmingly support it. How would this work? Students would receive vouchers equivalent to per-student costs and have the ability to use them at the school of their choice. The idea is that this would increase competitiveness by forcing bad schools to become more accountable and by rewarding successful schools. Perhaps of equal importance, a voucher program could enable students to escape the influences of "street" values and experience middle-class norms. They would be around people whom they could gain cultural capital from and have opportunities to build healthier networks, groups, and support systems through extracurricular activities such as sports. However, the success of such a program might be contingent on how far along the student was in his education. The key is to start as early as possible because this is when children are first beginning to form habits and skills. Adolescent voucher recipients who come from miserable inner-city schools find they don’t have the skills to cope with increased academic expectations.

Another way to fight violence and the culture of poverty is by making it less concentrated. Government public housing programs have, in the past, probably exacerbated this problem. However, a "mixed income" project currently underway in Atlanta that limits occupants receiving public assistance to 40% of all residents has seen a 90% reduction in crime and a considerable increase in employment.

Unfortunately, no reform is likely to yield radical changes overnight. It takes time to reverse decade long trends. Cultural norms and capital accumulation develop cross-generationally. However, seeing the problem of concentrated poverty as essentially one of culture will begin to help us along the right path.

Sociology 102 Assignment #1

The growing gap between high and low income earners coupled with stagnant to increasing rates of poverty reflect trends which many find troubling, if not inconsistent with America’s egalitarian principles. How can a nation that prides itself on the opportunities it offers for upward social mobility produce such realities, and what approach must it adopt to change them?

On this first question, pundits from across the political spectrum seem to agree on several main causes: globalization, a reduction in demand for unskilled labor, "skill biased" advances in technology, a falling real minimum wage, and a decline in unionization. Answers to the second question, on the other hand, are less apparent and often hotly debated. In light of the rising premium placed on highly skilled workers, some believe providing all citizens access to a college education could present a solution; however, this approach contains three major flaws: it miscalculates costs and benefits, neglects behavior problems associated with low income, and it overstates the extent of the problem.

One set of weaknesses in the "universal access" proposal arises in its excessive optimism towards low income students’ larger enrollment and conversely, in its insouciance to the possible negative side-effects. For example, although Germany offers its citizens the option of a free college education, a larger proportion of the poor receive higher education in America which has tuition fees. Extensive financial aid provisions make this possible so that, on average, students from median income families pay only 34% of prices charged by selective colleges (Economist, 9). Secondly, the observation that higher levels of education correspond to greater earning power can be misleading. According to the "skill bias" hypothesis, workers who receive the same amounts of education nevertheless experience disparate wages due to differences in the skills they possess (Ferguson, 72). This phenomenon might occur either as a result of technological changes that make some skills more valuable than others or simply because students’ skill level varies depending on the quality of the school they attended (Thernstrom, 15).

The failure to consider behavioral choices relating to education, family structure, and employment status constitute another major shortcoming of the "universal access" approach to fighting poverty. According to 2001 Census Bureau data, the household poverty rate of 12% drops to a mere 1% when the primary wage earner had completed high school, worked full-time, and was married with less than two children (Sawhill, 83). To some extent, employment opportunities lay outside the individual’s control. On the other hand, evidence suggests a relative small number of involuntarily unemployed. 1999 Census Bureau interviews of the jobless found that only 6% of women and 12% of men could not find employment. Additionally, when Wisconsin changed its welfare requirements to include work, its recipients declined by 76% (Sawhill, 86). Out of wedlock births represent another instance of self-detrimental behavior. Among those in the lowest income bracket, this rate his nearly tripled since 1960, whereas in the highest quintile they have remained fairly constant. 35% of such households fall below the poverty line, and on average, children growing up in female-headed households do worse in school, and have greater likelihoods of going to prison and living in poverty as adults. Thus, while structural barriers deserve attention, any solution to poverty must take into account some unpleasant but consequential agency based decisions.

Random Writings

The rise of the global economic order has brought with it a number of significant changes. The demand for unskilled labor in the manufacturing sector has declined precipitously, causing many of those affected to voice their frustrations. On the other hand, this decrease has been counteracted by the sharp increase in demand for a highly skilled labor force. Naturally, those now prospering from changes in the economy are less vociferous than the afflicted, and the public often tends to get a one-sided view of the effects of globalization.

Despite my conviction that through the "creative destruction" inherent in the free-market capitalist system society as a whole benefits, my empathy for the necessary plight of the unskilled labor force justifies a discussion of what some have put forth as methods to alleviate this suffering. One of these ideas centers around the creation of a universal entitlement to a college education. This suggestion originates from the recognition that education is essential to success in the new economy, and as such, income should not be a barrier to higher education. Reasons for opposing this plan are abundant, and we can start by looking at the European model.

In most European countries, access to a free or highly subsidized college education is already treated as an entitlement. Universities, which for all practical reasons are totally funded by the state, are compelled to educate large numbers of students on the cheap. In making this deal with the state, they have sacrificed much of their autonomy over selecting students and faculty. As a result, the quality of education being offered has suffered and universities find themselves competing amongst other interests for funding by the government which they have become dependents of.

T.A. Editorial in Vanderbilt Hustler

U.S. Hubris, Consistent Record of Instrusion Catalysts of Sept. 11

by Corey Bike November 3, 2004

For the past three years, many hubristic Americans -- the president most of all -- have been responding to the question "Why do they hate us?" with naVve and self-adulating remarks such as, "they hate our freedoms," or "they are jealous of our prosperity." Apparently, these are such self-evident truths that an understanding of U.S. actions in the world is irrelevant, and therefore, need not be analyzed. But once again on Friday, in another video message by Osama bin Laden, "they" actually offered an answer to this question.

Unfortunately, however, both President Bush and Senator Kerry once more exemplified the pigheadedness of U.S. leaders by ignoring the content of the message and using the opportunity to see which candidate could provide a stronger display of bravado that undermines the rationality and self-reflection needed to keep the United States (and the world) safe. Neither candidate addressed what bin Laden actually said in the tape; and by not doing so, the United States will continue to fuel the animosity of many who are undeservedly subject to unjust and oppressive policies -- most of which have originated before Sept. 11 -- which robs one of hope and replaces it with terrorism.

In his videotape, bin Laden clearly stated that the best way to avoid another Sept. 11 was to stop threatening Muslim security. And despite what Americans believe about the benevolent intentions of the United States to "change the nature of the Middle East" (in the words of Condoleeza Rice), most Muslims would agree with bin Laden that U.S. efforts are not at all benevolent, but rather a direct attack on Muslim culture and security. It should not be seen as cowardice or fear of the enemy to take notice of this perspective. After all, bin Laden is the one who orchestrated the attacks on Sept. 11; wouldn't we want to know why he did it, and why he seeks to do it again? It is pointless to comfort ourselves with false notions of freedom-hating terrorists when it obscures the true nature of their animosity.

If we were serious about keeping the United States safe, we must candidly confront the sources of terrorism, not just the terrorist themselves. Bin Laden stated, "Any state that does not mess with our security has naturally guaranteed its own security." There is truth to this notion; it was true when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and it is true now. This is why the Swedes or the Swiss were not attacked on Sept. 11, two of the many countries that share the same freedom and prosperity as the United States.

By dismissing bin Laden's statement outright we failed to engage in the appropriate discourse that will deter us from a perilous road of more violence. Bin Laden also stated, "Despite entering the fourth year after Sept. 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you, and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened." In all fairness to the president, by this measure, Senator Kerry is still deceiving us too. In fact, deception cannot be limited to this presidential race at all, since U.S. intervention in the Muslim world stems back to at least the beginning of the 20th century. Hence, despite what many believe, there is a consistent record of U.S. intrusion prior to Sept. 11; one that consists of direct support for coup d'etats and dictatorial regimes (including Saddam in the 80s) and a standard pro-Israeli bias that has been an impediment to peace, and it has caused greater damage to innocent Palestinians than Israelis (the death ratio is three to one), both of which have a right to exist. The historical record should be the subject of much reflection, and the information is there for anyone concerned enough to find it.

But presently, it was Bush's decision to go into Iraq, and despite what administrative officials claim, it is not at all definite that the war has made the United States safer. In fact, if this video offers any insight to why the United States was targeted in the first place (which I believe it does), the United States will be a greater target (and by many more people) now than before the invasion.

The war in Iraq dragged the United States into a conflict with the Muslim world, one that is now viewed by many as a war of self-defense. Because of this, it is one that resonates with many more Muslims. Many Americans take more comfort in propagating simple answers about anti-American animosity rather than ascertaining them from the source itself, an approach to which any rational person would resort.

For three years we have known who carried out the attacks, but the "why" has been subject of much debate. Well, this latest videotape makes it clear. But the appeal to Americans to reconsider policy toward Muslim countries goes unheeded because of the U.S. refusal to "be intimidated" by terrorists, despite the same appeal made by many Americans (who are then condemned as anti-American) and by the vast majority of Muslims that are innocent and peaceful (but deemed irrelevant to U.S. interests even though it is their land). This is the worst form of hubris, the kind that has ruined every great power in the history of the world.

My Response

Blaming America First is Wrong

by William Drinkwater November 8, 2004

When he decides to apply for a position as an Osama Bin Laden speech-writer, Corey Bike should include as part of his resume his Nov. 3 article entitled, "U.S. hubris, consistent record of intrusion catalysts of Sept. 11." Everything about this column - its righteous condescension, its base hypocrisy and its ideologically driven detachment from reality - is repugnant. What really makes Bike's piece peculiar and what differentiates it from other "blame America first" rhetoric, is the moral and diplomatic credibility it gives Bin Laden.

Basically, Bike focuses on a Bin Laden videotape which he interprets as an appeal for Americans to leave behind hubris and a call to engage in constructive dialogue. If we rationally reflected on the fundamentally oppressive, malignant nature of U.S. foreign policy, he says, we would realize that the terrorists hate us, not because of our freedom but because America means to attack the Muslim community. In my opinion, this argument reflects a serious misunderstanding of the world; it's intellectually dishonest, morally bankrupt and ultimately a detriment to America's health as a nation.

This notion that al-Qaeda can be conciliated through diplomacy ignores the fact that the best available evidence suggests the contrary. As the 9/11 Commission Report correctly states, "there is no common ground - not even respect for life - on which to begin dialogue." Morever, Bin Laden's grievances with the United States include more than the perceived threats mentioned in the article. He also demands that we convert to Islam and end the immorality and godlessness that have made America the "worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind." Of course, if we stop and think about America's contributions to the world this statement seems quite remarkable.

It was America that first proved the idea that democratic government could be successful. It was largely thanks to American "intervention" that Western Europe gained liberation from fascism, and it was America that defeated Soviet Communism and removed the Iron Curtain's darkness from the lives of 100 million. Bin Laden also alleges in his latest videotape that George H.W. Bush, upon growing envious of the power of Muslim monarchs, decided to "install" his two sons as leaders. Clearly, lunacy of this magnitude should cause any rational American to seriously question Bin Laden's outlook on the world. Yet, there are those writing in Vanderbilt newspapers who would place more trust in a convicted terrorist than our own democratically elected representatives.

This is the bottom line. It is not possible to reach an understanding with individuals who can justify to themselves flying passenger jets full of human beings into buildings. Our two cultures have entirely different values. Bin Laden thinks America is the "Great Satan;" we pride ourselves on being the freest, greatest country in the world. Those who disagree with Bin Laden's fanatical vision of Islam, in his mind, deserve death; in America there is complete religious freedom. This is not, as some would suggest, a matter of American "imperialism," and simply withdrawing from the Middle East would not "naturally guarantee our security." Bike correctly recognizes that we must "confront the sources of terrorism, not just the terrorists themselves," but what he fails to realize is that Islamic radicalism, not the United States, presents the greatest danger.

When state-centered Arab regimes make it a priority to preserve elite control over national wealth, large segments of the young male population become more susceptible to radical influences. The Report also notes that most of the region's educational systems "generally devoted little if any attention to the rest of the world's thought, history, and culture," and as a result, even those receiving educations "lacked the perspective and skills needed to understand a different culture." And in contrast to Bike's claims, the Commission did find Arab resentment of the West's prosperity as a source of anti-Americanism.

Of course, the United States shares in the blame for cooperating with repressive dictators during the Cold War, but to say that our intentions are to bring injustice on Muslims rings hollow. Shortly following Sept. 11, the president clearly stated that "The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists." If the United States truly lacked concern for the Muslim people, the military would have bombed Fallujah to ashes months ago. Moreover, a democratic government has been established in Afghanistan. "Most Afghans enjoy greater freedom, women and girls are emerging from subjugation, and three million children have returned to school." As the Report so poignantly states, "For the first time in many years, Afghans have reason to hope."

Why those who seek to "blame America first" are so contemptuous of their own country, yet so willing to turn a blind eye to the real evil of terrorism, I will never understand. However, what truly concerns me is not Bike's elitist anti-Americanism, but rather his seeming endorsement and trust in Osama Bin Laden and what that means for Vanderbilt students. As a graduate student in the political science department, Bike will spend three years as a TA grading our exams and our papers so that one day he can become a teacher himself. If he is not personally capable of finding reliable sources (which Bin Laden is not one of) and evaluating the logic of his own arguments, I do not want him determining what goes on my permanent transcript, and I definitely don't want sanctimonious academics indoctrinating my future children with disdain for America. It is precisely the belief in the lofty ideals of America that enables us to continually make progress, both at home and abroad, in advancing the cause of freedom. If we let these ideals parish, the inherent greatness of the United States will die also.

America 2005 - What a Liberal Sees

Questions to ask Liberals

1. What caused the Great Depression?
2. What, in your mind, would be a "fair share" of taxes? Give me a rate (%).
3. Why should "income inequality" concern Americans?
4. What would you consider income equality? In other words, what quantity goal(s) are we striving for when we suggest ways to reduce income inequality?
5. Are we willing to tolerate any differences in income or is socialism the only acceptable option?
6. When political pundits make the point that citizens have come to depend on social security for their retirements and therefore privatization should be rejected, what is your typical reaction?
7. Do you get angry over the fact that Americans have "come to depend" on the government for income in what is an entirely predictable point in one’s life? Moreover, do you think such a shift away from self sufficiency and towards government dependence is deleterious to a democratic society?
8. Are we spending enough on education?
9. How much should we be spending?
10. How much are we currently spending?
11. Why is medical care so expensive? Who's to blame and what's the solution?
12. Do you favor price ceilings as a counter to high drug/health care costs?
13. How would this affect the economy in the context of the free-market? In other words, what does it "cost" us to gain the "benefit" of lower prices?

Magazines, Blogs, Journals, News Sources etc...

Conservative/Libertarian/Religious

• National Review
• Commentary
• The Weekly Standard
• First Things
• Newsmax.com
• Townhall.com
• WorldNetDaily.com
• Public Interest
• Heritage Foundation
• The American Spectator
• The Cato Journal
• Human Events
• Reason
• The American Enterprise

Fairly Even

• Time
• Newsweek
• Atlantic Monthly
• Economist
• The Wall Street Journal

Liberal

• The Nation
• The American Prospect
• Harper's Magazine
• New York Times
• Brookings Review

"Lean on me Liberals"

If you're the type of liberal who actively searches out that which you might could claim offense to; if you use the word "outrage" frequently in protest;

Basically, if you're a liberal, I encourage you to read everything I write on this page because their will aways be material for you here that's guaranteed to provide you with the daily dose of "outrage" so necessary to the committed, activist-for-life liberal's diet.

If you've had a hard day for whatever reason:

Perhaps you, of ALL people, had the misfortune of getting stuck in a Political Science class with the department's sole moderate-to-liberal professor -- you know, the one who reputedly managed to smuggle himself into the academy under the cloak of darkness and was making all those appearances this past Fall on The O'Reilly Factor in an attempt to save his job after the department head found out he was an evangelical Christian and therefore unfit to instruct (he meant indoctrinate) college students?

Or if you have to wait 24 hours before getting your Spring abortion, and as a result, can't hit the Frats with your girlfriends this weekend; if someone flashes you the Ten Commandments or it's just posted somewhere in plain view for all the public to endure; if you discover that your best friend who is black has actually been a closet Republican for years, OMG WHAT! It's on days like these when the Big Lib.O.G. will be your Godsend (uh oh, he said the G-word).

In the same vein, if you're driving in your GEO or electric car or whatever you guys are into these days, and you're flipping through the AM radio dial (forgetting how risky this can be during the weekdays between the hours of 11:00 and 2:00) and that hideous, chauvenistic, racially insensitive, oxycotten shopping hypocrite of the airwaves, Rush Limbaugh, lures you in with The Pretenders' "My City was Gone" and before you have time to think or doing anything he unhesitantly mocks an innocent, civic minded, good-to-the-party-line Canadian socialist whose one fault was simply to pass along a precautionary Judgement Day prediction concerning the increasingly imminent perils of global warming, as an "environmentalist wacko," or

If a George W. Bush bumper sticker reminds you that an evangelical Texan dunce is going to be YOUR president for another four years, by which time every last ethnic minority and if time permits him the homosexuals will have been rounded up using the Patriot Act and shipped off to Guantanimo Bay or Abu Ghraib, all the while embarassing you in front of France, Germany, Spain, and all the premiere practitioners of 21st century European socialism, so ashamed and ridden with guilt that eventually you go hoarse from participating in protest after protest in which the chant of the day was "not in my name;" or

If it suddenly dawns on you that feminism has aborted upwards of 40,000,000, for the most part, Democratic voters when Kerry only needed 60,000 more in Ohio to keep Dubya out of the White House forever... It's okay, I know what you must be thinking. Such unbearable irony could only be the work of Karl Rove who is after all, "a very clever man!"

Hopefully, you now have enough Big Lib.O.G. to get you through until next time.

October 19 - November 23, 2004

October 19, 2004 (11:45pm)

Because He Could notes:

• youngest governor in state’s history


• “Hope” as metaphor

Chapter 2, Running on Empathy: “Clinton’s uncanny capacity for empathy is the key to understanding him — both his strengths and his weaknesses” (16). “As always with Clinton, if you want the truth you have to parse the language, to read b/w the lines” (17). “Bill Clinton...had no real experience with which to understand the struggles of average hard-working Americans. To fill this void...Clinton used his amazing ability to empathize emotionally, and to incorporate data intellectually, to understand the world around him” (23).

Clinton Presidency Questions: (1) were 1996 welfare reforms primarily the brainchild of Clinton or the Gingrich Congress? (2) results of NAFTA, Clinton’s trade policies. (3) Was Clinton responsible for reductions in crime? (4) Was Clinton responsible for the reductions in poverty? (5) How successful were Clinton’s diplomatic undertakings? (6) To what extent did Clinton contribute to the economic prosperity of the ‘90s? What argument is made by his sycophants? (7) How large was Clinton’s failure to confront global terrorism? How much blame should he accept? (8) Was the “Gorelick wall,” created during the Clinton administration, new (as Republicans claim)? If not (as Democrats claim), why was it necessary to pass legislation that restated the current institutional status quo?

October 20, 2004 (6:19pm): Time Magazine, October 25, 2004.
Cover Story: “Is God in Our Genes?” Is religion part of nature’s evolutionary scheme? Scientists are asking whether spirituality might be embedded in our DNA. By Jeffrey Kluger.

Recently, Dick Morris expressed admiration for the Bush’s political savvy. He recalls how they initially focused on painting John Kerry as a “flip-flopper.” However, during and after the debates, their strategy shifted. Now depicting the Senator as a “MA liberal” on the “far left bank” of American politics, the Bush people have allowed Kerry to boast of all the new changes he would bring to office. At least temporarily, they have remained silent to Kerry-Edwards’ promises that people like Christopher Reeve will get up and walk when the Democrats are elected b/c of fewer restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research; or that Kerry will provide all Americans with universal health-care. Now, if Kerry tries to go back on some of his promises, the Bush campaign can say “See, we told you. He’s a flip-flopper.” According to Morris, this strategy of emphasizing the flip-flopping and then the liberal leanings of the Democratic candidate effectively boxes Kerry in.

(Let Freedom Ring, 182) according to AMA, w/ all that modern medicine has to offer, partial birth abortion is never needed to save the life or health of the mother. (185-6) Norma McCorvey = Jane Roe in Roe vs. Wade (1973). (219) Tax Freedom Day (the day when Americans have earned enough money to pay off their annual taxes) in 2000 May 1; during Clinton-Gore years, federal tax burden grew by 45%. (241) Clinton twice vetoed Republican welfare reform bills before eventually passing. (244) rate of return on Social Security is 2%.

Beary, Kevin. “African Roots: Slavery was Widespread on the African Continent Long Before Europeans Appeared—and indeed, is still practiced there.” National Review. March 10, 1997.

October 29, 2004 (11:04am)
Supreme Court Decisions
Lee v. Weisman (1992)
Marsh v. Chambers (1983)
Justice John Paul Stevens Profile

Bush on Saddam’s Capture
Paul Bremer on Saddam’s Capture
1960 and 1988 Presidential Debates
2000 VP and 1992, 2000 Presidential Debates

President Nixon and Chuck Colson on John Kerry


November 2004

November 1, 2004 (12:52pm)
The Malkin Media Diversity Test


November 3, 2004 (9:15pm)
Flynn Files
Daniel Flynn - “American Academia is an Intellectual Ghetto” 9/21/04
Because campuses forgo intellectual diversity in favor of superficial diversity, real diversity suffers and consequentially truth suffers too. Despite diversity becoming something of a mantra on most campuses, colleges and universities embrace intellectual conformity more than any major American institution.

*Federal Election Commission reports for the 2004 presidential campaigns demonstrate the overwhelming bias of faculty and administrators. A full 100 percent of contributions from William and Mary, and 97 percent from Harvard, went to the Kerry campaign. Of the top 20 institutions contributing or employing contributors to the Kerry campaign, five are universities — Berkeley, Harvard, Stanford, Michigan, and MIT. George W. Bush's top 20 contributors, unsurprisingly, lists not a singe academic institution.
*The political affiliations of college faculty reveal a profession devoid of intellectual diversity. Faculty registered as Democrats outnumber Republicans by ratios of 14 to 1 at Ithaca College, 12 to 1 at UCLA, 25 to 1 at Dartmouth College, and 31 to 1 at the University of Colorado. A Luntz poll following the 2000 election reported 84% of Ivy League professors voting for Gore, and just 9% voting for Bush. There’s reason to believe the results will be even more lopsided this time around.

Noam Chomsky is Michael Moore with his brain on steroids. In the late ’70s, he deemed stories of Pol Pot’s killing fields capitalist propaganda. Later, he fantasized a conspiracy between ex-Nazis and U.S. government officials to shape the post-World War II world. Prior to the war on terrorism, Chomsky maintained that the U.S. was “in the midst of apparently trying to murder 3 or 4 million people” in Afghanistan, predicting mass starvation and death. Despite Chomsky’s disastrous track record as historian and prophet, at least one study found him to be cited in scholarly journals in the social sciences and the humanities more than any living person.

*The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, published by Harvard University Press, is the work of eleven scholars that ignited a continental firestorm when it first hit bookstores in France in 1997. The authors estimate the century's death toll at the hands of Communist governments (excluding wars) at 100 million people. Country by country, deaths by the state in China stand at 65 million, in the USSR 20 million, Vietnam 1 million, North Korea 2 million, Cambodia 2 million, Eastern Europe 1 million, Latin America 150,000, Africa 1.7 million, and Afghanistan 1.5 million. Additionally, the international Communist movement murdered about 10,000 people throughout the world. Despite the irrefutability of its main thesis, there is plenty within its pages to argue about. The figure of 20 million deaths in the Soviet Union is far smaller than past credible estimates; 65 million deaths-by-government for China is slightly higher than the previous high estimate. The omission of Ghana, for instance, is all the more glaring due to the book's painstaking thoroughness. Forced abortion in China is scarcely mentioned. The infamous "Bloodbath" in North Vietnam is omitted and thus seemingly denied.
*"One can hardly exaggerate the moral disaster of [religion]. We have to thank the Soviet Union for the courage to stop it."
—W.E.B. Du Bois

The Hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky


November 11, 2004 (5:00pm) Time Magazine 11/15/04

2004 National Exit Polls
Most Important Issue:
Iraq 15%
Economy 20%
Moral Values 22%

Bush
White Males 61%
Married Women 54%
Veterans 57%
weekly Churchgoers 58%
Moral Values Most 79%
Terrorism Most 86%
Blacks 11%
Hispanics 42%
Not Married 40%
First-Time Voters 45%
Disapprove of Iraq 11%
Economy/Jobs Most 18%

Kerry
38%
45%
42%
41%
18%
14%
89%
55%
59%
54%
87%
80%
All 11 states voting on gay marriage rejected it, supporting constitutional bans; Kerry made 36 visits to Ohio: the most by any candidate to one state; 630,000: total # of TV campaign commercials aired this election season; $1.45 billion: total spent at all levels on campaign advertising this year; $140 million: amount raised by liberal 527 groups during the campaign; $75 million: amount raised by conservative 527 groups; 2,256: # of lawyers Democrats sent to Ohio to monitor voting. All 5 Presidents who’ve run for re-election during a war have won; a big turnout wasn’t good for Democrats this time; no Republican has ever won w/out carrying Ohio; If consumer-confidence index at election time is above 99, the incumbent’s party remains in office: since 1968, only Al Gore had been the exception. But the low October figure of 92.8 didn’t hamper Bush;

“In Victory’s Glow,” by Nancy Gibbs. 15 million more voters; 193,00 polling places; no non-southern Democrat has won presidency in 44 years; 55% said country was moving in wrong direction; 49% job approval; 97% approval among Republicans surpassed Reagan; “Critics who saw his faith in contagious democracy as naive may have missed the point that the American people have always been attracted to the idea;” “through his radical assertion of presidential power, showed what a difference it makes who is the in the White House;” (reminiscent of Andrew Jackson)

*Joe Klein’s article, “The Values Gap”

November 20, 2004 (1:09am)
Garrison Keillor - NPR radio host, after Kerry lost election, joked about Fundamentalist Christians not being allowed to vote.

November 23, 2004 (2:56pm)
Yesterday (I think), Rush Limbaugh predicted that Hillary would NOT be the Democratic nominee in 2008. This was interesting b/c most of the other commentators, including Hannity, are absolutely convinced that it will be the New York Senator.

Several weeks ago, I watched either Booknotes or BookTV on the C-SPAN 2 website, and the interview was with a Republican Congressman from Oklahoma who gained election with the 1994 “Contract with America” class (Tom Coburn, now a senator). The man had written a book criticizing how Washington turns outsiders into insiders, and he described that b/c of constant reelection concerns, House members tend not to fulfill campaign promises. He commented on Newt Gingrich (whom he characterized as brilliant in intellect — a truly great thinker — but flawed in leadership as House Speaker), Dick Armey, and Trent Lott (the OK Congressman expressed his frustration with the MS Senator over the inability to get needed legislation passed, and Lott basically said, “after the election, we can start getting things done again”), among other prominent political leaders at the time. The ex-Congressman’s primary argument was for implementing term limits which, in his opinion, would eliminate much of the partisanship that prevents the Congress from acting in the best interests of “the people.” I find opinions like this (for example, the call for one 6-year term instead of two 4-year terms for the U.S. President), fascinating. While such monumental and consequential changes in term limit laws (or lack thereof) strike me as highly unlikely, I think Coburn makes a very good point. Election woes plague all of our elected representatives and inevitably lead to government officials not looking out for the public. I believe this to be true for Democrats and Republicans alike. Perhaps one day in the not so distant future, operations on Capital Hill will become more transparent and open to the public.

Following the overwhelming Republican victory in the 2004 elections, a significant number of prominent voices within the Democratic leadership (even James Carville) have expressed an understanding that their party has become out of touch with mainstream America, especially on “moral issues.” I believe this characterization is painfully accurate. Yet, there remains a very vocal and powerful segment of the Democratic party (especially in the elite media) that seems unable or unwilling to grasp this fundamental truth, and instead, appears to be turning back to the same, old tactics of moral relativism and academic condescension — tactics which, I feel, play a large role in terms of fueling the ire of many “red state” voters towards liberal, New England elites. I’m not sure if this should make me feel happy, furious, or just incredulous. My partisan side says, “let them do it; it will help Republicans win more elections in the future.” At the same time, the hypocrisy of Democrats who claim to be “tolerant,” “open-minded,” and members of the party most closely aligned with regular, middle- and lower-class Americans, makes me, at times, quite contemptuous. Finally, Northern elites whom I perceive as being blinded by ideology and as having abandoned rationality fall into the category of “intellectual morons” (to quote Daniel Flynn). I view such people as utterly incorrigible, and as such, I try not to let their lunacy to affect me.
However, I did have a relatively new thought today. Liberals define themselves as being committed to the principle of diversity (ethnic, opinion, religion, etc..) and as defending tolerance for opposing viewpoints. It’s worth noting that I have no doubt that these self-images are (in most cases) both genuine and well-intentioned. Nevertheless, I’ve observed a prejudice on the part of some (but not all) well-respected, (in my respects) good-hearted liberals which, in my opinion, undercuts the core values liberals stand for. Some of the clearest examples of this prejudice can be found in articles of syndicated columnists like Maureen Dowd, Michael Kinsley, Julianne Malveaux, Frank Rich, and Anne Quindlen, in the rhetoric of Washington officials like John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and John Edwards, and in the commentary of political activists like Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Bill Maher. Yet, my belief, based on personal experience with my liberal peers and an overall perception of American politics, is that many liberal Democrats (not just media elites) are guilty of holding this prejudice. What kind of prejudice am I talking about? Basically, it’s a mentality of moral superiority and condescension towards conservative social values (pro- life, traditional marriage, religion, etc...) which leads to the ostracization of Southerners, Mid-Westerners, and those portions of the country where conservative thought enjoys majority acceptance. I’m still playing around with what term I should designate to describe this type of prejudice... (Southist, conservativist, politicist, liberal/progressive/democratic supremacist, hypocrite of tolerance, tolerance hypocrite, *liberal charlatan - when we think about what “liberalism” is supposed to mean, it is clear that many are actually charlatans of U.S. notions of liberalism/progressivism, the bigotry of “liberal open-mindedness,” ideological bigotry/prejudice/discrimination). The new thought I had wasn’t that some liberals are deeply hypocritical. It was that this form of prejudice deserves a formal label - that it is real and should be recognized just as any other type of bigotry (racism, sexism, homophobia) gains definition.

Major Points of Disagreement: Conservatism v. Liberalism,
Instances of Liberal Bigotry
(1) Abortion — anti-choice v. pro-life; utilization of a woman’s “constitutional right” and manipulation of Roe v. Wade decision - right to privacy v. a woman’s reproductive rights;
(2) Pro-traditional marriage  anti-gays/homophobia/hatred of gays; nature v. nurture argument: you can nurture homo/heterosexuality, to say people are simply born gay or straight is an oversimplification; when this truth is recognized, liberals might find it easier to understand our resistance to gay marriage and simultaneous support for gays as people; Supreme Court overriding public will;
*(3) Morality: relativism v. absolutism — good v. evil, “understanding” criminals and why people do bad things v. punishing them; moral relativism when judging the international community but moral absolutes at home: the double standard; some people are “evil” v. the actions of people illustrate that “evil” does exist and is a real concept;
(4) Religion/Christianity - “imposing” beliefs on others; wall of separation; establishment of religion or acknowledgment of God? Ignorance of historical evidence as to intention behind 1st Amendment; failure to acknowledge great benefits that come from belief in a higher power, failure to show respect for the deeply held but different beliefs of others; more than favoring wall of separation: perceivable hostility to anything religious;
(5) Personal responsibility v. welfare entitlements and income redistribution: the distortion of conservative intentions; race-card, threat of racist label;
(6) 4th Amendment (?) and right to bear arms — selective protection of the Constitution; selective attention to historical basis of certain parts of the Constitution;
x(7) philosophy that small government is best v. taking school lunches from children/medicine from seniors/housing from minorities etc...
x(8) Spiritual morality v. economic morality
(9) Iraq — lies v. bad information; appeasement/Clinton v. confrontation/Bush; price of freedom v. free freedom; role of morality in Iraq war; neo-conservatism v. imperialism: the problem of liberal selectivity in applying moral absolutism or relativism in analyzing the U.S. or the international community, helping minorities/women/poor etc... but not deposing dictators who oppress groups traditionally receiving much attention from liberals;
(10) Patriot Act/Iraq — failure to acknowledge the good intentions of the Bush Administration/ the positives of the Act; exaggeration of intensity and frequency of wrongs committed due to the Patriot Act and failure to provide perspective as to what dangers we would be facing w/out it; misunderstanding of the terrorist threat; Vietnam mentality: self-fulfilling prophecies of military failure: the line b/w well-intentioned dissent that takes place in a free society and deliberate attempts to undermine the war effort (ideologically driven to aid U.S. military defeat);
(11) United Nations and International Community — our obligations; international law; the line b/w working together with foreign nations and preserving American interests; effectiveness (successes v. failures) of U.N.; Oil for Food, Rawanda, Somalia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Haiti, etc...; Abu Ghraib; moral equivalency: U.S. v. International Community; globalism v. isolationism; assistance v. occupation;
(12) Taxes
(13) Health Care — medicaid, medicare, stem-cell research,
(14) Affirmative Action - definition of “affirmative action” not universal: overcome current discrimination v. make up for past racism? equal opportunity v. equal outcome? color-blind v. color-conscious? ideally, should it be race based or economically based? The line between equal opportunity and socialism?
*(15) Constitutional Rights: Judicial v. Legislative v. Executive — exploitation of “rights” purportedly guaranteed by the Constitution/constitutional interpretation (abortion, religion) to legislate from the bench against overwhelming public opinion;
*(16) What is America/What is America all about?
(17) Nationalism, Patriotism, Internationalism, and Perceptions of America: its place in the world community, basic character/goodness,


liberals tend to value the perceived “other” (for lack of a better phrasing): for example, they support gays, women’s rights, diversity and accommodate reprehensible foreign countries b/c, by nature of being a “liberal,” they’re inclined to side with or come to an understanding with/acceptance of what is differs from traditional American culture, regardless of the particular merits of the differing party/view. Thus, while their efforts to understand the international community and see things from other perspectives are noble, their tendency to embrace the other side when they shouldn’t is an unfortunate side effect. The same goes with social issues like gay marriage, abortion, sexuality, affirmative action, etc...

What is America? (16)
(7)Big v. Small Federal Government, capitalism v. socialism?
(5)Responsibility to provide public needs/welfare
(14)Affirmative Action
(13)Health Care
Welfare
(12)Taxes

[much of “What is America” falls into category of “morality” too]

Morality (3)
Absolutism v. Relativism
Good v. Evil?
USA v. UN
Excusing bad behavior
Anything Goes Culture
Hip-Hop Music
Religion v. Secularism in America
Spiritual v. Economic Preoccupation
Gay Marriage
Abortion

you can’t stereotype blacks (they commit more crimes, have more out of wedlock births, score lower on standardized tests etc...) but you can stereotype the fanatic “religious right” that voted Bush into office and the gun-toting, evangelical, backward, intolerant white South.