Commentary and analysis on American politics, culture, and national identity, U.S. foreign policy and international relations, and the state of education
- from a neoconservative perspective! - Keeping an eye on the communist-left so you don't have to!
Yves Archambault, owner of Le Marcheur, said he was "sickened" to learn his own MNA was picketing his store.
"I was sickened to see him distributing flyers and stopping people who were coming into the store to tell them they shouldn't support a business that sells Israeli products," Archambault said.
"In Quebec we have free enterprise, and as long as it is legal, nobody has the right to tell me what I can and cannot sell in my store," he said.
Archambault said he is "completely apolitical" and does not follow politics here or abroad. He admits he had no idea who Khadir was, until some of his employees told him.
He said he feels personally attacked by the picketers, and Khadir's participation has made it worse.
I've learned that Barrett Brown has ended his relationship with E.D. Kain at Ordinary Gentlemen. Charles Johnson at LGF too, about which you can hear at the clip. I had an e-mail exchange with Barrett a couple of weeks ago and told him the truth about both E.D. and C.J. Barrett wasn't having problems then, so it was mostly academic. Now though things have gotten rather nasty. I hate to say I told you so ...
I should have more on this later, but check E.D.'s comment at the entry, "All Apologies":
I’m going to research ways to better protect commenter privacy, including implementing a new commenting software altogether such as Disqus.
And at the thread, the responses from a couple regulars a bit futher down:
Mike at The Big Stick December 18, 2010 at 6:29 am
About 3 years ago I was involved with a politics chatboard and got on the bad side of the board owner. Since I was occasionally posting from work (come on guys – we all do it) he used my IP address to tell the whole board where I worked and threatened to call my company if i ever posted on his board again. This completely FREAKED ME OUT. The fact that I still post on other people’s sites clearly demonstrate some kind of danger fetish on my part but I think it’s reasonable that we should all be able to expect as much anonymity as we desire.
From reading through his comments on that other thread i don’t think Barret has a clue how wrong his actions were. Sorry to see such a low moment in League history and happy to see it (hopefully) put to rest.
*****
Mike Schilling December 18, 2010 at 11:05 am
This completely FREAKED ME OUT.
Too bad comments can’t have bits in flashing red 40-point type, because I’d need that to express how much it would have freaked me out.
Actually, it's not all that interesting beyond E.D. Kain's bullsh*t moral sweetness, a morality only in effect when the safety of his own blog commenters is on the line.
This guy personifies utter moral bankruptcy. I don't comment at Ordinary Gentlemen, but I'd be glad to provide Barrett Brown with background information on E.D., perhaps material that might go in a big piece at Vanity Fair. The guy's an ugly piece of progressive refuse and his reputation needs to be spread far and wide.
It's been almost two weeks since Elizabeth Edwards died. And the reaction to my comments are still reverberating around the web. Details on that below, but first it's worth sharing this quote from David Horowitz, at NewsReal Blog, "The Surreal World of the Progressive Left":
It is not for nothing that George Orwell had to invent terms like “double-think” and “double-speak” to describe the universe totalitarians created. Those who have watched the left as long as I have, understand the impossible task that progressives confront in conducting their crusades. Rhetorically, they are passionate proponents of “equality” but in practice they are committed enthusiasts of a hierarchy of privilege in which the highest ranks are reserved for themselves as the guardians of righteousness, and then for those they designate “victims” and “oppressed,” who are thus worthy of their redemption. Rhetorically they are secularists and avatars of tolerance, but in fact they are religious fanatics who regard their opponents as sinners and miscreants and agents of civil darkness. Therefore, when they engage an opponent it is rarely to examine and refute his argument but rather to destroy the bearer of the argument and remove him from the plain of battle.
I've written much on the totalizing secular religion of the progressive left, most recently, for example, at "Totalitarian Faith." But I've learned much more since Elizabeth Edwards died. I think by now it's fair say that my essay, "Elizabeth Edwards' Parting Statement Omits Mention of Faith in God," has received more attention on the radical left than anything else I've written. And I know why: My concluding paragraph at the post was like hitting a grand slam. Not only did I find it odd that Mrs. Edwards had abandoned God but I made an explicit connection between her views and those of the progressives, and I pulled those together by noting my surprise at how high "God is dead" nihilism had reached into the "precincts" of neo-communism. The reaction has been unreal, perhaps animalistic, even demonic. It was like waving a crucifix in the face of the progressive left. Retaliation for deviating from the accepted narrative came swiftly. The evil monkeys swarmed my comments. I got hate mail. And then angry atheists contacted the department chair at my college. The resident demons at that atheist blog were enraged when my colleague handled the incident professionally. One suggested that they get the complaint "Pharyngulated." That would be a campaign of viral hatred and intimidation akin to a DDoS attack, although the term didn't ring a bell initially. But yesterday PZ Myers linked, and the bell went off. Myers publishes Pharyngula, which was proclaimed by the journal Nature as "the top-ranked blog written by a scientist." The blog is obviously revered across the God-hating world. And Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, and one of the most famous atheist avatars on the scene, linked to Myers' post — and the commenters there appended my entry to the thread.
That's pretty astounding — no doubt an epic badge of honor for a Christian warrior! My only regret is that Tintin, the demonic prick at Sadly No!, didn't link the post. Now THAT really would have made my day, because, you know, there's no such thing REAL atheistic communism.
P.S. I just noticed that Huffington Post still features the Thanksgiving essay from 2006 praying for Dick Cheney to have another heart attack, "to rid the planet of its Number One Human Tumor."
Right.
Praying for the death of the Vice President of the United States. Hmm ... intolerance of competing opinion, campaigns of retaliation and workplace harassment, with the prototypical example of leftist death-wish hypocrisy? Behold the secular religion of radical progressivism.
Scroll forward to 8:00 minutes for the discussion of the Bush tax cuts. Kimberley Strassel's always on target, and the last segment talks about taking on the public sector unions in the states. Good stuff:
Wolffe seems to think it is clever to mock Palin reading a “children’s author,” while disrespecting one of the greatest authors in literature. Yes, C.S. Lewis is most famous among the pop culture crowd with the movies and sudden ressurgance of The Chronicles of Narnia, which happens to be an allegorical tale of Jesus Christ, who became a human being, and gave His life to save undeserving human beings from the penalty of sin. (Richard Wolffe seems to be in the same boat as Liam Neeson when it comes to not understanding C.S. Lewis’ Christian tales.)
Lewis is also a well-accomplished Christian author who writes novels of human nature in some adult fictional work and essays on Christian faith.
Part of the American Dream was the expectation that if you started a business, you might go broke but you didn't have to worry about the government seizing your business on behalf of those with more political juice. That sort of thing was for Third World countries, corrupt kleptocracies where connections mattered more than capability.
Not anymore. In fact, some of those formerly corrupt Third World countries have started providing stronger protection for private property, as they've realized that the more power you give to politicians and their cronies, the less incentive people have to try to succeed through hard work. What's the point, if you're at the mercy of the cronies?
President Obama's year-end deal-cutting with Republicans, which produced an important compromise on extending George W. Bush-era tax cuts, has come to represent what White House officials see as a successful template for the president's role on other issues heading into a contentious 2011.
By emerging as a mediator, Obama showed a way of doing business that many voters were expecting but didn't see during most of his first two years. As a result, White House aides now feel they have "a little wind at our back," a senior White House official said. That could help point the way on other issues, such as trade, education and energy.
But as the tax deal was wrapping up, there were few indications that Washington's partisan divide has eased. If anything, the gulf is likely to widen as a new, more conservative Congress is sworn in. Chances for repeating the bipartisan compromise that led to the tax deal stand to be sparse, many analysts think. Governing is likely to become even messier.
A gut pull drag on me Into the chasm gaping we Mirrors multy reflecting this Between spunk stained sheet And odourous whim Calmer eye- flick- shudder- within Assist me to walk away in sin Where is the string that Theseus laid Find me out this labyrinth place
I do get bored, I get bored In the flat field I get bored, I do get bored In the flat field ...
The news has been buzzing a bit about holiday travel threats. It's serious, but the car bombing angle is especially interesting. My bet is that we'll indeed see "Mumbai-style" attacks in the U.S. at some point. The national security focus remains overwhelmingly on air travel, and the jihadi extremists will simply develop new approaches:
Federal law enforcement terror bulletins have become as much a part of the holiday season in the past decade as egg nog and department store Santas.
But this year, which ends amid a heightened concern over terror, is a little different. A Department of Homeland Security bulletin sent to law enforcement nationwide Thursday says that federal authorities worry terrorists will try to rattle Americans by attacking during the holidays, and lists concerns including car bombs, trucks ramming crowds and a Mumbai-style small arms attack.
"We are concerned these terrorists may seek to exploit the likely significant psychological impact of an attack targeting mass gatherings in large metropolitan areas during the 2010 holiday season, which has symbolic importance to many in the United States," The "Security Awareness for the Holiday Season" bulletin states.
The bulletin cites no specific threats for Christmas and New Year's, but makes clear that this year's enhanced concern is based on a persistent, evolving threat. The past 12 months brought multiple attempted attacks on U.S. targets, including the attempted Christmas Day underwear bombing of Northwest 253, Faisal Shahzad's failed Times Square car bomb, the "printer bomb" cargo plane plot and a number of alleged would-be bombers caught in stings in Oregon and elsewhere.
Progressives — and the hypocritical television bloviators who enable them, like Andy Levy, first here at the clip. And you gotta love it. He announces famously: "I believe the right to free speech is the right to be an asshole. I believe what made this country great is ... assholes":
Yeah. Right.
And that's why on December 8th Andy Levy took to Twitter to attack me — wait for it! — as an asshole! I'm sure there's some profound irony there somewhere, but at the moment it escapes. Or, well, perhaps it's that Andy Levy just proved himself to be an epic asshole.
man·re·pell·er [mahn-ree-peller] –noun outfitting oneself in a sartorially offensive way that will result in repelling members of the opposite sex. This includes but is not limited to harem pants, boyfriend jeans, overalls (see: human repelling), shoulder pads, full length jumpsuits, jewelry that resembles violent weaponry and clogs. –verb (used without object),-pell·ing, -pell·ed. to commit the act of repelling men: Girl 1: What are you wearing tonight? Girl 2: My sweet lime green drop crotch utility pants Girl 1: Oh, so we're man repelling tonight? ...
I watched it. Larry King was humble and often emotional, and his guests truly love him. A genuine treat and throwback to the old days. I'll update later with some YouTube clips when they're available. I think there was a time when I'd make it a point to watch the first half hour of Larry King then switch over at 6:30pm for World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. Was that a better time? Perhaps. But I don't long for the old days of "non-partisan" news. I like the new media age. I think regular people are empowered like never before and the level and quality of information available nowadays is much better. That said, the nostalgia was overwhelming tonight. It felt like the Clinton years of the 1990s in a lot of respects. More later ...Added: At WaPo, "With a star-studded guest list, 'Larry King Live' signs off for the last time" (via Memeorandum).
A review of President Obama's war strategy cites progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but leaves until later the answers to questions that have plagued the U.S. effort since Obama dispatched additional troops last year.
The review unveiled by the president and his top advisors at the White House on Thursday sheds little new light on major questions such as how soon Afghan forces will be able assume more responsibility for security, and whether international troops can effectively choke off access from insurgent sanctuaries in Pakistan.
The reason is that the answers are largely still in doubt.
A five-page summary of the review's findings released by the White House concludes that the "strategy is showing progress," especially against Al Qaeda in Pakistan, and is "setting the conditions to begin a responsible reduction of U.S. forces in July 2011," the date previously set by Obama for beginning withdrawals.
But an undercurrent of uncertainty runs throughout the assessment. "I want to be clear, this continues to be a very difficult endeavor," Obama told reporters at the White House, even as he declared, "We are on track to achieve our goals."
Being on track is not the same as being confident in the outcome. Every mention of indications of progress is accompanied in the report by a caveat noting that the gains are "fragile" and "reversible."
The review seems to keep alive the possibility that the administration could shift strategy next year if isolated gains cannot be cemented despite the presence of nearly 100,000 U.S. troops.
Since ordering 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan a year ago, Obama has moved repeatedly to deepen the U.S. involvement, most recently at the NATO Lisbon summit in November, when he signed on to a timetable that would delay turning over lead security responsibility to the Afghan army and police until 2014.
In that sense, Obama has seemed to side with Gen. David H. Petraeus, his top commander in Afghanistan, as well as some of the president's senior civilian advisors. They suggest that large-scale troop reductions will not be possible for years because Afghan forces remain unable to take over. The White House has emphasized that the pace of the withdrawals next July will be dependent on conditions at the time.
This isn't a gay rights issue as much as post-modern social landmark. And for the traditional French, one of the great European post-industrial societies, it's a harbinger for the West.
PARIS — Some are divorced and disenchanted with marriage; others are young couples ideologically opposed to marriage, but eager to lighten their tax burdens. Many are lovers not quite ready for old-fashioned matrimony.
Whatever their reasons, and they vary widely, French couples are increasingly shunning traditional marriages and opting instead for civil unions, to the point that there are now two civil unions for every three marriages.
When France created its system of civil unions in 1999, it was heralded as a revolution in gay rights, a relationship almost like marriage, but not quite. No one, though, anticipated how many couples would make use of the new law. Nor was it predicted that by 2009, the overwhelming majority of civil unions would be between straight couples.
“We’re the generation of divorced parents,” explained Maud Hugot, 32, an aide at the Health Ministry who signed a PACS with her girlfriend, Nathalie Mondot, 33, this year. Expressing a view that researchers say is becoming commonplace among same-sex couples and heterosexuals alike, she added, “The notion of eternal marriage has grown obsolete.”
France recognizes only “citizens,” and the country’s legal principles hold that special rights should not be accorded to particular groups or ethnicities. So civil unions, which confer most of the tax benefits and legal protections of marriage, were made available to everyone. (Marriage, on the other hand, remains restricted to heterosexuals.) But the attractiveness of civil unions to heterosexual couples was evident from the start. In 2000, just one year after the passage of the law, more than 75 percent of civil unions were signed between heterosexual couples. That trend has only strengthened since then: of the 173,045 civil unions signed in 2009, 95 percent were between heterosexual couples.
“It’s becoming more and more commonplace,” said Laura Anicet, 24, a student who signed a PACS last month with her 29-year-old boyfriend, Cyril Reich. “For me, before, the PACS was for homosexual couples.”
As with traditional marriages, civil unions allow couples to file joint tax returns, exempt spouses from inheritance taxes, permit partners to share insurance policies, ease access to residency permits for foreigners and make partners responsible for each other’s debts. Concluding a civil union requires little more than a single appearance before a judicial official, and ending one is even easier.
It long ago became common here to speak of “getting PACSed” (se pacser, in French). More recently, wedding fairs have been renamed to include the PACS, department stores now offer PACS gift registries and travel agencies offer PACS honeymoon packages.
Even the Roman Catholic Church, which initially condemned the partnerships as a threat to the institution of marriage, has relented; the National Confederation of Catholic Family Associations now says civil unions do not pose “a real threat.”
Withdrawal of consent should be grounds for a rape charge (and it is, in Sweden) — if you consent to having sex with someone and part of the way through you say to stop and the person you’re having sex with continues to have sex with you against your wishes, that’s rape.
Right.
So you'd think Ms. Filipovic would really lay into Michael Moore's dismissal of the charges against Assange? Not. She just wants Moore to establish a "Free Bradley Manning" fund to help "the little guys" who aren't getting raped all the media attention. It's open season on Naomi Wolf, however. (Down with this, it turns out: "Some Shit I’m Sick of Hearing Regarding Rape and Assange.") But sheesh, even Lame-ieux gets it.
One of the commenters at this atheist websitecontacted my department chairman regarding my comments on Elizabeth Edwards. This was the second person to contact the department this week. A woman e-mailed on Monday or Tuesday, but I didn't mention it at the blog since I'm generally not writing about things that involve LBCC's servers, etc. But in the case of this second incident, the complainant bragged about how tough he was going be in sending "an email with a link to the blog post to the head of his department." This guy, named "Jeff," followed through and then posted my chairman's response at the thread. Not satisfied (mad even) with my chairman's brief (and perfect) reply, folks there get all enraged, and then another commenter, "Dan," takes to Google to find some information, and comes back to slam my chairman, saying he's "been in the dept for 20 years and lists himself as ABD, which is all but dissertation, meaning that he's likely a failure in his doctoral studies." It means no such thing. But that's not the point. These atheists are doing the devil's work. They'd like to destroy me for speaking truth to His power, and falling short of that they're out to impugn those who stand up for integrity and proper procedure. It's impossible for me to express the enormity of my contempt. But this is the radical left for you (Robert Farley's Lawyers, Gays and Marriage gets the appropriate citation at the thread.) I'll have more on this later, but I should mention that after talking with my chairman this week we shared our views on faith and strength in God, and he suggested I check out Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianiy. And so I picked up a copy on the way home yesterday, and I'm heading up right now to read and reflect for a while. I'll have some additional thoughts on the left's hatred and intolerance in due time. All in a day's work, I guess, God's work.
Julian Assange, the public face of WikiLeaks, is, among many things, cowardly. Courageousness would involve meeting with Iranian dissidents, Russian journalists, Pakistani Christians, or Chinese human-rights activists — and then releasing any confidential information that they might have about the torment institutionalized by their countries’ authoritarian regimes. That would be risky to Assange, however, since such governments do not customarily go to court against their leakers; they gulag them — or liquidate them.
So, instead, Assange navigates through the European northwest among the good-life elites whose economic and security protocols he does so much to undermine. Being summoned to a trumped-up Swedish hearing for being an exploitative cad who fails to wear a condom in his ephemeral hook-ups is not the same thing as being dragged into the basement of the Pakistani intelligence service or appearing in an orange jumpsuit on an al-Qaeda execution video. Why does not the peripatetic Assange at least drive about, say, the back roads of the Middle East, Mexico, or Central Africa in his quest for conduits to spread cosmic truth and justice?
In truth, Assange is a sorry product of the postmodern West. He reminds us of the morality of Western shock artists who freely caricature Christianity on the hallowed principle of free speech, but, in a nano-second, censor themselves when Islam might provide an even larger target for their cynical secular disdain. WikiLeaks is the journalistic equivalent of a Piss Christ exhibition of the contemporary art world — a repellent reminder of the cowardly selectivity of the shock-jock huckster.
Many of my students, taking their final exams this week, have said goodbye with a warm "Holiday Holidays" farewell. And while that's very nice, I gave my last final this morning, and as I was handing out the exams I wished everyone "Happy Holidays," but added, "I celebrate Christmas at my house, and I'm not offended if you want to wish me a Merry Christmas."
Has there ever been a more innocuous and vague holiday greeting than "Happy holidays?" For some reason -- an unfounded fear of upsetting someone who does not observe Christmas? -- that vacuous phrase is now heard more than "Merry Christmas," which used to be the only greeting you heard during the Christmas season.
I can understand using it when Hanukkah and the Christmas season coincide, as they did from Dec. 1 to 8 this year. But after that, I don't know of any other holiday we should be "Happy holidaying" about unless it's New Year's Day, a primarily stay-at-home holiday.
True, Christmas is the pre-eminent Christian holiday of the year. But let's face it: All of the trappings of the season -- buying and decorating Christmas trees, playing and listening to Christmas carols and other "Christmas" music, decking the halls with wreathes, garland and mistletoe, sending and receiving Christmas cards and, of course, shopping -- make the entire Christmas season a festive and joyous experience for almost everyone.
WikiLeaks is a criminal enterprise and I'm sure prosecutors could get an indictment under the Espionage Act. The problem is whether the administration would be acting under a double standard by not indicting media outlets who published the leaks. This is holding back the prosecution, as noted at the Times' piece above. That's why Threat Level suggests the feds may seek to prosecute Assange under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which apparently affords greater leeway in charging those who encourage "a source to obtain documents in a manner known to be illegal is not protected."
Dayen links to progressive asshat Glenn Greenwald, although it's probably not worth your time to click through who is also at the video with communist Amy Goodman: But check The Economist, "Extradition and WikiLeaks: Courting Trouble":
Some reports say that an American grand jury has already been secretly sworn in. Prosecutors seem to be focusing on Mr Assange’s involvement in enabling the leaking of secrets, rather than in their publication. That may seem a fine distinction. But it would avoid having to prosecute the New York Times.
Mr Assange may be vulnerable under the 1917 Espionage Act, which punishes leaks involving, and injuring, America’s “national defence”. The State Department warned him in writing on November 27th that the leaks would harm military operations. WikiLeaks is now trying hard to portray itself as a journalistic organisation, in order to benefit from the first amendment’s protection of the press and free speech. That was crucial in the 1971 “Pentagon Papers” case, when a Supreme Court decision upheld the New York Times’s right to publish secret material. However, Leonard Orland of the University of Connecticut notes that one of the judges’ opinions distinguished between illegal “prior restraint” and legitimate prosecution after publication. He says the more relevant precedent is United States v Morison, when the defendant was convicted for leaking photographs of Soviet naval construction to a British magazine.
So a charge against Mr Assange is possible. But extraditing anybody usually requires the deed concerned to be a crime in both countries. Convincing a judge in Sweden, which has one of the world’s most liberal press-freedom laws, of the virtues of America’s Espionage Act may be tricky. A 1961 treaty between the two countries forbids extradition for “political” crimes.
So does Britain’s extradition treaty with America. But it also sets a lower burden of proof. Simon Chesterman, a law professor at the National University of Singapore, notes that Britain’s tough Official Secrets Act would also outlaw WikiLeaks’ actions. For Mr Assange and his pals, Sweden may soon seem a haven, not a threat.
Well, maybe the U.S. can put a little pressure on Sweden to play hardball. Assange is dangerous to all parties involved.
After nine days in jail, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was granted bail Thursday in a politically charged case concerning alleged sex crimes in Sweden.
A high-court judge in London upheld an earlier decision to allow Assange to remain free while he fights extradition to Sweden, where authorities want to question him over allegations of molestation, unlawful coercion and rape stemming from encounters he had with two women in August.
Assange, 39, can now swap what his lawyer calls the "Dickensian conditions" of a south London jail for the tony comforts of a country mansion owned by a friend, where the high-court judge agreed that he could stay while out on bail. But he must surrender his passport, submit to monitoring by electronic tag, abide by a curfew and report to the police daily.
I just learned something about electric eels. Turns out they can generate a electrical current "capable of producing a shock at up to 500 volts and 1 ampere of current (500)." (600 according to National Geographic.). That's enough to kill a human being, and it certainly put the lights out of this alligator [crocodile?] looking for an afternoon meal. Nature is endlessly fascinating. It really is a jungle out there.
It was the one of the best institutional statements on academic freedom in the United States, according to David Horowitz. And now it’s about to be ruined.
Pennsylvania State University’s Policy HR64: Academic Freedom was first published in 1950 and revised in 1987. The Faculty Senate recently decided that the policy needed a facelift to make the statement more “current.” For example, in 1987, “the classroom” did not include online education, nor was shared governance seen as falling under academic freedom. So last week, the Senate approved major changes that will go into effect upon approval by the president.
These changes include the deletion of key passages that described the responsibility of the professor not to introduce unrelated controversial material into the classroom. The section, “In Instructional Roles” (formerly “In the Classroom”) has been changed as follows:
It is not the function of a faculty member in a democracy to indoctrinate his/her students with ready-made conclusions on controversial subjects. TheFaculty membersareis expected to educatetrain students to think for themselves, and to facilitateprovide them access to thoserelevant materials which they need to form their own opinionsif they are to think intelligently. Hence, in giving instruction upon controversial matters the fFaculty members areis expected to present information fairly, be of a fair and judicial mind, and to set forth justly, without supersession or innuendo, the divergent opinions of other investigatorsthat arise out of scholarly methodology and professionalism.
No faculty member may claim as a right the privilege of discussing in the classroom controversial topics outside his/her own field of study. The faculty member is normally bound not to take advantage of his/her position by introducing into the classroom provocative discussions of irrelevant subjects not within the field of his/her study.
Inside Higher Ed describes the revision decision largely in a positive light and cites the Faculty Senate chair, Jean Landa Pytel, saying that no specific incident prompted the alterations. But David Horowitz’s praise for the old policy could have been a factor. Horowitz, a longtime champion of academic freedom for both faculty members and students, held up HR64 as evidence that some universities value true academic freedom, at least in theory. He cited it in his book The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America and in testimony to the Pennsylvania legislature in 2005.
In contrast, Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), criticized Penn State’s policy as “especially bad” in his book No University is an Island: Saving Academic Freedom. He told Inside Higher Ed via email, “Penn State had one of the most restrictive and troubling policies limiting intellectual freedom in the classroom that I know of. It undermined the normal human capacity to make comparisons and contrasts between different fields and between different cultures and historical periods. The revised policy is a vast improvement.”
AAUP is abandoning academic freedom for institutionalized indoctrination.
And Penn State, some might recall, was at the center of the IPCC global warming e-mail hacking scandal. Lead scientist Michael Mann was cleared after an investigation. Yet for some reason I don't get the feeling Penn State's the model of integrity in teaching and research at the academy.
A solemn Shiite religious mourning ceremony near a mosque in southeastern Iran was shattered by a double suicide bombing on Wednesday, leaving at least 39 people dead and many more wounded.
Jundollah, an outlawed insurgent group that has carried out other attacks in the region near the Pakistan border, claimed responsibility. Iranian officials said they had evidence that American agents were responsible, which the United States denied.
“The advanced equipment and facilities of the perpetrators show that this attack was supported by the regional intelligence services of the United States,” said Ali Abdolahi, deputy for security at the Interior Ministry, in comments published on the official IRNA news agency Web site.
Mr. Abdolahi confirmed that two bombers detonated explosive-packed belts on Wednesday morning among crowds gathered outside the Imam Hussein Mosque in the city of Chabahar, near the border with Pakistan. One attacker was said to have been identified by the police and shot before setting off his explosives to little effect. The police arrested a third attacker, according to reports by semiofficial news agencies.
The bombing coincided with the mourning period leading up to Ashura, which commemorates the death of Imam Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. The mourning period is marked in many countries, including Iraq and Pakistan, where Shiite mourners have also been the targets of terrorist attacks in recent years.
Abe Greenwald put it perfectly yesterday at Commentary:
Why are those Americans who are most distrustful of the U.S. government, and so eager to undermine it, the same ones who are most desperate to give it control over their own lives? Michael Moore has made a big P.R. show of his pledge to pay Julian Assange’s bail. “WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of their actions,” he writes, and puts the U.S. government on notice: “You simply can’t be trusted.” Moore offers advice to those of us who see something wrong with Assange. “[A]ll I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey.” Right. Instead, you should be naïve about how government works when it decides to take control of your health care, regulate your business, and spend your earnings. Moore, you may have forgotten, calls for the U.S. government to provide “free, universal health care for life” for “every resident of the United States” and demands that “pharmaceutical companies … be strictly regulated like a public utility.” That’s the old anti–Big Brother spirit.
When men like Michael Moore are not calling for the government to be undermined and defied, they’re petitioning for it to chauffeur them to the movies, cook their meals, and tuck them into bed. One news cycle finds HBO’s Bill Maher telling America not to allow the government to inject “a disease into your arm” in the form of a vaccine and that “I don’t trust the government, especially with my health.” The next, he’s calling for “Medicare for all” and lamenting the absence of a fully government-run health-care system that would operate like the U.S. postal service.
All Voices makes a veiled comparison to Adolf Hitler. Social Beat doesn't even try to disguise it. The author posts a picture of Joseph Stalin too, but then mounts a preemptive defense against attacks on the Hitler comparison:
Before you go off in the comments about how it’s offensive to compare Zuckerberg, who’s Jewish, to Hitler, first of all, know that you are a supremely tiresome person. Second of all, I’ll point out that I’m Jewish, too, if you care. Third, Time magazine’s editors made the comparison, not me, by choosing him as Person of the Year. You can write to them at 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. Thank you for shopping through my links.
