Fight Colorblindness
Earlier this week, a blurb in the print edition of the Yale Daily News described a mugging that occurred near campus. But it did not describe the mugger, beyond a vague reference to his height. Today Linda Lorimer, the Vice President and Secretary of Yale University, sent an e-mail to undergraduates to inform us of recent robberies close to campus. It too contained a description of the suspects:
“The two men who committed the crimes are in their late teens or early twenties; one is about 5 feet 8 or 10 inches tall, stocky build; the other taller, about 6 feet, and thinner. They have generally been dressed in dark clothing, and one has worn a dark ski hat.”
Neither description tells us the suspects’ races. I suspect this is an attempt at sensitivity. No information is provided about hair or eyes; perhaps that would give away the races of the suspects and also therefore be insensitive. Hair and eye color are things that one mentions first in a description, if one does not first mention race. Race is an important part of a description. It is easily discernible, and identifications proceed from the most general and easily discernible features to those that are less so. This is a more effective way of describing someone than describing clothing, since I imagine that these thieves own a change of clothes. And if they didn’t before, they probably do now. In any case, providing an accurate and detailed description of criminals is probably in the best interests of campus safety.
The News and Linda Lorimer are concealing information about race either out of sensitivity or because it is already assumed that the suspects are minorities. I suspect that the immediate intention is the former, although it amounts to admitting the latter. Such attempts at racial sensitivity are patronizing, betraying a fear only of stepping on toes of color (other people can handle insensitivity, but not these poor creatures). A description lacking mention of race then is a not so subtle hint that the perpetrators were minorities. And since racial characteristics would only be reported in the cases of white (and probably Asian) suspects, it establishes that the default race of criminals mentioned in the news, unless otherwise indicated, is non-white. As Captain Renault would say, “Round up the usual suspects.”
Thursday, March 28, 2002
Legalize Polygamy
Today's editorial in the Yale Daily News is pathetic. I can respect people who defend gay marriage, but I have no respect for people who attack straw men. The editorial fails to examine any of the secular arguments against gay marriage, and therefore gives impression that people are only against gay marriage because of their religious beliefs. If anyone is interested in reading an intellectually serious discussion of the gay marriage debate, I recommend going to: Stanley Kurtz (attacking gay marriage) and Jonathan Rauch (supporting gay marriage) on National Review Online.
If the arguments given in the YDN are valid, then we should also legalize polygamy. Observe:
They write, "lawmakers should acknowledge that in today's society that committed love can be defined and recognized as existing between two people of the same sex." Modify this to read, "lawmakers should acknowledge that in today's society that committed love can be defined and recognized as existing between three or more people."
They also write: "As usual, the most fervent opposition to the bill came from religious groups, who deploy as their chief argument doctrine that adamantly condemns homosexual behavior. It is not our place to opine on the validity of church doctrine, and it is not the place of the Legislature to do so either. Citizens who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons are certainly entitled to do so. But as a secular body, the Legislature has a responsibility to divorce itself from all religions and pass reasoned laws that are right for the state as a whole." Modify this to read, "As usual, the most fervent opposition to the bill came from religious groups, who deploy as their chief argument doctrine that adamantly condemns polygamy. It is not our place to opine on the validity of church doctrine, and it is not the place of the Legislature to do so either. Citizens who oppose polygamy for religious reasons are certainly entitled to do so. But as a secular body, the Legislature has a responsibility to divorce itself from all religions and pass reasoned laws that are right for the state as a whole."
Today's editorial in the Yale Daily News is pathetic. I can respect people who defend gay marriage, but I have no respect for people who attack straw men. The editorial fails to examine any of the secular arguments against gay marriage, and therefore gives impression that people are only against gay marriage because of their religious beliefs. If anyone is interested in reading an intellectually serious discussion of the gay marriage debate, I recommend going to: Stanley Kurtz (attacking gay marriage) and Jonathan Rauch (supporting gay marriage) on National Review Online.
If the arguments given in the YDN are valid, then we should also legalize polygamy. Observe:
They write, "lawmakers should acknowledge that in today's society that committed love can be defined and recognized as existing between two people of the same sex." Modify this to read, "lawmakers should acknowledge that in today's society that committed love can be defined and recognized as existing between three or more people."
They also write: "As usual, the most fervent opposition to the bill came from religious groups, who deploy as their chief argument doctrine that adamantly condemns homosexual behavior. It is not our place to opine on the validity of church doctrine, and it is not the place of the Legislature to do so either. Citizens who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons are certainly entitled to do so. But as a secular body, the Legislature has a responsibility to divorce itself from all religions and pass reasoned laws that are right for the state as a whole." Modify this to read, "As usual, the most fervent opposition to the bill came from religious groups, who deploy as their chief argument doctrine that adamantly condemns polygamy. It is not our place to opine on the validity of church doctrine, and it is not the place of the Legislature to do so either. Citizens who oppose polygamy for religious reasons are certainly entitled to do so. But as a secular body, the Legislature has a responsibility to divorce itself from all religions and pass reasoned laws that are right for the state as a whole."
Wednesday, March 27, 2002
Death, where is thy sting? Right about now would be nice.
I think one of my contributors is testing my reaction time. But I'm going to leave his remark up for the world to see.
I think one of my contributors is testing my reaction time. But I'm going to leave his remark up for the world to see.
Tuesday, March 26, 2002
Friday, March 22, 2002
10,000 Panamaniacs
"It concerns me when I go to my home town and I see foreign flags from Liberia, Panamania, all over the world, but very few U.S. flags." - Sen. Trent Lott, in his attempt to justify the American Classic Voyages affair that just made taxpayers lose $187 million.
"It concerns me when I go to my home town and I see foreign flags from Liberia, Panamania, all over the world, but very few U.S. flags." - Sen. Trent Lott, in his attempt to justify the American Classic Voyages affair that just made taxpayers lose $187 million.
Thursday, March 21, 2002
Legal Reasoning
An excellent article on Kofi Annan's stupid statement, calling for an end to Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank. It's from the New York Times, but we won't hold it against the author, a professor at Columbia Law School.
An excellent article on Kofi Annan's stupid statement, calling for an end to Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank. It's from the New York Times, but we won't hold it against the author, a professor at Columbia Law School.
I'm Willing to Bank on It
Violence again erupted on the streets of Israel today. This time, it was by a member of Arafat's Fatah faction, which is on the payroll of the PLO. It is now clear that Arafat has blood on his hands. His police, on Israel's request, had captured the suicide bomber six days ago and decided to transport him to a different town. When Israel agreed to allow to transport him, the PLO released him. Now, two Israelis are dead and at least 50 are wounded. Arafat's representatives in the US are claiming that it is Israel's humiliating occupation of Gaza that has led young men to commit these crimes of desperation. I guess the textbooks in Palestinian public schools that call Israel a foreign enemy have nothing to do with the shaping of young minds.
Violence again erupted on the streets of Israel today. This time, it was by a member of Arafat's Fatah faction, which is on the payroll of the PLO. It is now clear that Arafat has blood on his hands. His police, on Israel's request, had captured the suicide bomber six days ago and decided to transport him to a different town. When Israel agreed to allow to transport him, the PLO released him. Now, two Israelis are dead and at least 50 are wounded. Arafat's representatives in the US are claiming that it is Israel's humiliating occupation of Gaza that has led young men to commit these crimes of desperation. I guess the textbooks in Palestinian public schools that call Israel a foreign enemy have nothing to do with the shaping of young minds.
Dear Parents: Your child is an eyesore.
Some counties are urging schools to send letters to the parents of fat children. The letters, encouraging parents to do something about the child's weight, have been compared by supporters to the letters schools send to the parents of children with poor eyesight or newly discovered disabilities. But there is a difference--parents won't necessarily know when a child has poor eyesight or hidden disabilities; they're not something you can detect just by looking at the little fellow. But if Junior needs to be buttered up before squeezing out the front door and has to be rolled to school by four stout men, I believe the parents may be aware of the problem. The letter is a waste of paper and an insult.
Some counties are urging schools to send letters to the parents of fat children. The letters, encouraging parents to do something about the child's weight, have been compared by supporters to the letters schools send to the parents of children with poor eyesight or newly discovered disabilities. But there is a difference--parents won't necessarily know when a child has poor eyesight or hidden disabilities; they're not something you can detect just by looking at the little fellow. But if Junior needs to be buttered up before squeezing out the front door and has to be rolled to school by four stout men, I believe the parents may be aware of the problem. The letter is a waste of paper and an insult.
Liberal, Artistic, Useless
I don't think that the problem is that Yale is too focused on a liberal education or too pre-professional. There's nothing wrong with either one per se. The problem is that Yale doesn't have a clue about which one it wants to choose and advertises one as the other without any clear understanding of what it should be doing. For example, look at Undergraduate Career Services (UCS). It is quite far from campus and most of the people there only know about I-Banking, Law School and Med School. They're quite incompetent in pretty much everything else. Yale says that it cares about liberal arts, but teaches Econ (a rather useless discipline, where none of the assumptions being made in economic models today adhere to reality). It says it cares about students' job prospects, but hires clueless people for UCS. If Yale were able to clarify what it is that it's doing, what it is that is necessary for a liberal education, and what it is that is necessary for an education that will allow people to get a job after graduation, things would be much better. The point is that a half-hearted effort won't do. Yale needs to do both, intensively. Not just one or the other.
Also, it would help the liberal arts and students' professional aspirations if some of Yale's most popular majors were more demanding (ie: History, Psychology, Poli Sci) and if students took more math and science classes. The point is that I don't think that there's a great dichotomy between liberal arts and professionalism. Those things that employers look for are often the same things that define a well-educated human being. Thankfully, in America, there's enough diversity in any given profession, that it would be useless to teach students one set of job skills (see the Econ major at Yale, or the CS major at many state schools) rather than a well-rounded bag of tools with which to examine the world.
I pity Ms. Gale for several reasons. She probably wasn't advised properly on how to get a job. She also probably took BS courses in the disciplines that didn't interest her that much, like EE 101. This might not be a fair characterization of her particular case, but it is certainly true of countless Yalies. She is a failure of the liberal arts system, as Mr. Defeo says. She's also a failure of a pre-professional system. What does this tell us about the job Yale is doing?
I don't think that the problem is that Yale is too focused on a liberal education or too pre-professional. There's nothing wrong with either one per se. The problem is that Yale doesn't have a clue about which one it wants to choose and advertises one as the other without any clear understanding of what it should be doing. For example, look at Undergraduate Career Services (UCS). It is quite far from campus and most of the people there only know about I-Banking, Law School and Med School. They're quite incompetent in pretty much everything else. Yale says that it cares about liberal arts, but teaches Econ (a rather useless discipline, where none of the assumptions being made in economic models today adhere to reality). It says it cares about students' job prospects, but hires clueless people for UCS. If Yale were able to clarify what it is that it's doing, what it is that is necessary for a liberal education, and what it is that is necessary for an education that will allow people to get a job after graduation, things would be much better. The point is that a half-hearted effort won't do. Yale needs to do both, intensively. Not just one or the other.
Also, it would help the liberal arts and students' professional aspirations if some of Yale's most popular majors were more demanding (ie: History, Psychology, Poli Sci) and if students took more math and science classes. The point is that I don't think that there's a great dichotomy between liberal arts and professionalism. Those things that employers look for are often the same things that define a well-educated human being. Thankfully, in America, there's enough diversity in any given profession, that it would be useless to teach students one set of job skills (see the Econ major at Yale, or the CS major at many state schools) rather than a well-rounded bag of tools with which to examine the world.
I pity Ms. Gale for several reasons. She probably wasn't advised properly on how to get a job. She also probably took BS courses in the disciplines that didn't interest her that much, like EE 101. This might not be a fair characterization of her particular case, but it is certainly true of countless Yalies. She is a failure of the liberal arts system, as Mr. Defeo says. She's also a failure of a pre-professional system. What does this tell us about the job Yale is doing?
Carrie Nation, from beyond the grave
NBC is under attack for airing liquor ads . The ads only run at night, when most children are probably asleep. Nonetheless, there is an uproar. Some right minded people ought to garner support for a campaign against the birth control pill ads that run during all hours, primetime included.
NBC is under attack for airing liquor ads . The ads only run at night, when most children are probably asleep. Nonetheless, there is an uproar. Some right minded people ought to garner support for a campaign against the birth control pill ads that run during all hours, primetime included.
Mr. De Feo, it is not that I don't understand what a liberal education is. It's just that I disagree with your version of it. Do you understand the way real life works after college for people who have to sustain themselves without the financial backing of their parents? What would you suggest Ms. Gale should do at this point?
As to Mr. Halim's remark: the only real way out of any division of labor is to be a self-sustaining farmer. We should all become well-rounded enough to have intelligent conversations and contemplate the important questions of life, but it is only the division of labor that gives us the time to even think about them. This is a question of balance, not a dichotomy.
As to Mr. Halim's remark: the only real way out of any division of labor is to be a self-sustaining farmer. We should all become well-rounded enough to have intelligent conversations and contemplate the important questions of life, but it is only the division of labor that gives us the time to even think about them. This is a question of balance, not a dichotomy.
If you think it's a problem to spend any amount of money on an education and not shape it with job prospects in mind, then you don't understand what a liberal education is. See here for what I (and John Henry Newman) have in mind. Perhaps I should have said simply, "Boo-hoo."
One can enjoy a liberal arts education as a value in itself and still hope it will also lead to a job afterwards. I think it is a problem to spend $150,000 on an education that does not lead to any decent job. Thankfully, not everyone experiences the same as Shawna Gale after graduating from Yale, but her voice has been far from the only one to be heard in the past few years. Is there a problem with Yale telling everyone they should just take whatever classes they feel like taking and major in anything? If University Career Services (UCS) is actually not able to help students plan their professional lives after college, that's not a good thing.
The unfortunate fact is that, in some cases, majoring in English will only lead to interesting jobs if one is among the most gifted in the field. Else, there is no option but to go on to a graduate or professional school, in which case coming from Yale College still pays off. All of this having been said, one can understand Ms. Gale's disappointment, and maybe the account of her experiences will make future Yalies more aware of what their choices are and what their expectations should be regarding their liberal arts education.
The unfortunate fact is that, in some cases, majoring in English will only lead to interesting jobs if one is among the most gifted in the field. Else, there is no option but to go on to a graduate or professional school, in which case coming from Yale College still pays off. All of this having been said, one can understand Ms. Gale's disappointment, and maybe the account of her experiences will make future Yalies more aware of what their choices are and what their expectations should be regarding their liberal arts education.
Wednesday, March 20, 2002
A Fine Whine
This article by a recent Yale graduate is laughable for many reasons. Aside from the snide class consciousness, the real killer is the obvious failure of her education. Either her liberal education has failed her, in that it hasn't even taught her that its value doesn't lie in its usefulness in job hunts; or she was at Yale for a servile education, and it failed to secure a job, its only function. In any case, the least she could do to improve her job prospects is to stop writing self-pitying and self-indulgent columns.
This article by a recent Yale graduate is laughable for many reasons. Aside from the snide class consciousness, the real killer is the obvious failure of her education. Either her liberal education has failed her, in that it hasn't even taught her that its value doesn't lie in its usefulness in job hunts; or she was at Yale for a servile education, and it failed to secure a job, its only function. In any case, the least she could do to improve her job prospects is to stop writing self-pitying and self-indulgent columns.
De Jure, De Facto
The Bill Donohue quote is telling of a fallacy that dominates both the Right and the Left these days. No one here made the claim that the law should be used to let Mitchell speak at Villanova. Villanova is a private institution and it can choose to do whatever it desires. Neither is Villanova denying Mitchell any "rights". The point is that by not letting Mitchell speak, they would be doing their students a disservice. If there was a Jewish historian who denied the existence of the Holocaust, Yeshiva should have him come speak. This is part of what it means to be a University. Villanova can do as it likes. However, it will not be carrying out its promised mission to its students: being a University.
The Bill Donohue quote is telling of a fallacy that dominates both the Right and the Left these days. No one here made the claim that the law should be used to let Mitchell speak at Villanova. Villanova is a private institution and it can choose to do whatever it desires. Neither is Villanova denying Mitchell any "rights". The point is that by not letting Mitchell speak, they would be doing their students a disservice. If there was a Jewish historian who denied the existence of the Holocaust, Yeshiva should have him come speak. This is part of what it means to be a University. Villanova can do as it likes. However, it will not be carrying out its promised mission to its students: being a University.
The good news of the day is that today marks the 150th anniversary of the first publication of Harriet Beecher Stowe's great novel Uncle Tom's Cabin. It is unfortunate that, meanwhile, some individuals have come to confuse the notion of legal equality with the one of special privileges.
Nudity is passé.
Corpses are the way to go. That some people find this display of corpses life-affirming is strange. I'll agree that the human body is a fascinating structure, and that we might benefit from seeing what it looks like on the inside. Whether a display of a dissected man riding a skinned horse while grasping his own brain is the best (or most tasteful) means to that end is another story. But it is less clinical than a textbook.
Corpses are the way to go. That some people find this display of corpses life-affirming is strange. I'll agree that the human body is a fascinating structure, and that we might benefit from seeing what it looks like on the inside. Whether a display of a dissected man riding a skinned horse while grasping his own brain is the best (or most tasteful) means to that end is another story. But it is less clinical than a textbook.
Obstruction of Justice, Catholic Style
It appears that the Catholic Church is in hot water, yet again, over priests sexually molesting young boys. Cardinal Law, the Archbishop of Boston, attempted to hide the doings of Father Geoghan, a priest now being accused of multiple child molestation charges, by moving him from parish to parish and secretly settling with victims' families out of court. However, the disgusting thing is that he allowed Geoghan to remain in positions of contact with young boys, putting many of them at risk. Cardinal Egan of New York also appears to be in trouble now, as a result of several claims made against some New York priests. Egan, when he was heading the Diocese of Bridgeport, CT, apparently covered up a number of sex-abuse instances. When families brought up lawsuits, he used rather nasty tactics to destroy their credibility. Christian charity, huh? To make matters worse for the One True and Holy Church, the FBI's recent raid on a nationwide kiddie-porn ring turned up several priests from the Diocese of Philadelphia. What is very frightening, other than the fact that there are priests who committ these sick acts, is that the Church appears to have aided and abetted these priests by refusing to turn over the names of the accused to the police and by keeping these priests in positions where they would have close contact with minors. The Church should be held legally responsible for obstruction of justice, reckless endangerment, and aiding and abetting a criminal act. It seems that the Church's reasoning was, quite ironically, rather Machiavellian: faith in the Church is a noble end for it leads to salvation; thus, it is ok if we victimize countless kids and families if it means that faith in the Church will be maintained. And we thought Clinton was bad.
It appears that the Catholic Church is in hot water, yet again, over priests sexually molesting young boys. Cardinal Law, the Archbishop of Boston, attempted to hide the doings of Father Geoghan, a priest now being accused of multiple child molestation charges, by moving him from parish to parish and secretly settling with victims' families out of court. However, the disgusting thing is that he allowed Geoghan to remain in positions of contact with young boys, putting many of them at risk. Cardinal Egan of New York also appears to be in trouble now, as a result of several claims made against some New York priests. Egan, when he was heading the Diocese of Bridgeport, CT, apparently covered up a number of sex-abuse instances. When families brought up lawsuits, he used rather nasty tactics to destroy their credibility. Christian charity, huh? To make matters worse for the One True and Holy Church, the FBI's recent raid on a nationwide kiddie-porn ring turned up several priests from the Diocese of Philadelphia. What is very frightening, other than the fact that there are priests who committ these sick acts, is that the Church appears to have aided and abetted these priests by refusing to turn over the names of the accused to the police and by keeping these priests in positions where they would have close contact with minors. The Church should be held legally responsible for obstruction of justice, reckless endangerment, and aiding and abetting a criminal act. It seems that the Church's reasoning was, quite ironically, rather Machiavellian: faith in the Church is a noble end for it leads to salvation; thus, it is ok if we victimize countless kids and families if it means that faith in the Church will be maintained. And we thought Clinton was bad.
Tuesday, March 19, 2002
Liberty, Equality, Artillery
This is heartening. College gun clubs are on the rise. There is a rifle team at Yale. Perhaps one of our other bloggers might tell us more about it.
On a mildly related note, Yale students are not allowed to carry firearms on campus; students are required to store any guns at Yale's police substation until they decide to venture off campus. This is unfortunate. One can be mugged before one reaches the station. Besides, an armed campus is a polite campus.
This is heartening. College gun clubs are on the rise. There is a rifle team at Yale. Perhaps one of our other bloggers might tell us more about it.
On a mildly related note, Yale students are not allowed to carry firearms on campus; students are required to store any guns at Yale's police substation until they decide to venture off campus. This is unfortunate. One can be mugged before one reaches the station. Besides, an armed campus is a polite campus.
Trad Paradise
Article about how the Saudi morality police made dozens of girls die in a fire. The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice: Sounds like a new cabinet-level post if the Trads ever get power on this side of the pond.
Article about how the Saudi morality police made dozens of girls die in a fire. The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice: Sounds like a new cabinet-level post if the Trads ever get power on this side of the pond.
It appears that according to Mr. Defeo, no one who disagrees with anything that the Church teaches may ever set foot at a Catholic university. The point of an education is to broaden one's perspectives. And in fact, a Catholic university should indeed present dissenting views on various issues, as long as they advertise them as such. Besides, we don't even know what Mitchell is talking on. Just because he's wrong on abortion doesn't mean that he's wrong on everything.
If we take what Mr. Defeo says to heart, then Catholic universities may not teach ideas on Lutheranism. Further, they are not allowed to hire professors who are Lutherans but used to be Catholics and converted, given that these people are clearly wrong.
If we take what Mr. Defeo says to heart, then Catholic universities may not teach ideas on Lutheranism. Further, they are not allowed to hire professors who are Lutherans but used to be Catholics and converted, given that these people are clearly wrong.
Don't Give Whores Communion
I do agree with Mr. Defeo that excommunication makes him a pariah. However, that only makes him a pariah in terms of official Church business (ie: communion). No one asked (especially not him, probably) for him to take communion at the University chapel on Sunday morning. We don't even know if he's talking about abortion. He might be talking about the Middle East for all we know.
I do agree with Mr. Defeo that excommunication makes him a pariah. However, that only makes him a pariah in terms of official Church business (ie: communion). No one asked (especially not him, probably) for him to take communion at the University chapel on Sunday morning. We don't even know if he's talking about abortion. He might be talking about the Middle East for all we know.
More Tank, less Think
Read this great article in the online version of Ideas on Liberty where Lawrence Reed, president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, debunks the possibility of creating a "socialist think tank".
Read this great article in the online version of Ideas on Liberty where Lawrence Reed, president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, debunks the possibility of creating a "socialist think tank".
Monday, March 18, 2002
Slogan Suggestions for Eve
The Libertarian Party
Got a foil hat?
Lose the government. Keep the porn.
The Democratic Party
Can't somebody else do it?
Fighting to keep America Mexican.
The Republican Party
Dancing on a volcano, 24/7.
Like a country club, but nobody's forcing us to let women and minorities in.
The Dark Side of White America.
The White Side of Dark America.
The Yale Free Press
At long last, we have no decency.
Under the table. Above the law. Beyond good and evil. And somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun.
(The good ones are here)
The Libertarian Party
Got a foil hat?
Lose the government. Keep the porn.
The Democratic Party
Can't somebody else do it?
Fighting to keep America Mexican.
The Republican Party
Dancing on a volcano, 24/7.
Like a country club, but nobody's forcing us to let women and minorities in.
The Dark Side of White America.
The White Side of Dark America.
The Yale Free Press
At long last, we have no decency.
Under the table. Above the law. Beyond good and evil. And somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun.
(The good ones are here)
Campaign Slogans, rejected and otherwise
Our former Editor, Eve Tushnet, is at it again. Check out her hilarious campaign slogans, and ours too, while you're at it.
Our former Editor, Eve Tushnet, is at it again. Check out her hilarious campaign slogans, and ours too, while you're at it.
More Dialectic (Less Dialogue)
Here's an awesome piece on the conflict in the Middle East by Victor Davis Hanson of National Review. Don't you just love classicists?
Here's an awesome piece on the conflict in the Middle East by Victor Davis Hanson of National Review. Don't you just love classicists?
This Land ain't your Land.
The entire Palestine/Israel conflict is based on the faulty premise of ethnic-based statehood. The British, upon leaving, carved two states out of the region, Israel and Jordan. One was to be for the Jews and the other for the "Palestinians". Now, there are competing claims as to which culture owned what land. Cultures don't own land. People do.
Similarly, I wonder if Arab states, which have been siding with the Palestinians for decades in this conflict, would have allowed Jews to peacefully live there. The experience of Jews in Iran and Egypt seems to indicate otherwise. Palestinians were offered citizenship by the Israeli government in the 1950's and most of them refused, preferring instead to fight alongside the invading Arab states every time they declared war on Israel. Those who became citizens could even become members of the Knesset. Now, no one is claiming that some of Israel's policies (such as torture in prison) shouldn't be decried. They should. But, let's not blame Israel for everything that is wrong in that region. And let's not forget that a land-for-peace deal at Munich helped give us genocide and World War II.
The entire Palestine/Israel conflict is based on the faulty premise of ethnic-based statehood. The British, upon leaving, carved two states out of the region, Israel and Jordan. One was to be for the Jews and the other for the "Palestinians". Now, there are competing claims as to which culture owned what land. Cultures don't own land. People do.
Similarly, I wonder if Arab states, which have been siding with the Palestinians for decades in this conflict, would have allowed Jews to peacefully live there. The experience of Jews in Iran and Egypt seems to indicate otherwise. Palestinians were offered citizenship by the Israeli government in the 1950's and most of them refused, preferring instead to fight alongside the invading Arab states every time they declared war on Israel. Those who became citizens could even become members of the Knesset. Now, no one is claiming that some of Israel's policies (such as torture in prison) shouldn't be decried. They should. But, let's not blame Israel for everything that is wrong in that region. And let's not forget that a land-for-peace deal at Munich helped give us genocide and World War II.
Justice, Palestinian Style... If only Rawls could be there
The other day, a couple of Palestinian militants shot another Palestinian in the middle of Bethlehem accross from the Church of the Nativity where Jesus was born. The militants claimed that the guy was a traitor, so they shot him, tied him to a car, and dragged the corpse through the streets of Bethlehem (article). Is this Palestinian justice? A similar thing happened in Texas a couple of years ago. Only then, it was called a "hate crime" and the world over was outraged (as they should have been). But now, the Palestinians are "freedom fighters" and thus what they did is justified. Killing a person and then dragging him through the streets chained to a car is vicious and barbaric. Civilized people do not do that. Savages do. Is this the kind of "just" government we're expecting from the Palestinians?
The other day, a couple of Palestinian militants shot another Palestinian in the middle of Bethlehem accross from the Church of the Nativity where Jesus was born. The militants claimed that the guy was a traitor, so they shot him, tied him to a car, and dragged the corpse through the streets of Bethlehem (article). Is this Palestinian justice? A similar thing happened in Texas a couple of years ago. Only then, it was called a "hate crime" and the world over was outraged (as they should have been). But now, the Palestinians are "freedom fighters" and thus what they did is justified. Killing a person and then dragging him through the streets chained to a car is vicious and barbaric. Civilized people do not do that. Savages do. Is this the kind of "just" government we're expecting from the Palestinians?
George Mitchell, Satan
Ms. Grant's objection to Sen. Mitchell seems very bizarre. It doesn't seem like he's representing himself as a Catholic authority on abortion. I don't even think he is going to be talking about abortion, but I may be wrong on that account. Does that mean that no one who has a dissenting opinion on Church matters should ever go to a Catholic university even if the opinion is presented as a dissent? That seems really odd. Besides, Mitchell is a distinguished, though largely mistaken, figure and it seems natural for any university to invite him. So what if he disagreed with The One True and Holy Church on something? Has the Pope never sinned? If he has, should he be banned from Villanova University? Doubtful. I don't see any problem with Mitchell's appearance as long as he is not presenting his views as the views that Catholics should hold.
Ms. Grant's objection to Sen. Mitchell seems very bizarre. It doesn't seem like he's representing himself as a Catholic authority on abortion. I don't even think he is going to be talking about abortion, but I may be wrong on that account. Does that mean that no one who has a dissenting opinion on Church matters should ever go to a Catholic university even if the opinion is presented as a dissent? That seems really odd. Besides, Mitchell is a distinguished, though largely mistaken, figure and it seems natural for any university to invite him. So what if he disagreed with The One True and Holy Church on something? Has the Pope never sinned? If he has, should he be banned from Villanova University? Doubtful. I don't see any problem with Mitchell's appearance as long as he is not presenting his views as the views that Catholics should hold.
Even though I believe marriage should ideally last for life, I disagree that a divorce is never acceptable. I'll leave it at that to prevent an onset of religious warfare on the question.
As to Andrea Yates' defense, Emily is making an interesting point about the disagreement in diagnosis. However, there are a few good reasons why this disagreement might have happened, and I am not sure it should have hurt her case. For one thing, several mental illnesses have similar psychotic features, so it may be difficult to differentiate them in the diagnostic process. Second of all, many people who have one mental illness have at least another one (comorbidity). Some doctors may have diagnosed her with post-partum psychosis, some with schizophrenia, and some with both. This is not a contradiction given that these illnesses aren't mutually exclusive.
As to Andrea Yates' defense, Emily is making an interesting point about the disagreement in diagnosis. However, there are a few good reasons why this disagreement might have happened, and I am not sure it should have hurt her case. For one thing, several mental illnesses have similar psychotic features, so it may be difficult to differentiate them in the diagnostic process. Second of all, many people who have one mental illness have at least another one (comorbidity). Some doctors may have diagnosed her with post-partum psychosis, some with schizophrenia, and some with both. This is not a contradiction given that these illnesses aren't mutually exclusive.
Sunday, March 17, 2002
‘Till life sentence do us part….
Yes, Russell Yates does seem to lack the judgment of your average gopher. Why I’m so ticked off by his recent comments on a possible remarriage is that he seems to view the marriage not as a bond of love to a particular woman, but as an institution designed for his own pleasure.
I propose that any talk of remarriage on Russell Yates’ part is not premature; remarriage is out of the question. He made a vow not only to stick with this particular woman, through better or for worse, ‘till death do them part, but also to care for her. He clearly did not provide her with the care and support that he should have; why should he be getting his jollies while she rots in prison?
I am regurgitating Maggie Gallagher’s point: When the institution of marriage breaks down, women get hurt. Marriage is increasingly being based on one principle: What’s in it for me? It is quite clear in Russell Yates’ case that there’s nothing more for his pleasure in his marriage to Andrea; no more sex, no more babies, no more housework. And so he’ll get a replacement. How civilized.
Yes, Russell Yates does seem to lack the judgment of your average gopher. Why I’m so ticked off by his recent comments on a possible remarriage is that he seems to view the marriage not as a bond of love to a particular woman, but as an institution designed for his own pleasure.
I propose that any talk of remarriage on Russell Yates’ part is not premature; remarriage is out of the question. He made a vow not only to stick with this particular woman, through better or for worse, ‘till death do them part, but also to care for her. He clearly did not provide her with the care and support that he should have; why should he be getting his jollies while she rots in prison?
I am regurgitating Maggie Gallagher’s point: When the institution of marriage breaks down, women get hurt. Marriage is increasingly being based on one principle: What’s in it for me? It is quite clear in Russell Yates’ case that there’s nothing more for his pleasure in his marriage to Andrea; no more sex, no more babies, no more housework. And so he’ll get a replacement. How civilized.
Jesse Jackson willing to sacrifice black children to public school ideal
Not really surprising, but what is nice to hear is that he is facing growing opposition doing so. As the article points out, he does not mind lying in this process, by claiming that the organizations that support vouchers disagreed with the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965... too bad he got his timeline wrong and most of these organizations hadn't been created yet. So what is Jesse, JR doing in the meantime? Well, attending private school at St. Albans, of course.
Not really surprising, but what is nice to hear is that he is facing growing opposition doing so. As the article points out, he does not mind lying in this process, by claiming that the organizations that support vouchers disagreed with the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965... too bad he got his timeline wrong and most of these organizations hadn't been created yet. So what is Jesse, JR doing in the meantime? Well, attending private school at St. Albans, of course.
Speaking of Yates...
Russell Yates is definitely strange and hard to understand. It seems premature to talk of a possible remarriage and all that, given his wife has just been sentenced to life in prison. I am not sure the culture is responsible for his behavior; his views on marriage seem quite primitive and may be related to his utter lack of judgment when it came to having more kids with Andrea. The idea of seeing him prosecuted for his negligence in leaving her with the kids is not absurd, but we cannot prosecute people for stupidity, if that is what led him to act the way he did.
Furthermore, this gives us the occasion to rethink the sentencing of Andrea. I was surprised by the speed with which the jury decided to dismiss her insanity defense, given that many psychiatrists claim this is the clearest case of insanity they have seen in years. The Texas law is vague in this regard by setting the defining insanity as not knowing the "difference between right and wrong". Did Andrea know what she did was illegal? Probably so, if she called the police afterwards. Did she think what she did was actually morally wrong? If Satan tells someone to kill her kids or else she'll go to hell, she may have different premises to act upon than we all do. It is hard to put oneself in the position of someone who is mentally ill, but this does not change the fact that she psychotically believed her children would be greatly harmed unless she prevented it... which she then thought she did.
The one good argument I have heard about not allowing the insanity defense is that it is very hard to establish if someone in fact thought he saw Satan or not. This is why we cannot take that as the only piece of evidence for insanity. In Andrea Yates' case, however, we have as much additional evidence as we could ever have.
Russell Yates is definitely strange and hard to understand. It seems premature to talk of a possible remarriage and all that, given his wife has just been sentenced to life in prison. I am not sure the culture is responsible for his behavior; his views on marriage seem quite primitive and may be related to his utter lack of judgment when it came to having more kids with Andrea. The idea of seeing him prosecuted for his negligence in leaving her with the kids is not absurd, but we cannot prosecute people for stupidity, if that is what led him to act the way he did.
Furthermore, this gives us the occasion to rethink the sentencing of Andrea. I was surprised by the speed with which the jury decided to dismiss her insanity defense, given that many psychiatrists claim this is the clearest case of insanity they have seen in years. The Texas law is vague in this regard by setting the defining insanity as not knowing the "difference between right and wrong". Did Andrea know what she did was illegal? Probably so, if she called the police afterwards. Did she think what she did was actually morally wrong? If Satan tells someone to kill her kids or else she'll go to hell, she may have different premises to act upon than we all do. It is hard to put oneself in the position of someone who is mentally ill, but this does not change the fact that she psychotically believed her children would be greatly harmed unless she prevented it... which she then thought she did.
The one good argument I have heard about not allowing the insanity defense is that it is very hard to establish if someone in fact thought he saw Satan or not. This is why we cannot take that as the only piece of evidence for insanity. In Andrea Yates' case, however, we have as much additional evidence as we could ever have.
Friday, March 15, 2002
Finally, a lasting, loving marriage!
Russell Yates is that kind of guy that both NOW and the Catholic Church love to hate. In a statement to the press today, Russell tells the public of his continuing affection for his wife: "I believe in Andrea. She is the kindest, sweetest, gentlest person I've ever met." (Must not know many people, huh?)
He goes on to say that he "does not know whether he will remain married to Andrea....He said he misses the companionship of a wife and may like to have more children." Women: Good for boinking, babies, and not much else.
Could this disgusting pattern of thought possibly be the result of a culture that views the worth of a woman based upon sex appeal and not much else? And could the objectification of women possibly stem from the modern abandonment of marriage?
Russell Yates is that kind of guy that both NOW and the Catholic Church love to hate. In a statement to the press today, Russell tells the public of his continuing affection for his wife: "I believe in Andrea. She is the kindest, sweetest, gentlest person I've ever met." (Must not know many people, huh?)
He goes on to say that he "does not know whether he will remain married to Andrea....He said he misses the companionship of a wife and may like to have more children." Women: Good for boinking, babies, and not much else.
Could this disgusting pattern of thought possibly be the result of a culture that views the worth of a woman based upon sex appeal and not much else? And could the objectification of women possibly stem from the modern abandonment of marriage?
Talk about misrepresentation in the media of the position of the Catholic Church! CNN just published a very misleading, if not wickedly inaccurate story on the Archdiocese of Boston's official newspaper, the Pilot (see here). The CNN story discusses the editorial in the current issue of the Pilot (here), and implies that the Pilot editorial board is pushing for a change in policy regarding a celibate, male priesthood.
But the Pilot editorial implies nothing of the kind. It asks a series of thoughtful questions about the celibate priesthood, none of which imply that current Church policy is misguided. Could it possibly be that the CNN writer had an axe to grind over the celibate, all-male priesthood? Bias against the Catholic Church? In such respected media outlets as CNN? Naw.
But the Pilot editorial implies nothing of the kind. It asks a series of thoughtful questions about the celibate priesthood, none of which imply that current Church policy is misguided. Could it possibly be that the CNN writer had an axe to grind over the celibate, all-male priesthood? Bias against the Catholic Church? In such respected media outlets as CNN? Naw.
Wednesday, March 13, 2002
Villanova University's Office for Mission Effectiveness has invited former Senator George Mitchell to give a a keynote address at an upcoming on-campus conference. So a university invites a former Senator. What's the big deal? Well, Villanova's a Catholic university. And Mitchell is a Catholic--a Catholic who is strongly supported by NARAL and who authored the "Freedom of Choice Act."
Say what you will about the morality of abortion, it's ridiculous that a Catholic university would endorse someone like Mitchell. It's false advertising. Think of it this way: Villanova is offering its students a certain product, that is, a Catholic education. Everyone agrees that university education is not confined to the things learned in the classroom. By inviting Mitchell, Villanova is encouraging its students to learn from him. But what he is famous for (and would presumably be teaching) is not in conformity with Catholicism.
If Villanova finds its Catholic identity cumbersome and outdated, that's fine--they can simply stop calling themselves Catholic. But the course they are pursuing now is deceptive and must be stopped.
Say what you will about the morality of abortion, it's ridiculous that a Catholic university would endorse someone like Mitchell. It's false advertising. Think of it this way: Villanova is offering its students a certain product, that is, a Catholic education. Everyone agrees that university education is not confined to the things learned in the classroom. By inviting Mitchell, Villanova is encouraging its students to learn from him. But what he is famous for (and would presumably be teaching) is not in conformity with Catholicism.
If Villanova finds its Catholic identity cumbersome and outdated, that's fine--they can simply stop calling themselves Catholic. But the course they are pursuing now is deceptive and must be stopped.
Monday, March 11, 2002
Wednesday, March 06, 2002
Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres
President Levin said of Yale Corporation candidate Maya Lin, "I have great respect for her as an artist and architect, and I know her to be an enthusiastic and devoted alumnus" (YDN, 3/1/02). Whether she is a great artist and architect is debatable. But she is certainly not an alumnus.
President Levin said of Yale Corporation candidate Maya Lin, "I have great respect for her as an artist and architect, and I know her to be an enthusiastic and devoted alumnus" (YDN, 3/1/02). Whether she is a great artist and architect is debatable. But she is certainly not an alumnus.
Cheers and Jeers
...to the Association of Yale Alumni. In a mostly sensible editorial in the Yale Daily News, it is reported that the AYA have only nominated one candidate to stand against Rev. W. David Lee DIV '93 in the bid for a seat on the Yale Corporation; in years prior they have nominated several candidates. This is the good news; the votes against Lee, whose practices and ties to Yale unions are questionable, will not be divided. The bad news is that the AYA's candidate is Maya Lin '81 ARC '86. You may remember her from her condemnatory Vietnam War Memorial and her sorry Freudian excuse for a fountain called the Women's Table, celebrating coeducation at Yale. Although she will certainly defeat Rev. Lee, this is a terrible bait-and-switch. After the backlash over a rabble-rousing union-funded and anti-Yale candidate, even a no-talent hack looks like a good choice.
...to the Association of Yale Alumni. In a mostly sensible editorial in the Yale Daily News, it is reported that the AYA have only nominated one candidate to stand against Rev. W. David Lee DIV '93 in the bid for a seat on the Yale Corporation; in years prior they have nominated several candidates. This is the good news; the votes against Lee, whose practices and ties to Yale unions are questionable, will not be divided. The bad news is that the AYA's candidate is Maya Lin '81 ARC '86. You may remember her from her condemnatory Vietnam War Memorial and her sorry Freudian excuse for a fountain called the Women's Table, celebrating coeducation at Yale. Although she will certainly defeat Rev. Lee, this is a terrible bait-and-switch. After the backlash over a rabble-rousing union-funded and anti-Yale candidate, even a no-talent hack looks like a good choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)