The Yale Diva

2003-06-19T06:26:00.000-07:00

Check out the New Site

I won't be posting on the site anymore--I've moved to www.yalediva.com. Just take a look--I think you'll agree it's worth the hassle!

2003-06-18T12:33:00.000-07:00

More Thank Yous

I know I'm not doing InstaPundit or Oxblog any service by linking back to them from here, but I wouldn't to violate blog etiquette while I'm still new at this. Thanks to Professor Reynolds for the link, and to Patrick Belton over at OxBlog for the kind words.

2003-06-17T12:45:00.000-07:00

KTS Does it Again

Donald Luskin has to be the most relentless guy in recent history. And one heck of a thorn on Paul Krugman's side. His Krugman fiskings make it difficult to believe a word you read in the Times, and today's fisking is no exception. He concludes:

"If this really is the Times's new paradigm for handling political news, I want the old paradigm back. I'd rather have seen this appropriations bill covered on the paper's Washington page — yes, even with Jayson Blair's byline. Anything but Paul Krugman's bias and vagueness and untruthfulness dressed up as news. It was bad enough when his lies were disguised as opinion."

2003-06-17T09:29:00.000-07:00

Many Thanks

to Jay Nordlinger for the mention in today's Impromptus. Those of you who know me well--and probably those of you who don't--know that Jay Nordlinger is a journalist I couldn't respect or admire more. Thank you, Jay.

2003-06-16T08:23:00.000-07:00

Frum Reservations

I like David Frum. I really do. His most recent book is great, and by all accounts his previous books are equally compelling. His blockbuster article on NRO and in NR on the divisions between the paleocons and the neocons was fabulous (it's no longer online).

But I'm frequently irked by his "Daily Diary" on NRO. Frum occasionally calls out his political adversaries and indicts them by revealing stories that strike me as overly personal for the NRO forum. This one about Taki T's disgraceful comments at a dinner party struck me as particularly gratuitous and particularly inappropriate:

"In the meantime, all this talk of her reminds me that she [Frum's wife, Danielle Crittendon] figures in the punchline of a story Taki Theodoropoulos told in the last issue of The American Conservative magazine. Taki, as you may recall, appeared in my recent piece for the print NR about conservatives who oppose the war on terror. He wasn’t pleased with my assessment of him, and wrote an indignant piece in his magazine, The American Conservative, about our single meeting at a large dinner party in the late 90s. Taki remembers being displeased with the meeting, but he neglects to explain why, perhaps because he was too drunk to remember. I’ll provide the details he omitted.

"After the dinner broke up, Taki cornered Danielle. From across the room, I caught her marital distress signal and came over to intercede. Taki retreated immediately and in a slurred voice offered what was I suppose intended as an apology: “This is why I am an anti-semite--the Jews take all the most beautiful women.” Whatever else you think of those words, they’re certainly a more plausible explanation of Taki’s political views than anything he’s been willing to put into print."

I like and applaud Frum's loyalty to his wife. But the way he vents his dirty laundry to a large audience gets to me. Many of Taki's arguments about public policy issues are worth tackling, and Frum does so artfully in his NR article about the paleocons. Rather than making comments like "Disclosure: Taki and I had an unpleasant exchange..." he relays the entire thing and comes off like a gossip. Today he falls into the same trap discussing Maureen Dowd's "unoriginiality." He writes:

"Now compare Dowd’s words to these, broadcast on National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition” two weeks ago:

“You see them at Starbucks at two o’clock on a weekday afternoon, pushing a stroller and balancing a latte, with a slight look of bewilderment on their faces, as if to say, ‘How did I end up here?’ … Yet forty years after the launch of the women’s movement, this is exactly what many former career women find themselves doing.”

"The broadcaster in question happened to be my wife, Danielle Crittenden, and the "trend" to which Dowd refers (in the late 1990s, the percentage of mothers of young children who worked dropped for the first time in a quarter century) provides the theme for Danielle's new novel.

Asked for comment about how she feels about playing Macarena Hernandez to Dowd’s Jayson Blair, Danielle said only, “Be nice: Maybe she sent a stringer to the Starbucks to look around for her.”"

Again, instead of "Disclosure: she lifted the words from my wife," Frum relays the story in all its glory, topping it off with his wife's clever comment. Something doesn't sit right with me...

2003-06-16T07:42:00.000-07:00

Much Needed Optimism

Even I was starting to get tired of my complaints about the Roadmap. Today on NRO, Saul Singer brings some much needed optimism to the discussion:

"It is fashionable on the Right to claim that the roadmap is worse than Oslo. What is meant by this is that, under the roadmap, the Palestinians get a state first, before they have to make peace with Israel. In this view, the roadmap is the latest, most serious step in Israel's serial capitulation to terrorism. "The only consistent element in the Israeli position has been the constant retreat from its stated positions on issues that are critical to the country's future. Evidently, terrorism works," writes reclusive Likud scion Binyamin Begin.

"Begin is largely right. Terrorism is what brought Yasser Arafat to power and is bringing the Palestinians a state. But here's the secret. For Sharon, the roadmap's "independent Palestinian state with provisional borders" is not at the bottom of the slippery slope, but a brake that prevents precisely the slide that Begin fears.

"The deal Sharon is offering the Palestinians is a partial state in exchange for a partial peace. You don't want to renounce the "right of return" and accept Israel as a Jewish state? Fine, says Sharon, but for that all you get is a truncated state whose borders are controlled by Israel. Why would the Palestinians accept such a deal? Because they know that the only alternatives are the status quo, in which both sides bleed indefinitely, or making a full peace, neither of which they want.

Sharon's real objective is to get to the middle phase of the roadmap and park there until the Arab world is ready for peace, which may or may not ever happen. It is a reasonably comfortable place for a gradualist to be. Palestine may choose to be belligerent, but Israel will have a provisional border to defend and a state to hold accountable."

2003-06-13T14:11:00.000-07:00

Gelerter's at it Again

Yale professor of Computer Science David Gelernter has an article in the most recent issue of the Weekly Standard: "The Next Great American Newspaper." Gelernter predicts that the future of newspapers is on the web--but not in the form of traditional web-based papers. Read the article for more.

Also, at the bottom of the page the article is on, you can link to Professor Gelernter's company--Scopeware--and download some of the new technologies he discusses in the article.

2003-06-13T06:10:00.000-07:00

The Rantisi Strike

Front Page Magazine posts a great column this morning from honestreporting.com. The article debunks media myths about Israel's failed strike on Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi.

2003-06-12T08:49:00.000-07:00

More Hillary

Ann Coulter has a laugh-out-loud column on Barbara Walters's Hillary interview:

Interviewing Hillary Clinton last Sunday night about her book Living History, ABC's Barbara Walters began with such hardball questions as:

"Are you a saint?"

"[Is it] tougher than being first lady, being a senator?"

"You know, you have been working on so many bills with Republicans. ... How do you turn old enemies into allies? ... I mean, no hard feelings?"

"How do you get on with this?"

"There were the accusations that [your husband] was a womanizer." I believe a DNA test revealed that they were more than accusations. "How'd you deal with it?"

Hillary dealt with it. Hillary is a survivor. As Walters said, Living History is a "wife's deeply personal account of being betrayed in front of the entire world." In fact, it was so deeply personal, it took several ghostwriters to get it right.

Walters brazenly probed the question on everyone's mind: How could Hillary be so brave, so strong, so downright wonderful? As Walters recounted, once our brave heroine even lived in Arkansas! Summarizing Hillary's sacrifice, Walters said: "You were young. You were smart. You had a future in Washington. But you gave it up to be with Bill Clinton, to move to Arkansas. ... Why on earth would you throw away your future?" Admittedly, even Bill Clinton couldn't wait to get out of Arkansas. Manhattanites cannot conceive of a greater hardship.

Walters also astutely observed that "in addition to being first lady, you're a mother." Will Hillary's mind-boggling feats never end? Usually such phony liberal amazement at the staggering heroism of women ends with the woman drowning all her children.

Josh Chafetz is sick of the Hillary bashing and claims it reflects poorly on conservatives. But Mitch Webber isn't so sure (permalink isn't working, but scroll down to "Speaking of Clinton").

I'll post my thoughts later, but suffice it to say I'm not sympathetic to Clinton (him or her) in the least. I continue to wonder how she takes herself seriously.

2003-06-11T11:07:00.000-07:00

Another Hamas Homocide Bombing

This is part of the cycle of violence, I'm guessing.

2003-06-11T08:04:00.000-07:00

Racial Preferences in College Admissions: Is the End Near?

Peter Kirsanow over at NRO predicts what'll happen after the Supreme Court rules on the Michigan affirmative action cases at the end of June. As far as his predictions go, I think he's absolutely right. The court'll hand down another murky standard to replace Bakke. I heard someone suggest that a 4-4-1 ruling is possible, with O'Connor (1) ruling that Michigan's policy's are not narrowly tailored and evading the question of whether diversity is a compelling governmental interest. Kirsanow predicts that diversity won't pass muster as a "compelling state interest", but that the court's ruling will do little to chage what actually occurs in college admissions. So set on racially engineering their classes, university officials will find ways to weasel around the court's decision:

"No device is as effective as outright preferences in achieving the level of minority admissions desired by a given college. In the end, a number of other methods, or combinations thereof, will be used by colleges to maintain a diverse student body. All of them are predicated on a presumption that the profound racial educational-achievement gap is likely to persist for decades and, therefore, admissions officers must either pretend the gap doesn't exist or employ Oz-like mechanisms to artificially erase the gap.

Regardless of whether these efforts are well-intended, they all fail to address the underlying problem: abysmal K-12 education and family environments not conducive to academic competence. This is where the focus should be, not on the latest admissions gimmick offered up to the diversity gods. The hope is that the Supreme Court will confound the smart set and issue a decision that will compel abandonment of preference in exchange for an insistence upon excellence. As Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom would say — no excuses."

An interesting and troubling fact that I haven't seen discussed: Michigan claims it must do everything in its power to attract the very small number of qualified black applicants, whose average grades and test scores still lag behind those of their white and Asian peers. Presumably, these relatively qualified black applicants come from relatively priveleged (non-disadvantaged) backgrounds--from decent schools, relative affluence, and parents with college educations.

In court, Michigan didn't even pretend that their policies are aimed at the poorest blacks who hail from the ghettos and who could really use a break. They're vying for the right to keep the two-track admissions system that allows them compete with private universities to attract the black kids from Exeter, Andover, and Choate. So much for the (however inadequate) justification that race is used as a proxy for disadvantage. The difference between public perception and empirical reality regarding affirmative action is staggering. In any debate, it's important to define your terms. And in this debate, I fear that the definition of "affirmative action" doled out to the public by its dishonest supporters is radically different from the working definition and practical application of "affirmative action" in college admissions offices.

2003-06-10T21:23:00.000-07:00

Speaking of Jews...

Mark Levin says President Bush should do the right thing, or take the 5th and let Israel do its thang (thang=protect its citizens from terrorist threats). He's mad, and justifiably so. His sobering conclusion: "As long as Israel remains the exception to the Bush Doctrine, the doctrine cannot succeed. And if the Bush Doctrine fails, terrorism cannot be defeated."

2003-06-10T21:11:00.000-07:00

Anti-Semitism: Is the Label Fair Game?

A few people in the blogosphere have expressed their reluctance to call people anti-Semities. In some cases, justifiably so and in others, not. Eric Tam criticized me for calling Mazin Qumsiyeh an anti-Semite. Josh Cherniss likens Jews who cry anti-Semitism every time they disagree with an argument that contains the word "Israel", to defenders of affirmative action who label their opponents racists at every opportunity. And he's right. Mindless name-calling masquerading as irrefutable argument is not a substitute for honest debate.

But I do think that the inability to name call, when names are warranted, is almost as dangerous as thoughtless namecalling. The Qumsiyeh quote I posted has him claiming that "those who owe their primary loyalties to Israel" are responsible for the war in Iraq. He names 6 traitors in the Bush administration--all Jews. I don't think it's peremptory or unfair to assume (especially because Qumsiyeh says so explicity in other places) that he levels the same accusations against all American Jews who support the war in Iraq. Qumsiyeh's charge is the contemporary version of the classic charge of dual-loyalty that used to have its home on the far right of the American political spectrum, and it sounds no better coming from the mouth of a Yale professor than from Charles Lindbergh on the eve of WWII. Professor Qumsiyeh's suggestion that Jews act not as individuals who happen to occupy high posts in the media and the government, but as sinister agents of a larger Jewish cabal that controls the media and dominates the government is vile and undeniably anti-Semitic.

If history has taught us anything in the past 50 years, it's that anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are not innocuous. They must be vigorously opposed. And, as Josh's post suggests, those who cry anti-Semite when the label is not warranted do the rest of us a disservice. The disservice is that legitimate charges of anti-Semitism are often contemptuously dismissed by intelligent and thoughtful people like Eric Tam who should know better.

2003-06-10T20:40:00.000-07:00

First Things First

My friend Oubai Shahbandar started his own blog: check out Right Wing Arab while it's hot off the presses!

2003-06-09T13:24:00.000-07:00

Are the Israeli Settlements the Problem?

I don't think so.

2003-06-09T11:33:00.000-07:00

The Looting in Baghdad

David Frum reports:

While opponents of the Iraq war hurl charges of distorted intelligence at Presidnet Bush and PM Blair, it is emerging that in fact it is the opponents' top accusation that turns out to be - well - a lie. It now seems clear that Baghdad museum lost a grand total of 33 objects to looters in the first hours after the war, not 170,000 as the museum director originally claimed. Why did he say otherwise? "I was very angry at the Americans," he tells a reporter for the Washington Post. That seems to be the motive for quite a lot of untruths, doesn't it?

2003-06-09T11:04:00.000-07:00

More on Solzhenitsyn

I posted Jay Nordlinger's column written in honor of the 25th anniversary of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's famous commencement speech at Harvard in 1978. Today, NRO republishes a column written by Charles Kesler in 1978 about the same Solzhenitsyn speech. Kesler attended the speech, and wrote then about his impressions of it.

Kesler's column is more a criticism of Solzhenitsyn's critics than a defense of Solzhenitsyn's speech. It is also, however, an explanation of the point Kesler believes Solzhenitsyn was trying to make. According to Kesler, Solzhenitsyn was attempting to distinguish not between Right and Left or between East and West, but instead between ancient and modern. Kesler writes:

"While it's true that the distinction between modern and traditional is not the same thing as a wish or expectation that the traditional should give way to the modern, in practice the one often elides into the other. In the West's "blindness of superiority," remarks Solzhenitsyn, the notion is born that "vast regions everywhere on our planet should develop and mature to the level of present-day Western systems . . . There is this belief that all those other worlds are only being temporarily prevented by wicked governments or by heavy crimes or by their own barbarity and incomprehension from taking the way of Western pluralistic democracy. . . " The modern taxonomy of traditional and modern "developed out of Western incomprehension of the essence of other worlds." It judges countries "on the basis of their progress" toward modernity without questioning what sort of modernity (e.g., Western or Eastern) is the end of progress, or indeed whether modernity as a whole is choiceworthy...

Modernity, in short, is in many ways a greater danger to man than Communism, which is only a particularly pathological mode of modernity — the marriage of the worst of modern science (and philosophy) with tyranny. Conservatives who are use to acclaiming Solzhenitsyn should understand that he is not merely anti-Communist but anti-modern, which means anti-capitalist as well. He objects to Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Madison, and Adam Smith as well as to Marx, though of course not so much as he objects to Marx. "

Solzhenitsyn was arresting, Kesler notes, because "he spoke the truth as if it were true."

2003-06-08T22:50:00.000-07:00

The Hillary Trap

I have to admit, Dick Morris is one of my guilty pleasures. It's hard for me to bring myself to respect a guy who is so nonchalant about his betrayal of a (one-time) friend, but Morris has the allure that comes from having been on the inside. This column sets the record straight on Hillary's new book. Money line?

"Did Hillary believe her husband's denials? Come on. Get real. If Winona Ryder were caught running out of Bloomingdale's clutching an Armani dress with neither a receipt nor a bag, would you assume she hadn't shoplifted?"

2003-06-08T22:44:00.000-07:00

The G-File

Jonah Goldberg posts a hilarious and refreshing column about...Trekkie chicks and sporks, among other things.

The highlights (in no particular order):

1. Q:My favorite question I ask of conservatives is: "What fact or facts would it take to move you substantially to the left?" If it could be proven to your satisfaction that conservative policies were the cause of millions of deaths, would that do it?
A: First, remind me to carve out my spleen with my plastic spork if I ever sit next to you on an airplane.

2. Q: What the hardest thing about rollerblading?
A: That’s easy: Telling your parents you’re gay.

3. Q:How much hope is there that a male Jewish conservative Star Trek fan will find a female Jewish conservative Star Trek fan?
A: Not much. The female Jewish Trek fans go very quickly at the conventions.

Cue Dream Sequence:
Auctioneer: “And here we have Sharon Waxman. As you can see she’s quite attractive. She’s dedicated to national missile defense and a strong believer in strict construction of the constitution….” Trekkie One: “10,000 Quatloos for the girl.” Trekker One: “I will pay 15,000 for the female — if she comes with a collar of obedience….”
End Dream Sequence

2003-06-08T22:32:00.000-07:00

The Roadmap to Peace

This is why it won't work. What will it take for Abbas to realize that he needs to start by dismantling terrorist groups that will settle for nothing less than Israel's annihilation? He's trying to persuade and assuage the unpersuadable and unassuageable.

This borders on the ridiculous:

"Today, Mr. Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, repeated his desire to avoid armed confrontation and to restart talks with Hamas, which broke off on Friday after his speech, and other militant groups.

"Perhaps the Aqaba statement was misunderstood," Mr. Abbas, who canceled a trip to Gaza today because of the Erez attack, told reporters in Ramallah on the West Bank. "We think dialogue is the only way to achieve our goal. Through this dialogue, we want to achieve calm, not civil war.""

Abbas says dialogue is the only way to achieve "our goal"? I beg to differ.

2003-06-08T22:26:00.000-07:00

A Little Fashion...

...to spice things up. My cousin introduced me to this brand--Alice and Olivia--when I was in NY a couple months ago. It was love at first sight...here's a sampling. But, I've said it once and I'll say it again: check out them prices!

2003-06-07T21:34:00.000-07:00

Jenny Strauss Weighs In: Leo-Cons Part 23984729384

Thanks to Josh Cherniss for giving me the heads up on this article by Jenny Strauss, the daughter of (now deceased) U Chicago professor Leo Strauss. Jenny attempts to set the record straight, correcting the errors that mainstream journalists have made in slandering her father and tarnishing his reputation. She writes:

"Although I was never a student of my father's, I sat in on a class of his in the 1960's; I think it was on Xenophon's "Cyropaedia." He was a small, unprepossessing and, truth be told, ugly man (daughters are their parents' worst critics), with none of the charisma that one associates with "great teachers." And yet there was something utterly charming. One of the students would read little chunks of the text, and my father would comment and call for discussion. What marked this class was a combination of an engagement with questions of the highest seriousness (in this case, what is the best form of government) with the laughter of intellectual play. It was magic. If only the truth had the power to make the misrepresentations of his achievement vanish like smoke and dust."

2003-06-07T18:45:00.000-07:00

A Must-Read

This column by Yale professor David Gelernter was published over a year ago, but for many reasons I thought it was worth posting. I took Professor Gelernter's class this year and can't say enough good things about him. His tenacity, and strength of character and spirit taught me much about the type of person I aspire to be. This column about why Americans stand with Israel reflects those rare qualities.

2003-06-06T23:43:00.000-07:00

Dowdisms

James Taranto posts "eponymous Dowdifications" on Best of the Web Today. (Is a Dowd apology too much to ask for? Haha, dumb question).
Bloggers give Dowd a taste of her own medicine--here's what happens to her columns when they're treated the way Dowd herself treats certain presidential speeches, ahem:

"This is just too much fun. Here are some more quotes from Maureen Dowd's Wednesday column, provided by our dowd-it-yourself readers:

Blogger Bill Hobbs: "I'm . . . searching for the reason . . . busily offering a bouquet of new justifications . . . as self-defense against . . . all the questions. I . . . think . . . the ends . . . justify the means."

Michael Lemons: "I'm . . . the reason we went to war. . . . Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and . . . could deploy . . . those . . . in . . . the U.S. . . . Saddam was involved in 9/11. . . . America had to strike Iraq."

Jeff Nicholas: "The Times . . . is itself being reassessed . . . to see whether . . . evidence was cooked.""

If only...

2003-06-06T23:37:00.000-07:00

Patriotic Posters

If you want to brighten your morning, check out these hilarious posters. My favorite (non-vulgar) slogan? Be Afraid! Because Paranoia is Patriotic! The Clinton poster (hint: it begins "I porked this Jewish girl...") is also very funny.

(via Side Salad)

2003-06-06T17:32:00.000-07:00

Remembering D-Day

Speaking of important speeches...Today is the 59th anniversary of D-Day. The Corner links to President Reagan's 1984 speech given on the 40th anniversary. In a time when slogans like "War is immoral" dominate the public discourse and college campuses, the memories of the men who died at Normandy and Reagan's words about them have continued relevance:

"When men like Private Zannata and all our Allied forces stormed the beaches of Normandy 40 years ago they came not as conquerors, but as liberators. When these troops swept across the French countryside and into the forests of Belgium and Luxembourg they came not to take, but to return what had been wrongfully seized. When our forces marched into Germany they came not to prey on a brave and defeated people, but to nurture the seeds of democracy among those who yearned to bee free again...Today, the living here assembled-officials, veterans, citizens-are a tribute to what was achieved here 40 years ago. This land is secure. We are free. These things are worth fighting and dying for."

2003-06-06T16:28:00.000-07:00

Solzhenitsyn at 25

Last week's National Review carries a piece by Jay Nordlinger about Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's famous commencement speech delivered at Harvard in 1978. Unfortunately, NRO didn't post the article, but they posted something close: Jay Nordlinger's speech at Harvard last month, given at a conference commemorating the anniversary of Solzhenitsyn's speech. I'm not sure if the NR article was adapted from the speech, or the speech from the article, but either way, they're very similar. Nordlinger ends the NR column, however, differently than the speech, contending that Solzhenitsyn's speech should serve as a gut-check for Americans, who have found it so easy to stray from Solzhenitsyn's teachings or forget them all together.

2003-06-06T09:45:00.000-07:00

Blogosphere: XXX Part II

At last, Waldorf (and Josh Chafetz) over at Oxblog have announced the winners of their political philosophy/political theory pick-up line contest.

2003-06-06T00:26:00.000-07:00

A Little Help

To those of you linking over from Right Wing News (see my thank yous below), if the site's not working, I'm told it helps to click on blogger's "get rid of this add" link on the top of the page and then hit back to return to the main page. Hope the tip helps those of you having trouble!

2003-06-06T00:14:00.000-07:00

Grade Inflation

This column should've been posted a long time ago. It left me with my jaw on the floor. Princeton professor Robert Hollander describes the changes in (his own) grading over the years, as the pressure to award almost all students with honors grades has increased. He highlights the pernicious effects of grade inflation, which have crept up gradually and landed on the shoulders of those of us who don't know any different. Professor Hollander writes:

"(In those days we had five passing grades instead of the current four, ranging from 1-5 rather than from A-D.)...To give a clearer sense of what grades at Princeton were like in those days, here are the numbers for those two sections in 1965 (one must adjust these slightly upwards to make them equivalent to our grades today; e.g., a 3+ is higher than C+ but lower than B-):

1: 1
1-: 1
2+: 4
2: 3
2-: 3
3+: 11
3: 5
3-: 2
4+: 1

My point here is not to suggest that we should return to a more rigorous grading system (if I do believe that is a good idea), but to observe that, in our current system, A has become a normative grade, and thus no longer a genuine marker of excellence."

An overarching point that Professor Hollander alludes to but doesn't state explicitly is that grade inflation chiefly hurts the most motivated and capable students, who tend to plateau when the (grade) reinforcement mechanism is working the way they expect it to. A C- on a paper is one hell of a motivator on the next paper. A- after A- breeds complacency and self-satisfaction. It's an easy choice.

It's tough to mention Professor Hollander's column without giving a nod to another senior Ivy League professor who's been on the front lines in the battle against grade inflation for over thirty years now: Harvey "C-minus" Mansfield. The latest issue of the Harvard Crimson offers a profile of Mansfield and his career at Harvard, devoting particular attention to his crusade against grade inflation and affirmative action. Mansfield attracted national media attention when he began giving his students two grades--the "inflated grade" that would appear on the student's transcript, and the "actual grade" that reflected the quality of the student's work--so as not to dissuade who feared his rigorous grading from taking his classes. Stanley Kurtz at NRO offers another (much more celebratory) profile of Mansfield, and explores the relationship between grade inflation and affirmative action.

2003-06-05T23:38:00.000-07:00

Layoffs at the DNC

There's a trend here, folks. A few days ago, news leaked that the DNC planned to fire 10 African-American staffers as a part of their preparation (liquidation?) for the upcoming election. Sounds like a scandal, right? Not so fast. Jonah Goldberg relays the real story:

"Each department head at the DNC was asked to suggest at least one person under their supervision to be laid off. The list was compiled by a senior consultant and submitted to the chief operating officer at the DNC, Josh Wachs.
It was only when they put the list together that it became clear everyone was black. In other words, each supervisor was asked to fire only a single person on merit. Race wasn't an issue or a problem until the statistics were compiled."

Obviously--for so many reasons--the DNC couldn't go through with the proposed cutbacks. But Goldberg offers a brilliant analysis of what's to come:

"Well, imagine you are a white or Asian or Arab employee at the DNC. Your friend John or Jane almost got fired last week, but, thanks to a last-second reprieve, they won't be -simply because they're black. The DNC still has to cut costs, so now your head's on the chopping block. Do you still believe diversity is cost-free?

Remember, you're a good liberal working for the Democratic Party battling the evil forces of the Republicans. So surely you see no problem with sacrificing your job for the sake of diversity. Never mind the fact that, as the DNC has pointed out in its defense, some 30 percent of its employees are black, which means African-Americans are overrepresented there.

Or, put yourself in the shoes of one of the black employees who almost got axed. Now the guy in the next cubicle's going to be fired instead of you - just because he's white or, rather, not black.

No wonder Terry McAuliffe has been incapable of coming up with a straight explanation. He's run head-on into the dilemma of diversity-think."

History has shown that the effects of "diversity-think" are disastrous. (Ironically, the first argument for diversity was voiced by Stephen Douglas, who favored popular sovereignty because it promoted diversity in the Union--diversity of slave states and non-slave states.) History has also shown us that mini-scandals like the ones Goldberg forsees are perhaps the most benign effects of "diversity-think." Lets hope the Supreme Court's ruling on the Michigan affirmative action cases in July sets us back on the right path.

Goldberg concludes:

"No matter how you try to explain the decision, the DNC isn't judging these employees by the content of their characters. It's only going by the color of their skins. And that should give us all a little better insight into the party that claims to keep the tradition of Martin Luther King Jr. alive."

2003-06-05T23:33:00.000-07:00

The Roadmap to Hell?

According to Charles Krauthammer, Bush's trip to the Middle East was an abject failure. Why? Well, take the summits one at a time.

1. @ Sharm el-Sheik: "They [Arab states] did not take a single concrete action, not even a gesture, toward Israel. Egypt did not offer to return its ambassador to Israel. The Saudis threatened a boycott if Israel was even invited. And most important, the Arab states refused what Bush most desperately wanted: explicit endorsement of the American view that Yasser Arafat's time had come and passed. That would have been crucial in elevating Mahmoud Abbas, who appears to want to make peace. What did Bush do? What American presidents always do in response to such rebuffs: smile politely and say thank you."

2. @ Aqaba: "What did Bush get out of Abbas? Did Abbas recognize Israel as a Jewish state? No. He refused to give up the Palestinian principle of ``return,'' which means eradicating Israel by flooding it with millions of Palestinian refugees (the overwhelming majority of whom, by the way, have never lived in Israel). Yet without recognition of Israel as a Jewish state there is nothing to prevent the disaster of Camp David 2000 when Arafat, after pocketing truly astonishing Israeli concessions, insisted at the last minute that there would be no deal unless Israel agreed to commit suicide by allowing the refugees to move to Israel, instead of to their homeland of Palestine."

2003-06-05T23:22:00.000-07:00

Donald Luskin Comes to the Rescue

...with the Krugman Truth Squad. He begins:

"In his most recent New York Times column, America's most dangerous liberal pundit, Paul Krugman, asks the rhetorical question, "Am I exaggerating?" Here's the Krugman Truth Squad's non-rhetorical answer: Yes! Ja! Da! Oui! Si! Hai! The Squad always knows exactly when Krugman is exaggerating — every Tuesday and Friday."

Luskin goes on to discredit--sentence by sentence--Krugman's latest column. Mr. Luskin, if you're out there, one question--when do you have time to work? Systematic annihilation of Krugman seems like a full-time job to me!

2003-06-05T23:11:00.000-07:00

The Blogosphere Goes XXX

I have a feeling many people will be thanking Josh Chafetz over at Oxblog for sponsoring the political theory/political philosophy pick-up line contest. Although Josh maintains that he and the senior members of the Chafetz animal kingdom are to announce the winners, David Adesnik has announced one prematurely: Kevin of Calpundit. Check out Adesnik's pick while you eagerly await Josh's official announcement.

2003-06-05T23:00:00.000-07:00

The Leo-Cons, Part 765,987,234

Wow. Bret Stephens at the Jersalem Post lays waste to Leo Strauss's myriad critics in the mainstream media. Gotta love a guy who lays it out straight like this: "Chicago is a school that tends to attract a larger than usual quota of geeks and oddballs."

That said, the entire column merits consideration solely for its lucid explanation of Strauss's general ideas, but Stephens's conclusion is the most concise reply to all of Strauss's hysterical critics out there:

"There is no such thing as "Straussianism": not as an ideology, much less as some kind of conspiracy. There was merely a man named Leo Strauss a Jew, a Zionist, a classicist, a man who engaged profoundly and forcefully with the greatest issues of his day who taught his students that "we cannot be philosophers, but we can love philosophy," chiefly by "listening to the conversation between the greatest philosophers...And having spent three decades in the grave, the least Strauss deserves is to be read before he is condemned."

For those of you just tuning into the Strauss debate now, Micah over at Political Theory has compiled a bunch of the best posts about Strauss. For commentary and links to the mainstream media articles--and criticisms of them--just scroll down a bit!

2003-06-05T22:39:00.000-07:00

Yale Diva On a Roll?

Thanks so much to John Hawkins of Right Wing News for the kind words. Mr Hawkins, I hope your confidence is not misplaced. To all of you linking over from RWN, I hope you enjoy and come back again. For those of you who are having trouble with the site, my apologies--I'm moving to a (much cooler) (less glitch prone) new site really soon. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Thanks also to Max over at "The World's Most Confused Jew." Gotta love the theme of the self-deprecating Jew!

2003-06-04T13:15:00.000-07:00

Are You a Pottymouth?

Take the Pottymouth Quiz and find out.
My score: "Damn, do you kiss your mother with that mouth? You could make a bar full of sailors blush!"

(via Side Salad)

2003-06-04T09:37:00.000-07:00

Geography Lesson

Check out this map of the blogosphere! It has the conservatives blogs on the right and the liberal blogs towards the Left. Most of the placements seemed more or less accurate to me, but I have a feeling my friends at OxBlog will be a little peeved with their placement...could be a little too far right. Take a look and decide for yourself!

(via Volokh Conspiracy)

2003-06-04T09:31:00.000-07:00

The Force of the Blogosphere

It's real, and it's growing, says Hugh Hewitt. Hewitt claims that the "Big Four"--Andrew Sullivan, Instapundit, Kaus Files, and Volokh Conspiracy--will remake the political landscape for the 2004 election.

2003-06-04T09:26:00.000-07:00

Better Late than Never

This is a little late, but this article that appeared a couple days ago on Front Page is fantastic (disclosure: the author, Oubai Shahbandar, is a friend). He writes:

"They have never known the humiliation of living under the iron rule of an Islamic despotism. I have. They have never tasted the cruel bitterness of forced silence in the shadows of a dictatorship. I have. They have never seen the face of evil. I have. For I was born and raised in Syria, the country enslaved by Hafez El-Assad. I was one of the fortunate victims of this tyranny because my family was able to emigrate to American a land of freedom. Yet in the free universities of this country legitimacy is bestowed on the very forces that oppress my former countrymen and I am instructed to be compassionate towards my own oppressors and to be hostile to the country that has liberated me."

Well said.

2003-06-04T09:22:00.000-07:00

Professors

This guy's a professor? Amazing.

2003-06-03T10:53:00.000-07:00

A Theory of Everything

Yale Pundit Karl Chang sums up yesterday's Friedman column, modestly titled "A Theory of Everything":

"The problem of the twenty-first century is managing American power. America has influence around the globe, it affects people more than, yes, their own governments. People around the world are affected by American policies, but have no voice in moderating those policies. How woefully undemocratic. How understandable their anger is."

It's hard to believe that Friedman is deified (and paid!) for theorizing like this. I heard Friedman speak last week at Yale's commencement, and he was a bit cliched--he advised students to follow their hearts, not their heads, and to do what they love so they'll love what they do--but perfectly likable. In anticipation of Friedman's Yale speech, Davi Bernstein wrote the single best criticism of Friedman I've seen: "Get Ready Kids: It's Thomas L. Friedman!" "A Theory of Everything" substantiates each and every one of Bernstein's criticisms.

2003-06-03T10:37:00.000-07:00

Molly Ivins: Plagiarist?

David Frum commented (towards the bottom) on a distasteful comment Molly Ivins made on C-Span on Sunday. According to Frum, Ivins said:

"The price of gas is riz so high" - yes she said "riz": if you're a Texan who wants to advocate gun control and lesbian marriage, you have to sprinkle your speech with hick phrases so that nobody gets the idea you're just another of them Yankee liberals - "the price of gas is riz so high that women who want to run over their husbands have to carpool." Pat Schroeder, the former congresswomen, in a fine display of the liberals' notion of "fairness" and "balance," served as a very immoderate moderator."

Now there are is a very obvious point to be made about this little humorous gem, and I'm sure it has already occurred to you. (Actually there are two: the other being that it's not very funny, but then none of Molly Ivins' work has been very funny since she quit repackaging Florence King's writing as her own.)

Let me venture instead this possibly slightly less obvious point - Molly Ivins went on to deliver a passionate little speech about her commitment to civilizing American discourse! Apparently, American discourse is being rendered viciously uncivil by Rush Limbaugh's habit of explaining dynamic scoring over the airwaves - and the liberal way to elevate the vulgar tone of right-wing debate is to make jokes about killing people.

Ivins's obnoxious comment didn't surprise me--she strikes me as the worst sort of Dowd wannabe--but Frum's reference to her plagiarism did. Ivins, like Doris Kearns Goodwin (her fellow plagiarist!) was universally revered by my high school teachers, so this revelation, though extremely dated, struck me as especially funny.

2003-06-03T10:29:00.000-07:00

Qumsiyeh, Part 3,239,983

My article about an e-mail sent by Yale professor Mazin Qumsiyeh is up today on Front Page Magazine: "McCarthyism in Action at Yale." According to Qumsiyeh, the cabal of Jews controlling the Bush administration isn't confined to the Pentagon--it exists at Yale too! Read more for the full story.

2003-06-02T12:37:00.000-07:00

Frum and the Leo-Cons

David Frum gives his passing thoughts on the Straussian conspiracies that have been promulgated from...well, just about everywhere. He writes:

"I have just pulled off my shelf, where it has languished for two decades ever since I put it away unfinished in 1980, Leo Strauss’ “Thoughts on Machiavelli.” Since everybody tells me that those of us who advocate a vigorous response to terrorism are members of a secret cabal imbued with the old prof’s mystic doctrines, I figured I’d better acquaint myself with the work of the man who supposedly controls my mental processes …

And I was then overwhelmed by this irony. If Strauss is known for anything, it is his teaching that philosophers cannot afford to speak candidly, that they must hide their true meanings in deceptive phrases that mislead the unwary into over-estimating their conventionality. And yet, punch "Leo Strauss" into Google, and what pops up? Your choice, for starters of www.straussian.org and www.straussian.net, both of which will bring the esoteric teachings of the philosopher to your very computer! One of Fareed Zakaria's dislikes is the American insistence on democratizing everything - and Leo Strauss is no exception to the mighty rule."

Although I'm skeptical that one would get a decent understanding of Strauss from secondary sources, Frum's take is interesting and his lightheartedness is refreshing. What he says is undeniably true, judging from that fact that many of Strauss's critics in the mainstream media don't seem particularly concerned with grappling with the works of the man himself. They are interested in him only insofar as they can use his works, his reputation, and his legacy to advance their neo-conservative conspiracy theories.

2003-06-02T12:21:00.000-07:00

Larry Miller Does it Again

I didn't think Larry Miller could top this piece. But he just did. Miller wonders why our attention span is so short, and is refreshingly blunt and unapologetic about our boredom with wars already won. It's tough to say aloud, but the rebuilding isn't quite as gripping as the bombs dropping. Which is not to say it's not important. It's just to point out that we're not captivated by it and need not feel guilty as a result. The boredom (euphemistically dubbed "battle fatigue") isn't confined to the pundits, Miller points out:

"...it's all of us, and it happened so quickly, didn't it? One second we were arguing about whether or not the Turks were screwing us up in the North, and watching Baghdad Bob insist the sky was green. Next thing you know, we were all putting the kids to bed, strolling into the bedroom, picking up the remote . . . and not turning on Fox. ("Whatever you want, honey, just not one of those goofy decorating shows. Wait a minute, is this the one with the little Scottish blond? Okay.")"

The high point of the column is undoubtedly Miller's discussion of the new Palestinian prime minister, worth reprinting here in full:

"The Middle East is another thing that's hard to get steamed about suddenly, because it seems somehow they're at least doing better, doesn't it? I wasn't a big fan of the roadmap, but, hey, if it's okay with them . . . President Bush is going to Jordan, and the prime minister of Israel has already met with the prime minister of Suicidistan.

By the way, the only reason I made that joke was because each time I want to say something about the new Palestinian prime minister, I have to stop and think of the guy's name, because he has two of them, and it's confusing.

What's the deal with that, anyway? I keep getting them mixed up, and I have to concentrate to remember which is which, and it's annoying. Can't we do without this? And why does every news report always have to say both? How long will this go on? I don't know about you, but I don't have that kind of time. I mean, Mahmoud Abbas, Abu Mazen, come on, let's go, is it one or the other? Arafat did all right with just one for the last hundred years, why does this guy need two? Hell, I'll give him the settlements right now if he just picks a name and sticks with it. Aha, you may say, but what about "Batman" and "Bruce Wayne," those were two different names? Yes, but, in effect, they were also two different guys. Batman had the cave and the car, and Bruce threw all the benefits in the big mansion. (And lived with a young boy and a fastidious old man, but never mind that now.) Besides, my guess is that if Mahmoud/Abu has a secret, militaristic identity, its main purpose is not exactly saving lives.

Okay, maybe the prime minister is changing over to the second name, and he needs some time for the world to get used to it, like the whole Datsun/Nissan thing. Remember that? First it was Datsun, then Datsun by Nissan, then Nissan by Datsun, now it's just Nissan. Fine, but let's get it over and done with. I want to be able to say Bush, Powell, Sharon, and Somebody, and I need a name I can count on."

Suicidistan? That one's going in the arsenal!

2003-06-02T11:24:00.000-07:00

Dated Perceptions

Ramesh Ponnuru on the media's dated perceptions:

"Columnist Arianna Huffington, herself an outspoken conservative. . ." — William Raspberry, Washington Post, today. Raspberry's column is headlined "Struck Dumb?"

Raspberry complains that "[n]obody's paying much attention" to Senator Robert Byrd, whose "impassioned cry. . . . is ignored in the mass media." Raspberry must have missed the puff pieces in Time and the Wall Street Journal. The Time article says Byrd is being "lionized" and is enjoying a "renaissance."

Senator Byrd...Ann Coulter once referred to him as "sheets." Though I was chastized by a professor for alluding to Byrd's KKK affiliations because he has "apologized profusely," I can't help laughing every time I think of that Coulter piece. Byrd is one of her favorite subjects of derision. Her other favorite sobriquets for the senior senator include "Senator Tut," and "Robert Byrd, D-KKK." Here's a case in point. Money line: "So anyway, Bush goes to Congress for a vote and Byrd gets his white sheet in a knot."

2003-06-02T11:13:00.000-07:00

A Slogan for 2004?

Jay Nordlinger relays one: "Bush: The definition of 'Is'". I like it!

2003-06-02T11:10:00.000-07:00

The Candidates

Jay Nordlinger quotes John Kerry in today's Impromptus: "When I am president [shudder], I am going to grow national service in America."
Nordlinger's analysis: "He ought to be disqualified on grounds of violence to the language alone." I concur.

Nordlinger on candidate Bob Graham: "Bob Graham has been at it again, slashing and burning against the Bush administration — proving that a Floridian moderate can be a junkyard dog." Nordlinger's analysis: "(Note to Bob: I think you've amply proven that. You can cool it a little now.)" At the risk of shocking you...I concur.

2003-06-02T10:54:00.000-07:00

The Young Hipublicans, Installment Three

I've posted Jonah Goldberg's and (to drop way down the ladder) my responses to the John Colapinto's New York Times piece about college Republicans. Today, a "Hipublican" responds to it in Front Page Magazine. The article corrects many of the errors in Colapinto's piece, but, in my estimation, the initial quote sums up the state of campus conservatism and campus liberalism beautifully. The author, Lyle Rubin, relays a gay friend's comment:

“Whenever I go to conservative events on campus and tell people I’m gay, no one seems to mind. But whenever I go to gay events on campus and tell people I’m conservative, everyone throws a hissy fit.”

2003-06-02T10:36:00.000-07:00

Krugman Watch

Donald Luskin eviscerates Paul Krugman's column, posted on below (Wag the Dog?). As Jonah Goldberg would say, Luskin really "tears Krugman a new one." Luskin's scrutiny of detail and attention to the facts is astonishing when compared to Krugman's willingness, even eagerness, to bend the facts to conform with his blind hatred of President Bush. Luskin likens Krugman to John Nash, the insane Princeton economist. After refuting every sentence in the column, Luskin wonders:

"Why does Krugman proceed like this — clipping his clippings, linking them together, and searching endlessly for the key to the secret code that will at last reveal the truth about the Bushie plot to hijack America? Is he just plain nuts? Or does he think if he follows in the footsteps of John Nash that someday he will also receive the Nobel Prize in economics?"

In the end, Luskin finds two fundamental distinctions between Krugman and Nash:

"If that's his plan he's going to learn that there are a couple of very real differences between the minds of Paul Krugman and John Nash. First, Nash made a fundamental contribution to the science of economics. Second, Nash lived out his paranoid delusions in private — not every Tuesday and Friday on the pages of the New York Times."

Ouch!

2003-05-30T01:15:00.000-07:00

Shopping Report

I just came back from New York. The shopping report: I love these shoes and these shoes. But check out them prices...

Here's the e-bay site where (used?) Miu Miu's go for much cheaper.

2003-05-30T00:24:00.000-07:00

Goldberg Rises to the Occasion

Jonah Goldberg's column is so amazing there's nothing I can say that would do it justice. It's the perfect antidote to the Krugman column posted below. I spent the last 15 minutes trying to pick some great excerpts, but I couldn't bring myself to do it without feeling like I was doing Goldberg an in justice. So read the whole thing.

Goldberg tackles the Times's "Hipublicans" article that I commented on below. Plus, he throws in one one of my favorite colloquialisms for good measure: "So, there I was ready to tear Colapinto a new one in this column; not only was he wrong, but he'd smacked me with a wet fish." Really, the whole thing is worth a read.

2003-05-29T23:49:00.000-07:00

Wag the Dog?

If you want to sour your morning, I suggest reading Paul Krugman's latest. It's really something. Krugman expresses his astonishment at the similarities between the war in Iraq and the "Wag the Dog" screenplay: "If you don't think it bears a resemblance to recent events, you're in denial." Krugman's column definitely deserves the Spin of the Year award, seeing that "Wag the Dog" is loosely based on Clinton's efforts to distract the public from the Lewinsky scandal by bombing foreign enemies. Yet Krugman manages to pin the Clintonian disgraces depicted in the movie on Bush's head.

Krugman's most outrageous claims come towards the end of the column. He writes:

"Just as war critics feared, Al Qaeda has been strengthened by the war. Iraq is in chaos, with a rising death toll among American soldiers: "We have reports of skirmishes throughout the central region," a Pentagon official told The Los Angeles Times."

"Just as war critics feared"...I love it! What delusion! Al-Quaeda strenthened by the war? No substantiation. Rising death toll among American soldiers? Substantiation: "reports of skirmishes throughout the region." It would seem that the second sentence was intended to substantiate the first. Yet...oh well. That's Krugman for ya.

Donald Luskin weighs in on Krugman in a column published yesterday on NRO. He writes:

"Think, for a moment, about how good things have been lately, and how hard a catastrophist like Krugman has to work to make them seem bad. The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was a brilliant victory (Krugman: " ... it did the terrorists a favor ... "). President Bush signs into law today an historic pro-growth tax bill, enacted thanks to the support of cross-over Democrats (Krugman: " ... the administration ... actually wants a fiscal crisis ... "). Even the crisis in corporate malfeasance seems to have been overcome (Krugman: " ... they can get away with even more self-dealing than before ... ")."

2003-05-29T23:12:00.000-07:00

Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers

A friend of mine recently loaned me "Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers" by Werner Cohn. It is an amazing book, available online through the link. Cohn describes Chomsky's little-known defense of and frequent concurrence with French neo-Nazis. While Chomsky's better known views make it easy to discern that he is a self-loathing Jew, Cohn's book makes it abundantly clear that he has repeatedly dabbled in Nazism, publishing repeatedly, although secretly, in neo-Nazi journals abroad and openly defending his Nazi allies at home. Cohn bitingly surmises, "I guess this is what passes for scholarship at MIT today." While Cohn rightfully condemns Chomsky, he manages to put the case before us in a factual manner, enabling us to sift through the evidence ourselves and draw our own conclusions. Cohn concludes:

"I have come to the end of Chomsky's story but there is a final question that some readers may find bothersome. I have described the politics of Noam Chomsky insofar as they relate to Nazism, and I have also shown something about Chomsky's associates: Faurisson, Guillaume, Thion, the Institute for Historical Review. Chomsky's propaganda, taken by itself, is obnoxious and certainly hostile to Jews but still does not have quite the same character as that of his associates. Where they are frankly neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic, he fudges and covers himself with self-exculpating formulas. Were it not for his associates we would certainly wish to recognize a line between him and organized anti-Semitism...

Much nonsense is sometimes written about the alleged fallacy of "guilt by association." True, if Chomsky happened to be associated with Faurisson and Thion in a tennis club, that particular association would not make him a neo-Nazi. But in fact we saw that Chomsky justified Faurisson's Holocaust-denial, we found Chomsky publishing his own books with neo-Nazi publishers, we saw him writing for a neo-Nazi journal, we saw that the neo-Nazis promote Chomsky's books and tapes together with the works of Joseph Goebbels. It is this complex of anti-Semitic activities and neo-Nazi associations, not his professed ideas alone, that constitutes the Chomsky phenomenon."

2003-05-29T22:45:00.000-07:00

Apologies

Again, apologies to everybody who's still looking at this page, notwithstanding the difficulties with blogger. We'll be moving to a spankin new site veeeeery soon--www.yalediva.com. In the meantime, sometimes clicking on "remove this add" at the top of the page and coming back clears up the difficulties, other times not. Thanks to those of you who are bearing with me through the troubles.

2003-05-26T12:17:00.000-07:00

The Leo Cons, Part 3,234,988

The Weekly Standard's Peter Berkowitz steps into the breach to defend Strauss against his swarm of critics in the mainstream media. His article is "What Hath Strauss Wrought?" Towards the end of the piece, he answers the question:

"The urgency of defending liberal democracy by encouraging its virtues, combating its vices, and never losing sight of its enemies is the great political lesson that those of his students who became neoconservatives embraced. To be sure, Strauss seemed to prefer the classical Greek philosophy of Plato and Aristotle to modern political philosophy. He was a proud Jew and took the claims of religion with utmost seriousness while keeping his distance from organized religion. He dwelled at length on liberal democracy's undemocratic and illiberal tendencies, in part because he loved the truth and in part because he was devoted to America's well-being. He was the kind of friend who makes one better by constantly exhibiting, through example and argument, the look of excellence. Not always an easy sort of friend, but the sort of friend, you would think, whom true liberals in every time and place would appreciate."

I liked the piece, but Josh Cherniss at Sitting on a Fence doesn't think Berkowitz was critical enough of Strauss. As Fox says, "We report, you decide."

2003-05-25T23:07:00.000-07:00

Speaking of Yale Law School...

A few days ago I mentioned Yale Law School in a post about affirmative action ("The Grand Fraud", Friday, May 23). Power Line summarizes a piece by Jonathon Kay from the June issue of Commentary about racial preferences, using Yale Law as a case study:

"The law school attempted (at least in his day) to avoid a "treadmill" environment by making its classes "pass-fail" and then passing virtually everyone. But, because its students are ambitious, many attempted to distinguish themselves by joining the Yale Law Journal. To do so (at least in Kay?s day), they had to pass a take home test. The graders were not informed of the test takers' identity, and no race-based adjustments were made. Typically more than half of the white and Asians students passed, compared to maybe one out of ten blacks. As a result, only two of the 113 members of the Journal were African-American, even though the student body was nearly ten percent black.

When these numbers were released, public meetings were convened to discuss the problem. Instead of blaming it on the obvious culprit, a racially skewed admissions policy, esoteric theories of racial exclusion were trotted out. Black applicants were said to be approaching the writing component with a special "black" style that the graders were unfairly punishing. Or the will of the black applicants had been sapped by the ?institutional racism? that permeated the school. Kay recalls that, as if on cue, black students began acting alienated, and social estrangements broadened. Whites became increasingly reluctant to offer any comment that might be interpreted as threatening to blacks, while classroom comments by black students on any race-charged issue would almost always go unchallenged. One black student complained that she felt "excluded and alienated from the classroom environment" because her criminal law professor had devoted only three weeks of his course to the topic of race.

The lesson is clear. As Kay puts it, It is impossible to construct an academic environment in which every type of meritocratic ranking or competition is eliminated. Eventually the wheat and the chaff get separated. When [because of preferential admissions policies] blacks find themselves disproportionately represented in the chaff, "institutional racism" and other supposedly explanatory theories follow, and interracial relations suffer. Or, in the words of Thomas Sowell, "if you send a second-quintile student who is black to a first-quintile school, he will see racism everywhere; if you send him to a second-quintile school, things will be fine." As Professor Rothman's study shows, right now things are not fine. Will the Supreme Court begin to set them right?"

2003-05-25T19:00:00.000-07:00

A Lesson On Our Biases from Professor Qumsiyeh, and the Leo-Cons Part 3,234, 987

Earlier today Mazin Qumsiyeh, of Divaland fame (infamy?) informed the Yale Coalition for Peace of the Straussian/Jewish conspiracy at Yale. He wrote:

"For your information, I include here the list of members of Yale Students "for Democracy", the pro war cabal that subscribes to the same Straussian theology that the no-cons around Bush have been pushing (Wolfowitz, Perle, Wurmser, Kristol, Feith). I think you will find the list informative. Note that there is significant overlap of this list with the "Yale Friends of Israel" listserve."

The message above was followed by the names of about one hundred Yale Jews.

2003-05-25T17:23:00.000-07:00

New Site Glitches

A few of you have e-mailed me about glitches on the site. I'm really sorry, and totally unequipped to handle such problems. For the persistent out there, I'm told that clicking on blogger's "remove this add" link on top and returning to the site helps. For the rest of you, I'm going to consult a computer expert ASAP. Thanks for your patience.

2003-05-25T08:50:00.000-07:00

VDH and the Leo-Cons

There's no question that Victor Davis Hanson met his moment in the post-September 11 era. I have a propensity for starry-eyed hero worship, and Hanson has proved to be no exception. I admire his writing (he's written almost every day since September 11) greatly. The danger of hero-worship is the potential for disappointment, and once idealized, heroes inevitably dissappoint. Which is why I loved this article. The article conveys a Hanson that does not waver far from the idealized version.

Yet I found the reference to Strauss odd. I'm inclined to think it's the author's touch:

"Of conservative classicists-including followers of the late University of Chicago scholar Leo Strauss-Hanson says, ''I don't think they understand the brutality of life that I grew up with. I don't think any of them's gone out and pruned vines for 30 days on end in monotony, and nobody's been in a fight, or nobody's had to run a business.'' He is even less comfortable with what he sees as the noblesse oblige of the academic left, which too rarely makes contact with the races and classes it pretends to champion."

And I'm not really sure what to make of the conclusion:

''To be honest with you,'' Hanson had said earnestly in his garden just that morning, ''the university is a really rotten institution.''

2003-05-25T08:12:00.000-07:00

Brush with the Law

Bruth With the Law provides a perspective about (and approach to) law school diametrically opposed to the one presented by Scott Turow in "One L." The book came highly recommended, but this review isn't nearly as generous:

...score one point against the admissions departments of Harvard and Stanford, but anyone expecting to find a dissection of hypocritical, dysfunctional or incompetent institutions will be let down by "A Brush With the Law," in which the authors are too strung-out to, say, sneak into a professor's study and get inside his mind (like in The Paper Chase), or attend office hours, or become familiar with the names of faculty members, or remain lucid and on campus long enough to take in much of anything.

I'd recommend the book pretty unqualifiedly, for the reason that the authors' mistakes, misjudgments, and personal weaknesses are evident on the surface. It doesn't take a bad review to expose them. And it's a fantastic read. Byrnes and Marquart, the authors, relay gripping tales about their times at Harvard and Stanford Law schools. At one point, Jamie Marquart offers a hilarious analysis of the types of students he found at Harvard Law School: the "zero summers" and the "cold stovers." The zero summers are the "your gain is my loss" type of folks, while the cold stovers are the classic, compulsive folks afriad to study a minute less for this exam than they did for the last exam. While Byrnes and Marquart themselves attest to the fact that their own categorizations are simplistic, the book is funny and light nonetheless. Byrnes and Marquart come off not as self-satisfied pricks, but as intensely likable guys.

2003-05-25T07:20:00.000-07:00

Ladies and the PGA Tourney

I've been generally uninterested in the whole Anika Sorenstam controversy, and found both sides a bit melodramatic. John Cole at Balloon-Juice points out how farcical the media portrayal of the controversy has been in a post appropriately titled "I Can't Take Any More." Cole goes on to say that while he had no problem with her playing in the tournament, it's fair to say she lost, despite what the headlines would have you believe:

"You would think she had won the Grand Slam. Let's get something excrutiatingly clear- she lost. Bigtime. She was 96th out of 111, and this was a field missing Vijay Singh, Ernie Els, and Tiger Woods, so you might as well say she finished 99th out of 114. That is not some crowning achievement. It is called a failure, in most books, when you are in the bottom 15%. If your academic performance is in the bottom 15% in high school, chances are you ride in a small bus and get excused from school earlier than the other kids."

Cole also cares little for the LPGA:

"If anything, she has done irreparable damage to the LPGA. Think about it- I watch golf every week it is on, but I have never watched the LPGA. Never, and I will watch bowling if there is no other sports show on. I can recall even watching a jump-rope competition on ESPN one day because there was nothing else on- but the LPGA? NEVER. That was my attitude before the LPGA sent their best player to the PGA to be ritually slaughtered."

My only question is, how in the world did I miss that jump-rope competition?

2003-05-25T07:06:00.000-07:00

Hate Mail

I've gotten my share, but, to my surprise, Mr. Adesnik at Oxblog revelas that he'd never gotten any until he threw a jab at Mac. Then this.
Even funnier than the hate mail is the post that elicited the hate mail. Adesnik writes:

"So here I am in the Apple Computer store, blogging on a lovely 17" screen. Whatever your stance on the great Mac-Windows debate, you have to admit that Mac's designs are aesthetically brilliant. Even the store itself is designed in a way that makes you feel comfortable.

But I guess you have to approach computers the way you approach signicant others: However nice they are on the outside, it's the inside that matters most. On the other hand, if you're only interested in a short-term relationship, go for the Mac."

David, why have you been withholding your relationship advice from us?

2003-05-25T06:20:00.000-07:00

Side Salad

There are an amazing number of cute, creative, and remarkably intelligent blogs out there, but I found Side Salad partciularly cute, particularly creative, and particularly intelligent. The subtitle: "Not the main course, not dessert, just an appetizer." The theme of salad runs throughout the blog including link categories "Cultural Croutons" and "Play With Your Food."

2003-05-23T23:35:00.000-07:00

Affirmative Action: The Grand Fraud

"When any policy can only be defended by lies and duplicity, there is something fundamentally wrong with that policy. Virtually every argument in favor of affirmative action is demonstrably false. It is the grand fraud of our time."

A friend of mine was recently waitlisted at a law school where, were it not for affirmative action, I'm almost certain (based on their numbers) he'd have been admitted. Yale's law school class is composed of about 190 students, 29.8% minority. The inevitable impact of affirmative action on white students, despite the fallacious "no student takes any other student's spot" argument, is painfully obvious in a class comprised of so few students (If I were Jay Nordlinger, I'd write: Please, no mail. Please. I'm not saying that every minority student is unqualified. It's a nice thought, being Jay Nordlinger).

In my view, there's nobody who writes more forcefully or persuasively on the subject of affirmative action than Thomas Sowell. His four pieces, "The Grand Fraud" (Parts I, II, III, and IV) offer a devastating critique of affirmative action and its dishonest proponents. All four are worth a read (if not two, three, or four):

Sowell writes,

"In reality, affirmative action increases the chance that a minority student will fail where the standards are higher, instead of succeeding where the standards are at a level that matches the student's academic capabilities. Incidentally, when a minority student is admitted to a highly rated college without meeting the standards, do you think that the white student who is displaced to make room is likely to be a Rockefeller or the Aga Khan? Or is the white student who is turned down more likely to be the son or daughter of some working-class family who is kept out so that the son or daughter of a black doctor can get in and make the statistics look good?
Both those who are kept out, despite meeting the qualifications standards, and those who are let in without meeting those standards, are likely to lose from affirmative action."

And this sums it all up:

"Someone once said of Lillian Hellman that every word she uttered was a lie, including "and" and "the." Many defenders of affirmative action deserve a Lillian Hellman award."

All this makes me think of a telling anecdote. The evils of affirmative action were never more evident than when black Yale students took a vow of silence and bound their mouths shut on the day the Michigan cases were heard in the Supreme Court. What's the message they were trying to send: "We wouldn't be here without affirmative action." And for many, that may be true. But the corrolary of that statement is more disturbing, and highlights the pernicious effects of affirmative action on black students themselves. It's "affirmative action is our only way into Yale." A policy that instills than sort of mentality in not only immoral, but dangerous.

2003-05-23T21:29:00.000-07:00

Back to New Haven

For the two of you eagerly awaiting my next post, I'm on my way back to New Haven and will be back posting Sunday.
But you guys already knew that.

2003-05-23T21:21:00.000-07:00

More on the Leo-Cons

A professor of mine, whom I like and admire greatly, and who studied with Strauss at Chicago, gives his thoughts on the Straussian conspiracies promulgated by the media echo-chamber:

"I agree that Strauss is a fascinating man, and I don't share the judgement of many of his critics, like John Pocock and Quentin Skinner, who fault his reading of Machiavelli in particular. The allegation (I've read some of the reports) that the foreign policy of the current Bush administration is of Straussian inspiration strikes me as wildly implausible but not nearly so depressing as the claim, which I've heard aired on television, that he was a fascist who aspired to membership of the Nazi party and was turned down on account of being Jewish. This is not to say that I approve of the war in Iraq. I just haven't the slightest idea of what Strauss might have thought about it himself if he'd witnessed it."

From what I know, it doesn't seem to me that Strauss's scholarship gives much, if any, guidance in foreign policy. And I thought the above was particularly well said.

2003-05-23T21:16:00.000-07:00

Hipublicans?

Are Republicans Hip? In Divaland we've known it for a while now. Finally the Times is catching on. If you're looking for a new message for your answering machine, Hipublican Charles Mitchell's got one for ya: "I can't come to the phone at the moment because I'm out advancing the great conservative revolution.''

For the most part, the article is amusing and cute. But you knew it couldn't go too long without imputing sinister motives to those who encourage young conservaitves: "But just how close a college conservative can get to the levers of power is suggested by the ascent of one hard-right, Nixon-loving ideologue who, in 1973, became chairman of the College Republicans and who today is credited as among the greatest influences on President George W. Bush: Karl Rove." Is this another conspiracy theory in the making? Lets examine the author's logic here. Colapinto implies that there's something suspicious when he wonders "how close a college conservative can get to the levers of power." The answer, he says, is "suggested by the ascent of...Karl Rove." Huh? Does he manage to establish any connection whatsoever between Rove's college Republicanism and his post in the Bush administration?

And guess who Colapinto cites as his source of "Republican fact" to substantiate his claim about Rove: David Brock! He writes:

''They have a theory of getting them while they're young,'' says David Brock, a former college conservative who graduated from Berkeley in the mid-1980's. After spending almost a decade as an activist in the conservative movement (during which he published the 1993 liberal-bashing book, ''The Real Anita Hill''), Brock had a change of heart. In 2002, he published a book, ''Blinded by the Right,'' about his former life as a conservative-movement insider. ''People are searching for their identity in college,'' he says. ''The right try to instigate polarization so that it looks like the right wing is the alternative to the left. This is what happened to me. I went to Berkeley because it had a liberal reputation. But I became disillusioned with some of my experiences with the left on the campus and I had a knee-jerk reaction -- or I was looking for an alternative -- and there was the right. There really wasn't anything in the middle.''

Brock's book is filled with petty lies about his former right-wing cohorts, and reflects more poorly on him than on any of the conservatives he slanders dishonestly in his book. If I recall correctly, Brock's "change of heart" (euphemism of the day?) was directly followed by his admission to a mental hospital. Hmm...switch to liberalism followed by insanity....suspicious.

Colapinto redeems himself with this observation:

"It can be disorienting to hear conservatism advanced as the ideology that frees women, but such is the skill with which the right has reframed the issues for the campus crowd, and such is the degree to which the left has allowed its own message to drift into rigidity and irrelevance for many college-age women."

But then this:

"In fact, much of what...most any campus conservative you meet...says is something that someone told them to say. This is not to doubt their passion and belief, but it is to be realistic about the language and tactics they've developed to communicate those beliefs."

Is it just me, or is that called learning? Sometimes you happen to agree with your teachers. And the Right happens to have lots of great teachers. My experience has shown me that the vast majority of conservative students are infinitely more well-read and well-informed, and infinitely more prepared to defend their positions than are left wing students who are satisfied to mouth hackneyed cliches like "War is immoral" (which, incidentally, I'm fairly sure somebody on the left "told them to say.") And if this is the case, Colpanto's point is, I think, utterly inconsequential.

And this:

"When the Bucknell conservatives assemble for their weekly meetings, they look like a typical, if all-white, sampling of American undergraduates, which is to say, there are plenty of ragged T-shirts, backward baseball caps and frayed jeans in the room. "

"If all-white?" Give me a break. What a cheap "shot" and gratuitous inclusion. Not that I'd expect any better from a Times reporter.

And this:

"D'Souza and his colleagues reveled in the shock and outrage they awakened with open gay-baiting and racist and sexist jokes."

D'Souza is Dinesh D'Souza, the founder of Dartmouth's notorious conservative newspaper, The Dartmouth Review. Needless to say, Colapinto's accusations are not substantiated. D'Souza is himself Indian, and his co-founder, Laura Ingraham, has a gay brother. So Colapinto's claims seems highly unlikely. I can say from personal experience that there are few conservative activisits whose brilliance and humor are complemented with D'Souza's humility, tact, and soft-spokenness.

And the conclusion is disappointing as well:

"While professors like Schneider and Daubman worry about the potential for conservative activists to stifle intellectual openness among students, they also grudgingly admit to admiring the right-wingers' passion. ''A lot of faculty members talk about the lack of commitment that most students have to anything,'' Daubman says. ''It seems that they're about getting a credential and being able to get a good job. That's why you hear faculty say about the conservatives club: 'At least they believe in something. At least they've got convictions.'''

Potential for conservative activists to stifle intellectual openness? Give me a break. Or give me an example.

2003-05-23T09:57:00.000-07:00

USS Lincoln and the Gettysburg Address

Gabriel Ledeen, and undergraduate at Rice, has a tremendous article in today's NRO in which he compares Bush's speech on the USS Lincoln to Lincoln's Gettysburg address. He writes:

"These messages are as clear to us now as they were to those listening on the grounds of the developing Gettysburg cemetery. First: "We stand for human liberty... America's tradition, which was declared at our Founding." And second: While we have won a great victory today, the war is not yet over and "our mission continues."

Both speeches note that while a great victory has been won, there is much left to do and many battles yet left to fight. This is not what one would expect of a victory speech, which could be triumphant and confident of further success in exhorting the people to continue to support the efforts of the army and the government. Even so, both presidents chose a more cautious and contemplative tone to reflect the understanding that the real conflict, in each case, had not yet reached its conclusion".

Ledeen concludes,

"Those who seek to make up political ground by chattering about the carrier landing would do well to remember what this country stands for, and what we must now do to rededicate ourselves to those principles. As the president states in his speech, "It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work for which they who fought here have this far so nobly advanced." If we are uncertain about his meaning, then we may be farther from our foundations than we know. "

2003-05-23T00:09:00.000-07:00

Mazin Qumsiyeh, Anti-Semite

Yale professor Mazin Qumsiyeh had this to say about the War in Iraq:

"No, it is not about weapons or terrorism...It is about Richard Perle, who is a well paid Zionist lobbyist who is promoted to the highest branches of our government and whose "security" company Tritreme brags about how it is going to grow and benefit from the fear of attacks. It is money and control. It is now clearly evident from their own documents that those who put Israel and personal wealth ahead of US public interests were first to plan this war over 15 years ago. They set up the conditions for the foolish venture of Saddam into the quagmire they helped set-up for him in 1990, they then pushed for ending the regime in 1991. They were not satisfied with the killing of a million Iraqis by sanctions and simply wanted more power. Perle, Wolfowitz Feith, Cheney, Wurmser, and others had this group named JINSA: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Their goal ostensibly is to ensure that US and Israeli security are not only perceived as intertwined but are physically intertwined. In 1996, even as Clinton bombed and starved Iraq, many of those "neocons" wanted him to do more and shedding any pretense, they submitted their recommendation in 1996 to Israeli Prime Minbister Netanyahu titled "A clean break: a strategy for securing the realm" It is available on IsraelEconomy.org and I urge you to read it. It envisions a program to enhance Israel security intertwined with "American Interests" by sequential taking out f its adversaries (like Iraq, Iran, Syria) and managing their suppliers (like North Korea). American reporters of influence are now to use their words "imbedded" with our troops. How else is one to explain the absence of any discussion of how two Nixon-era convicted felons (Elliott Abrams and John Poindexter) have recently been endowed with significant government positions?"

He concluded with this lovely, hmm, what to call it...poem?
"No to war, yes to peace.
No to violence, yes to justice.
No to Zionism, yes to Judaism. '
No to Israeli apartheid, yes to free pluralistic Israel/Palestine,
Save the earth, think green, work for peace, establish justice.
Stop the War. Stop the war. Stop the war."

He's also the proud author of this gem:
"NO WAR
No war for Israeli apartheid
No war for oil
No war for profit
No to colonialism and imperialism
No to corporate exploitation by globalization

YES TO PEACE
Yes to lifting the embargo that killed 1.5 million
Iraqis
Yes to equality
Yes to democracy (let us start with our dependencies
Israel and Egypt
first to set the example)
Yes to justice for the Palestinians including the right of return to their homes and lands
Yes to the International Criminal Court
Yes to trials for war criminals like Sharon and
Kissinger and Saddam."

Commentary, it seems, is unnecessary. But it should be noted that the most accurate translation of "Yes to...the right of return to their [Palestinians'] homes and lands" is "Yes to the demographic destruction of Israel."

2003-05-22T15:35:00.000-07:00

Law School Bomb: Update

To the Members of the Yale Community

The investigation of the explosion at the Law School, which occurred on
Wednesday afternoon, May 21, is proceeding. The incident occurred in a
first floor classroom with considerable damage to that classroom and an
adjacent lounge. The FBI, the State Police, the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms, as well as the New Haven and Yale Police, are
working collaboratively on this investigation.

There was understandable concern initially that this might relate to the
national "Orange Alert" status that had been announced the day before.
Law enforcement authorities have informed us that there is nothing
indicating that this incident relates to any international terrorism.
Nevertheless, this remains a very serious matter and we have increased our
security and vigilance. The University is doing everything it can to
support the collective efforts of the federal, state, city and university
law enforcement agencies who are aggressively investigating this crime.

Although the Law School building remains closed as the investigation
proceeds, the rest of the University has been open for regular business
today. All Commencement-related activities will proceed as scheduled, and
we are very hopeful that the Law School festivities can be held at their
traditional site.

There are always extra security precautions taken for Commencement. In
light of the recent incident, we will be taking additional security
measures for the weekend. In addition to the University's Police, there
will be added law enforcement officers from both the State Police and the
New Haven Police Department.

This is obviously a very unsettling incident for the entire community; our
support extends particularly to the students, faculty and staff of the Law
School. As a community we continue to support one another, and we are all
working to give our graduates the full salute they deserve.

Special announcements for the Law School community will appear at
http://www.yale.edu/law.
General updates for the Yale Community will be posted at
http://www.yale.edu. Click on the ticker at the bottom of the front door.

Linda Koch Lorimer
Vice President and Secretary

2003-05-22T11:48:00.000-07:00

What We Know

Here's all we know about the bombing at Yale Law School Yesterday. It's not insider information, but...not much on this blog is, I suppose:

To the Members of the Yale Community,

As you may have heard, there was an explosion at the Law School this
afternoon at approximately 4:40 p.m. in a first floor classroom. There
are no known injuries, but there is considerable damage to the classroom
and an adjacent lounge.

The Law School will be closed tomorrow and Friday. The rest of the
University will be open and operating normally. All Commencement related
events will proceed as scheduled. As always, there are extra security
personnel and precautions for the Commencement.

Students housed in the Law School will be staying in Stiles College. Law
School exams scheduled for tomorrow and Friday will be distributed at 9:00
a.m. at 114 Sheffield-Sterling-Strathcona (SSS) at the corner of Grove and
College. Self-scheduled and rescheduled Law School exams will be
available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. both Thursday and Friday at the
entrance to 114 SSS. The Law School community should consult a special
website at http://www.yale.edu/law for regular updates.

As more information becomes available, we will report it on
http://www.yale.edu.

Linda Koch Lorimer
Vice President and Secretary

2003-05-22T11:01:00.000-07:00

The "Cycle of Violence"

Max Abrahms demolishes the "cycle of violence" canard being broadcast all over the mainstream media (see "Journalists are Scum" posted below...ok, I'm going to try to keep the self-referentials to a minimum here guys, sorry 'bout that). Abrahms writes, "The Arab-Israeli conflict is often framed as a "cycle of violence." A strong Israeli policy against Palestinian terrorism will only spawn more attacks against Israel, goes the logic. Conversely, if only Israel made unilateral concessions to the Palestinians, it would find a partner for peace. This is the conventional wisdom. And it is wrong." Thank you, Max Abrahms.

Abrahms goes on to demolish the purported correlation between Israeli concessions and Palestinian reductions in terror, on which the current "Roadmap" is premised:

"Of course, it was Camp David that demonstrated the speciousness of the "cycle of violence" theory. For a combination of political and strategic reasons, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the house to Yasser Arafat: Israel would withdraw from 100 percent of the Gaza Strip and 97 percent of the West Bank, dismantle 63 isolated settlements, and make Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem the capital of a new Palestinian state, with the Palestinians maintaining control over their holy places and having "religious sovereignty" over the contested Temple Mount. Revisionist claims to the contrary, Israel offered to create a "viable" Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. "Cycle of violence" believers predicted a commensurate Palestinian reduction of terror.Again, just the opposite occurred. The most generous peace offer in the history of the conflict was answered with the most sustained wave of Palestinian suicide bombings in Israeli history."

He concludes on a somber note:

"The framework for peace therefore again stands on the "cycle of violence" premise by assuming that Israeli concessions will beget Palestinian moderation, and that proactive defensive steps by Israel will only undermine Israeli security. For opposite reasons, Oslo and Operation Defensive Shield drove a truck through this theory. Israeli concessions systematically met with yet further acts of terror, and proactive defensive measures effectively limited terrorist activity. If the "cycle of violence" theory continues to hold sway, and Israel is forced to make concessions prior to genuine Palestinian reform, the road map will enflame the situation. Already, there are painful signs that this is the case."

We can only hope that the Bush administration will learn, will become, on this issue, less concerned with public perception, less taken with the way things are supposed to work, and more concerned with the truth/

2003-05-22T10:46:00.000-07:00

A Lesson From the Brits

From whom else? John Derbyshire, my favorite Brit around. Today he NRO he writes, "The journalists-are-scum assumption has a long pedigree in the land of my birth. It is almost as if, since show business became respectable, British journalists have inherited the old prejudices about the acting profession — "vagabonds and strumpets." When the London satirical magazine Private Eye, back in the 1960s, wanted to invent an archetypal denizen of Fleet Street, they named him Lunchtime O'Booze." We'll keep that in mind.

2003-05-21T23:35:00.000-07:00

Yale: The Unpatriotic University?

So says Paul Wallfield in Front Page Magazine. He claims that Yale's debasement began when the campus became a hotbed of political activism during the Vietman era. The era culminated with the abolition of ROTC in 1969.

According to Wallfield, September 11 evoked the same anti-Americanism spawned by the Vietnam generation: "While nearly all Americans saw the attackers as enemies and as murderers, some at Yale saw the U.S. at fault and the terrorists merely as victims of America’s foreign policy. These same elements would later castigate America’s intervention in Iraq to remove a ruthless dictator as an adventure in "imperialism.""

Yale added insult to injury when the African-American cultural center invited Amiri Baraka to campus. Amiri Baraka the author of inspiring poetry such as: "Smile, jew. Dance, jew. Tell me you love me, jew. . . .I got the extermination blues, jewboys. I got the hitler syndrome figured." Baraka also alleges in his "poetry" that Israel was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

Wallfield goes wrong when he claims that "Nonetheless, it appears Baraka's visit had less to do with students and dialogue than the faculty's adulation." What bothered me most about the Baraka fiasco was not that the invitation was extended, but that he was received with open arms by the Af-Am cultural center and that he was cheered by an adoring audience of starry-eyed Yalies.

When the Yale Daily News condemned Baraka's invitation, columnist Sahm Adrangi knew why: The Jews, of course. After defending Baraka's invitation on Millian grounds, he wonders: "Why should this conspiracy theory usher in the most vitriolic attacks on Baraka's reputation in his 40-year career? Because Israeli sympathizers tend to occupy prominent positions in the American media. Monday's editorial, and the Yale Daily News in general, is a case in point. Obviously, it's one thing to be Jewish, and wholly another to support the Israeli occupation. That said, Jews tend to sympathize with Israel more so than non-Jews. And in my three years at the Yale Daily News, Jewish students have comprised a majority of management positions (namely, editor in chief and managing editor). This year, nearly half the editors are Jewish."

Adrangi claims that opposition to Baraka's hatemongering came from "the prevalence of Jews in American media, business and politics," including at the Yale Daily News. Yeah, opposing anti-Semitism must have sinister motives. It's really just a big conspiracy masterminded by the Jews running the YDN. Adrangi's charges have a sordid history, chiefly as a part of the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

Back to Wallfield's piece. He finishes by pointing out the absurd activities conducted by Yale's most absurd Leftist student groups:

"Students for Justice in Palestine: The group set up a mock checkpoint to demonstrate this "harassing" aspect of Palestinian daily life. However, the group failed to mention the reason for the checkpoints - namely, terrorists and homicide bombers coming into Israel from the West Bank and Gaza. The Yale Daily News spoke of “hundreds of years of Palestinians living in the area.” Of course, “Palestinians” were not living in the area “hundreds of years ago,” because there was no Palestine hundreds of years ago. Palestine is a 20th century concept.

The students at Yale also formed a group called the Yale Coalition for Peace. In January, the coalition staged a "die-in" to protest the potential invasion of Iraq. The February 6, 2003, Brown Herald noted, “Yale's 500 member coalition is also planning to take action in the event of war. ‘If and when the war happens, we have plans for an emergency action,’ said Coalition member Ruth DeGolia.”"

By all accounts, the Yale Coalition for Peace's most effective activity was the "Primal Scream" they held during the War in Iraq. As the name suggests, the group assembled, stood on the steps of the New Haven courthouse, and...screamed. Guess that what the "emergency action" Ruth said was impending.

While the professors quoted in Wollfield's article are despicable, it should be known that the most highly respected and revered professors on the campus--Charles Hill, David Gelernter, Donald Kagan, and Norma Thompson, among others--are both pro-America and pro-war.

Professor Gelernter shared with me his own views on the transformation of the Yale campus a while back (he himself is a graduate of Yale). He told me that Yale (along with Columbia and Berkeley) did more damage to the United States during the Vietnam era than did any other university. While Wallfield suggests the damage was inflicted by the faculty, Gelernter places the blame on the students. Professors in general, he said, are not known for their strength of character or for the courage of their convictions. In general, professors, who want, more than anything, to be liked, align with the political positions, however outlandish, of the students. But Gelernter's tragic portrait of Yalies' activism gone wrong is laced with optimism. If the students singlehandedly changed the nature of the campus in the sixties, they can change it back. The professors, he says, will follow their example, and in doing so, will redeem Yale in the eyes of its critics and repair its tarnished reputation.

2003-05-21T23:30:00.000-07:00

The Lowest of the Low

If you thought Bob Herbert hit rock bottom with his last column on the Jayson Blair affair, think again. The same angry adrenaline that draws so many into the blogosphere brought me out of bed to vent about this one.

You know you're in for it when one of the lead sentences is--all together now ladies and gents--"The Dixie Chicks were excoriated for simply exercising their constitutional right to speak out." Herbert predictably decries the "ugly backlash" against the Dixie Chicks perpetrated by the VWRC.

But Herbert then ventures away from the preditable towards the insane: "The Chicks learned how dangerous it can be to criticize the chief of a grand imperial power." Mmmmmhmmmm. Yeah. They looked pretty scared posing naked on the cover of Entertainment Weekly. As for the rest of the sentence--"chief of a grand imperial power"--I'm inclined to think that commentary is unncessary.

Herbert goes on to decry the evils of Haliburton, and lambasts the "flag-waving yahoos [for] hyperventilating over nonissues like the Dixie Chicks." Flag-waving yahoos--that's us! I don't recall, though, any of my fellow flag-waving yahooites making an issue over the Dixie Chicks, except to defend themselves against cavalier accusations like Herbert's--that they've poisoned civil discourse by creating a hostile, even "dangerous" environment for the Chicks. While Herbert and his cronies were crying censorship, we were breaking (or not buying) CDs.

2003-05-21T21:53:00.000-07:00

IM: The Wave of the Present?

This article about Instant Messenger caught my attention. Money quote?: "She said she also finds it hard to do work on her computer when an Instant Messenger box pops up every other minute, but she still uses it." Tell us something we don't know.

Megan Romigh at Columbia reveals that 58% of college students are addicted to IM. Am I an addict?, you ask. Here's how you can tell: "At first, there were the classic warning signs: chatting online with my roommate who sat seven feet away; changing my buddy icon on a daily basis; taking surveys, and downloading songs listed on profiles. My buddy list doubled as a veritable Rolodex of my college existence, and I would often find myself referring to friends' buddy profiles in daily conversation." This does not bode well for me.

On that note, goodnight. I'm heading over to IMaddict.com.

2003-05-21T15:04:00.000-07:00

Sex and the City

...Season Four, (released yesterday for those of you who weren't waiting outside the stores before they opened), comes highly, HIGHLY recommended. The Big Question remains: who will it be, Aidan or Mr. Big? I just hope the final episode--which needs to come soon, much as it hurts to say that--surpasses the final Dawson's Creek. 6 years of my life wasted watching that show. Wasted. All for that crappy, anti-climactic, sorry excuse for a finale. In the meantime, check out the Sex and the City website. Test your knowledge of the show here. I'm still trying to decide whether my off-the-charts score is a positive or negative reflection on me. Also, download the Sex and the City screensaver here!

2003-05-21T14:43:00.000-07:00

Yes-Girl Installmant, Part One of Many

In my eyes, Jay Nordlinger can do no wrong. Not a great reflection on my credibility, I admit, but just look at the first two points from today's Impromptus:

"You may have read that Fox News is having a little feud, or contretemps, with Aaron Brown, an anchor (or something) for CNN. Brown has specialized in ridiculing Fox ? as the CNN people usually do ? claiming the network is the equivalent of conservative talk radio. Here he goes: "There's room for conservative talk radio on television. But I don't think anyone ought to pretend it's the New York Times or CNN.""

Aaron Brown. Yes, Aaron Brown, the embodiment of journalistic (anchoristic?) mediocrity, throwing stinkbombs at Fox from behind his desk. Aaron Brown, candidate for the "most sickeningly average" award, using his news desk to boost himself by blasting others. Oh well, it's not like he called Fox News an oxymoron, as Yale professor Glenda Gilmore did here.

"Hmm: One result I was hoping for, in the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal, is that the New York Times, CNN, et al. would be a little more humble ? a little less scornful, a little less belittling, a little less judgmental. But I guess not.

I don't think anyone ought to pretend it's the New York Times or CNN. No, let's not pretend: because Fox News hasn't had a scandal like Peter Arnett fabricating about Vietnam or Jayson Blair fabricating about everything.

A little more humility, gentlemen, as you contemplate the beams in your own eyes."

"Have you noticed how some people snort when our victories in war are "too easy"? Back after Grenada, Madeleine Albright ? then a Democratic foreign-policy doyenne (as now, I guess) ? sniffed, "Well, it's like the Washington Redskins beating the Little Sisters of the Poor." And now Carol Moseley Braun has come along to say, "You know, the notion that we won the war against Iraq is like saying we won a war against Arizona. I mean, the fact of the matter is it's not that big of a country, and nobody, I don't think, had any notion that we would do anything but win it."

Asked whether President Bush deserved any credit for Iraq, the candidate said, "Well, you know, I mean, if you pick a fight, and if ? you know, you pick a fight with somebody that's smaller than you and you beat 'em, where's the honor in that?"

There are a million things to say about this repugnant remark, but I will confine myself to: Ask a freed Iraqi political prisoner where the honor was in destroying Saddam Hussein and his evil regime.

Well I have a few things to say. First things first: I sure hope Carol Moseley Braun wins the Democratic nomination. It'd be a riot. Just too much fun. Second, aren't all these dems the same ones who warned us away from venturing into a "Second Vietnam"? The before and after quotes from these loonies are utterly astonishing. Nordlinger continues:

"And I wish to ask this: Why is it that the Democratic party, in general, is so seldom held accountable for the statements of its leaders and spokesmen? Rick Santorum makes some less than air-tight remarks about jurisprudence, and the whole Republican party is supposed to be under a shadow. Carol Moseley Braun ? and others ? talk like this, and everyone goes, "La, la, la."

Hyperbole is the natural speaking mode of a candidate. But sometimes, one of them makes you kind of sick.

Here's John Edwards, the North Carolina senator, touting himself: "Some people ask me, 'Why run now? You have time.' No, I don't. I don't, you don't, and America doesn't. This could be the most important election in our lifetime."

Oh, "puh-leeze," as a former editor of mine used to write frequently."

John Edwards. All I can say is that I don't like the look in his eyes. Not to mention the astonishing amount of arrogance he exudes. Quite a specimen.

2003-05-21T09:25:00.000-07:00

Thank You, Emperor

Thank you to the Emperor and to all of you who are linking over from his site. I wouldn't want to violate blog etiquette my second day on the job, so I wanted to make sure to link back to him. Hmm...my apologies to the Emperor in advance that the only visitors he'll get via my site are my mom and dad. To all the new visitors, I hope you enjoy and maybe come back. Emperor, thank you again.

2003-05-21T09:13:00.000-07:00

Defining McCarthyism

Jonathon Harris tries (I'll tell you now: to no avail) to instruct the Left on the meaning of McCarthyism today in NRO: "Defending Campus Watch." We (that'd be the royal we over here in Divaland) started this task yesterday. Harris defends Campus Watch in the face of its strident critics in academia who throw around the label "McCarthyite" with glee. Harris writes, ""McCarthyism," therefore, contains two key attributes: undocumented, unfounded accusations that damage a person's career, and accusations charged by someone in a position of authority." So can we keep that in mind? Pleeeeeeease? I'm not holding my breath.

A friend suggested to me the other day that freshmen orientation should be overhauled, and that the new and improved version should consist of Yale's 1200 incoming freshmen being told all the things that censorship is NOT ("Welcome to Yale. First things first. Censorship is NOT not getting called on in class. Censorship is NOT the Yale Daily News refusing to print your article. Censorship is NOT the Yale Daily News refusing to print your letter to the editor. And censorship is NOT something to wail and moan about when you're pissed off! Use the term under advisement dammit. And most of all, quit your shrill whining! And don't forget, have a *great* year.") It's time to add McCarthyism to the vocabulary lesson as well.

So back to McCarthyism. Harris stays more restrained than I could've the whole article. He concludes, "Campus Watch finds it particularly distressing that professors of U.S. history such as Columbia's Eric Foner, Yale's Glenda Gilmore, who are supposed to know better, feel free to throw around this misplaced charge of McCarthyism." The money quote: Harris relays Ron Radosh's thoughts:

"It is actually in the tradition of what I call left-wing McCarthyism that the critics of Campus Watch are acting. Accurately citing and reprinting the views of professors, and making known their own point of view from their own writing, is definitely not McCarthyism." Radosh continues, "Ironically, the very tactic of guilt by association and smears used by Senator McCarthy has now been adopted by the academic left-wing, who seek to stifle debate and free discussion by resorting to unfounded smears of their critics."

Maybe Harris's next article can answer the cavalier accusations of Professor Jim Sleeper, who compared the organization to SDS in the same article he branded yours truly a "neo-Stalinist" and a "Fedayeen Uncle Sam." When I asked him on what basis he made the comparison, he evaded the question with a Nixonian (Clintonian?) non-response-response before cutting off our conversation. Sleeper sure isn't setting the learning curve too high for that civil discourse I'm so in need of learning about.

2003-05-21T08:50:00.000-07:00

Dems for National Security?

It looks like some Democrats are heeding David Frum's advice. A few days ago, Frum wrote a column in the voice of the ghost of Harry Truman. He spent is yelling at the Dems for their lackluster performance post-9/11. Is this their response? Well, Jay Nordlinger thinks the whole concept of Dems for National Security is a crock: "Can you believe that some Democrats are going to run on being tougher — way tougher — than President Bush on terrorism and homeland security? I mean, why should they even try? Will anyone buy this? It's so . . . counterintuitive, among other things. I mean, it's like Republicans claiming that they'll give you more socialized medicine than their opponents. Why even the feint?" Who do I side with? I refer you to my second post, "Confession."

2003-05-20T17:10:00.000-07:00

When Words Lose Their Meanings

Hmm...solely on the basis on my posts today, I'd say it's fair to conclude that the Left needs a major vocabulary lesson. They need to learn that "McCarthyite," "Censorious," and "Stalinist" do not mean "mean greedy Republican." We've already been over censorship and Stalinism on this site, and Andrew Sullivan tackles the McCarthy canard. McCarthyism, he says, "is the tired line now being peddled by those too embarrassed to admit that they were wrong about the war on terror, wrong about the war in Afghanistan, wrong about the war against Saddam. They are now complaining that criticizing the far left's embrace of anti-Americanism is equivalent to McCarthyism. Hooey, of course. Tough criticism in a free society is not McCarthyism." Ok, can we move on now?

2003-05-20T14:42:00.000-07:00

Self-Promotion

It's endearing, isn't it? I promise, the one and only time. And it's a bit of a melodrama for all you women out there (mom, that's you!). A few weeks ago, my friend Jamie Kirchick and I wrote an article about an anti-war teach-in we attended on the day that Baghdad fell. You can imagine what some embittered Yale professors had to say. We were so outraged by what we heard, that we wrote about the teach-in for Front Page Magazine, "Postwar Delusion at Yale."

The following Monday, we were surprised to find ourselves branded as "neo-Stalinists" in the Yale Daily News by Professor Jim Sleeper: "Recalling Yale in '68, Let's Have that Civility Again." The levels of irony are manifold. The civility for which Sleeper waxes nostalgic occurred just a year before ROTC was booted off the Yale campus in 1969. And while purporting to instruct us in the boundaries of civil discourse, Professor Sleeper called us "neo-Stalinist" and called me personally a "poor reader, a dishonest writer, and a dishonest respondent." When I e-mailed Professor Sleeper and asked him to substantiate his accusations, he refused and informed me shortly thereafter that "our conversation is finished." So I told Hugh Hewitt to go ahead and write about the incident for the Weekly Standard. His column, "Tough Guy," appeared the following Friday.

Scarborough Country, Joe Scarborough's new MSNBC show, caught wind of the controversy and asked Jamie and me to appear on the show. Professor Sleeper fired back with a furious invective against me and Jamie in the Yale Daily News the following Wednesday: "The Preaching of Hate to the Already Converted." After claiming that "Stalinism is something I don't joke about," Sleeper went on to compare our supporters to the Comitern, pithily labeling them the "Con-Intern," and to claim that "Truncheons and gulags exist thanks not just to dictators but also to smart, bitter, frightened little people"-- [that's us!!]--"who prowl neighborhoods and workplaces reporting enemies of the people to Party-run media and commissars."

In a final e-mail to me, Professor Sleeper cautioned that I'd be "very well advied to steer clear of [him]." When he was called on his threatening remark by a Yale administrator, he claimed that I had harassed him in three national venues and that "that is why Ms. Johnson should steer clear of me. As should you." I don't know where the mental hospital nearest to New Haven is located, but I do hope that Sleeper is on his way.

2003-05-20T14:09:00.000-07:00

Bill Clinton: Contemporary Jesus Christ?

So says Sidney Blumenthal. Andrew Sullivan offers a devastating critique of Blumenthal's new book, The Clinton Wars:

"It's not a memoir; or a history. It's a Gospel. Its facts are assembled, as the facts in the Gospels were assembled, for one purpose only: to affirm the faith, to rally the flock, to spread the further glory of the Church. It is an allegory of eternal good and evil--a passion narrative with a scriptural past and a resurrection at the end, the first-person narrative of one saint who prevailed.

That saint is Bill Clinton. Of all the characters who have graced the office of the presidency, Sidney picks William Jefferson Clinton as the moral exemplar. There is not a scintilla of a clue anywhere in this book that Mr. Blumenthal sees even a trace of irony in this selection. In fact, you can scour this book to find critical or even skeptical judgments of the 42nd president, and you will come up virtually empty."

Sullivan's review takes a serious turn at the end:

"The fact that the president and, more worryingly, his wife, sought out this slightly nutty man as their confidant, a man whom they knew would never question them, never challenge them, never leave them, reveals the brittleness of their characters and the ruthlessness behind their sanctimony. They used him for his propagandistic skills, and his fawning loyalty. They used him to drape their own modest but defensible record with the patina of world-historical significance. And they used him to lie to one another. Some people would find that demeaning. It tells you a lot about Sidney Blumenthal that he regards it as an achievement worth recording for the ages."

My commentary would only detract.

2003-05-20T13:40:00.000-07:00

A Question

When is somebody in the administration going to stop playing nice with Arafat and call him the terrorist that he is? When's somebody outside the administration going to call them on their inconsistency? What ever happened to "you're either with us, or you're against us"? Just a nice turn of phrase? At a Support The Troops Rally held by the Yale College Students for Democracy, of which I am a member, Professor Norma Thompson told us, "If your words are not credible, then your institutions are worth nothing...As with institutions, so with states. If you don’t stand behind your assertions, you cannot hold on to your political identity. You became the pawns of another. If empty words are a threat to political integrity, so are innocent words, like “War is Immoral.” We stand here in Beinecke Plaza, surrounded by memorials to political freedom, markers of the sacrifice of soldiers, to words they believed in. Can we afford to forget that, to be lulled into complacency, with the likes of sayings like “War is immoral?” Their example should be worth more." Right now, the administration needs to live up to its own words. Or they, we, are worth nothing.

Leo-Cons?

With all the talk about the posthumous influence of Leo Strauss in the echo-chamber that is the media, I figure it's worth compiling the junk. It augments the force of the condemnation, I think.

So here goes. It all started with James Atlas's article in the Times (summarily demolished at Claremont, in Atlas Shirked).

On the heels of the Atlas piece came Seymour Hersh's piece in the New Yorker, "Selective Intelligence." Then came two articles by Jeet Heer (one, two) in the Boston Globe. As if that wasn't enough, Heer's pieces were followed by this article in the Asia Times and this article by Daniel Drezner in TNR. Amazing.

So the Straussian conspiracy is en vogue in the media, primarily because it's a novel, pretentious, and seemingly sophisticated way for journalists to talk about neocons (read: "Jews") and act like they've discovered a sinister Republican plot. Yeah, that's an old favorite. Think they can be demolished in a single sentence? I didn't, but leave it to blogger Josh Cherniss to prove me wrong. In reference to Shadia Drury's immature and tendentious analysis of Strauss, he writes: "It [Drury's anti-Straussian cant] is reassuring to various academics and lay readers who find themselves puzzled by Strauss, and generally hostile to the political conclusions they know his admirers have drawn, but who can't quite pin down what it is they're so opposed to -- Drury's picture of Strauss as some sort of nihilistic, crypto-authoritarian figure is a comfortingly hateable caricature." Wow, that's painful. Nobody's nailed it like that.

For those who are interested (Dad?), you can listen to Harvey Mansfield take on Drury here.

Censorship

The Emperor points me to a blog that's new to me: Balloon Juice. John Cole posts about the curious uses of the term censorship in one of the most fantastic rundowns I've seen in a while. The whole post is well worth the read, but it's pretty easy (and pretty infuriating) to get the gist:

This is censorship:

Dozens of people walked out on pioneer TV talk-show host Phil Donahue, as he delivered a commencement speech at N.C. State on Saturday.

This is acting on principle:

About one in every eight graduates walked out of Sunday’s commencement at Saint Joseph’s University before the keynote address by Sen. Rick Santorum.

See the difference? Let's do some more.

This is censorship:

Some controversial comments made by one of the Dixie Chicks has the phones at a local country radio station ringing off the hook.

A number of radio stations across the country have dumped the group's music over the lead singer's controversial comments about President George W. Bush.

This is people expressing their rights to be consumers:

Church, community and political groups in Oregon and Washington are demanding an end to what they call 'hate radio' and have called on a station owned by billionaire Paul Allen to drop talk show host Michael Savage.

Cole's money line? "Just in case you were confused." I couldn't have said it better.

Just What I was Thinking...

Why is it that terririst attacks outside the Middle East (Israel) don't turn journalists' heads? There must be something compelling about the "Palestinian narrative" that makes them feel righteous. David Frum addresses the issue today in National Review, asking why so little attention has been paid to the plight of the Chechins in Russia:

"...the Russians committed some pretty horrific acts of murder against the Chechens not so very long ago: In fact, they probably killed half the Chechen population. And yet, on the rare occasions that we talk about the war in Chechnya, the historical background to the war goes unmentioned.

The Chechens are rapidly coming to rival the Palestinians in the terrorism World Series. Yet while the Palestinians find endless volunteer apologists and eager, credulous audiences in the United Nations, the European Union, and American campuses, the Chechens find … nothing. How odd."

Hmm...Odd? I was thinking more along the lines of perverse. But hey, I'm sure the two aren't mutually exclusive. What is is that makes journalists eager to apologize advocate and apologize for Palestinians who indiscriminately kill Jews, but not for Chechins, who've been massacred by the Russians for 50 years? You decide.

Confessional

Normally, discussing the biases of authors is anathema to me. Probably because such discussions usually turn into a festivals of self-congratulation. But it somehow seems not only not obnoxious, but almost noble, when an author discloses his or her own biases. So, in pursuit of nobility (or eager to make a good impression, you decide), here I go. I am a Jay Nordlinger yes-girl. So there it is, my single bias. How could I not love a guy who had the following to say about Theresa Heinz Kerry?

"Anyway, the really beautiful stuff comes from Teresa. She said, "They [the Republicans] will probably say he's French, he's Jewish . . . he's a monkey. I just find it sad."

Whoa, whoa: Jewish? monkey? You mean, the GOP — my GOP — will attack Kerry for having a smidgeon of Jewish ancestry, somewhere (so he says — but wasn't he supposed to be Irish?)? The Democrats had an actual Jew on the ticket in 2000. I don't recall my party going all brownshirt on him.

And where did "monkey" come from? (I know: Darwin.)

But here's the kicker: Mrs. Heinz Kerry sniffed about the White House, "They probably don't even speak French."

Aside from the delicious hauteur of that comment: How much you wanna bet the lady's French stinks? I've heard it before: rich (American) lady's French. It's not pretty.

I almost pity the Kerry campaign. They're going to have to do something about this live wire."

Inaugural Post

Welcome to all my readers (Mom, Dad, that's you!).

There's nothing like misplaced confidence to launch a new blog, so here goes:
Shoubai6: dude
Shoubai6: Your blog will be famous
Shoubai6: You'll be like instapundit
Shoubai6: only not a wuss

Enjoy, everone!

P.S. Prof. Reynolds, if you ever read this, I'm sure my friend retracts his wuss comment. We love you over here, always and forever.