<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v4.1.2 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Tue, 13 May 2008 20:15:24 GMT--><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><title>Critical Mass - The Quad</title><subtitle>Critical Mass - The Quad</subtitle><id>http://www.criticalmassblog.com/the-quad/</id><link rel="alternate" type="application/xhtml+xml" href="http://www.criticalmassblog.com/the-quad/"/><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.criticalmassblog.com/the-quad/atom.xml"/><updated>2007-07-04T00:54:43Z</updated><generator uri="http://www.squarespace.com/" version="Squarespace Site Server v4.1.2 (http://www.squarespace.com/)">Squarespace</generator><entry><title>"Mickey Hamouse"</title><category>posts by Gelernter</category><id>http://www.criticalmassblog.com/the-quad/mickey-hamouse.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.criticalmassblog.com/the-quad/mickey-hamouse.html"/><author><name>-</name></author><published>2007-07-04T00:45:16Z</published><updated>2007-07-04T00:45:16Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>This week's Critical Mass Award for the Most Original Way to End a Children's TV Series goes to Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV station. They have just aired the last episode of a show centered around a mickey mouse-type character named &quot;Farfur&quot; (known as &quot;Mickey Hamouse&quot; in Israel). The last episode, to provide happy inspiration for all the pre-schoolers watching the show, features Farfur being beaten to death by an Israeli agent (&quot;terrorist Jew&quot;) for refusing to sell his land to the Israelis. Watch <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=iDMta_VBdLQ" target="_blank">this video</a> -- and be sure to catch the phone call they take from a three-year-old at the end of the episode.</p><p>- Dan Gelernter &nbsp;</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Civillians Patrol New Haven Streets</title><category>posts by Gelernter</category><id>http://www.criticalmassblog.com/the-quad/civillians-patrol-new-haven-streets.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.criticalmassblog.com/the-quad/civillians-patrol-new-haven-streets.html"/><author><name>-</name></author><published>2007-06-21T16:36:17Z</published><updated>2007-06-21T16:36:17Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>There is exciting news from the Elm City. In response to mounting crime and the incompetence of the police, members of the Yeshiva of New Haven will be commencing armed evening patrols, which operate in a large chunk of the suburbs from 6 to 10 pm. The patrols will consist of a pair of men, each carrying a licensed, concealed firearm and wearing a t-shirt that reads &ldquo;Edgewood Park Defense Patrol.&rdquo;<br /><br />The leader of the group, Rabbi Greer, is a former city police commissioner. &quot;We can fix all the houses up. We can plant trees. But if we cannot walk our streets securely, all our efforts are for naught,&quot; he said.<br /><br />Of course he his plans have been attacked by the mayor and various alderman who, unlike the people who actually live in this neighborhood, express perfect confidence in the competence of the police force.<br /><br />As a Yale student, the problem of crime in New Haven has been long on my mind. Yale students may be the least defended of all groups, since Yale forbids us from carrying any means of self-defense, and because most of us are under 21, which is the age requirement for obtaining a pistol permit in this state.<br /><br />This is an important and unknown point: it is not the job of the police to protect you or anyone.<br /><br />From a 1997 Cato Institute policy analysis by Jeffrey Snyder: &ldquo;It is a settled principle of law throughout the United States that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime. That may come as a surprise to many people, but the principle holds even in cases where the police have been grossly negligent in failing to protect a crime victim.&rdquo; There is a test case that confirms this point: in 1978 in Washington D.C., three women were beaten and raped and held captive for 14 hours. Though they called 911 twice, and even saw police cruisers pass by their house, the police never showed up. They later sued the police &ndash; and lost: the D.C. Superior Court ruled that &ldquo;a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.&rdquo; The responsibility for personal protection rests with each private member of the community, not the government. The government has admitted it, so if you don&rsquo;t protect yourself, you simply won&rsquo;t be protected.<br /><br />I wish I could help the community out by volunteering for these patrols myself; unfortunately I am only 20. Nevertheless, as they say in their press release, &ldquo;Anyone interested in finding out more about the EPDP [Edgewood Park Defense Patrol] or participating in the patrols, should contact Eliezer Greer at (203) 606-3085.&rdquo;<br /><br />Read their press release <a href="http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/upload/2007/06/First%20Press%20Release%20Edgewood.doc" target="_blank">here</a> and a full news story <a href="http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2007/06/edgewoods_packi.php" target="_blank">here</a>.<br /></p><p>- Dan Gelernter&nbsp;</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>A World Without Public Schools</title><id>http://www.criticalmassblog.com/the-quad/a-world-without-public-schools.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.criticalmassblog.com/the-quad/a-world-without-public-schools.html"/><author><name>-</name></author><published>2007-05-30T16:56:22Z</published><updated>2007-05-30T16:56:22Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Read David Gelernter's brilliant piece on abolishing the public school system on the <a target="_blank" href="http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/702uscvj.asp">Weekly Standard website</a>.<br /></p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Commentary, The Norman Podhoretz Lecture</title><category>posts by Gelernter</category><id>http://www.criticalmassblog.com/the-quad/2007/5/18/commentary-the-norman-podhoretz-lecture.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.criticalmassblog.com/the-quad/2007/5/18/commentary-the-norman-podhoretz-lecture.html"/><author><name>-</name></author><published>2007-05-18T20:26:53Z</published><updated>2007-05-18T20:26:53Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>A see the <a href="http://www.criticalmassblog.com/main/2007/5/18/dinner-with-commentary.html" target="_blank">features</a> section for my wrap-up of the third-annual Norman Podhoretz Lecture.</p><p>- Dan Gelernter&nbsp;</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Advice for Hollywood</title><category>posts by Gelernter</category><id>http://www.criticalmassblog.com/the-quad/2007/5/12/advice-for-hollywood.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.criticalmassblog.com/the-quad/2007/5/12/advice-for-hollywood.html"/><author><name>-</name></author><published>2007-05-13T03:38:25Z</published><updated>2007-05-13T03:38:25Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Dear Readers,</p><p>I have just finished by far the busiest term of my life. I am back:<br /></p><p>I was watching a DVD of a recent comedy called <em>Music and Lyrics</em> today, and things were going pretty well; it actually looked like one of the better modern movies I&rsquo;d seen. But then we got to the closing credits, during which a series of little blurbs appeared on screen to let us know what happened to all of the movie&rsquo;s characters &ldquo;later in life.&rdquo; We learn that the two main characters of the movie, Alex Fletcher (Hugh Grant) and Sophie Fisher (Drew Barrymore) go on to write many more hit songs together and that they are &ldquo;now living together.&rdquo; Not <em>married</em> &ndash; just &ldquo;living together.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;No!&rdquo; I yell at the TV screen, &ldquo;They&rsquo;re not &lsquo;living together!&rsquo; They&rsquo;re married! They&rsquo;d <em>better</em> be married.&rdquo; (I find myself yelling at the TV set a lot these days, which is one of the reasons I try to avoid movies produced after 1967). I don&rsquo;t mean to sound prudish, nor do I think that Hollywood&rsquo;s liberal bent is anything new, but it just made me wonder: &ldquo;Comedies,&rdquo; by definition, are plays that end with marriages &ndash; at least this has been the way it has worked for about 2000 years. Remember, this happens <em>past</em> the end of the movie: the plot is over, we&rsquo;re into the credits after all &ndash; it&rsquo;s no skin off the playwright&rsquo;s nose to suggest that these characters are simply married as opposed to living together (it even takes fewer letters). So why does this movie go extra lengths to make the &ldquo;living together&rdquo; statement? Just to express contempt: contempt for marriage, contempt for tradition, and contempt for America and the very idea of goodness.<br /><br />But this is not as depressing as it sounds, provided we remember that Hollywood is an irrelevance. Asking a Hollywooder to explain morality is like asking a used-car salesman to fix your fuel injectors: there is no correlation between the ability to be loud and obnoxious and the ability to do something useful. And since Hollywood has been talking to us for a long time, I would now like to talk to them:<br /><br />Dear Hollywood: <em>Nobody</em> takes you seriously. Hollywood&rsquo;s pagan views do not interest America, except from the standpoint of a rather pathetic amusement. Hollywooders and academics and the media mercenaries can stand there all day long telling us that morality is a variable thing, that absolute goodness doesn&rsquo;t exist, that out traditions are simple-minded and bigoted (in fact, this is what they do). But get this Hollywood: America <em>refuses</em> to believe you. A Hebrew proverb states that &ldquo;silence is a fence around wisdom.&rdquo; As a good neighbor, I will simply point out that there are few holes in your fence that could use fixing.</p><p>-- Dan Gelernter&nbsp;</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Abortion Politics Rekindled -- The 2008 Candidates Weigh In</title><id>http://www.criticalmassblog.com/the-quad/2007/4/19/abortion-politics-rekindled-the-2008-candidates-weigh-in.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.criticalmassblog.com/the-quad/2007/4/19/abortion-politics-rekindled-the-2008-candidates-weigh-in.html"/><author><name>-</name></author><published>2007-04-19T17:27:39Z</published><updated>2007-04-19T17:27:39Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Read Guy Benson's article in our <a href="http://www.criticalmassblog.com/main">Features</a> section.<br /></p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>A Pro-Life Answer to 'Sex Week"</title><category>posts by Benson</category><id>http://www.criticalmassblog.com/the-quad/2007/4/13/a-pro-life-answer-to-sex-week.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.criticalmassblog.com/the-quad/2007/4/13/a-pro-life-answer-to-sex-week.html"/><author><name>-</name></author><published>2007-04-13T04:01:07Z</published><updated>2007-04-13T04:01:07Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Northwestern was not to be outdone by &quot;sex week&quot; at Yale. Our editor Guy Benson sent this in:</p><p>Northwestern University is enduring its first ever &quot;<a href="http://media.www.dailynorthwestern.com/media/storage/paper853/news/2007/04/10/Campus/Nus-First.Sex.Week.Features.Lectures.Workshops.Shows-2831970.shtml" target="_blank">sex week</a>,&quot; featuring the distribution of free condoms and &quot;safe sex supplies,&quot; various sex workshops, and the production of &quot;Kama Sutra: The Musical.&quot; Amidst the depravity, Northwestern's pro-life student <a target="_blank" href="http://groups.northwestern.edu/nsfl/">group</a> has invited Feminists for Life president Serrin Foster to present the feminist case against abortion. &nbsp;Ms. Foster will speak at Swift Hall room 107 on NU's Evanston campus at 7:30pm. &nbsp;The lecture is free and open to the public. <br /></p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Misuse of Terminology</title><id>http://www.criticalmassblog.com/the-quad/2007/4/4/994832.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.criticalmassblog.com/the-quad/2007/4/4/994832.html"/><author><name>Maynard Hutchins</name></author><published>2007-04-04T17:10:50Z</published><updated>2007-04-04T17:10:50Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<div class="body">        <p>On CNN.com this morning there is a video of a military recruiter telling someone to do a &ldquo;gay voodoo jig.&rdquo; CNN has labeled the video &ldquo;Homophobic Recruiter.&rdquo; Now, I don&rsquo;t support the recruiter&rsquo;s actions, but let me ask you something. What does &ldquo;homophobic&rdquo; mean? It means fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. There is a difference, though, between making fun of something or someone and being afraid of them. If I make fun of funny looking hats, it doesn&rsquo;t mean I&rsquo;m afraid of funny looking hats. It means I think they&rsquo;re funny looking. Similarly, when people mock homosexuals (which I do not condone) it&rsquo;s not because they fear them; they just don&rsquo;t like them.</p> <p>But were the media and the left to use a more accurate term, or talk about &ldquo;anti-homosexuals,&rdquo; they wouldn&rsquo;t get to cast their enemies as scaredy-cat bigots. By claiming someone is afraid of something else, you get to imply a sense of inferiority and irrationality. Fear is seen as a symptom of failing to understand, of feeling threatened by. When someone is seen as afraid, they are seen as weak. So when you call someone a homophobe, you aren&rsquo;t just calling them prejudiced, you&rsquo;re also characterizing their prejudice as weak, irrational, and intimidated. By claiming someone is afraid of someone else, you empower those you claim they fear.</p> <p>If, on the other hand, you simply - and more accurately - state that people are against another group of people or ideas, these negative connotations are not imparted. If someone is <em>against</em> something instead of afraid of it, it begs the question, &ldquo;Why?&rdquo; But if the left simply accused others of being against homosexuals, then they would invite a rational discussion of why they are against and whether their claims are valid. We would have to ask ourselves if there are reasons to not support homosexuals or homosexuality.</p> <p>But rational discussion frightens the modern left because they rely on arguments of emotion (love, hate, fear, passion) and are prone to refutation by reasoned discourse. By labeling anyone against homosexuality as a homophobe they get to circumvent a discussion of the possible merits of the position they ridicule and instead immediately cast them in a negative, condescending light without ever making an argument as to why that' the case. </p>              </div>]]></content></entry><entry><title>New Abstinence Group at Harvard</title><id>http://www.criticalmassblog.com/the-quad/2007/3/22/new-abstinence-group-at-harvard.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.criticalmassblog.com/the-quad/2007/3/22/new-abstinence-group-at-harvard.html"/><author><name>-</name></author><published>2007-03-22T21:58:15Z</published><updated>2007-03-22T21:58:15Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Our Editor Guy Benson published this <a href="http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjU3ZmU2N2FkNzk1ZjYyMDk0MDRkYTkzYmE3OTY2YzM=" target="_blank">post</a> on NRO today about an anti-free-love club at Harvard.</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Are College Campuses Showing Real Diversity?</title><id>http://www.criticalmassblog.com/the-quad/2007/3/21/are-college-campuses-showing-real-diversity.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.criticalmassblog.com/the-quad/2007/3/21/are-college-campuses-showing-real-diversity.html"/><author><name>Cody Beckman</name></author><published>2007-03-21T13:58:19Z</published><updated>2007-03-21T13:58:19Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Via <a class="offsite-link-inline" target="_blank" href="http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017082.php">Power Line</a>:<br />For those who are concerned about the brainwashing effects of many colleges, documentary filmmaker Evan Coyne Maloney has a film for you, called <em>Indoctrinate U</em>.&nbsp; It's about &quot;academics who use classrooms as political soapboxes, students who must parrot their professors' politics to get good grades, and administrators who censor diversity of thought and opinion,&quot; and &quot;[giving] voice to those whose stories of harassment, intimidation, and censorship make our nation's universities, supposed bastions of impartiality and free inquiry, seem mere mainstays of groupthink and indoctrination.&quot;<br /></p><p>You may have seen Maloney's work before with his piece <a class="offsite-link-inline" target="_blank" href="http://brain-terminal.com/posts/2003/02/18/protesting-the-protesters"><em>Protesting the Protesters</em></a>, in which he attended a New York City anti-war rally to ask the protesters some questions.&nbsp; Maloney takes the same approach in <em>Indoctrinate U</em>, though from what I can tell in the trailer, professors are far less willing to talk than the run-of-the-mill anti-war protester.</p><p>Check out the trailer on the <a class="offsite-link-inline" target="_blank" href="http://www.indoctrinate-u.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi">website</a> to see if you are interested.&nbsp;&nbsp;Sign a petition to get the film shown in your area if you are really interested.&nbsp; If you're lucky, there may already be a showing somewhere nearby. </p><p>[Edit] For a little more about the film, check out Maloney's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM6mIMij5IY" target="_blank" class="offsite-link-inline">visit to Fox News</a> recently. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>]]></content></entry></feed>