Critical Mass

Obviously, I am disappointed with the outcome of the election. However, there are a few consolations for me, and they are unrelated to the current issues.
 
At one level, regardless of the issues specific to this election, a turnover of power in Congress is no surprise; indeed, it was somewhat expected. This is simply the ebb-and-flow of politics. The Republicans controlled Congress for 12 years, before which the Democrats controlled it for a long while. The 2004 election was historic partially because the party of the incumbent president maintained (even grew!) its electoral advantage in Congress. That almost never happens. Totally separate from the issues (because I definitely believe Republicans are far more capable of running this country than Democrats), and looking at it from a purely institutional/structural/theoretical standpoint, I am actually somewhat glad that the ruling party of 12 years has been traded in for another. It's democracy at its finest, and it re-asserts an incredible truth about this country--that every two or four years a new government comes into power, and it is always-- always!--peaceful. Even in 2000, when Democrats were crying foul and whining like infants, nobody was ever actually worried about someone lobbing a grenade into a crowd of Bush supporters or storming the U.S. Supreme Court. It's quite another story in many other countries around the world.
 
The way I see it, the Republicans have in some cases reaped what they have sown. And make no mistake, the Democrats will reap theirs as well. Hopefully they will screw their heads on tight for the next couple years and make some good leadership decisions. Thankfully, the democratic process lives on, and even though we have lost an election, we have not been defeated.
 
James Taranto, editor of the Wall Street Journal's opinion page website, has an analysis of the election results. It's quite good, and he gives some reason for optimism. Read it at the link below.
 
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009215

On the political forums of my school network reside some of the most idiotic, unthinking people that academia has likely ever had the pleasure to educate. Take the following example: One student (we'll call him Joe) asserted that "North Korea is a horrible place"--not something anyone but Kim Jong-ill would disagree with, right? Not quite. Another student looked up the domestic violence stats of Joe's hometown and observed that there were 35 complaints of domestic violence this week. His conclusion:

be careful with your blanket statements. Korea has far less domestic violence than America. As an ICS [Inter-Cultural Studies] major you should realize that I am at college to learn how to educate the racially naieve [sic] and work on eliminating problems related to statements like that.

Later on he wonders whether Joe's "value for others and their cultural heritage is close to nonexistent." Um, there are about a million reasons why North Korea is a decidedly worse place than the U.S. Fortunately there were some other people on the forums that day who could form a coherent, rational argument, and they set the guy straight.

To quote C.S. Lewis' Digory Kirke: "What are they teaching in these schools?"
 

On the left, that is. You know, the ones who weren't afraid to gunsling toward the avowed enemy. Now, I am by no means a Vietnam scholar or authority, but in reading about the war in this book I did take notice of the attitude that Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson had towards fighting the 1960s version of the war on terror--Communism:

“Losing the Great Society was a terrible thought, but not so terrible as the thought of being responsible for America’s losing a war to the Communists. Nothing would be worse than that.”

Or this:

“If you let a bully come into your front yard one day, the next day he’ll be up on your porch, and the day after that he’ll rape your wife in her own bed.”

That last one is admittedly crass, but can you imagine a typical 2006 Democrat speaking about the terrorist threat with even half that amount of grit and passion?

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln is considering a new policy of "diversity." If hearing just that much made you suspicious, then you'd be right; it's fishy from the get-go, and two professors at UNL editorialize on it in the Daily Nebraskan. According to them, "Here is what should frighten you":

1. From now on, your annual evaluations will include being graded on the extent to which you have contributed (or not) to a climate of "inclusiveness" and the extent to which you have participated in "campus programs to improve climate ..."

"Inclusiveness" is not defined in the document, nor is the nature of these programs specified. Thus, these words can mean whatever your department chairperson or others in the administration want them to mean - and can't we all guess?

Read the rest of the editorial at the link above. Read the policy for yourself. I emailed the authors of the diversity plan and asked them a few relevant questions: In seeking a diversity-embracing faculty, does the school risk becoming intellectually homogenous? Would not that defeat the purpose of diversity? How far will this call for diversity take the school? Will it hire a professor with views considered "intolerant"? After all, that professor's viewpoint would most definitely contribute to the school's diversity!

Via Quatar's English language daily, The Peninsula:

Qatar has pledged that it will take part in financing the first Islamic university to be established in Europe by next month.

The university, named the 'Ibn Sina Institute for Human Science', will be opened in the French city of Lilie, located in the northern part of the country.

The [school] will also focus on teaching French and qualifying students in Shari'a law to enable the imams able to interact with European realities in order to address both Muslims and non-Muslims in France.

Another subject, civics, will be presented to ensure imams are aware of French laws.

Are they teaching civics so the Muslim students can understand the laws in order to flout them, or to abide by them? And what exactly does "interact with European realities" mean to them? I just hope this group of Islamists are mainstream and peaceful.

Turns out Columbia University hasn't finished ticking people off yet. Apparently, just hours before a conservative Arab invited by the College Republicans was set to speak on terror-related issues, CU decided to cancel all RSVPs to the event and limit attendance to a short list of guests. At least 77 people had reserved tickets for the event, and one blogger got in touch with an RSPV-er who found out about the cancelation while he was on a Greyhound traveling to the event. Here's part of his response to the cancelation email from the Univeristy Chaplain:

I wonder what prompted you to suddenly change the attendance policy? I mean, I have signed up well in advance (prior notice, hint-hint), got the confirmation on time (hint-hint), and left Boston on time, having spent $50 for the roundtrip ticket.

It couldn't be due to political correctness, could it? I mean, you wouldn't be afraid of some outsiders coming to the event from afar so as to get educated, enlightened, and inspired, right?

This, dear Jewelnel, smells of a scandal. Which you are about to have, on account of this cancellation, as well as for quite a few other reasons. Your decision is outrageous, unfair, inconsiderate, undemocratic, anti-intellectual, anti-academic, frivolous, gratuitous, etc. Oh, wait, I forgot -- did I mention it was also highly untimely? This decision flies in the face of the First Amendment and everything else that makes this country great.

 We'll see if this mini-scandal expands any more.

In an effort to reduce its impact on global warming, the small College of the Atlantic has commited itself to completely offset its emissions. The Washington Post reports:

The newly installed president, David F. Hales, said in his inauguration Sunday that the college will either cut the amount of fossil fuels burned in connection with campus activities or invest in emissions-cutting projects elsewhere to compensate. The school, which is in Bar Harbor and has about 300 undergraduates, will also offset emissions generated by student travel to and from campus.

While I remain skeptical of man's effect on global warming, I heartily applaud any attempts to conserve energy and/or take reasonable measures to care for the environment. From an economic standpoint, it's wise for students to turn lights and A/C units off when they leave. The dorms on my campus have community microwaves because they suck too much power to be allowed in the rooms.

I find it difficult to take seriously the "From the Left" columnist at my school paper, but today's column was especially hilarious. At the start of yet another piece bashing all things Bush and Republican, she referrs to the "incidences like Abu Grab." Anyone else see what I saw?

Now, I've seen the name of that Iraqi prison,where some despicable acts took place, spelled a few different ways--Abu Graib, Abu Ghraib, etc.--but I've never seen it spelled like the nickname of an Arab child molestor!

"Abu Grab." [snickers quietly to himself]

The Columbia Spectator reports that CU has invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak this Friday.

University President Lee Bollinger, who learned of the invitation on Wednesday, said in a statement, "I happen to find many of President Ahmadinejad's stated beliefs to be repugnant, a view that I'm sure is widely shared within our university community."

Bollinger said he believes students and faculty will use the opportunity to engage the controversial leader in debate.

"I have no doubt that Columbia students and faculty would use an open exchange to challenge him sharply and are fully capable of reaching their own conclusions," he said.

Keep an eye out to compare the reactions by the left and the media about this speaking invitation to their reaction when John McCain addressed Liberty University.

Meanwhile, keep tabs on the CU student body's reaction, at this (unscientific) poll. Currently 82% of voters oppose the invitation.

 UPDATE: It is now reported that President Ahmadinejad will not speak at CU.

The dean of the School of International and Public Affairs, Lisa Anderson invited Ahmadinejad to speak Wednesday morning, and he accepted Wednesday afternoon, Robert Garris, Director of Communications at SIPA told Spectator.

But SIPA and University officials decided Thursday morning that it was not possible to coordinate the security precautions necessary to accommodate such a high profile guest under short notice.

 Security precautions? But why? At least there's no threat here in the U.S. of a suicide bomber blowing himself up at the speech of a terror-supporting head of an Islamic state.

The "blame corporate America" mentality lives on. WORLD Magazine reports:

Hedgehogs 1, McDonald's 0. A group of environmentalists won a concession from the world's largest fast-food company when McDonald's announced it would redesign its McFlurry cup. The British Hedgehog Preservation Society complained for years that hedgehogs would come upon littered McFlurry containers, make an attempt to lick up the leftover ice cream, and get their heads stuck in the cup. In the redesign, McDonald's made the opening in the container too small for hedgehogs to penetrate, though the spiny mammals may have preferred a container with a mouth wide enough to permit easy access to the leftover ice cream without a danger of getting stuck.

Did anyone think to stop harassing McDonald's and start blaming the people who litter?

T-Shirt Slogan: "McDonald's doesn't kill hedgehogs. Discourteous, lawbreaking citizens kill hedgehogs."

Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller has said that "the world would be better off today if the United States had never invaded Iraq — even if it means Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq," reports CBS.

Does Rockefeller stands by his view, even if it means that Saddam Hussein could still be in power if the United States didn't invade?

"Yes. [Saddam] wasn't going to attack us. He would've been isolated there," Rockefeller said. "He would have been in control of that country but we wouldn't have depleted our resources preventing us from prosecuting a war on terror which is what this is all about."

Have you ever spent too many consecutive hours days playing that wonderful machine known as the X-Box? Or do you know a friend whose addiction to Halo has resulted in stroke-like symptoms? Have no fear, collegiates, for "Engineers at Rutgers hacked an Xbox and its Essential Reality P5 glove controller and developed a system to assist patients status post stroke with hand rehab." More info here.

Finally, that which injures us can now cure us as well.

As many of you are no doubt aware, Facebook implemented some changes to the website, adding some new features. To say these features have not been well received is an understatement of gigantic proportions. I have a couple points to make.

Many Facebookers are upset that certain information is so readily accessible with the new feeds. Okay, fine. But let's get one thing straight: this is all information that a) was already available according to the privacy policy we all agreed to when we signed up, and b) you can turn off the feeds at any moment.

The idea that Facebok has been malicious or deceitful is ridiculous. Certain Facebook users are simply making up reasons to complain: one user wants to boycott Facebook because (among other reasons) it hasn't listened to users' complaints. By noon the next day Facebook's head honcho had responded. That seems like pretty quick customer service to me. Ever called Dell?

Are we so rights-oriented and impatient that this little Facebook fiasco merits such a response? 

Only Keith Olbermann could equate Neville Chamberlain's policies with the Bush administration's rather than the Democrats' terrorist appeasement strategy. From what I'd heard about Rumsfeld's statements (go decide for yourself if they're out of line), I expected a decent criticism of them, but I never saw this idiocy coming. I suppose I underestimated Olbermann.

P.S. Is it just me, or does Olbermann look like a doofus when he tries to be serious and solemn?

UPDATE: Rumsfeld responds to his critics here. His full speech (from DefenseLink, not YouTube) is here.

A new film will premier in September at the Toronto Film Festival. "Death of a President" sets itself up in the future and looks back on a scenario: What if President Bush was assassinated? ThisIsLondon reports:

[...]President George Bush is gunned down by a sniper after a public address at a hotel, in a gripping new docudrama soon to be aired on TV.

Set around October 2007, President Bush is assassinated as he leaves the Sheraton Hotel in Chicago.

Death of a President, shot in the style of a retrospective documentary, looks at the effect the assassination of Bush has on America in light of its 'War on Terror'.

In light of the disgusting personal attacks on the President in recent years, I find it hard to believe that the film is, as the production company's head says, "thought-provoking" and that "the intention behind it is good." The biggest problem with this isn't that it's a "what-if" film about a president I happen to support; it's that the film is made about a sitting President. It's disgraceful.

I keep hearing that our terrorist enemies are getting smarter. This story about Arabic speakers learning Spanish and hiring "coyotes" to smuggle them across the border seems to support such a notion. Then again, how smart can they be if they are wearing patches like these on their jackets?

 (Courtesy CNSNews.com)

The BBC recently reported that YouTube gets 100 million hits a day. That may seem incredible, considering the site’s only been around a few months, but it doesn’t surprise me one bit. Neither should it surprise this blog’s readers—college students.

My friends and I have always been avid video clip viewers, even in high school. There were always the five or six favorites that never got old and were always whipped out whenever we were together or a new person was in our midst. Anybody remember “The Pizza Guy”? Some pizza delivery guy gets nailed by a fast-moving vehicle as he crosses the street. It’s a dummy, of course, but it looks stinkin’ real. It’s one of those shockers that makes the viewer gasp—especially the girls. Or how about “John West Salmon. We endure the worst to bring you the very best” mock commercial which pits some guy against a bear with a salmon? Hilarious. Of course, there were the ubiquitous “light up the fart” home videos and the idiotic attempts to recreate “Jackass” stunts. I never laughed at those. I promise.

As far as I’m concerned, YouTube is simply a huge database of the video clips me and my friends all kept (uh, keep?) on our computers to crack up at over and over. And over. So YouTube, I salute you, because now I have 24/7 access for the rest of my life to puerility and the jokes that never, ever get old. May you stay out of the clutches of the copyright freaks.

The AP reports that nearly half of all college students get loads of credit card applications in the mail, and that 30% of them are tossed in the trash unshredded. "[ID theft and data breach expert Terrence] DeFranco, who heads the security firm Edentify, notes colleges and universities are sitting ducks for thieves because of the amount of data they handle." He recommends being cautious with credit card use on the Internet and using a secure browser.

My personal tips: get a good firewall, shred your card offers, and get Firefox.

Brian Carney argues in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal that Oliver Stone has trivialized the meaning of 9/11 in his new film “World Trade Center” by equating that horrific day with any tragic natural disaster, rather than treating it as what it is—a murderous, conspiratorial attack by our enemies. Carney is particularly concerned about the film’s effect on those under twenty:

One fact about the movie that has received considerable mention already is that it screened well with teenagers, many of whom were too young to perceive clearly what was done five years ago next month in New York and Washington. Will they come away from the film thinking of that day as a tragedy or as an atrocity? Mr. Stone would seem to prefer the former. But universalizing the meaning of the movie risks trivializing it. New York was not hit by an earthquake on September 11, 2001.

Has anyone here at Critical Mass seen the film?