Thursday, June 30, 2005

It's the Oil, Stupid!

Secular Shiites in Iraq Seek Autonomy in Oil-Rich South
By EDWARD WONG
The push by powerful Shiite politicians for an autonomous
region in southern Iraq poses a direct challenge to the
nation's central authority.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/international/middleeast/30basra.html?th&emc=th

..................

It does not take all that much sophistication to figure out that it was in large measure the desire to dominate Mid East Oil supplies that thrust the U.S. into Iraq. And it is likely that oil once again will rip what is left of Iraq apart into 3 parts -- the Kurds to the North, Shiites to the South, and chaos in the middle where the insurgency will presumably linger on -- without oil, electricity, water, and sewage control. All this looks to be quite a mess with worse in prospect. Don't figure oil, as promised initially by the Bush administration, will pay our way there afterall.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.legendgames.net/blognews.asp

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Two Columbia University Area Events

There were two simultaneous neighborhood events that I should have attended last night -- the debate at the West End Caf between some of our candidates for Manhattan Boro President (Bill Perkins, Scott Stringer, and others among a crowded field -- see below) and the CB#9 Meeting of the Task Force on Rezoning Manhattanville with a large turn out to meet with Ed Marshall from the City Planning Commission.

Having missed both of the above, I happened to catch the CUNY board meeting on Channel 75. As I was tuning in a bit late, Matt Goldstein, CUNY Chancellor, was reporting on a revised CUNY approach next year to bringing in much needed funds from public and private sources. A new appointment as President of the CUNY Graduate Center (William Kelly who is now within the system and apparently quite popular there) was announced. And board member Jeffrey S. Weisenfeld, former administrative assistant to Senator Jacob Javits and Governor George Pataki, presented an angry petition from 100+ CUNY faculty members chastising the PSC (Professional Staff Congress -- CUNY faculty union) for not condemning the recent British call for a boycott of some Israeli scholars for supporting Israel's policies in dealing with the Palestinians (subsequently withdrawn):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F11%2F17%2Fnisr17.xml

Susan O'Malley, Chair of the CUNY Faculty Senate, responded that the PSC's response opposing the boycott had been incorporated in the AAUP's (of which it is a member).

A word here on academic freedom is perhaps in order. Both Columbia and CUNY faculty have been targeted by pro-Israel groups for allegedly allowing intimidation of students by pro-Palestinian academics. Jeffrey's resolution presumably falls within this framework. Let me say from an independent stance that we have done a pretty good job at CUNY in balancing the conflicting interests of our Jewish and Muslim students impacted by the terrible Israeli/Palestinian tensions. Some years ago we founded at Brooklyn a Multicultural Action Committee (Steve London, our PSC Vice President was one of its founding members) which tries to keep the peace whenever ethic conflicts emerge. We work at pulling students and faculty back from mud slinging outbursts to debating the very real issues that underlie such conflicts -- racism, bigotry, competing claims to territories, whatever. One cannot escape the fact that particular interests are competing for the same turf, but one can try to keep the dialogue within sane and mutually respectful limits. With that entree, let me get on to a second hand report on the Manhattanville Rezoning Task Force meeting at CB#9.

I gather that the meeting was heavily attended and widely representative except for people and organizations from Morningside Heights apart from Geoffrey Wiener and others from Columbia and a board member or two. Broadway Democrats, where are you? Such included Tom DeMott and Tom Kappner from the CPC (COALITION TO PRESERVE COMMUNITY), Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat from Washington Heights who is also running for the Manhattan Boro Presidency, Jordi Reyes-Montblanc, Chr. of CB#9 and 16 or 17 additional board members, Anne Whitman, owner of a storage business in the area threatened by Columbia, Norman Siegel, former ex. dir. of the NYCLU, representing area businesses and residents, Lee Chong, Director of the Manhattan Borough President's Land Use, Housing and Development Unit, as well as Ed Marshall for the NYC Department of City Planning.

As I understand it the proposed schedule of events of the two plans for West Manhattanville, CB#9's 197-A and Columbia's was discussed in some detail. I gather per Ed Marshall of City Planning that before Columbia can achieve its goal, its ULURP (Uniform Land Use Review Procedure):

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/luproc/ulpro.html

must run through a series of gauntlets -- CB#9, the Boro President, the City Council, the Mayor -- before it can apply for its apparently desired blight/eminient domain designation for the area. This is quite an Odyssey. Ed Marshall also suggested that the CB#9 197-A would be granted equal consideration and would run on a parallel track. My own personal assessment is that the present situation does not parallel that in New London where the Supreme Court by a 5-4 margin favor the _city's_ plan as representing the public interest. Columbia has a long way to go to prove that its plan represents anything more than Columbia's interest only. Assemblyman Espaillat is no friend to Columbia and apparently reports that Columbia's failures outweighs its earlier promises in Washington Heights -- the promised jobs were not produced there, Spanish language facility by Columbia's treating staff, is still a problem for Latino/a patients there, etc.

We may be seeing a potential collision here between the proverbial irresistible force and immovable object -- but Bloomberg went to Johns Hopkins where he contributes extensively, not Columbia ;-).

Anyone have a report on the West End debate between borough president candidates? We personally favor Bill Perkins who listens and gets things done -- a characterization suggested by one of his friends. But the field is wide with many good candidates:

In Manhattan, Diversity Shapes Race for Borough President
By JONATHAN P. HICKS
The candidates running for Manhattan borough president have
realized that to gain any headway they must play to their
bases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/nyregion/metrocampaigns/28manhattan.html?th&emc=th
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
--

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.legendgames.net/blognews.asp

Monday, June 27, 2005

U.S. Education: Doing It on the Cheap!

Reading, Writing, Retailing
By DAVE EGGERS, NINIVE CALEGARI and DANIEL MOULTHROP
Most teachers love teaching, but teaching is often not so
easy to love.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/opinion/27eggers.html?th&emc=th

..................

By chance I happened to start teaching in a woman's college (Vassar, now co-ed) just as the women's revolution was getting launched. I actually met a good number of its leaders at an annual holiday party hosted by Carolyn Bird (Born Female) in her Gramercy Park apartment in 1968.

What distinguished the before and after of those years was that intelligent women suddenly could aspire to solid professional careers in law, medicine, and business, whereas previously they had been confined (as was my own mother in her early years before Depression protocols barred married women from having a second family job) to secondary roles as nurses, secretaries, or teachers for which they were routinely paid low wages as captives in an overcrowded women's job market.

We watched with considerable enthusiasm as my Vassar students suddenly began to apply to professional schools and, I assume, that the then largest Vassar program in the college -- Child Studies -- began to dwindle -- one of its superstars moved to Brooklyn College. One of my students from my first year of teaching there, who went on to law school, is now a respected NYC judge; another is a fellow philosopher. Two taught my own children at the Bank St. School for Children where I learned what early childhood education could really accomplish. Others are variously scattered through the professions.

The bottom line here is that our politicians still think they can get away with treating teachers as second class citizens and awarding them pitifully inadequate salaries. Sorry, it it not going to work. Some of my ablest students do still enter teaching, but sadly a good number of these leave it in disgust with the disrespectful treatment that they are accorded there. Teaching to a test is not very challenging. One simply drills students from one's received course outline. However, anyone with any smarts knows that this sort of teaching does not get the job done of educating students so that they can educate themselves. It merely bores everyone to death -- students as well as teachers. I receive the products of such teaching in my classrooms and have to struggle to persuade my students that learning can be interesting and enjoyable and not simply a route to making big bucks out there! I would hate to detail all the misdirection that students have received in their earlier learning experiences, particularly how to cheat, just as their schools are doing:
--
False Data on Student Performance
Many states are cooking the books on high school graduation
rates to provide overly optimistic appraisals of their
schools.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/opinion/27mon4.html?th&emc=th
--
With the way we are starving American education, N-Ph.D., I will not be surprised soon to see ads along the lines of those inviting Americans to package medical deals in South East Asia (for major surgical procedures with travel expenses and vacations thrown in for 1/3 the cost in the U.S.) inviting American parents to send their kids to, say, India for a real education -- that seems to be where the jobs are going anyway.

One way or another we shall be seeing the bursting of our American doing-it-on-the-cheap education bubble. Perhaps the draft will not be necessary after all?
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.legendgames.net/blognews.asp

Saturday, June 25, 2005

Anti-Westerner Wins Election in Iraq

Iran elects ultra-conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president in a landslide vote, the interior ministry confirms.
For more details: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news 
.............................................................................................................................................................

I would venture a guess that the Bush administration may be in a slight state of shock this morning over yesterday's victory by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran. Condi is a Sovietologist -- not a specialist on contemporary Islam. However, one need not be the latter to recognize that democratic push pulls -- particularly in Middle Eastern nations under pressure by the Bush & Co.'s depredations -- are unlikely to produce pro American governments. A good read in the area, say Islamic Thought in the Twentieth Century:

http://www.palgrave-usa.com/Catalog/product.aspx?isbn=1850437513

will alert the amateur to the basic facts that the neocons have been ignoring. There are at least 3 different factions (with subdivisions) likely to win out in any election over there:

1) Secular modernists

2) Islamists who wish to reform Islam and return it to its roots -- moderate or extremist (subdivided again into 'Taliban' and/or jihadist terrorists)

3) Traditionalists -- largely those in the streets who can be variously drawn or coerced by either of the prior two.

What we are seeing today in Iran is most likely a surprise to the Bush people from events that emerged almost overnight -- an Islamist who has pulled a significant number of the traditionalists with him to defeat a moderate pragmatic modernist mullah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullah

The same thing occurred in Algeria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria
not so long ago and was suppressed by the generals there. Many of the authoritarian Muslim states -- pro modern and Western in alliances such as Turkey, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Egypt, and more recently Sudan, Libya, -- and some in South East Asia -- have only suppressed the Islamists and traditionalists or other minority groups by brute force.

Now that the Bush administration has opened the Pandora's box of 'democracy', we may expect to see a number of new Irans emerging which will:

a) restore some measure of Sharia (fundamentalist Muslim law).

b) put the chadors back on women's heads -- Saddam's Iraq had liberated women while suppressing Kurds and Shiites:

http://hjem.get2net.dk/lomografi/iran/sider/chador.htm

and variously make life uncomfortable for Americans and their corporate interests there.

Needless to say others will be seeing the possibilities for emulating this victory -- the radical Shiites in Iraq, the banned Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt:

http://allafrica.com/stories/200506230768.html

which assassinated Sadat for making peace with Israel:

http://www.goegypt.org/aboutegy/history/21-theruleofsadat.htm

It looks like we 'ugly Americans' are doing it again!

--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.legendgames.net/blognews.asp

Thursday, June 23, 2005

The Threat of Simplistic Christianity

Leading the charge against Graham was none other than Reinhold Niebuhr, the venerable professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. In an article for Life magazine, Niebuhr vigorously denounced Graham for presenting Jesus as the all-sufficient answer for man's ills. "Perhaps because these solutions are rather too simple in any age, but particularly so in a nuclear one with its great moral perplexities, such a message is not very convincing to anyone—Christian or not—who is aware of the continuing possibilities of good and evil in every advance of civilization, every discipline of culture, and every religious convention," Niebuhr wrote. "Graham offers Christian evangelism even less complicated answers than it has ever before provided."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2005/jun17.html

..................................................................

An error in the website in a recent posting: "Graham Crusade 1957 Led to Take Over of NYC Protestant Council of Churches" offers an occasion for a critique of the simplistic version of Christianity presented by Billy Graham and other evangelicals over the past century that risks murderous blunders when those blinded by this 'feel good' religion take the ball and run with it in instinctive directions -- all too frequently crude manifestations of deadly human instincts: self-righteous hatred, revenge, punitive retaliation, whatever pops out of the right brain affective mechanisms to implement its far too simplistic message.

'Loving Jesus' in this frame all too frequently connects with despising one's neighbors (poor, criminal, immoral) and hating THEM -- which may connote an alien ethnic group (racism), an alternative religion (Islam, Judaism) or culture (e.g. liberal, gay, feminist, whatever).

Billy Graham, unlike many of the frauds who peddle the same message, manifestly is a decent man. And precisely therein lies the hazard in his intellectually anorexic Gospel message. Love Jesus and all will be well -- and let the devil take those evil ones out there.

I studied theology because it lay in my family tradition -- my grandfather's books are still in print nearly a century after his death in 1925 -- to pick out only the first of many Google hits:

http://manybooks.net/titles/kentchar11701170111701-8.html

However, 3 years spent studying theology at Union Theological Seminary and Oxford before turning back to philosophy persuaded me that the God was, indeed, dead as any real savior for present day suffering humanity. Niebuhr was only one of my much valued teachers who signaled to us that Christianity was on the wane and might be heading in dangerous directions. One could see then that the best minds were not entering theology, leaving the field open to some people doing good works -- but to far too many who were con artists looking for big monies to be made out of religion. Everyone has to make a living one way or another, but the present culture wars launched by born agains -- against women, gays, the poor, minorities, Islam etc. are extremely dangerous in this era of WMD -- as Niebuhr so wisely noted back then.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.legendgames.net/blognews.asp

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Democracy? The Republicans Have to Be Kidding

It is manifest that the Republicans who condemn other nations for suppressing freedom of speech and freedom of the press are running full speed ahead in attempting to suppress both of these First Amendment rights in the U.S. How hypocritical and crooked can they get? The following reports from The Nation only touch the surface of the extensive abuses of international and U.S. Constitutional standards of proper democratic conduct that are routinely being violated by the Bush administration and the right wing Republicans running wild in Congress. I was just chatting with a neighbor this morning who bears a distinguished Republican surname who tells me that he has switched to the Democratic Party. I suspect quite a few others who have had it with the extremism issuing from Washington may be doing the same by the next general election. They will never learn.

........................................................................

Ari Berman assails Republicans for smearing the International Red Cross, again.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage?bid=13&pid=3709

On June 16, the House Appropriations Committee voted to slash funding for public broadcasting by more than $200 million for 2006. The cut--which, if implemented, would affect everything from "Clifford the Big Red Dog" to programming on small news outlets that serve rural and minority audiences--marked a devastating blow for public television and radio. The full House is expected to vote on the proposed cuts as soon as tomorrow.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.legendgames.net/blognews.asp

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

When We Reap the Whirlwinds

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Guantánamo's Long Shadow
By ANTHONY LEWIS
The United States has led the way in fighting for human
rights, but mistreating prisoners makes the world see our
moral claims as hypocrisy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/opinion/21lewis.html?th&emc=th

...............................................................

Anthony Lewis spent a year in a special program for non-lawyer professionals at Harvard Law School and, thus, is especially sensitive to the violations of the rule of law and human rights and the terrible precedents that are being set by the Bush administration. Manifestly these American maggots act without thinking out consequences -- in launching wars as well as abusing persons. The horror here is that all we Americans are implicated in their criminal actions. We have none but ourselves to blame when we reap the whirlwinds.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.legendgames.net/blognews.asp

Friday, June 17, 2005

Corporatizing Our Universities?

One of the real horrors of the academic world in North America now is the corporatization of our universities -- even the public ones -- in which we are finding extremely highly paid administrators presiding over a system that increasingly exploits cheap labor, i.e. underpaid junior faculty and part-time adjuncts (graduate students and others who struggle to survive with teaching a far too heavy load spread over as many as three institutions). Both those underpaid and overworked AND their students are being cheated by these corporate practices unfit generally even for bottom line profit-making so far as the public interest is concerned, but fully out of order in what should be an ACADEMIC environment.

In addition our university administrators seem somewhat obsessed with putting our public revenues into buildings rather than people. At Brooklyn College, CUNY we have just completed a $79 million library reconstruction and now are replacing a 40-year-old building -- all to be paid for by you as NY taxpayer as long as you live -- the Dormitory Authority bonds -- http://www.dasny.org/ -- that we are accumulating at a massive rate. How is Columbia going to pay for its real estate ventures? Needless to say it is a tax free institution. It can raise tuitions, which it is doing. It can borrow against the future. All of America is doing that and sticking the kids yet unborn with the bills! Have you seen the debts that the typical college student and his/her family are carrying on their backs!?

Columbia in the past, and, I fear, in its more benign appearing reincarnation today, has been a monster from hell in its treatment of too many people who live nearby -- then as brutal landlord, now as the eminent domain dragon haunting Manhattanville and the mini-dracula of gentrification here in Morningside Heights.

Vice President Robert Kasdin,, presumably presides over the contemporary process at Columbia University. I imagine that he believes he is working in the public interest -- I have seen him once at the NYC Community Board #9 where he was speaking to Columbia's plan for Manhattanville, lower West Harlem where Columbia hopes to build a new campus extension. But I don't think he realizes what the implications of that plan are -- either for Columbia or its neighbors. If one checks out Robert Moses as the principal planner for NYC and environs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses

one will discover a man who saw himself as a reformer. But the planning designs of Moses were cruel to poor folks. The parkways that he rerouted across Long Island zig-zagged to avoid wealthy (powerful) enclaves and chopped their routes through poorer communities. His re-do of our Riverside Park is instructive. From 72nd. St. to 125th St. the railroad line is comfortably covered over and children play safely in its environs. North of 125th St. (where Harlem begins and later planners located the non-functional North River sewage plant that should have been laid out no further north than the 90s), the railroad lines are bared -- a toddler wondered on to them a few years back and was killed by a train. At the moment a $7-8 million dollar bridge and disabilities ramp is being authorized at long last at 151 St. to give residents in that area access to the park which only those with cars (and bikes along the new bike trail) could reach from the parking lot there running off the West Side Drive. Others had to descend from the heights of the North River sewage plant on which a park was placed to placate the nearby residents running from 137th to 145th St.

The bottom line here is that Columbia clumsily progresses with plans to expropriate the Close from the historic St. Johns Cathedral, to expropriate by blight designation and eminent domain 18 acres in lower West Harlem which socially responsible planners through the Community Board #9 197-A plan are suggesting rather be used for synergistic community benefiting purposes.

I am charging Columbia here with playing the same game that Moses did -- expelling the less powerful residents for its own purposes -- benign or otherwise. Robert Kasdin is, I assume, the prime architect at work for Columbia in this matter. And he presides from on high, not on the ground where the rest of us live. Both he and Columbia can and must be held accountable for what they do. As a neighbor and one trained at Columbia in such matters, I am doing that.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.legendgames.net/blognews.asp

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Invitation to Join New Yahoo Group: Privacy Rights

William O. Douglas made us particularly aware in the 1965 Griswold decision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

that while the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to privacy, such a right is a necessary foundation for protecting individuals from intrusive invasions of personal and group privacy. Douglas suggested that other Articles of the Bill of Rights provided what he denominated to be a penumbra of rights forming privacy protections. This case, involving a right to information about contraception, laid the foundation for Roe v. Wade and abortion rights, and more recently protections of sexual rights of both heterosexual and gay persons threatened by invasions of privacy and resultant legal punishments for practices deemed not 'natural' by moral absolutists.

Given the recent invasions of privacy on a wide front ranging from the intrusions of the Patriot Act into one's reading matter to credit checks (often marred by errors), data sloppily protected by both public and private institutions allowing extensive identity theft and fraudulent abuses of individuals and groups, it occurred to me that we could use a platform for both sharing concerns and distributing rights violations information. A quick check disclosed what appeared to be a now defunct group employing my original title choice, Privacy. I considered trying to revive it, but decided that more than one (that one being focused more narrowly on large financial institutions violations of privacy) might be useful and extended the title to the critical issue here -- violations of rights of individuals that either may not be legally protected yet or which may be being eroded in ways both invidious and destructive.

Please consider this an invitation to join:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights

The group is unmoderated, does not disclose membership (except to the owner) if one wants only to lurk, and does not allow attachments as a protection against viruses. I suspect that there is both much to be discovered under this rubric and also much to be done to uncover abuses of privacy and to protect against same in this era of technological sophistication and intense political and cultural conflict.

Cheers, Ed Kent
--
"A war is only just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.legendgames.net/blognews.asp

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

GOP Considers Raising Retirement Age to 69???????????

Such a headline confirms the shot from Dean that the Republicans never worked a day in their lives, i.e. the elected ones in D.C. Anyone who does physical labor knows that the body begins to give way around age sixty, if not earlier. Anyone still pressing on after that risks strokes, heart attacks, critical joint damage, etc. What is a hard working individual supposed to do when his doctor -- or HMO -- tells him that he is risking life and limb? We see this more graphically with athletes who similarly stress their bodies. I sadly recall the well known NYC civil liberties lawyer who decided to get in shape and start jogging in his mid fifties who suffered an heart attack and died first go out.

Bottom line here: Only someone who has not faced the stresses on body of physical labor could possibly support holding off Social Security until age 69. Such is fine for lawyers, a bit dubious for some kinds of doctors (when hands get shaky and vision uncertain), and even us academics have a limit, if a schedule that allows us to labor on so long as the brain is fit and the body will get us there. But as one of my generation of college students who did heavy physical labor summers and got hurt occasionally, I am outraged by this Republican proposal.
--
"A war is only just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.legendgames.net/blognews.asp

Good Cops, Bad Cops

The subject heading is my own here, as lead into the 'confessions' of former Seattle police Chief, Norm Stamper, posted below. I have seen first hand both good cops and bad cops doing their things. When I was working with ghetto kids in West Harlem in the late 1950s, the one positive role model figure in the community competing with all the drug dealers was the sole African American policeman of that white cop only era. Living in that same community a few years later, my wife and I witnessed good and bad cop things including watching a sergeant from the 26th Precinct trying to pick up his weekly payoff from Selbra's Bar and Grill -- we were at the dark end of the bar sharing a beer where Selbra turned to look as she slid the payoff across the counter -- the sergeant followed her gaze, saw us white folks, panicked, slid the envelop back across the bar, and fled, as all laughed uproariously. Later in a nearby precinct a cop blew away a teen, went on medical leave -- during which he negotiated a payoff of gambling debts for the brother-in-law of one of my Yale classmates.

I have had a number of good cops as students who have confirmed the report below. Things are getting better, but as in NYC, too often our police are the equivalent of occupying armies from foreign nations (i.e. they live outside of the districts that they patrol, even in other states, and, thus, see the residents as though they were aliens from another planet).

In NYC one can simply dial 311 and make contact to file a complaint with our police review operations, happily independent of membership of police officials. One of my former students did a study of same around the nation for Norman Siegel, then ex. dir. of the NYCLU, which indicated that of the three types of review boards, only the ones without police membership could function without police themselves being frightened off from reporting abuses in their own ranks by fear of leaks and retaliation that could be deadly. Ed Kent

..........................................................................

http://www.alternet.org/story/22196/

Seattle Confidential

By Laura Barcella, AlterNet. Posted June 15, 2005.

Former police chief Norm Stamper opens up about the dark side of American policing, from institutionalized racism to misogyny and homophobia.

Norm Stamper is poised to become a very unpopular man -- among conservative law enforcement sorts, anyway.

The retired 34-year police veteran is first to admit to -- but not apologize for -- the ways in which he has alienated fellow cops, from his unusually touchy-feely leadership style (focusing on progressive, demilitarized community policing) to advocacy for decriminalizing drugs and prostitution.

And don't forget the whole '99 WTO protests thing. Yep, it's that Norm Stamper -- the former Seattle police chief who oversaw the tear gas-and-handcuffs-happy chaos that ensued after a few thousand peaceful protestors became, well, not so peaceful.

With the publication of his book, Breaking Rank (Nation Books), Stamper is back in the line of fire. In this part-memoir, part-polemic, he decries the state of modern law enforcement and calls for its reform. With sensational chapter titles such as "Why White Cops Kill Black Men" and "Sexual Predators in Uniform," Stamper is clearly unafraid of attracting attention. But he backs up these teasers with thoughtfully weighed opinions and personal anecdotes, many of them reinforced by research.

The author reflects on his own experiences as an officer to illustrate the ways in which America's police force is rotting from the inside out, corrupted by an interior culture of institutionalized racism, misogyny and homophobia. But while effectively ripping the police world apart, Stamper manages to remain honest about his own role in the "boys' club." He confesses to some unsavory, stereotypical-cop behaviors in his early days, from emotionally abusing his wife to knocking perps unconscious. And he's upfront about career regrets (e.g., the WTO debacle, for which he resigned).

Stamper spoke with AlterNet about his ideas for police reform, and the wide-ranging ways it would benefit America, from his home on Orcas Island, Wash.

AlterNet: What kinds of responses to Breaking Rank have you gotten so far?

Norm Stamper: Early reactions have been almost uniformly favorable. I'm afraid to say that, because I don't know what's around the bend. I've had people call and tell me that it brought them to tears in sections; people that know me but didn't know about some of the incidents that transpired [during] my 34-year career. But I also got very positive reactions to the agenda, which is really what I was hoping for.

Your agenda is somewhat controversial.

It's off-the-charts controversial, and in no time, as soon as folks get an opportunity to read it, I'll hear about it.

Have you heard from any fellow cops?

Only indirectly. The chapter entitled "Why White Cops Kill Black Men" produced a response from the president of the Police Guild in Seattle, like, "What the hell is that supposed to mean?" You've just got to read the chapter to get an answer, whether he likes it or not.

I've heard others say, "Oh, this kind of stuff never happened," and all I can do is shake my head at that, because it did happen. It happens far less than it did in 1966 -- the racism, the sexism, the homophobia -- but it's still there, and it's naive, at best, to deny that it exists.

Even those departments [that] have really done measured and effective work over the last three decades to address some of the most intractable issues -- of institutionalized racism and so forth -- you've got to be constantly on alert for signs that our rank and file officers are doing the wrong things, setting bad examples.

When did you start to become politicized regarding the law enforcement field?

Fourteen months into my career. I had made what we commonly refer to as an attitude arrest -- I didn't like the guy, so I arrested him. I wish I could put it in a prettier way, but the fact is that he challenged my authority. He was 19, and I was 22. I stopped him for driving slightly over the speed limit. I really didn't have strong justification to stop him in the first place.

He got out of the car and immediately gave me a ration of shit, and [the] little part inside my brain that was becoming accustomed to this clicked. I [started] trying to find a reason to bust him, and I did. To call it a shaky arrest is to put myself in a charitable light.

What was the reason for the arrest?

I arrested him for being drunk in a public place. Of course, we decriminalized public intoxication absent of other...criminal behavior many years back. But in those days, it was a crime. It was a bailable offense -- if you pay your $29 bail, you don't go to court, and that's the end of it.

But this guy decided to go to court. As I said, he was 19 years old, and I thought he had a chip on his shoulder. I showed up in court with him and I gave the prosecutor a wink and a poke...I slid up and [told] him it was a slim arrest; I said, "You'll probably want to dismiss this one." He said, "What do you mean?"

I said, "Well, he had a shitty attitude."

He asked, "Was he drunk?"

The question in my mind was, "What the hell does that have to do with anything?" That was honestly how I felt. I was like, why is this prosecutor giving me the third degree?

When I said, "No, he wasn't drunk, but he had a really shitty attitude and he called me a pig," the prosecutor glared at me -- I'll never forget this moment -- through his tortoiseshell glasses, and said, "Officer Stamper, does the United States Constitution mean anything to you?"

I was enraged — 'What gives him the right to question me?' He works in this sanitized, air-conditioned environment, and if he's got a question about law or policies he can go to colleagues and books...while I'm out there on the streets in blue line (though it was a tan line in those days).

I was scared to death. I was scared that he would report me to the department, but that wasn't my big fear. The biggest fear was 'Oh my God, I didn't think this way, and I certainly didn't behave this way, before I joined the police department.'

I believed in civil rights, I believed in human rights. I believed, as a matter of fact, that the police were pretty useless and oppressive. I didn't have high regard for the police before I became one, and yet five months down the road I'm saying things and doing things I've never said or done in my life.

So it was a defining moment, which...helped trigger a profound change in me. It reintroduced me to some earlier values, and it radically altered my behavior.

It was at that moment, at about 14 months into the job, that I set out to atone for the way I had behaved. I had to acknowledge how much I enjoyed throwing people around. I had to confess to myself that it was great fun, and what did that say about me?

That vague sense of joy that was associated with screwing people around -- did it go away?

Well, it wasn't vague. To be completely honest, it was unalloyed.

I had turned my back on some pretty deeply-held values...I had to work to -- I know this sounds very woo-woo -- but to get in touch with what I stood for. In that process I clearly did not like what I saw. I was behaving like my father, and starting around age 13, I put as much distance between [him] and myself as possible.

Anyway, it sounds pretty psychological, but that's what was going on for me, and then I became more and more political.

In the book you devote a lot of space to domestic violence, and how you feel it's men's responsibility to stop it. At one point, you mention research indicating that cops are more likely to be domestic abusers. What is it about male cops that makes them more dangerous or inclined to violence than other American men?

For many police officers, they are their professional identity. That's who I was that first year. It's who we are, not just what we do. So if anyone threatens my identity as a cop, I become potentially dangerous.

When I became a cop, there were no women patrol officers. It was a very, very machismo culture. To say it was male-dominated is to understate it. It was exclusively a boys' club, and there was a lot of boys’ behavior going on -- sexism, misogyny, sexual harassment both in the workplace and on the streets, predatory behavior on the part of male police officers and a lot of drinking and carousing and the like. That's a quick snapshot of the culture, and I was a part of [it].

Police officers are granted authority. It goes with the turf; you can't be a cop without exercising authority. Jerome Skulnick talks about [this] in a book called Justice Without Trial -- he describes a police officer's "working personality."

Young men who've been given authority -- a badge, a gun -- and allowed to stop and cite and arrest and question and fight and shoot their fellow citizens, run a grave risk of having that power go directly to their heads, or other parts of their anatomy.

That pretty much summarizes how and why it's easier for cops to become abusive in their personal relationships. 'Who are you to question my authority, wife?'

...And they're also adept at delivering blows that don't show. They know what to do and they're armed, so a lot of police domestic violence over the years has gone unreported. Their victims and survivors are terrified -- they're afraid to come forward, for good reason.

You’re very committed to women's safety. Why is that so important to you?

This event didn't have a profound immediate effect on me, but it was seared into my brain: As I was investigating a dead cat in my hometown of National City, I heard this motorcycle. I looked up and saw a woman driving it. I thought, 'wait a minute, she's not riding on the back of it -- she's driving!'

I was only eight or nine, and I had never seen anything like that. Something clicked. If a girl can do that, why can't she do other things?

My mother, as I also wrote about, was kind of a "Beulah the Riveter" during World War II. She was in the workplace doing theretofore "men's work," and she was the first girl at Sweet Water High School to take woodshop.

I don't remember ever being hugged by my mother, and certainly not by my father. We weren't a close family, and there was a fair amount of violence in it -- my mom could wield an apricot switch like nobody's business, which she did, often enough.

Then a series of partners had a huge influence on me, especially my second wife, who is political as well as literary. She was a poet and a novelist, and came from a lefty perspective. Life with her, especially during the early '70s, really transformed me into a strong supporter of women's rights.

In Breaking Rank, you mentioned that in 1994 you — very ambitiously — compiled the skeleton of a plan to end family violence in Seattle. Do you remember any of your strategies?

When I came to Seattle, my robbery detectives had been assigned to handle DV [domestic violence] cases, which blew my mind. We had done some pretty extraordinary, pioneering DV work in San Diego, so I came from that background.

It was quite a shock and a contrast [in Seattle]. I immediately set about creating a domestic violence unit, and housed it within a newly-created family protection bureau.

So it went from literally zero detectives assigned exclusively to domestic violence cases, to 24 or 25. Along the way we provided in-depth training, sending our detectives to schools and developing our own in-house [program], providing it to all of our patrol officers as well.

Also along the way, we had detectives who developed specialties -- stalking, elder abuse. And we had a 'fugitives team' who went out in full uniform, with some ballistics gear and high-powered weapons, to chase down domestic violence offenders who had skipped court.

I wanted to send a message that domestic violence is a crime -- a serious felony offense. DV prevention and DV enforcement is not social work. And that the offenders who think that they can just walk away from their responsibilities -- in this case, failing to show up at court -- would be arrested, and we weren't going to take any chances of cops getting hurt.

Your chapter about the drug war was one of the most intense. Can you talk about your beliefs about drug decriminalization, and why opposition runs so deep in law enforcement?

Historically, the criminalization of drugs was a revenue-producing public policy. It was, 'If we're going to make money off these drugs, we've got to regulate them.' It began as taxation, and then we started moralizing the behavior -- attaching moral judgments to the use of drugs, and demonizing the drug users. If we were an honest nation, consistent and with any integrity, we would do the same thing with caffeine, nicotine and alcohol, but we don't.

While there are restrictions, certainly, on the use of nicotine and alcohol, both of those substances and the behaviors around them are perfectly legal for adults, yet we know that cigarette addiction is the most egregious form of addiction.

But we're fundamentally dishonest, and in demonizing illicit drug users, we deny medical attention for those who choose to get off drugs. We under-invest in smart education and prevention programs; we deny IV drug users clean syringes in many, many cities. We deny them methadone when it has been clearly established that that's a healthier alternative to heroin.

You have to start with the premise that if tobacco and alcohol, with all of their harms and enormous social and financial costs, are lawful substances, then how can we, in good conscience, deny somebody the right to smoke a joint -- or to snort coke or shoot heroin? I don't do those things, but I believe I ought to have a right to do those things.

From very early on, we teach children that the people who use drugs are monsters and fiends. Well, excuse me, but they're not. Some of them manage to handle it successfully, and many do not. Many abuse the drugs and wind up very ill — psychologically, physiologically, mentally, emotionally. But rather than demonizing them, we ought to be reaching out to help them. If we spent far less money on the supply side of the supply/demand equation, we'd be able to spend much more money on prevention, education, medication and rehabilitation and the like.

What do you think we can do to make that happen?

Get some honest and courageous police chiefs to talk about it. There may be three, there may be one, there may be none, I don't know -- but I have had conversations with mayors and police chiefs, and as I pointed out in the book, these typically take place in the bar after a drug conference, over our favorite drug of choice [alcohol].

I was really impressed, during my days as Seattle's police chief, with a visit to representatives of The Hague. These are judges, prosecutors and high-ranking police officers -- about a dozen of them. We started talking about drug enforcement. They made clear that they continue to go after organized-crime drug dealers, which is terrific and I would never advocate stopping.

But they recognized that drug use is a social problem, and if adults take drugs and behave responsibly under their influence -- i.e., don't drive, don't batter, don't furnish the kids -- they'll leave them alone. If they've got a problem of abuse -- which is fundamentally a medical problem -- then they get help, and the cops are on board with that. That's also true in Canada, where the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police advocated decriminalization of marijuana.

All of this has to do with the obscene level of profit associated with illicit drug dealing. The reason illicit drugs cost so much money is because they are illicit. If government would enter the regulation picture as it has with tobacco and alcohol, it could easily transform a pretty miserable picture into a better one. It will never be rosy, but it can be a much healthier and more sensible picture.

Talk a little bit about the infamous WTO protests. You were Seattle's police chief at the time. What happened? What lessons can be learned from it?

Well, we were snookered. In the end, that's my conclusion, and I take full responsibility for that.

I thought we were prepared. I honestly thought we were going to have minor skirmishes, loud protests, a few individuals -- maybe 30 to 50 to 100 over the course of the week -- thrown in jail for doing things that they ought not do. My fervent hope was that there would be a critical dialogue about globalization in Seattle. In many respects, there was that dialogue -- it just didn't take the shape that many anti-globalization protesters hoped. Nor did it meet the needs of the WTO ministers.

It's tragic that that didn't happen, but at the same time, it sure got the world's attention. I hate to say that it takes that level of violence, tear gas, citizens and cops getting hurt and the chief's reputation being damaged...But if there was a blessing in all of that, it was that the conversation about globalization really got a shot in the arm.

There’s a controversial chapter in your book -- "Why White Cops Kill Black Men" -- in which you describe your belief that white cops are afraid of African-American men, contributing to trigger-happy officers killing often-innocent, unarmed "suspects" like Amadou Diallo. Explain.

While you do everything you can to provide education and training and discipline and supervision and inspection, nothing guarantees that police officers will conduct themselves professionally in a non-discriminatory way.

There has been enormous progress over the years, and it needs to be acknowledged. But we have to accept that ours is a racist society, and that patterns of racism and discrimination affect the institutional as well as the individual. So you may have a cop whose political and social sophistication is advanced, who does not -- at least consciously -- have a racist bone in his or her body, but is still contributing to a pattern of discrimination.

We are affected by our cultural differences, and we're scared to death to talk honestly about race in this society. There are a lot of people who aren't, who are wonderful at it — but for the most part, we do anything we can to avoid having an honest conversation about what it means to be white and what it means to be black, whether it's in a school, or in a stationhouse in a police department.

I didn't find empirical evidence to support this, but I personally believe that white cops are scared of black men. The bigger or darker the man, the more frightened the white cop. I can't shake that; it's a belief I will take to the grave.

Are there ways to alter or eliminate those fears?

It's certainly possible. It requires very purposeful and powerful leadership. We should be continuously examining racial and other sensitive relationships in police work. This isn't something that's obscure or esoteric; it happens daily.

We need to reach out to help educate young men in the African-American community more about the role of police. Johnnie Cochran [spoke about this] in Seattle. He said, "Look, when the police stop you, be courteous. Don't mouth back, don't give them shit. If they ask you to do something, unless it is unlawful, do it. Give them your ID. If they want to check you, search you, whatever, do it, and if you were wronged, call a responsible official and complain."

I used to encourage complaints; it drove my captain crazy.

What are the top three aspects of law enforcement that need reform most urgently?

I would call an end to the war on drugs -- yesterday. I would take the police out of the business of popping people for the possession of small quantities of drugs, and I would devote much of that attention and money to prevention, education and treatment.

Number two would be the selective and intelligent demilitarization of America's police forces. The thing is, we pretty much behave in accordance to the cultural values and norms of our institutions. If I belong to a paramilitary bureaucratic organization that puts the community at arm's length, then guess what? I'm going to be the soldier bureaucrat.

So I would demilitarize and, as much as is logical to do so, de-bureaucratize American's police departments. They need to be much more community-friendly. They need to be the people's police.

The third thing would be embracing an authentic definition of community policing. I'm not minimizing the role of police. I'm not saying -- as I mentioned in another chapter -- to disarm [cops] and take them out of uniform. But the community can exact major changes in their police force if there's shared thinking to that end. In other words, "Wait a minute, this police department belongs to me."

There is very little I can do as an individual, but there's a hell of a lot that I can do as an organized, mobilized community -- citizen participation in policy-making and program development, crisis management, you name it.

I think chiefs need to be out there, visible and conspicuous, and they need some living emblem of the reforms and improvements they're advocating. If they're not change agents, then shame on them, because the institution needs change.

But do many of your fellow cops think the same way?

No. There are some change agents that I've had the privilege of working with over the years, but they still represent a pretty small minority. Most of them are status quo, "don't rock the boat."

I never imagined myself as a cop, much less a police chief, and I understand the impulse... It's like, you work your way up; you're careful to please your boss, even if you have to be an ass-kissing "yes man," because you want to get ahead. You finally get there, holding down the best job you've ever had, and you're scared to death of losing it.

Fear...produces more brutality, inefficiency, misconduct and apathy than anything I can imagine. It's fear behind anger, and it's fear that keeps police chiefs from being honest.

Laura Barcella is an associate editor at AlterNet.
--
"A war is only just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.legendgames.net/blognews.asp

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

"Data show an income gap widening among college graduates."

Rich-poor gap gaining attention
Remarks by Greenspan reflect concern that disparities in wealth may
destabilize the economy. By Peter Grier
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0614/p01s03-usec.html?s=hns

...........................................................

When I was a college student in the 1950s there was much less of a gap between us college students and people doing physical labor -- we students did it ourselves during our summer vacations because the pay was good. The sidebar effect was that we prospective college grads felt in touch with those with whom we had worked and many of us cared about the well-being of our entire society. The consequences emerged in the 1960s with the civil rights acts, introduction of medical care for many if not all who could not afford such, public housing construction, affordable higher education one way of another, e.g. the opening up of CUNY so that the children of blue collar union members and others could get college educations.

Now I fear that we are losing our social coherence as the greedy grab ever more than their fair share and leave far too many to fend for themselves, i.e. die prematurely on their own.

See Krugman's column (below) to the effect that we need to follow Europe at long last and introduce at least universal medical care as was done there after WW2. Then the greedies of the American Medical Association (to which caring doctors would not stoop to belong) blocked universal medical care in the 1950s. Now it is apparently the diverse medical insurance operations that do their best to maintain their portfolios while denying medical insurance coverage wherever they can! It is now a full time job to collect what is owed from such as Cigna (also one of those major corporations also charged with under funding its employees pensions yesterday in a NY Times article). Making money should not be done out of people's health needs!

OP-ED COLUMNIST
One Nation, Uninsured
By PAUL KRUGMAN
With the cost of health care exploding and the number of
uninsured growing, the time will soon be ripe for another
try at universal coverage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/opinion/13krugman.html?th&emc=th
--
"A war is only just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.legendgames.net/blognews.asp

Monday, June 13, 2005

Appiah's New Book: The Ethics of Identityi

The following is not directly relevant to academic freedom, but is a reminder that what we are facing today once again is the threat of tyranny to minorities by self-styled majorities. I sent what follows to my student list. It strikes me that it is relevant background to our concerns here.

Mill, as did the noted British legal philosopher, H.L.A. Hart, a century later [ http://www.timesandseasons.org/archives/000429.html ] engaged in debates with social conservatives who believed among other things that society (the majority in democratic ones) had the right to censor, indeed, punish unpopular attitudes and activities that harmed no one except at most the ones who enacted them as expressions of their own liberty and, as Appiah notes, quests for their self identities. Ed Kent

.......................................................................

We read Kwame Anthony Appiah's excellent article on racism in Philosophy 6. Here he reexamines John Stuart Mill to find an updated basis for personal identity which can entertain such modern varieties as racial and sexual orientation identities. One car read here the first chapter of his new book for free this week only and the review apparently indefinitely. Ed Kent

...................................................................

Note: Articles from the last 7 days are free, as are all reviews back to 1996. Articles in the Article Archive: 1996-Present ($) may be purchased for as little as $1.60.

BOOKS / SUNDAY BOOK REVIEW | June 12, 2005
'The Ethics of Identity': A Rooted Cosmopolitan
By JONATHAN FREEDMAN (NYT) Review
About: ETHICS OF IDENTITY, THE (BOOK)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/books/review/12FREEDMA.html

BOOKS / FIRST CHAPTERS | June 12, 2005
'The Ethics of Identity'
By KWAME ANTHONY APPIAH (NYT) Transcript

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/books/chapters/0612-1st-appiah.html
--
"A war is only just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.legendgames.net/blognews.asp

Republicans to Attack International Red Cross?

[Any of us working in the domains of international law and human rights are ever more appalled by the arrogant disregard of same by the Republicans now in power and running wild. The latest game in town seems to be to open up massive attacks on their international critics: the UN, Amnesty International, and now the International Committee of the Red Cross? These people are mad in ways that we saw operative in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy leading up to WW2. Needless to say the rest of the world sees the same things -- and possibly more Americans are now as well? Ed Kent]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a829fd96-db6a-11d9-913a-00000e2511c8.html

Senate body to challenge impartiality of Red Cross
By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
Published: June 12 2005 20:20 | Last updated: June 12 2005 20:20

An influential Senate Republican body is drafting a White Paper calling into question the impartiality of the International Committee of the Red Cross, according to a senior Senate aide.

Asking that the Republican body not be named before the paper was released, the aide said it would raise concerns about "recent ICRC actions and statements that call in to question the organisation's long-standing impartiality and neutrality principles when applied to the US government".

The paper will call for changes at the ICRC, including allowing non-Swiss nationals to become board members. It will also question whether the organisation is straying from its core mission by lobbying governments on issues such as biological weapons.

The ICRC argues that preventing the use of such weapons on the battlefield is within its mission because of their humanitarian impact.

While having no direct impact on legislation, the paper, which could be released as early as Monday, could fuel congressional scepticism towards humanitarian organisations.

The ICRC came under fire last month after it confirmed it had raised concerns with the Pentagon in 2002 about allegations that US guards were mishandling the Koran at the US-run detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba.

Some Republicans have criticised the ICRC for allegedly impeding US efforts to prosecute the war on terror. But others, including John McCain, the Arizona Republican senator who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, have strongly defended the organisation.

The policy paper will argue that the ICRC has been less zealous in pursuing access to prisoners of war in the case of US soldiers. The ICRC concedes it was unable to gain access to US prisoners in Iraq before the regime collapsed, but argues it used all possible means to convince the Iraqis to provide access.

The Senate aide said the policy paper would also call for an investigation by the Government Accountability Office, the oversight arm of Congress, into how the ICRC spent its funding, about 28 per cent of which it receives from the US.

The State Department said that the US held the ICRC's work in the "highest regard". Antonella Notari, ICRC spokeswoman, said: "The ICRC doesn't side with any of the parties to armed conflicts.

"It remains neutral and impartial with respect to any cause other than the humanitarian cause."
--
"A war is only just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.legendgames.net/blognews.asp

Saturday, June 11, 2005

Unhousing the Poor

[After WW2 I worked briefly in a community center in Bethnal Green, East London, which had been major target of the Nazi blitz -- as a teen with teens. The city was still bursting with the energies of rebuilding affordable housing for all -- Council Houses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_house

Comparably after my college graduation I worked with American teens in the (no longer existing) Manhattanville Community Center in West Harlem. Still later we lived in Grant Houses (Apt. 14G, 430 W. 125th. St.) in the same area. What was manifest was that decent housing made all the difference in the quality of life of children growing up. Those who lived in the broken down tenements in West Harlem -- most then -- mainly died young and violently. Those living in the projects could do such basics as homework in peace and quiet, remain in school, graduate and get decent jobs and with them lives. Robert A. Taft:

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=T000009

who ran against Eisenhower for the presidency from his position as majority leader of the Senate was persuaded that subsidized public housing was a must after his family had nearly lost its fortune, trying to build affordable housing in Cincinnati. He became the critical supporter of public housing in this country who made it possible to build many housing projects (one in Harlem named for him) until Reagan halted such efforts. And so it goes -- downhill -- with the Bush administration -- back to the killing slum conditions of the 19th century! We are seeing a very different Republican Party now than the one that contained honest and decent conservatives back then. Ed Kent]

P.S. Columbia, are you listening?

....................................................................

AlterNet
June 6, 2005

Un-Housing the Poor

By Dan Frosch, AlterNet

In December 1998, Tarrah Leach's life finally hit rock
bottom. She was barely 17 years old, already a mother
of two small infant daughters, and hiding out in a
domestic shelter. She'd been married only a year, a
difficult year that the teenage couple spent first in a
homeless shelter and then in a small public housing
apartment in Lancaster, Ohio, a town some 32 miles
southeast of Columbus. And though Leach still loved her
childhood sweetheart, she could no longer tolerate his
abuse and beatings. So she took her kids and walked out
the door without a dollar to her name.

"By the time, I'd left him, I had this new family with
no money and no home to help me raise them," Leach
says.

Help, however, was around the corner. Leach received a
fresh start in life courtesy of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development and the Section 8 Housing
Choice Voucher program. The federal assistance program
enabled Leach to rent an affordable apartment in a safe
neighborhood, a decision that she says saved her life.
After waiting for two months, her family was able to
move into a quiet two-bedroom trailer, which she rented
for a reasonable $100 a month thanks to the HUD
voucher, as opposed to the market rate of $425.

The Section 8 program, created in 1974 during the Nixon
years, offers poor families a housing voucher to rent
an apartment or home put on the market by participating
landlords. With the voucher, a family only has to pay
30 percent of their adjusted income toward the rent,
with the local housing authority paying for the balance
with HUD money. Under HUD regulations, 75 percent of a
housing authority's vouchers must go to families making
30 percent or less of the median income in their area.

The program represents a vital lifeline for families
with extremely low incomes who get the opportunity to
move their family out of public housing in poor and
often dangerous neighborhoods. Currently, more than two
million families use Section 8 vouchers to pay a
subsidized rent.

The Department of Housing, however, is planning to cut
that lifeline.

Last month, Congress began hearings on two bills -- one
each in the House and Senate -- that threaten to
reorient federal assistance away from the families that
need it most. Specifically, the legislation would
double Section 8's existing median income cap to 60
percent, thereby allowing families who earn more to
qualify for these vouchers.

It also removes rules which ensure that families in
serious need receive the most assistance. Under the new
measure, local housing authorities are free to award up
to 90 percent of their vouchers to applicants that
qualify under the raised income cap -- allowing them to
dole out the majority of vouchers to families who earn
more and therefore pay more of the rent.

HUD, which drafted both pieces of legislation, is
framing this reorientation as a response to the rising
costs of a program that has jumped from $11 to $15
billion over the past three years. Last year, HUD cut
millions in Section 8 funding but restored some of it
after an outcry from housing authorities who said they
were being asked operate the program but deprived of
the funding required to do it.

If HUD is successful in its latest bid, success stories
like Tarrah Leach will likely become a faraway memory.
Thanks to Section 8, Leach was able to get her GED even
as she worked at WalMart, and later attended nursing
school on her days off. She eventually graduated with
honors and got her nursing license.

"I still would have been struggling, I wouldn't have
been able to go to school, to get the nursing job I
have now-not to mention paying rent, the bills and
taking care of my kids," she says. "It wouldn't have
happened without that voucher."

Low-income housing advocacy groups and some members of
Congress say that HUD's proposals will essentially
decimate its own program and unduly target the very
people it's supposed to help most. According to the
National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), the
impacts of the changes would be enormous: low income
families in need of vouchers will invariably be passed
over by cash-strapped housing authorities who will tend
to horde their funds by giving the vouchers to families
who make more money. Housing authorities have lost $2
billion in HUD funding over the past four fiscal years
and are in the midst of a serious budget crunch.

"It's as if HUD figured out the worst possible
solutions to low income housing problems and crammed
them into one bill," says Linda Couch, NLIHC's deputy
director. "The administration's goal here is clearly to
save cash. And it's at the expense of the people who
need housing the most."

The people most in need of HUD's assistance are often
black and Hispanic families, who account for 53 percent
of all vouchers a year, according to a recent Poverty
and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) study.
Executive Director Philip Tegeler says the proposed
legislation could create a scenario where housing
authorities are denying vouchers to poor minorities
while giving them to slightly better off white families
in order to preserve their already depleted coffers. If
the legislation moves forward, PRRAC predicts that the
131,000 families of color served by Section 8 could
quickly be cut in half, and over the next decade,
hundreds of thousands of vouchers would be shifted away
from poor black and Hispanic applicants to less
impoverished whites.

"This lifting of the current income targeting is not
race neutral. And so the bill ends up having serious
civil rights consequences," Tegeler says. He also
points to the serious implications of another aspect of
HUD's proposal which would give housing authorities
more power in determining whether Section 8 families
can move out of a particular neighborhood -- a process
called "portability." The proposed restrictions will
make it much harder for black and Hispanic families to
move from ghettoes into areas with more opportunity,
further entrenching segregation in cities that are
already carved up by color lines.

HUD spokeswoman Donna White does not agree that the
proposal will push lower-income folks out of the
program.

"The bottom line is now they have options. If you make
32 percent of the median income in your area, why
should you be cut out of the program?" she says. "We
think that by giving the housing authorities more
options, more flexibility, as opposed to having follow
strict guidelines," housing authorities will be better
able to help the families in their area. White also
claims that this increased flexibility could help cut
down on waiting lists for vouchers, which can last up
to five years in major cities according to HUD.

HUD's argument, however, does not impress a number of
members of Congress who are opposed to the bill. A May
17 Congressional hearing before the House Financial
Services Committee provoked decided and bipartisan
opposition from numerous members, including Barbara Lee
(D-California), Julia Carson (D-Indiana) and
Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut). Shays was one of 20
members of Congress who wrote a letter on Apr. 29
urging the House Appropriations Committee to boost
funding for Section 8.

"While it is clear we need to take steps to reform the
Section 8, we can't forget how successful the program
has been," Shays said in an email response to AlterNet.
"I'm eager to work with the Financial Services
Committee to craft responsible legislation, but am
concerned [the bill] simply passes the buck to the
local housing authorities."

Among those testifying in front of Congress was Leach,
now 24 and a nurse at a convalescent home. She came all
the way from Ohio because she couldn't stand the
thought of another single mother having to endure what
she went through without any help.

"If it had not been for the Housing Assistance, I, as a
single mother, would not have been able to put a roof
over my children's heads. My children would have
suffered because I would have had to work all of the
time just to make ends meet to pay rent and utilities,"
she told the committee. "I ask that you consider my
story."

Dan Frosch is a New York-based journalist whose work
has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, The Source and
the Santa Fe Reporter.

(c) 2005 Independent Media Institute.

http://www.alternet.org/story/22106/
--
"A war is only just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.legendgames.net/blognews.asp

Friday, June 10, 2005

Behind FIRE Lies the Traditional Values Coalition with Its Enemies List

Those concerned about the recent attacks on faculty at Brooklyn, College,CUNY, and elsewhere for offenses against religion by FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), which features Brooklyn College graudate, Alan Dershowitz as a 'left-wing' member, should be aware that this ostensive free speech group: http://www.thefire.org/ really looks to be a front for a right wing religious lobbying operation, the Traditional Values Coalition, which scarcely respects First Amendment rights, as its editorials below disclose:

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=802

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/catid.php?catid=9


America Is Still A Religious Nation!
By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

For Publication On Or After
June 7, 2005

Washington, DC – A recent AP-Ipsos poll has found that America is still a deeply religious nation—in spite of efforts from the anti-Christian ACLU to strip us of our religious heritage.

The AP-Ipsos poll surveyed religious attitudes in the U.S., Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, South Korea, and Spain.
Has The American Psychiatric Association Gone Insane?
By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

For Publication On Or After
June 1, 2005

Washington, DC – A little more than a week ago, the delegates to the American Psychiatric Association (APA) convention in Atlanta voted to endorse homosexual marriage. They claim they did so in order to promote the “mental health” of homosexuals. The APA vote is to be finalized before the board of trustees in July of this year.
PARENTAL WARNING: Little Black Book Exposes Kids To Vile Sex Practices
By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition
For Publication On Or After May 17, 2005

Washington, DC – If any parent needs a strong argument for opposing the legalization of homosexual marriage in their state, what’s happening in Massachusetts should be enough.

The pro-family Article 8 Alliance, headed by Brian Camenker has just released the contents of the pro-homosexual “Little Black Book” on his web site. The “Little Black Book” was produced by the Boston-based AIDS Action Committee with the help of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and Boston Public Health Commission.
Hearings Begin On TVC’s California Marriage Protection Amendment
For Publication On Or After May 10, 2005

By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

Washington, DC – The California Assembly and Senate began debate on May 10 on a marriage protection amendment proposed by the Traditional Values Coalition. The amendment is being sponsored by Assemblyman Ray Haynes and Senator Bill Morrow.
Wall Street Journal Commentators Debate Religious Right Role In Culture
May 6, 2005 – The Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com web site featured dueling editorials yesterday on the role and goals of the religious right in America.

James Taranto’s editorial, “Why I’m Rooting for the Religious Right,” detailed reasons why he supports religious conservatives in their efforts to impact culture. Taking the opposing view was Christopher Hitchens, in “Why I’m Rooting Against the Religious Right.”
Democrats Must Stop Filibustering President Bush’s Judicial Nominees!
For Publication On Or After
April 19, 2005

By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

Washington, DC – The Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing this coming Thursday on the nominations of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen and California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the federal bench.
Homosexual Civil Unions: A Stealth Tactic To Impose Same-Sex Marriage
For Publication On Or After
March 8, 2005

By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

Washington, DC – The Connecticut General Assembly will soon be voting on passage of “An Act Concerning Marriage Equality,” that will usher in homosexual marriage in that state.

If passed, this legislation will create homosexual civil unions—the legal equivalent to same-sex marriage in everything but the name “marriage.”
Kansas Attorney General Seeks To Prosecute Statutory Rape
For Publication On Or After March 2, 2005

By Mrs. Andrea Lafferty
Executive Director, Traditional Values Coalition

Washington, DC – The abortion industry is going into spasms over the efforts of Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline to prosecute rape cases against underage girls.

Kline is seeking the records of girls under the age of 14 who have had abortions in Kansas—especially late-term abortions. Under Kansas law, a girl under 14 who becomes pregnant is considered to have been a victim of rape or sexual assault. In addition, it is illegal to perform abortions after 22 weeks in Kansas.
The Religious Left: Sock Puppets For Atheist George Soros?
For Publication On Or After
February 15, 2005

By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

Washington, DC – The morally confused Democratic Party is currently on a quest to get “Jesus” back into their talking points memos in preparation for the 2008 presidential campaign. After losing badly to Republicans on the moral values front, Democrats are apparently meeting in strategy sessions to figure out how they can start using religious language to regain voters.
No ‘Wardrobe Malfunctions’During Super Bowl Half Time!
For Publication On Or After February 8, 2005
By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

Washington, DC – Thankfully, Sunday’s Super Bowl half time event was a far cry from the disastrous Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake breast exposure episode in 2004.

The half time show was an enjoyable event this year with Paul McCartney providing the entertainment. Fortunately, the only item of clothing removed during half time was McCartney’s sports coat.
--
"A war is only just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.legendgames.net/blognews.asp

Academic Freedom at Brooklyn College, CUNY?

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050627&s=pollitt

Having been a chair of a department at Brooklyn College and watching the endless labors of our present one, I would not wish the role on my worst enemy. Currently our CUNY administration is apparently trying to negotiate the right to appoint rather than simply to approve elections of chairs by departments. Such, I think is a vast mistake, particularly in this era precisely of deleterious corporatization of our universities. When I was a chair I had to do battle with a corrupt president who would have preferred the retention in our department of obedient ones rather than the best that we could bring on board. He several times removed me from the role of chair before he, himself, was removed for his misallocations of funds and other devious actions. Despite his machinations we ended up with one of the strongest philosophy departments on the East Coast, which WE now are rebuilding to become the best! Shortell looks to be a loss to all involved here. Shame! Ed Kent

P.S. I did my dissertation at Columbia with its then University Professor of that time, Ernest Nagel, one of CCNY's Morris R. Cohen's distinguished students who became leading American philosophers in the fields of philosophy of science and philosophy of law:

http://www.bookrags.com/biography-ernest-nagel/

Check out his article, "Why I Am an Atheist," which was published in the leading introductory text, A Modern Introduction to Philosophy, first edition, edited by our now retired Brooklyn College department member, Paul Edwards, who was also the editor of the authoritative Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Need one comment on First Amendment rights here? Nagel, as I assume is Shortell, was a caring humanist, who also saw the shortcomings of our contemporary religions and those who engage in murderous jihads in the name of G-d -- Jesus as well as Allah!

.......................................................................

posted June 9, 2005 (June 27, 2005 issue) [The Nation]

Brooklyn Prof in Godless Shocker

Katha Pollitt

So it's 2005 and this is the academic question that has driven the Daily News and the right-wing New York Sun into apoplectic fits, and caused heartburn all over CUNY: Should Tim Shortell, an atheist, be allowed to assume the chair of the sociology department of Brooklyn College? You know, an atheist--someone who doesn't believe in God. An anticleric. A disrespecter of religion. A mocker of Christianity. Someone like, oh, Diderot ("Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"). Or Voltaire ("The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning"). Or Bertrand Russell ("The Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world"). Actually, Russell is a particularly relevant example here. The appointment of one of the twentieth century's greatest logicians to a professorship at City College in 1940 set off a hysterical campaign against the "Godless advocate of free love" on the part of the Episcopal and Catholic churches, the Hearst papers and Tammany Hall. A flagrantly trumped-up lawsuit was fast-tracked through the system, Russell was denounced in the state legislature and the job offer was withdrawn.

Unfortunately, Shortell is no Bertrand Russell, whose Why I Am Not a Christian did so much to enliven my teenage years. For one thing, Russell was an energetic antireligious propagandist, while Shortell's low opinion of God and his fans is confined to a brief essay, "Religion and Morality: A Contradiction Explained," posted at www.anti-naturals.org, an obscure website with a vaguely Situationist flavor. For another, Russell was a terrific writer, while Shortell's essay is self-satisfied adolescent twaddle. Believers are "moral retards," "an ugly, violent lot": "In the heart of every Christian is a tiny voice preaching self-righteousness, paranoia and hatred. Christians claim that theirs is a faith based on love, but they'll just as soon kill you." Moral retards? Well, at least he can't be accused of linguistic PC.

Shortell's fighting words may have been intended, as he told me, as a "manifesto" aimed at a few avant-garde artists, but they gave the right plenty to work with in attacking his election to the chair. After reports of his election appeared in the Sun and Daily News, Brooklyn College president Christoph Kimmich wrote a letter to the News saying he found the essay "offensive" and had "convened a committee of three high-ranking Brooklyn College officials and asked them to investigate the situation." The handwriting must have been on the wall, because even as I was writing this column, Shortell withdrew his name from consideration. Whatever one thinks of the sentiments or the prose style of his essay, this is not a happy turn of events. A college president should champion academic freedom and professional standards, not side with those who assault them on the basis of someone's nonprofessional writing. Academic procedures exist for a reason. Do we really want the tabs micromanaging departmental decisions?

[continuation at web site above]

--
"A war is only just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.legendgames.net/blognews.asp

Monday, June 06, 2005

The Roots of the Right Wing in the U.S.

For sign up for new Academic Freedom list or to see recent postings, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom

Yahoo lists ask you to sign in for a (free) Yahoo email membership. One can use it as an alternate address or check it once a year -- or never. Best, Ed Kent

The Roots of the Right Wing in the U.S.

We, too, are concerned with academic freedom at CUNY. We are getting nibbles of attacks on faculty who are teaching in Middle East studies and also complaints about the fact that such a large proportion of faculty seem to be Democrats ;-). I set up this list to respond to same. As I happen to live near Columbia, I am also aware of things there along these lines. I don't think we are into a full scale McCarthy era thing, but I well remember Bill Buckley haunting Yale in my undergraduate days -- God and Man at Yale:

http://www.townhall.com/bookclub/wbuckley1.html

in which he attacked particularly Sid Lovett, chaplain and then a college master who had been imprisoned as a pacifist during WW1 -- and was much beloved by all. Buckley used to hang around the fringes, trying to knock off this or that student as a potential disciple, and, I am sure, haunted the secret society, Skull and Bones, through which both Bushes passed. He was allegedly a vehement anti-Semite as an undergrad -- his family hung out in Franco's fascist Spain and Buckley actually taught Spanish as a returned-from-the-wars undergrad and member, I gather, of the right wing Catholic lay group, Opus Dei, still lurking at the fringes of our universities today with its covert agendas (a chapter is near Columbia):

http://www.mond.at/opus.dei/

I watched him squirm in 1955 at the last gasp "One Million Americans for McCarthy" rally at Madison Square Garden, on the podium with the proverbial "little old ladies in tennis shoes," (gender biases in those days), ex-generals, etc.

Buckley is the font of our right wing movement and its 300+ think tanks (e.g. the Manhattan Institute) sponsored by such as Richard Mellon Scaife: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/27/scaife.profile/ out of inherited monies, cranking out their propaganda and the ugly movement which eventuated out of Buckley's family's Texas oil money. That Buckley accent is as phony as the proverbial wooden nickel. They tell me that the family portraits with purple backgrounds line the entrance hall to the Connecticut home where Buckley would entice the above-mentioned undergrads (Yes, I was invited, but declined.). We should be aware that we are dealing now with a most dangerous foreign import that is using our country for its own devious purposes! Cutting back on college and university funding is part of the game of dumbing down Americans.

I suspect that the uneasy coalition of right wing Catholics, fundamentalist Protestant scam artists (e.g. Falwell who started out at a segregationist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell ), libertarians, and just plain greedies is unstable and will come unglued at some point. I can't understand how the right wing 'Zionist' organizations (e.g. AIPAC which is sponsoring some of the attacks on Middle East Faculty):

http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=3467

can hang together permanently with the apocalyptic Protestant rightists who are celebrating (in advance) the destruction of Israel and the deaths of all the Jews who were not smart enough to join Jews for Jesus while there is still time. Read St. Paul's Letter to the Romans in which he viciously attacks the competition (Jews who have not converted whom he accuses of "stealing from the pagan temples.") which set going 2 millennia of pogroms climaxed by the Holocaust. Elsewhere he coined the infamous slogan: "the Jews killed Jesus" that was recelebrated in a certain recently much publicized film along these lines which even got to the Anti Defamation League a bit as a warning of potential things to come, I hope. Needless to say, "The Passion" starts the story after the life of Jesus and his concern for the poor and obsesses with the final suffering and anticipated apocalyptic return (to destroy those Jews!) rather than the prophetic concerns for social justice that were the original Gospel message for which this suspected terrorist ("zealot" in biblical translation) was executed cruelly (crucifixion being ordinary punishment for slaves) by a notoriously brutal Roman Governor, Pilate -- not the nice guy portrayed, I gather, by Gibson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate