November 07, 2005
But, why do we need a Senate Intelligence Committee to go through these kinds of heuristic deliberations? What makes their rule of thumb better than my rule of thumb, as a citizen, concerning the public statements of our officials? Doesn't their hubris imply a whopping condescension toward those of us in the Peanut Gallery? Why is Carl Levin's opinion about the President's Niger statement better than mine? Will he take into account the fact that Wilson's own debrief with the CIA supported concerns that Iraq was interested in buying uranium, and that the intelligence agencies of the UK and France still maintain that Iraq was seeking such a buy? Or will he just gauge the statement against the common meme that Wilson was truthful in his NYT dispatch, and that he has adequately debunked that whole yellow-cake myth by sipping a little sweet tea in Africa? Anyone taking bets?
And doesn't the urgency placed on this report by the unprecedented grandstanding of the Democrats also imply a profoundly statist deference toward the black-box hermeneutic/analytic skills of a group of high-placed non-experts? Next thing we know they'll be proposing to re-write the New Testament in order to make it more "accurate." They could sure help us out by "assessing" the extent to which the certainties and uncertainties about the Resurrection justify the many public statements about it by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. About time they got around to that, dontcha think?
And how much is this Report from Mount Olympus going to cost us, anyway? Couldn't we just siphon that to the victims of Katrina, Rita, and Wilma? Frankly I'd rather have a comprehensive audit of FEMA. That would make some sense.
Posted by: Demosophist at
10:43 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 3 kb.
October 17, 2005
So, just how do you tie one hand behind your back? I mean, as opposed to tying both of them?
Discuss...
Posted by: Demosophist at
09:39 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.
September 20, 2005
Kids, you tried your best, and you failed miserably. The lesson is: never try.Indeed.
Posted by: Rusty at
05:22 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.
September 08, 2005
On September 12th, 2001, I raised my voice in a class I was a teaching assistant in, and voiced the opinion that Muslims who followed Osama bin Laden's teachings were a grave threat to the United States and Western culture. The professor, literally, looked at me and, literally, began to yell at the top of his lungs that my statements were out of order and that they could have been uttered by a Nazi. Opposition to radical Islam is equated to Nazism......
Richard L. Rubenstein's run-in with those who would make us all dhimmis at an academic conference is further evidence. more...
Posted by: Rusty at
10:49 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 496 words, total size 3 kb.
September 05, 2005
Hammasa Kohistani has become the first Muslim to crowned Miss England. Pics below. She's quite a dish. Thanks to Flea's prurient interests for finding this one.
A good sign? Yes. This is the build up to the Miss Universe pageant which is known as quite a racy event. In even better news: four of the finalists were Muslim.
But what about the swimsuit competition? Expect a mixed reaction ranging from delight by more progressive Muslims to horror and a fatwa by more conservative groups.
An 18-year-old Uzbekistan native has become the first Muslim to wear the Miss England tiara.more...
Hammasa Kohistani, 18, was selected at Liverpool's Olympia Theatre from a group of 40 beauties to represent England in the Miss World championships, Sky News reported Sunday....Kohistani said she was happy to be making history as Britain's first Muslim beauty queen and added, "hopefully, I won't be the last."
Posted by: Rusty at
04:20 PM
| Comments (58)
| Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 2 kb.
But an academic conference on Bruce Springsteen? Now that's academic!
Posted by: Rusty at
03:21 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.
September 03, 2005
Rashid Khalidi will speak on 'Resurrecting Empire', also the title of his latest 'academic' book. The thesis of the book boils down to the Iraq War being about a Neocon right-wing conspiracy to protect the interests of Israel. Khalidi, like many I'm-not-antisemetic-I'm-just-pointing-out-the-fact-that-there-are-a-lot-of-Jews-in-the-Bush-administration-who-are-really-pulling-the-strings-of-power political scientists also puts oil interests at the center of this conspiracy. Of course, the Jewish Neo-Con conspiracy isn't really a conspiracy because, you know, conspiracies are secret and every one knows that the Jews control Washington's foreign policy.
Everyone in the Administration has some connection to oil, and even Condi Rice is somehow being personally enriched by the War.
I would like to think that the American Political Science Association has sunk to a new low inviting this conspiratorial moonbat to give a keynote address. Unfortunately, the practice is common place in the academy. The neo-conspiracy theories of the Left, couched in academic language, will probably be well received by the audience. Any one who questions the appropriateness of including Khalidi in the program will be branded an advocate of censorship and a Brownshirt trying to quash academic freedom.
The address will be tonight at 8:30 in Salon 1 at the Washington, D.C. Marriott-Woodman Park (near the Zoo). I'll be the guy sitting in the first row, wearing the anti-Bushitlerhaliburton mind probe tin foil hat.
More on Rashid Khalidi can be found at the Little Green Footballs archives
Posted by: Rusty at
10:15 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.
September 02, 2005
Above (click for larger image): Paul Mirengoff of Powerline speaks at the American Political Science Association. Next to Paul (from left to right) is John Klenker of the Claremont Review of Books, Scott Johnson, also of Powerline, Peter Cannellos, of the Boston Globe, and Bill Gertz, of the Washington Times. (Bad photo, I know, but it's from a camera phone). Charmaine of Reasoned Audacity sat right behind me and has a few better photos here.
Report from the panel: Wasn't able to stick around and meet Paul or Scott from Powerline because I had to rush off to a job interview.
Two memorable observations from the panel. First, a heated exchange betwen Peter Cannelos and Scott Johnson. more...
Posted by: Rusty at
02:53 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 575 words, total size 4 kb.
Next door, Cornell West was at a party. Wait, that guy is a political scientist. I thought he was a hip-hop artist or something?
Two worlds colliding. You know about the worlds. A non-blogging, not-in-the-know about "Rusty Shackleford", friend from grad school was hanging out at the party with us. Turns out, he and Steve the Llamabutcher know each other. Small world. Awkward, since none of could talk about blogging around him. Best to keep academic world and blog worlds apart.
If you have to make a choice between going to a party hosted by libertarians or conservatives, go to the libertarian party. Just trust me on this one.
Best. Advice. Ever: Never challenge Steve the Llama Butcher or Professor Chaos to a drinking game. more...
Posted by: Rusty at
08:43 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.
September 01, 2005
Above (click for bigger pic): The guy in front of me falls asleep during Michael Ledeen's talk.
Panel 3, Sponsored by the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy
A Neo-Conservative Conspiracy? Principles and objectives of Bush's Foreign Policy: A Roundtable
Excellent roundtable. Most of these academic panels put me to sleep. Not this one. Unfortunately, the guy sitting in front of me wasn't as into the talks as me. I couldn't resist snapping a picture of him with my cell phone. That's Michael Ladeen, author of War Against the Terror Master, in the background talking.
Speaker 1: Adam Wolfson, former editor of Public Interest
Wolfson began by talking about how Bush outrages both Realists and Idealists. Later, Wolfson would claim that Bush is a Hamiltonian Realist. Hamiltonian Realists believe that the character of opposing regimes is somehow connected to our national security.
Bush is also not a Wilsonian Idealist, as some on the Right like to accuse him --think Pat Buchanan. This is evidenced by Bush's willingness to selectively apply his idealism. Think Cuba. After the Cold War, Cuba ceased to be threat. Bush's unwillingness to invade Cuba does not reveal a hypocrisy, as many on the Left like to accuse, rather it is consistent with a Realist foreign policy. No threat, no need for regime change. Iraq, on the other hand, was a threat and therefore only by regime change could we ensure the long-term national interests of the country.
Wolfson reminded us, though, that the cause-effect relationship between democracy, peace, and our national interest is a theory we are trying to test. It could very well be that the theory is wrong. Bringing democracy to the Middle East may not, in fact, bring peace and serve our interests in the long run. Let's hope the theory is right.
Random thought : This guy should definitely blog. more...
Posted by: Rusty at
06:34 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1238 words, total size 8 kb.
Yips. Orgle.
Posted by: Rusty at
05:17 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.
That '70s Decade and the Politics of Paradigm Change.
My hand is, like, so big. Where are the Cheetos?
UPDATE: That paradign shift so harshed my mellow.
Posted by: Rusty at
05:14 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.
(EN)Gendering Democrcy in Comparative Contexts.
Hey, they're all chicks. Score.
UPDATE: Razors. Ever heard of them? Ewwww....
Posted by: Rusty at
05:08 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Rusty at
12:09 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.
August 29, 2005
Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom deconstructs this article by The Stranger on why there are so few Republicans in academia and why this is a good thing. I'm sure Derrida would be rolling over in his grave if he learned that his little rhetorical trick which he called a methodology could be used to find the real meaning embedded in the structures of linguistic oppression by those on the Left as well as the Right. That is, unless death isn't just a social construct....
In “Lessons Learned: Red States May Be Outbreeding Blue States, but Blue Cities—Particularly Blue College Towns—Can Help Turn the Tide,” Bill Savage, a lecturer in the Department of English and a college adviser at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, argues that indoctrination is not really indoctrination when it’s people like him doing the indoctrinating; instead, it’s remedying the horrific materialist upbringing foisted upon the rich womb droppings of wealthy Rethuglicans, and in so doing, helping to save a nation! Let us read together:Trust me, you'll want to read ithis. It's kind of like Foucalt meets Anne Coulter right after she ate some shrooms.
On a seriuos note, there is a reason I blog anonymously. And Professor Chaos. And Steve the Llama Butcher. Because in academia it's ok to joke around about George Bush f*cking Jeff Gannon, but it's not ok to joke around about Osama bin Laden f*cking camels. You know, because the former is edgy criticism and the latter is just racist.
Posted by: Rusty at
05:41 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.
August 26, 2005
The rest of you will not see me there. If you see me, you will not remember me. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along.
Posted by: Rusty at
01:23 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.
August 18, 2005
What I find very irritating about this too is how the press keeps calling his stay at the ranch a "vacation" (or a "monthlong" vacation to make it sound like he's just fishing and taking naps for a whole month). They're trying to equate it with how we take vacations. How we go to some destination and are free of work and responsibility for a period of time. He is simply working from the ranch rather than the White House.
Most people know about Ike's golfing "vacations" and JFK's trips to Hyannisport to play touch football, but not many know that the concept and details of the Cold War strategy of "containment" were worked out by the Truman Administration during a long "vacation" in Key West. Truman and his advisors spend 175 days there during the course of his Presidency. Eisenhower established the Department of Defense while "vacationing" there, and Kennedy visited during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The location has been so seminal to the history of that half-century-long conflict with Empirialist Marxism that it has come to be known as the Little White House. But that was a different era.
(Cross-posted by Demosophist to Demosophia)
Posted by: Demosophist at
12:17 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 2 kb.
August 15, 2005
Fetal Stem Cells - The New McCarthyism?
That may sound like an extraordinarily odd comparison until you stop and think about it a bit. Just as McCarthyism, fetal stem cell research started with a laudable goal. These fetal stem cells, being as-yet unformed, should be able to be coerced into any tissue in the human body. After all, thatÂ’s exactly what they do when the fetus develops. And if this is true, then we should be able to create cures for nearly anything from them.
Unfortunately, that is where the good comparisons end. As McCarthyism became a cause celebré, so has fetal stem cell research. People have jumped on the fetal stem cell research bandwagon without a hint of what’s going on behind the scenes. They’ve been told that the fetal stem cell research will be a cure-all, and they refuse to believe anything else. And again, just like with McCarthyism, detractors of this research are being labeled as fools and heretics and ostracized. If you attempt to tell the truth about this research, then you are made out as an uncaring ogre who wants to see people continue to suffer with paralysis and Parkinson’s and all manner of other ailments.
But the truth of the matter is quite simple. To date, scientists have not come up with one single cure for anything from fetal stem cells. WhatÂ’s more, some of their attempts have had disastrous results. The list of solutions created by adult stem cells continues to grow, from healing damage caused by heart disease to treating cancer victims, people who are paralyzed, arthritis sufferers and many others. And yet, the research is treated as second place by fetal stem cell proponents who insist that only by harvesting fetal stem cells can we cure anything.
The final comparison between fetal stem cell proponents and McCarthyists lies in the conclusion to the battle. During his infamous career, Joe McCarthy was not afraid to lie, slander and simply make up rumors about his opponents and detractors. There is no telling how many lives and careers he ruined by these actions. WhatÂ’s more, thereÂ’s no telling what sort of possibly permanent damage he could have done to our great nation had he been allowed to continue. Fetal stem cell proponents face the same choices today. If they continue on the same course they have, throwing money away on useless research and dismissing working solutions, they stand to bring problems every bit as bad as McCarthy to this nation and the world. ItÂ’s time that these stem cell researchers got serious about adult stem cell research so that we can really begin to cure some diseases.
Posted by: Drew at
07:57 AM
| Comments (40)
| Add Comment
Post contains 510 words, total size 3 kb.
August 05, 2005
However, Krugman has decided that showing his ignorance in the field of economics just hasn't been fulfilling lately. So, he decides to take on a whole new field. Now you might think that he would tackle something related to economics, or at the very least, politics. You'd be wrong. No, Krugman jumps ship and swims all the way out into the deep waters of creationism vs evolution. However, he laughingly attempts to relate the argument to both economics and politics, which simply makes for more entertaining reading.
I am NOT using this article to advocate either creationism or evolution. I have my own deeply held beliefs on the subject that are not the subject of this current article.
Even though he is attempting to write an article on creationsim, Krugman just can't resist taking a poke at economics.
Mr. Kristol led by example, using The Public Interest to promote supply-side economics, a doctrine whose central claim - that tax cuts have such miraculous positive effects on the economy that they pay for themselves - has never been backed by evidence.
And not only does he take a poke at economics, he shows us all that he is not living in the real world where we have job growth, economic growth, unemployment dropping, economists raving about how good the economy is going, and TAX CUTS. But I guess it's just random chance that they all happened at the same time, because you know it's never been proven that tax cuts can do any good.
You might wonder how a discussion about supply side economics can work its way into a discussion about creationism. Believe it or not, Krugman makes the leap. He attempts to show how the "Evil Republicans" led by the "Corporate Gestapo" have paid off the economists and researchers so that they will produce reports in their favor. In this way, Krugman speculates, they intend to discredit scientific theory.
The most spectacular example is the campaign to discredit research on global warming. Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, many people have the impression that the issue is still unresolved. This impression reflects the assiduous work of conservative think tanks, which produce and promote skeptical reports that look like peer-reviewed research, but aren't. And behind it all lies lavish financing from the energy industry, especially ExxonMobil.
So let me get this straight. Greenpeace and a few scientitsts say that the earth is steadily getting hotter based on evidence gathered over a few hundred years and this makes an "overwhelming scientific consensus?" What about the overwhelming number of realistic scientists who point to global weather trends that span over thousands, ten thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years? What about the fact that tons of the Greenpeace "evidence" has been debunked, and some of it found to be outright fradulant? How about the fact that no one has any real, hard, evidence of any one specific thing that we, the people of the workd, are doing to increase the temperature of the planet? But to Krugman, all the proof he needs is that some research was done by scientists funded by "Evil Corporations." That immediately makes the entire research fake and all its findings null and void.
Oddly enough, he then attempts to say the same thing about creationism v. evolution. Since the creationism argument has been brought up by a bunch of religious nutcases, then it is automatically null and void before any evidence is presented. He even admits this bias, if not in so many words.
Creationists failed when they pretended to be engaged in science, not religious indoctrination: "creation science" was too crude to fool anyone.
Since it comes from a creationist, it must have no scientific basis. Thus, it is invalid. What a convenient way of winning an argument. I think I'll try that next time. "Since I don't agree with you, you're an idiot. And since you're an idiot, I can't believe in or agree with anything you've said."
He then goes on to assume facts not in evidence.
The important thing to remember is that like supply-side economics or global-warming skepticism, intelligent design doesn't have to attract significant support from actual researchers to be effective. All it has to do is create confusion, to make it seem as if there really is a controversy about the validity of evolutionary theory.
Now, I have no idea what evolutionary theory Krugman is referring to. If he's referring to the micro-evolution that happens around us all the time and creates small changes within a species to allow adaptation, then he's right. It's a solid, proven, scientific theory. However, if he's referring to macro-evolution, which says that we all sprang up from slime, then he is completly and totally dead wrong about there being no controversy. There is plenty of controversy. What there is an alarming lack of is evidence and proof that any such thing ever has or ever will happen. Now, does lack of evidence for evolution prove creation science? No. Just as lack of evidence for creation science does not prove evolution.
But again, I'm not here to argue creationism vs. evolution. I'm simply here to point out how much of an idiot Krugman is. He starts with a flawed theory, that anyone who says anything he disagrees with is just a corporate shill and must be immediately disbelieved. He then uses this theory and his opinion to attempt to prove that evolution is the be-all and end-all of science. Proof or evidence be damned, he's going to stick up for what he thinks. My advice, Paul, is find something you're good at. Because it's not economics, and it's certainly not science.
Posted by: Drew at
08:44 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1045 words, total size 6 kb.
August 02, 2005
>>From: XXXXXXXXXXMany in the forum took umbrage to Faisal, but his remarks must have forced the tin-foil off at least one member of The American Society for International Law. Especially forceful in his defense against this insanity is Dr. Rich Edwards, of the University of Toledo, referred to in the text below. Mr. Davidson is a human rights activist, born in Israel but living in Iceland. I've deleted references to his website, a left-wing conspiracy site wrapped in a facade of human-rights, since the man clearly is looking for attention:
To: ASIL Forum
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 1:40 AM
Subject: 9/11 - PentagonDear All,
Please forgive me for re-generating a widely discussed topic. Since 2001, there had been numerous documentaries on different tele channels as to how the planes hit the Towers and the Pentagon. Innthis regard, the movie clips of the planes hitting the towers are very clear. But so far as the jet hitting the Pentagon is concerned, i have never seen a single picture or movie clip showing even a single piece of a plane found from the debris in Pentagon. Does anyone have any information regarding this ??
Regards.
Faisal.
From: Elias DavidssonBut there's more from Mr. Davidsson. Much, much more. Read to the last paragraph where Davidsson, a Jew, implicates the Mossad in 9/11.
Date: August 1, 2005 2:13:20 PM PDT
To: ASIL Forum
Subject: Re: 9/11 - Pentagon
Reply-To: ASIL ForumI fully empathize with the difficulty Rich Edwards has to believe that the official story on 9/11 may be untrue. It is certainly easier to believe that a bearded Muslim in an Afghan cave who, we are told, issued blood-curling threats against Americans and Jews, would mastermind 9/11 than slick American politicians with their slick assistances who speaking buddy-buddy with journalists. Nevertheless, those who have studied US foreign policy within the last century, cannot fail to perceive a long trail of deception, covert operations, attempts at assassinating foreign leaders, unwarrented and extremely bloody wars against other nations and incredible reckless of American
lives expended in those wars. This does not necessarily mean that the current administration enginerred 9/11, but it means that we cannot simply dismiss such a scenario out of hand because we find it difficult to stomach. There is much circumstancial evidence that suggests official complicity in 9/11.Let us also remember than most mass murderers in dark suits were and are charming psychopaths (see my collection "Charming international "criminals" at www.xxxxxxxxx ), able to create a positive image of themselves and escape scrutiny.
Finally, I urge Rich Edwards to take more seriously those serious researchers who have unearthed hundreds of anomalies, misrepresentations, omissions and lies in the official account of 9/11. Their work deserves more than a sweeping dismissal. What if they are right ?
Respectfully,
Elias Davidsson
From: Elias DavidssonDo you know who is teaching your children?
Date: August 1, 2005 7:16:02 PM PDT
To: ASIL Forum
Subject: Re: 9/11 - Pentagon
Reply-To: ASIL ForumMr. Edwards refers, as it seems to statements made by the then Solicitor General Olson regarding alleged phone conversations between himself and his wife who was allegedly flying on AA77 and crashing on the Pentagon. Olson is a person who said in the Supreme Court that under some circustances, US officials are justified to lie. His statements including this statement are no proof that AA77 flew on the Pentagon. No court would accept his statement as positive proof of fact. The US government has not presented much more compelling evidence, such as photographs of wreckage and video recordings of the flying object, let alone did it produce any remains of the alleged hijackers of that flight. Yet it had almost four years to produce such evidence.
The US government had ample time and opportunity to produce positive proof that the named 19 Muslims actually boarded the aircraft which they allegedly hijacked. It had ample time and opportunity to explain why WTC nr. 7 collapsed at the speed of a free-falling stone. Yet instead of producing incriminating evidence, the US government thwarted investigations into this monumental crime, failed to convict a single person for complicity in that crime, failed to charge alleged Al Qaeda leaders under its custody, announced its disinterest in chasing Osama bin Laden and gagged people who have witnessed various aspects of the crime. Does any reader claim that I invent these facts? Aren't these facts sufficiently disturbing to cause pause forthought?
It is facile to knock down the strawman that "no Jews were killed in the 9/11 attack". Certainly this claim is wrong. Many Jews died in the attacks. This claim can, however, be traced back to its origin. The origin of the story was a report in Jerusalem Post of 12 September 2001, that the Israeli Foreign Embassy was concerned about the fate and whereabouts of 4,000 Israelis [that is Israeli citizens] believed to be in the area of the World Trade Center in New York. It was not explained in the report from where the figure 4,000 came, nor was the figure denied later. In the final count not a single Israeli employee of the World Trade Center died on 9/11. According to the New York Times, one Israeli, a casual visitor, died in the WTC on 9/11 and two Israeli died as passengers in the allegedly hijacked planes. We still are owed an explanation of the discrepancy between the figure 4,000 and 0.
Elias Davidsson
Posted by: Rusty at
01:04 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1001 words, total size 6 kb.
133 queries taking 0.1269 seconds, 485 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.