"The humanities have destroyed themselves over the past 30 years‚ Through an obsession with European jargon and a shallow politicization of discourse, the humanities have imploded‚ There’s hardly a campus you can name where the most exciting things that are happening on campus are coming from the humanities departments‚ I think the entire profession is in withdrawal at the moment. This is a national problem. It’s not just a Harvard problem."
I fear she’s right.
Mark Blumenthal gives the best account of the pros and cons of the controversial data. I might add that the notion that reports of rampant bombings, sectarian killings and terror are somehow deliberate media lies strikes me as absurd. The first-hand accounts I’ve published from Iraqi bloggers show a real climate of fear and violence and recrimination. It’s obviously a murky situation, but dismissing credible accounts of mayhem bespeaks denial, not engagement.
They’re up! Where’s Rocco? He’s wondering whether you should buy or burn your ashes. He’s got my vote.
An American Muslim student stands up for freedom at the University of Illinois. He also links to this study of Muslims in America. They appear to be much better educated and much wealthier on average than other Americans. Younger, on average, as well. Very few are journalists. We need to change that, it seems to me.
A few have emailed me with variations on this point, with respect to this post:
"Our freedom of speech, in this society, entitles us to say and express anything (other than direct incitement to violence, libel/slander, and a few similar conditions) we wish to without fear of government suppression, imprisonment, or violence.
However, Americans are lazy and spoiled when it comes to this right, and fundamentally misunderstand it. A freedom of speech is not a freedom to say whatever you wish with no conceivable negative reaction or consequence. My grocer is perfectly free to call me a "kike" without fear of being arrested and imprisoned, and needs not fear and violent response from me. However, he is not free from consequences … I can organize a boycott of his store, even successfully drive him out of business in this manner, without violating any principle of freedom of expression or his right to say whatever he feels like.
It is pretty clear to me, that Mr. Nicola (the man mentioned in the NYTimes article that postponed the show) is nervous about his own economic well-being, or his potential future in the theatre business, or negative attention and perhaps demonstrations against the play in question. Our freedom of expression is not a freedom to express ourselves while maintaining our easy, anonymous, middle class lives. To truly express controversial opinions, even in the United States, you put these things at risk."
It’s unclear from the article that Mr Nicola was actively pressured by Jewish groups to postpone the production; rather, "after polling local Jewish religious and community leaders as to their feelings about the work," he decided to take a punt. There are fine nuances here; and I should have been more attuned to them. Anne Applebaum has some relevant thoughts about this kind of thing today as well.
These are the ashen remains of a human being after Christian-Muslim rioting and mayhem in Nigeria, as documented by Time. It may well be a Muslim victim of Christian violence. Today strikes me as an appropriate moment to atone for all the crimes that have been committed in the name of faith; and to hope that all faiths can somehow rise above their current spasm of intolerance.
The Onion has the goods.
Here’s a link to a debate on Catholics in public life between James Carville, E. J. Dionne, Ed Gillespie, and Peggy Noonan, moderated by Tim Russert.
I have no doubt I’d be repulsed by the play, "My Name Is Rachel Corrie," but I cannot help being dismayed that its scheduled production in New York has been postponed because of pressure from the local Jewish community. Similarly, I am repulsed by the statements of London Mayor Ken Livingstone. But it’s also dismaying when he is somehow suspended from his job for politically incorrect speech. Obviously there is a difference, a vast difference, between threatening violence against offensive speech, and merely using social, cultural and political pressure to silence people. But our silences are growing, through fear and intimidation of violent and non-violent forms. And that is never a good thing in a free society.
Every now and again, they blurt out the truth. Here’s Tom McClusky, a Catholic who is acting vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Counci:
"While other issues are important — such as helping the poor, the death penalty, views on war — these are things that aren’t tenets of the Catholic Church."
It is not a tenet of the Catholic faith that we should help the poor? Or that we should only support a just war? Or oppose the conscious killing of human beings when other options are available that protect society just as well? Catholicism is now solely determined by the most extreme position on the abortion issue? I’ve been reading Oakeshott again for my book, and he is worth quoting on this version of the moral life:
"Too often, the excessive pursuit of one ideal leads to the exclusion of others, perhaps all others; in our eagerness to realize justice we come to forget charity, and a passion for righteousness has made many a man hard and merciless."
These theocons are indeed hard and merciless; and it’s time take back our Church from them.
The Dish 