A nice overview of how politics work with the Dems.
Archive for January 2009
A particularly fascinating look at the inside of academic turf wars. And the consequences won’t be just who is head of what or how much one’s department is funded.
There is an organization for orthodox scholars of the Middle East — that is, for leftist and politicized ones. It is called the Middle East Studies Association, or MESA. It is led by such men as Rashid Khalidi, the FOB (Friend of Barack) and occupant of Columbia University’s Edward Said chair. You also may have heard of Juan Cole, of the University of Michigan; and of Georgetown’s John Esposito. Men like this are the face of today’s Middle East studies. To say it as briefly as possible: Arafat would consider himself lucky — and probably did.
The late Said is the father of this MESA crowd, or at least an influential big brother. So much has been written about him, I will not add a word here. But I’ll give Paul Johnson one. In September 2006, he was contemplating a book to be called “Monsters.” And he wrote that he would include Said, “this malevolent liar and propagandist, who has been responsible for more harm than any other intellectual of his generation.”
Before 9/11, MESA was pretty much a joke, a Marxoid playground whose significance to the larger world was slight. It was hard to get a decent Middle Eastern education in the United States, but that was okay: We all have to make sacrifices. After 9/11, however, the joke was not so funny. There was a real need for soundness on the Middle East. You couldn’t just say, “Israel evil. America evil. Palestinians good. Hamas, Hezbollah, and mullahs misunderstood. Colonialism bad — left enduring scars. West bad. Terrorists driven to their acts by oppression. Arabs must unite, eschew factions — created by a scheming West — and win.”
No, that falderal was suddenly intolerable. As the Iraqi-American scholar Nibras Kazimi put it, “America and the world cannot afford to lounge around in the blissful lethargy of intellectual shallowness now that the jihadists of the Middle East . . . have declared their war and delivered their bomb-laden calling cards.”
This has got to be the best comment on Kim du Toit’s essay:
…Men are angry, and they have a right to be. But women aren’t the enemy.
The same forces that want to take toy guns away from boys want to take Barbies away from girls. The same people who want to emasculate men are trying to defeminize women.
I am the only woman in my office. When the guys go to play golf with a business prospect, I am happy to stay behind and run the office. I don’t want to learn to play golf. When my customers call me “sweetie” on the phone, I flirt back instead of biting their heads off. I wear flowery dresses instead of adopting the polo shirt and dockers wardrobe that the men wear.
The people who are trying to criminalize masculinity would denounce me as a traitor to the cause.
It’s not the pussification of men. It’s the androgenization of men and women. It isn’t the Battle of the Sexes. It’s a battle of ideologies. Not left vs. right or Dems vs. Pubs, but Socialism vs. Individual Responsibility. And there are women, and men, on both sides of the divide….
There are a couple of Jiu Jitsu technique videos from MMA Girls, along with an interview, that I thought were pretty entertaining.
You hear that laughter in the background at the end of V 1 and at the beginning of V 2? That’s cause of the fact that you usually don’t see a well muscled guy wrestling around with a slightly built girl. Usually it is man on man or woman on woman. Not so much by choice as due to the number of men practicing jiu jitsu or brazillian JJ compared to women practictioners.
Kors states that at an academic conference sponsored by the University of Nebraska, the attendees articulated the view that “White students desperately need formal ‘training’ in racial and cultural awareness. The moral goal of such training should override white notions of privacy and individualism.” One of the leading “diversity experts” providing scores of “training programs” in universities, corporations, and government bureaucracies is Hugh Vasquez of the Todos Institute of Oakland, California. Vasquez’s study guide for a Ford Foundation-funded diversity film, Skin Deep, explains the meaning of “white privilege” and “internalized oppression” for the trainees. It also explains the concept of an “ally,” as an individual from the “dominant group” who rejects his “unmerited privilege” and becomes an advocate for the position of the subordinate groups. This concept of the “ally,” of course, is Gramscian to the core; it is exactly representative of the notion that subordinate groups struggling for power must try to “conquer ideologically” the traditional intellectuals or activist cadres normally associated with the dominant group.
It is very engrossing.
A second link from a blogger covering the same subject presents a more concise picture of the methodology. Read this if you wish to save some time, and read the Hoover article if you wish to explore things in depth.
Here be the Knots.