« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »
January 30, 2006
Michelle Malkin, Academic Elitist. Today, Anyway.
"The study, which was presented at a conference held by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal or anywhere else for that matter."Funny. When people criticized her In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror for not having been peer-reviewed, she mocked the whole idea.
Posted by Eric at 6:53 PM | Comments (5)
Lincoln Chaffee: Girly Man! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Over at confirmthem.com, which is Alito Confirmation Central, the reaction is to question Chaffee's masculinity.
I hate it when the left depicts the right as, like, all sexist and homophobic and stuff. I can never figure out where they get that crap from.
UPDATE: I thought this comment that someone just left here was worth, as they say, "sharing":
Its funny (and pathetic) how Eric links to some string that supopsedly shows the homophobia and sexism of Republicans, but there is only one comment about Chaffe being a woman (ie. not having balls) and Eric participates in the string and perpetuates the one "questionable comment" by asking questions about it and focusing on the one poster who made the comment. Reading the rest of the string reinforced for me that Republicans seems to debate and present positions on facts as opposed to hyperbolic name calling, fear tactics, or general accusations. Eric is a typical leftie in that he tries to create a controversy where there is none. ie. Bush stole the 2000 election (wrong); SCOTUS gave Bush 2000 election (wrong); Yellowcake (nothing); PlameGate (nothing); NSA terrorist surveillance (nothing); Alito is racist/misogynist/etc. (nothing); Republicans are homophobic and racists (wrong); When will you learn that the majority of people see through your distorted rantings? Keep going with obfuscation and see how that works in Nov. Eric's bogus accusations remind me the constant bogus accusations coming from the Dems. They only drain the President's time when he should be, among other things, leading us to victory in Iraq and elsewhere over the war on terror. It's time that all Americans realize that winning this war is more important than politics and regardless of whether you voted for Kerry or not (like I did) support the President because winning in Iraq is in America's interest. If you cannot do this because you are stuck on Bush hating then you put politics ahead of America and you are truly UN-Patriotic.
Right on! Not only are males who don't support the President effeminate, but they're unpatriotic too.
FURTHER UPDATE: Over at confirmthem.com, the defense of the original posting as non-sexist has been taken up by one "Pajamazon," who has this to say:
"I understand your position. All women should feel insulted every time a man is told he “throws like a girl.” All women should take offense every time a male is called a pussy! Seriously though…….Is it an insult to Chevy to say a Ford is not a Chevy? Your comment indicates that you side with the professionally offended! I’ll go out on a limb here and suggest that the ranks of those professionally offended are filled with women! Oh sure there are a few token males and metrosexuals but for the most part its the gals that do most of the bitching! (Who votes for Hillary)?Well I, for one, am persuaded. No sexism at all going on here.And this is not some carp about women vs. men. This is to state as fact that women are not men! And when Judge Alito becomes Justice Alito we will be one step closer to this reality."
FINAL UPDATE: The thread over at confirmthem.com winds down with this little gem from Joe:
Eric,With Alito getting on to court this is the begininng of the end for the anti male feminist agenda. We know who wears the pants in your house and it most certainly is not you!!!
Posted by Eric at 11:40 AM | Comments (7)
Q-Tip sales skyrocket, but ...
Excellent. When do they get to, like, cancer?
Posted by Eric at 8:46 AM | Comments (5)
I'm Pitching An Idea for the Next "Oprah" Show ...
... a show in which Oprah shines the light not on some other industry, but on herself. James Frey's book would have languished in obscurity and meager sales if she had not hand-picked it for super-stardom. What I want to hear from Oprah is not how and why she was wronged and duped by somebody else, but why she was so credulous about the book's claims. A little more introspection and a little less blame.
Maybe a session with Dr. Phil is in order.
Posted by Eric at 8:40 AM | Comments (2)
Congress Should Look Into German-American Internment During WWII
It is high time for Congress to look into the circumstances of these internments. To the extent that the internments were lawful--internments of certain individuals as enemy aliens during wartime, with an opportunity for a fair hearing--it's not clear to me that there'll be much for the government to own up to. On the other hand, to the extent that the internments either deviated from lawful process or drew U.S. citizens within their sweep, Congress ought to apologize and make amends.
Posted by Eric at 7:27 AM | Comments (8)
January 28, 2006
Remembering the Challenger and its Astronauts
For people just a few years older than me, the assassination of John Kennedy was such a moment; undoubtedly the 9/11 attacks are such a moment for all but the youngest of Americans alive today.
The explosion of the space shuttle Challenger, twenty years ago today, was another such moment, at least for me.
I was studying in the Yale Law School Library when a classmate, Richard Green, walked up and said, "Did you hear the space shuttle just blew up all over the sky in Florida?" I laughed uncomfortably, thinking he was making some sort of odd joke that I didn't understand. He said, "No, really. It's on the TV in the basement." So I went and watched, speechless.
Ronald Reagan's short, moving speech to the nation that evening--delivered in lieu of the State of the Union Address--is the only moment I recall being pleased with his performance as president.
Posted by Eric at 10:42 AM | Comments (12)
January 27, 2006
Dutch Politics: A Pissing Contest
I wonder how he'd fare in a head-to-head contest with that well-known member of the conservative Dutch LPF Party, Mr Huyj Dycks.
(Thanks to my eternally vigiliant friend Brad for the pointer.)
Posted by Eric at 8:45 AM
January 26, 2006
Civics Lesson, Wartime Version.
Q. How does a War Bill become a War Law?A. It all begins with the president, who submits a bill to the president. If a majority of both the president and the president approve the bill, then it passes on to the president, who may veto it or sign it into law. And even then the president can override himself with a two-thirds vote.
Posted by Eric at 1:59 PM | Comments (3)
What Happens Next In the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict?
I have no flipping clue. None.
Posted by Eric at 1:02 PM | Comments (5)
"Suffering Under A Great Injustice"
Mess Line, noon, Manzanar Relocation Center, California
Posted by Eric at 7:44 AM
January 24, 2006
A Call for a Federal Investigation of Prosecutorial Misconduct in North Carolina
Because the prosecutors in question used to work in the very office that is now being asked to investigate them--indeed, one of the two accused prosecutors was the county prosecutor at the time of the alleged misconduct--I am not sanguine about a full and impartial investigation.
The allegations are that these two prosecutors knowingly and wilfully concealed a number of benefits that they had arranged for their star witness in exchange for his testimony, and then altered a document that they submitted to the trial judge in order to further conceal what they'd done. A man did seven and one-half years in jail because of the non-disclosure and concealment of this information.
It is admirable that the state's Attorney General has referred the case to a county prosecutor. But the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office should be looking into this matter as well. These are the sort of egregious allegations that sections 241 and 242 of the federal criminal code were made for. If the Union County prosecutor declines to pursue the matter--as I expect he will--the federal government should investigate the matter, and file federal criminal charges if they are warranted.
If the allegations against these two prosecutors are accurate, they should not go unremedied.
Posted by Eric at 1:09 PM | Comments (5)
January 23, 2006
McCarthyism Was Not An Essentially Private Phenomenon
"Much of what is now labeled 'McCarthyism' consisted of spontaneousDavid says that we'll have to await the publication of the article to get his source for this assertion (and his others), but this one strikes me as such a howler of an error (at least as he has phrased it) that I think he really ought to back it up now.
action by private individuals and groups to boycott Stalinists."
Much of what is now labeled "McCarthyism" consisted of loyalty-security investigations--many millions of them--that either federal law or executive order mandated in every federal agency in the United States, both for existing employees and all new job applicants. (On the federal programs, the required reading is Eleanor Bontecou, "The Federal Loyalty-Security Program" (Cornell U. Press 1953).) Many states had similar laws and programs of their own for their own agencies. Another sizeable chunk of what is now labeled "McCarthyism" consisted of efforts by the federal government to strip alleged Communists of their passports. Yet another chunk was the requirement of many institutions--including especially public employers--that their employees sign loyalty oaths as a condition of employment.
Most of what we now call McCarthyism was private action? I don't think so. In fact, I've never heard of private action that reached as broadly as just the federal loyalty-security program, standing alone.
UPDATE: David has responded in an update to his original post:
"Besides confusing "much" and "most," I'm not sure Eric is right that people consider the federal loyalty security program "McCarthyism"; maybe they do, and it's hard for someone who actually knows the history to disaggregate public perceptions from reality. But in fact, the federal loyalty security program was started by President Harry Truman in 1947, years before anyone heard of McCarthy, and was a result of revelations of significant lapses in federal security with regard to Communist espionage. Also, Eric talks about the federal government preventing "alleged Communists" from getting passports. The only relevant law I know was a 1950 law that prevented Communist Party members from getting passports, and if the definition of McCarthyism is policies that targeted potentially subversive activities by actual members of the Stalinist Communist Party, then the definition is broad indeed!"
My reply, in the comments here:
David, why, then, did you use the word "much," rather than the word "some?" If you don't know how to quantify the phenomenon you're writing about, then it'd be wiser to stay away from words that imply quantity.You may be right that "people" associate McCarthyism in significant part with blacklists, but those "people" aren't scholars. Whatever the popular term "McCarthyism" might mean to scholars who actually study the Cold War period and the Second Red Scare, it means far, far more than blacklists.
Similarly, "people" may consider "McCarthyism" to include "suspicion and derision of those with past or present ties to Communism or the Popular Front," but from what sources and processes did the suspicion about such past ties generally arise? From suspicions generated in loyalty-security programs and federal and state legislative investigations.
For a scholarly review of a scholarly book for a scholarly journal, you would be well advised to abandon the artificial boundaries you've placed around this ill-defined era of "McCarthyism." American anti-communism was already building steam before WWII (which, incidentally, is when HUAC--then called the "Dies Committee"--was formed), went on temporary hiatus due to our uncomfortable alliance with the Soviets, and then zoomed back into existence when the war ended. It accelerated massively with the so-called "loss of China," and this too happened long before Joe McCarthy was in his heyday.
Threats to the First Amendment did not magically arise at the beginning of some period called "McCarthyism."
So there is no defensible reason for excluding the loyalty-security programs, which started in 1947 and continued through the entire period you're writing about, from your analysis.
Posted by Eric at 4:08 PM | Comments (10)
January 22, 2006
And We Say Together: "Awwwwwww!!!!!!"
It is, indeed, a veritable cornucopia of cuteness. Take this little monkey clinging to a stuffed duck, for example. Now that's just ... cute.
If you have the courage, visit some of the animal-specific galleries at the site, such as the one devoted to bunnies or the one devoted to puppies.
Unless you're feeling especially resilient, though, I'd urge you to stay away from the kitten gallery, for there you will have to deal with the likes of this and, even more disturbingly, this.
Posted by Eric at 9:14 AM | Comments (9)
January 21, 2006
Books, Covers, and White Male Politicians
Take the quiz, brought to you by BlueNC.
(I went 8-for-12.)
Posted by Eric at 12:35 PM | Comments (10)
North Carolina Ex-Prosecutors Dodge A Second Bullet
A few weeks ago, the state bar's Disciplinary Hearing Commission indicated that it would dismiss charges of misconduct against the ex-prosecutors (now a private practitioner and a state trial judge) because the charges were filed too late.
The state bar objected to this, contending that the wilfulness of the prosecutors' misconduct made it a felony. There is no statute of limitations for allegations of felonious misconduct.
Now the Disciplinary Hearing Commission has rejected this argument and formally dismissed the charges. The rule on which the state bar premised its argument was, it seems, never published due to a clerical error in the Supreme Court's minutes.
How inspiring.
Posted by Eric at 9:12 AM | Comments (1)
January 20, 2006
Please Keep Your Politics Out of the Government's Religion.
(Please don't waste bandwidth in the comments on how Easter egg rolls/hunts are "secular." First, that's a load of bunk. Second, Scott McClellan, defending the White House event, said, "This event is a time to celebrate Easter.")
Posted by Eric at 8:34 PM | Comments (8)
Truth-in-Parenting
Posted by Eric at 2:28 PM | Comments (1)
January 19, 2006
The Passion Of The Lawyers
Posted by Eric at 5:23 PM
January 18, 2006
Gotta Keep an Eye on that Bray Fellow.
Posted by Eric at 7:44 PM
January 17, 2006
Stranger Than Fiction, Yes. But Why Less Publishable?
"Soon I was having meetings with publishers in Canada and the U.S. They loved the whole concept; the pain, the suffering, the haunting, bla-bla-bla... There was just one problem in their opinion (and this was the case with all of them): The book didn't have an ending.Interesting, interesting stuff. John relates it to the controversy over James Frey's "A Million Little Pieces." Read the whole thing.Come back when the serial killer is captured, then we'll talk.
I'm not kidding. You can't make this stuff up. And what I tried to tell these publishing geniuses was that the truth is more interesting; some crimes aren't solved, some pain never goes away, and some murders most certainly are random acts that don't comply with our desire for a patterned, ordered and causal environment."
Posted by Eric at 12:14 PM | Comments (2)
Feel-Good History for the Paranoid Catholic: A Review of Thomas Woods' "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization"
Woods has another Regnery book out, entitled "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization."
Glen Bowman, Ph.D., who is Associate Professor of History and Coordinator of World Civilizations at Elizabeth City State University in Elizabeth City, NC, and who is a reader of this blog, expressed interest in reviewing the new book. Here (and below the fold) is his review.
Thomas Woods, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2005). $29.95.
Reviewed by Glen Bowman.
Religion was the foundation of the ancient world, of the medieval world, and for a good while, the modern one. By insisting on the separation of church and state, this nation’s founders were contradicting virtually all of historical precedent. Traditionally religion and society were as inextricably intertwined as stripes of sugar on a candy cane. A history text that neglects or slights this should be condemned to the recycle bin. Thomas Woods, author of How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, almost certainly would agree, as he decries the “overall lack of knowledge” of church history among students (3) and “ceaseless tales of varying credibility” about the “Dark Ages” spun in high school history classrooms (1). Although he offers little evidence other than anecdotal for this, I have to concur. Nor can I disagree with him that students should learn about Christianity’s influence in Western (I would add “World”) Civilization. That said, I cannot recommend his book, either for a popular or scholarly audience. While readable and in some places more than adequate, it simply has too many problems—both in content and methodology. By the end, one is tempted to ask: Is this history or hagiography?
The author’s thesis can be found on the first page as well as on the cover: the Catholic Church “built Western civilization” (1). It is apparent even to the casual observer that the Church has shaped Western culture through art, music, and architecture, but Woods is saying much more than this. Rather, the Catholic Church is in his view responsible for “one of Western civilization’s greatest—unique—intellectual contributions to the world”—the university (47). Catholicism “enabled” science, and it was no coincidence that modern science “developed largely in a Catholic milieu” (67). In addition, the Catholic Church gave “birth” to the “distinctly Western idea” of international law (135) as well as the idea of natural rights (202). Western morality was “decisively shaped by the Catholic Church” (203). Catholic thinkers were the “founders” of modern free-market economics as well (153). For the most part, Woods’ book is easy reading, and much of what he says is incontrovertible. In many ways the Church filled the vacuum that formed when the (Western) Roman Empire collapsed. As the dominant political, cultural, social, and, obviously, religious force in Europe for many centuries thereafter, the Church certainly shaped much of civilization in the West. One does not have to be Catholic to understand that Woods--part historian, part apologist--often speaks the truth.
There is nevertheless a fatal weakness, and it can be found not in what he says, but rather in what he doesn’t say.
The 1939 timeless classic The Fine Art of Propaganda describes several techniques used in manipulation. One of these is “card stacking.” It is the rhetorical equivalent of the bodybuilder who wears muscle shirts to show off his polished “guns” while wearing sweatpants to hide his untrained legs. Card-stackers overstate the significance of the evidence that supports their case while minimizing, or even neglecting, evidence that weakens it. In a biography (or autobiography), the glowing parts are put on a pedestal, the skeletons, closeted. I don’t know whether Woods PLAYS cards, but he definitely knows how to stack ‘em.
In the interests of space, a few examples will have to do. Woods points out that a “crucial task” of monks was the “preservation of the Bible,” an accurate observation, of course (42). Yet he fails to note the significant fact that Roman Catholic Church for a long time strongly discouraged lay believers from actually reading it. Woods’ failure to even mention Desiderius Erasmus is particularly revealing, as the “Prince of Humanists” possessed one of the greatest minds in all of Catholic history, and used his mastery of ancient languages to produce a Greek New Testament that Protestants used as the basis for their vernacular translations. The Roman Catholic opposition to this helped keep far too many Europeans illiterate; as David Cressy has noted, in Protestant regions (where the Bible was much more available) literacy rose sharply after the Reformation.
Even if one were to grant Woods a mulligan, it would do no good, since he slices into the woods practically every chapter. He notes how some Spanish Catholics well before Adam Smith spoke of free market economic theory, yet fails to point out that there was little “free market” about the Church’s long-time opposition to speculating, loaning of money at interest, and earning windfall profits. Not just that, soon after Columbus’s discovery Pope Alexander VI issued a bull effectively dividing the Americas into spheres of influence, thereby setting the stage for centuries not of free market capitalism, but of the anti free-trade philosophy of mercantilism.
In addition, it is true that Bartolome de las Casas and other priests actively opposed the enslavement and mistreatment of native Americans (145-146), yet there is a danger in thinking that this proves that the Catholic Church consistently supported human rights. It didn’t. Some popes defended the enslavement of Muslims and of other peoples, a fact that Woods conveniently fails to note.
In all fairness, Woods does not entirely skirt the issue of the Church’s inconsistencies and foibles. He does offer the blanket disclaimer “No serious Catholic would contend that the churchmen were right in every decision they made” (2). It is difficult to be impressed with such an admission, as if it is not already obvious to all that no one’s perfect. Disappointed will be the reader who is looking for a balanced, thoughtful appraisal of the Church’s total contribution to civilization. Historian Eamon Duffy (I met him when I was in grad school—a fine scholar) wrote a history of the papacy entitled Saints and Sinners. Woods, on the contrary, only discusses the saints, as if ignoring the rest (those who mistreated Jews, supported fascism, and violated the ideals of the Christian faith and of human decency) will make them go away.
Another way Woods engages in card stacking is by giving short shrift to the true builder of Western Civilization: classical antiquity. While he does not totally ignore the impact of Aristotle and other brilliant thinkers, such as the Stoics, too often he gives them lip service. Consider the obvious, begrudgingly offered generalization that the ”Church borrowed from the ancient world, to be sure” (219). By saying this Woods may think he has given proper attention to classical antiquity, but he has not. Much of what the church “built” was on the dusted-off foundation of Greco-Roman civilization, and they were not even the first to dust off parts of it (Muslims in Spain had one up on the Christians in some aspects of civilization). The theologians, philosophers, and monks who shaped medieval and early modern intellectual life were involved not as much in building as in home improvement.
One of the more intriguing examples of card stacking is in chapter five, where Woods attempts to depict the heliocentric Galileo as the culprit and the Roman Catholic Church as the oft-maligned victim. The problem with Galileo was that he “insisted on the literal truth” of Copernican theory (71) and “lacked anything approaching adequate evidence” (70). Woods is not the first to say this, as I have heard this before. His defense is better than most, but nevertheless falls a bit short.
No doubt, it is unfair to give too much of the blame to the Roman Catholic Church. For sure, some belongs to Galileo. Sometimes stubborn, sometimes difficult (no surprise there—he was an academic!), he could have handled the situation better. According to Woods, Galileo “ignored the instruction to treat Copernicanism as a hypothesis rather than as established truth.” While this is true, Woods paints only part of the picture (73).
Certainly Pope Urban VIII supported the charge of heresy, but we have no way of knowing for sure why. Some say it was pure politics. Urban was a ruthless politician in an age in which ruthlessness was prized, and by most accounts was more interested in wielding power than seeking truth (or protecting truth seekers). According to one theory, Urban was bitter that some higher-ups in the Church disagreed with his support of Protestant forces during the Thirty Years’ War. To those who saw the conflict only as the showdown between Protestants and Catholics, Urban’s allegiances made no sense. Galileo was a friend of the Medicis in Italy, but they were enemies of Urban. Galileo was hence caught in the middle, guilty by association. A better theory is that the pope felt betrayed that his old friend Galileo “insulted” him in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which had been published in 1632.
The fact is, no one knows for sure what they were really thinking. The official indictment states that Galileo was in trouble for advancing “several propositions contrary to the true sense and authority of the Holy Scripture”, and among these included “the proposition that the sun is in the center“ and “the proposition that the earth is not the center.” Were these the real reasons? Who knows? As for the charge that Galileo supported his hypothesis with insufficient evidence, few higher-ups in the Church knew enough mathematics and physics to determine that anyway. Most of them were philosophers and theologians—brilliant men, but unqualified to judge the cogency of Galileo’s contentions.
Woods claims that the Galileo fiasco does not prove that the Church was against science. Some contemporary scientists apparently did not agree, as many afterward were less inclined to publish in predominantly Catholic countries. In the future it was largely Protestant nations such as Britain that became the scientific and technological, and later industrial, leaders of Europe, partly because scientists felt more comfortable about conducting research there.
One of the key developments of the Scientific Revolution was the increased implementation of the scientific method. Historians too are trained in methodology, but one difference is in documentation. Historians are supposed to employ primary documents first. They need to use other sources too, such as previously published history monographs and articles, but they are not as important. There indeed is a reason why these are called “secondary” sources. As a History Ph.D., Woods must know about the proper techniques of historical research. For some reason, in this book his apparent mastery of them is not particularly evident.
Woods notes that in light of today’s ignorance about history “it must be frustrating to be a historian of medieval Europe” (3). That is one of the few times Woods makes a serious appeal to a “modern” medievalist. Woods does quote from Norman Cantor (14) but Cantor’s name does not appear in bibliography, so there is no way of knowing where it came from (one of many examples of sloppiness—there is no footnote either). Woods’ reliance on outdated secondary sources is particularly embarrassing when he states that the logician Peter of Spain later became Pope John XXI (57). We do not know for sure anymore whether he later became pope, something a historian more familiar with recent scholarship would have known.
There are other methodological problems. Considering that this book emphasizes medieval history, the author should have used primary sources from the medieval period. One is hard pressed to find some here. And what about Latin manuscripts and other archival materials, key sources of any serious student of medieval history? Even one?—but there are none.
One way that undergrads (and a few grad students) try to stretch the length of their papers is to cut paragraphs of material from secondary sources that could easily be paraphrased and paste them on their own papers. This is a popular technique among my own students, ranking second, in my opinion, to the bigger font/wider margins ploy. I was somewhat surprised to see so many of these here in the book (some quotations here are close to being one full page!). This is not necessarily evidence of sloppy research, but it looks unprofessional.
Although Woods does not state that he seeks to promote self-respect among fellow Catholics, he leaves enough verbal cues, starting from paragraph one, that this is one of his aims. He argues, without evidence, that “little is off limits when it comes to ridiculing and parodying the Church” and looks favorably on the assessment that anti-Catholicism is “the one remaining acceptable prejudice in America” (1), a conclusion with which Jews, homosexuals, the obese, and Muslims, among others, might not agree. As the parent of a severely autistic child, I have seen examples of discrimination in schools, businesses, and even in church, and I find that point breathtakingly naïve. Woods also on occasion engages in Protestant-bashing, conduct unbecoming of a person of faith. In all, the lack of historical evenhandedness in places reminds one of a Jack Chick tract. If Woods were honest in the introduction and warned his readers that they were about to read not history, but ideology, then one could overlook this as truth in advertising.
It would be a mistake, however, to think that Woods seeks to aggravate his readers. No doubt his intended audience is the paranoid Catholic who seriously thinks that his faith gets no respect. But Woods is perceptive, and he understands the importance of appealing to the values of his intended audience. One of the reasons why Regnery has become a major publisher is that it understands the marketplace and gives the people what they want. Likewise, Woods describes the Church in a way that would be most appealing to modern conservative readers. This is good marketing certainly, but is it good scholarship?
By focusing on science, free-market economics, education, and other twenty-first century interests, Woods unfortunately paints the Church as it wasn’t: a primarily secular institution. The Church universal over the centuries has had two principal missions, the worship of God and the sanctification of individual souls. To achieve these spiritual, otherworldly aims while under constant threats from outside and within (heresy, Islam, feudalism, upstart monarchs), the church has often been forced to play the morally repugnant game of power politics and engage in acts of violence and torture. There are many famous (and infamous) examples of this kind of papal leadership: Gelasius I, Crusading pope Urban II, Pope Innocent III, and the Tony Soprano-like “Renaissance popes.” And who can forget Torquemada?
Some of those critical of religion enjoy pointing out these examples of Machiavellian leadership, as if the Church is or can be only about power. But this was not the primary emphasis. Neither was science, philosophy, art, education, or for that matter torture against suspected heretics or war against the infidel. These were all tools—some justifiable, some not--to reach that primary goal: the kingdom of God.
That Woods would find it necessary to highlight the secular achievements of the Church in order to appeal to modern readers suggests that perhaps we ARE living in a world without God (the title of Woods’ conclusion). Those who study right-wing Christianity are often struck by the materialism, the lust for power, the appeal, in Pauline terms, not to the fruits of the Spirit but to the flesh. Indeed, some of those in the public eye as the “religious right” seem to be following the Me-attitudes instead of the Beatitudes. Hearkening back to St. Augustine, one wonders where they really live: the City of God, or the City of Man?
If this review were written for an academic publication, and not for a blog that deals with contemporary issues, I would not dare try this, but an apt illustration of my point might well be the unfortunate Terry Schiavo controversy from summer 2005. Years of testing revealed a heartbreaking truth: irreversible brain damage. A tragedy for sure, but if one believes in a God who is in control, only a temporary one, a prelude to eternal glory. But instead of letting her pass away to heaven, where she would receive, according to the Bible, a new body, some did everything possible to deny her this and to keep her here on earth, sitting helpless in a hospital bed, being paraded on television. Their persistence in the face of all medical evidence to the contrary makes sense only if one believes that this is the only world that exists, that death represents the absolute end. A sad contrast to the bravery of so many martyrs throughout the history of Christianity who went to their sometimes unspeakably cruel deaths excited that they were about to see the face of God and pass away into the only world that really mattered.
Even though Woods does not state this, it is fairly clear what this book is: a “Catholo-centric” history. My reaction to this approach to the past is mixed. Although the “philosophy teaching by examples” approach may seem as out of date as the faculty lounge in which only white male professors sat around smoking pipes and sipping dry sherry, I think there is some merit in having students learn about the past in part because it may inspire them to be more directed, more centered people.
Studying African history intensely may well encourage African or African-American students to seek to restore Africa to its former glory. If one wants an object lesson on why it is important to oppose prejudice, one can easily find one by reading about the long history of anti-Semitism. Accordingly, Woods’ history of Christianity, while needlessly slanted, can inspire both Catholics and Protestants—yes, Protestants, since the pre-Reformation history he describes applies equally to them, because it is their history too. The Roman Catholic Church honors its own past by canonizing certain outstanding believers as saints. If this process helps makes Catholics stronger in their faith, more power to them. I fully support the betterment of my Catholic brothers and sisters.
Nevertheless, the promotion of inner pride must not be the primary goal of the writing and teaching of history. Above all, historians are to uphold the highest ideas of scholarship. Scholars are to vigilantly seek the ever so elusive truth, and for the most part should leave the motivational speaking to Tony Robbins and Dr. Phil. Historians are in some ways storytellers, but they’re not supposed to tell just one side of the story. Sadly, this is exactly what Woods is doing here.
That does not mean that historians can merely will themselves to objectivity, switching off their value systems as if they were holiday lights. If one wants to write good scholarship, and not propaganda, then one must seek the advice and guidance of peers (it is noteworthy that not one of the reviewers on the dustjacket is a historian) who will eagerly tell us if we are distorting the past. Those most interested in promoting an agenda, and those with disdain for the traditional standards of the history craft, should just come out with it.
After all, we’re supposed to be writing history, not hagiography.
Glen Bowman (Ph.D., University of Minnesota) is Associate Professor of History and Coordinator of World Civilizations at Elizabeth City State University, Elizabeth City, NC. He has published articles on St. Thomas More, Elizabethan Catholic political theorists, John Donne, utopian thought, Reformation propaganda, and other aspects of church and state. He has written and edited a world history reader and is finishing up Selling the English Reformation, a study of the career of Protestant propagandist John Ponet.
Posted by Eric at 8:40 AM | Comments (9)
January 16, 2006
An MLK Day Question
It's a rather mundane thought, I know, but still: how can it be that Washington has a Holocaust Museum, an American History Museum, a Museum of the American Indian that documents both Indian civilization and its displacement and suppression, and memorials to so many American wars and heroes, but not a single public space dedicated to the tragedy of American slavery?
UPDATE: Sometimes comments deserve space above the fold. Like this one, from one Ray Crawford:
"Perhaps you and some of your leftist lawyer buddies could donate some of your unearned paychecks for this 'needed memorial' instead of trying to rob me of my hard earned money."
Posted by Eric at 8:49 PM | Comments (13)
January 15, 2006
There, But for the Grace of God, Dine I
"I've never killed anybody with a hammer, but I do love fried chicken."
Posted by Eric at 11:46 AM | Comments (1)
January 14, 2006
Maryanne Trump Barry: Republican
But Maryanne Trump Barry is a Republican.
While it's true that Clinton elevated her from the U.S. District Court to the Third Circuit, she was initially appointed to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan.
And this article from the New Jersey Law Journal in 1999 explains how it came to be that Republican Judge Barry was elevated to the circuit by Democrat Bill Clinton:
Barry, a Republican, says she was pleasantly surprised that she was nominated by a Democratic president.source: Matt Ackermann, Conservative-With-A-Heart Barry Nominated for Third Circuit Seat," 156 N.J.L.J. 1105 (June 21, 1999)."I am deeply honored and very grateful for the nomination," Barry says. "I am surprised I was approached on it. I assume that my record is good enough as a district court judge to be reached out to, and I'm glad that politics wasn't a priority here."
In fact, though, Barry's sponsor, Torricelli, says he's known Barry and her family for years. Her brother is casino developer Donald Trump. In 1993, Torricelli was Trump's ally in opposing tribal recognition for the Ramapough Mountain Indians of Bergen County, who wanted to bring casino gaming to land just 22 miles from New York City. The enterprise would have siphoned off business from Atlantic City casinos -- among them, Trump's.
So what does Judge Barry's presence at the Alito hearings show us? Well, most of all, it reminds us that President Clinton actually elevated Republican-appointed district judges to the Courts of Appeals. With some frequency. (In addition to Judge Barry, remember Sonia Sotomayor and James S. Ware.)
President Bush has not done this once.
UPDATE: A commenter points out an error. President Bush did do this once: Judge Barrington Parker, named to the district court by President Clinton, was elevated to the 2nd Circuit by President Bush.
Posted by Eric at 9:27 AM | Comments (6)
January 13, 2006
A Heartless Attack on Alito
Folks on this side of the blogosphere should be condemning this sort of thing rather than repeating it. Honestly. It's totally heartless.
Posted by Eric at 2:42 PM | Comments (7)
NC State Bar: Prosecutors Committed Felonies
A glimmer of hope in the case: the State Bar is challenging the dismissal, contending that the two prosecutors (one of whom is now a state trial judge!) committed felonies by lying to the court about the deals that had been struck with their key witness.
Bravo to the state bar.
Posted by Eric at 10:14 AM | Comments (1)
January 12, 2006
Two Quick Thoughts on Sam Alito and CAP
Plainly Sam thought this membership significant, and more to the point, he thought that listing it would telegraph something to those reading it and evaluating his application. What did he intend to telegraph? That's what I think it's entirely fair to wonder (and worry) about.
Sam now says he remembers nothing about his membership, or about the group, except for some faint sense that it wanted ROTC to stay on the Princeton campus. (On this issue about memories of CAP, see Thought #2 below). So we are left to try to determine for ourselves what he might have known and intended, since Sam is saying he really can't help us out on the question. (In this regard, it is of course very comforting that Sam now repudiates the group. That is an important point in his favor.)
Thought #2: I really think our consideration of Sam's truthfulness in denying any knowledge or recollection about CAP and its positions would benefit from the views and recollections of other Princetonian alums.
Here's what I mean: I graduated from Brown University in 1984. I have not been an especially active alum--I've attended a reunion or two; I skim the Alumni magazine in the bathroom; for the last 8 or 9 years I've participated sporadically on an alumni listserv. That's about it. But here's the thing: I do have quite specific recollections of some things that have happened at Brown in the years since I left. I remember the flap about Amy Carter and her request for cyanide pills for all students (to take in the event of nuclear armageddon), and also her arrest at a sit-in. I remember the excitement about Vartan Gregorian's presidency. I remember when the fraternity to which I'd belonged was shut down and kicked off campus by the university because of an incident involving a fire in the fraternity's basement (indeed, I remember being contacted by the fraternity itself, and being asked to send a letter of support/complaint to the university when the action against the fraternity was pending). And I remember other stuff too. (I note, too, that since leaving Brown, I've lived outside of Southern New England--NJ, Wyoming, and North Carolina--places where goings-on at Brown do not make the local papers.)
I don't think I'm terribly unusual in the degree of my awareness of continued goings-on at my alma mater. So the question, it seems to me, is this: what would the institutional awareness and memory of your average, reasonable Princeton alum--or, more precisely, your average, reasonable Princeton alum who has lived most of his or her adult life in New Jersey? Would it likely include some awareness of CAP and its views and its attacks on the university, or would it not?
Tell me about that, and I'll be in a better position to know whether to believe Sam when he reports near-total unawareness of the organization and its views.
Posted by Eric at 8:16 AM | Comments (14)
January 11, 2006
From the "Absurdly Strained and Weak Analogies" Department...
Posted by Eric at 5:01 PM | Comments (4)
"Concerned Alumni of Princeton" in the New York Times, 1984
I don't know, but I do know that articles on controversies swirling around the organization and its magazine appeared in the pages of the New York Times twice in 1984.
From the New York Times, April 29, 1984:
Prospect Magazine, a conservative monthly publication financed by a group of Princeton University alumni, has been the center of controversy from time to time on campus during its 12-year history.From the New York Times, March 24, 1984:. . .
Prospect, which was founded by William Rusher, an editor of the National Review, has attacked the university's policies on minority admissions, absence of athletic scholarships, and religious nondenominationalism.
Robert Durkee, Princeton's vice president for public affairs, said he had been disturbed by the attacks on the university by a magazine whose editors have mostly been Dartmouth graduates.
He said Prospect had become "outwardly destructive and irresponsible" since Mr. D'Souza became its editor.
A group of undergraduates at Princeton University, upset over an article in a conservative alumni magazine that makes allegations about the personal life of a female freshman, is circulating a petition asking that the magazine no longer be delivered to their dormitory rooms.The article appears in the March issue of Prospect, published monthly by the Concerned Alumni of Princeton....
The article, written by the magazine's editors, Dinesh D'Souza, ... discusses the young woman's sex life....
In previous articles, the magazine has referred to the director of the Women's Center at Princeton as "the wicked witch of the Princeton Women's Center" and to a Hispanic assistant dean of students as "señor."
Posted by Eric at 2:44 PM | Comments (2)
January 10, 2006
Ask About Hirabayashi!
It intrigues me that Sam said "cases"--in the plural--rather than speaking just of Korematsu, the case in which the Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of the exclusion of American citizens of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast.
Was Sam also referring to the 1943 Hirabayashi case, in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the dusk-to-dawn curfew imposed on Japanese Americans before their evacuation? Was that case also a "great constitutional tragedy?"
Seems like a great follow-up question to me.
Posted by Eric at 11:40 PM
Shut Your Mouth Please, Joe Biden.
BIDEN: Well, it was a pretty outrageous group. I mean, I believe you that you were unaware of it. But here I was, University of Delaware graduate, a sitting United States senator, I was aware of it because I was up there on the campus....
... I mean, it was a big deal. It was a big deal, at least in our area of the Delaware Valley, if Princeton, Penn, the schools around there had this kind -- because the big thing was going on at Brown at the time as well. And by the way, for the record, I know you know when you stated in your application that you are a member -- you said in '85, I am a member -- they had restored ROTC. ROTC was back on the campus. But again, this is just by way of why some of us are puzzled. Because if I was aware of it, and I didn't even like Princeton... I mean, I really didn't like Princeton. I was an Irish Catholic kid who thought it had not changed like you concluded it had. I admit, one of my real dilemmas is I have two kids who went to Ivy League schools. I'm not sure my Grandfather Finnegan will ever forgive me for allowing that to happen. But all kidding aside, I wasn't a big Princeton fan. And so maybe that is why I focused on it and no one else did. But I remember it at the time. The other thing is, Judge, the other thing you should be aware of -- and do not take this personally, what's going on here -- every nominee that comes before us is viewed by all the senators -- left, right, center, Democrat, Republican -- at least on two levels, at least in my experience here.
BIDEN: The first one is individual qualifications and what their constitutional methodology, their views are, their philosophy. But the other is -- and it always occurs -- whose spot they're taking and what impact that would have on the court. Everybody wrote with Roberts after the fact that a lot of people voted for Roberts that were doubtful. I was doubtful, I voted no. But he was replacing Rehnquist. So Roberts for Rehnquist, you know, what's the worst that can happen, quote/unquote, or the best that can happen?
(LAUGHTER)
No, I'm not being facetious. What's the best or worst? If you're conservative, the best that can happen is he's as good as Rehnquist. From the standpoint of a -- someone who's a liberal, the worst that can happen, he's as good as Rehnquist. So, I mean -- but you're replacing -- I mean, we can't lose this and so people understand this. You are replacing someone who has been the fulcrum on an otherwise evenly divided court. And a woman who's -- most scholars who write about her, and in a retrospective about her, say this is a woman who viewed things from -- the phrase you've used -- a real-world perspective. This was a former legislator, this was a former practitioner, this was someone who came to the bench and applied -- to her critics, she applied too much common sense. Critics would say that she was too sensitive to the impact on individuals, you know, that -- what would happen to an individual. So her focus on the impact on individuals was sometimes criticized and praised.
BIDEN: It's just important you understand, at least for my questioning, that this goes beyond you. It goes to whether or not your taking her seat will alter the constitutional framework of this country by shifting the balance 5-4, 4-5, one way or another. And that's the context in which, at least, I want to ask you my questions after trying to get some clarification, or getting some clarification from you on concern Princeton. Because, again, a lot of this just is puzzling; not not able to be answered, just puzzling. Judge, you and I both know -- and clearly one of the hallmarks, at least in my view, of Justice O'Connor's position was, she fully understood the real world of discrimination. I mean, she felt it. Graduated number two in her class from Stanford, couldn't get a job, was offered a job by law firms -- granted, she was older than you are, but couldn't get a job because she was a woman; they'd offer her a job as a secretary. And so she understood what I think everybody here from both ends of the spectrum understand: that discrimination has become very sophisticated. It's become very, very sophisticated, very much more subtle than it was when I got here 34 years ago or 50 years ago. And employees don't say any more, you know, We don't like blacks in this company, or, We don't want women here.
BIDEN: They say things like, Well, they wouldn't fit in, or, You know, they tend to be too emotional or a little high-strung. I mean, there's all different ways in which now it's become so much more subtle. And that's why we all, Democrat and Republican, wrote Title VII. We wrote these laws to try to get at what we observed in the real world. What we observed in the real world is it's real subtle. And yet it's harder to make a case of discrimination even though there's no doubt that it still exists. And so I'd like to talk to you about a couple of anti- discrimination cases. One is the Bray case. In that case, a black woman said she was denied a promotion for a job that she was clearly qualified for. There was no doubt she was qualified. And she said, I was denied that job because I'm a black woman. And it was, as I said, indisputable she was qualified. It was indisputable that the corporation failed to follow their usual internal hiring procedures. And the corporation gave conflicting explanations as to why they reached the decision to hire another woman who they asserted was more qualified than Ms. Bray. Now the district court judge said, you know, Ms. Bray hadn't even made a prima facie case here, or she made -- but she hadn't made a sufficient showing to get to a jury; I'm finding for the corporation here. And Ms. Bray's attorney appealed and it went up to the 3rd Circuit. And you and your colleagues disagreed. Two of your colleagues said, you know, Ms. Bray should have a jury trial here. And you said No, I don't think she should, and you set out a standard, as best I can understand it. I want to talk to you about it. And your colleagues said that if they applied your standard in Title VII cases, discrimination cases, that it would effectively -- their words -- eviscerate Title VII because, they went on to say, it ignores the realities of racial animus.
BIDEN: They went on to say that racial animus runs so deep in some people that they're incapable of acknowledging that a black woman is qualified for a job. But, Judge, you dismissed that assertion. You said that the conflicting statements that the employer made were just loose language, and you expressed your concern about allowing disgruntled employees to impose cost of a trial on employers. And so your colleagues thought you set the bar, I think it's fair to say, pretty high in order to make the case that it should go to a jury. Can you tell me what the difference is between a business judgment as to who's most qualified -- you said, This comes down to subjective business judgment -- and discrimination? You said, Subjective business judgment should prevail unless the qualifications of the candidate are extremely disproportionate. What's the difference between that in today's world and discrimination? I know you want to eliminate discrimination. Explain to me how that test is distinguishable from just plain old discrimination.
Posted by Eric at 4:03 PM | Comments (11)
My Blog Asks: What Am I?
Posted by Eric at 2:08 PM | Comments (8)
January 9, 2006
Will Sam Alito Respect Earlier Opinions With Which He Disagrees?
(This is a repost of an item originally posted here on 11/1/05.)
People trying to figure out how respectful Sam Alito will be as a Supreme Court justice to prior Supreme Court decisions (can you say "Roe v. Wade?" I knew you could.) will want to take a very close look at two decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: ACLU v. Schundler (1997) and ACLU v. Schundler (1999). The second of them, which Alito wrote for a divided Third Circuit panel, suggests a judge who is quite eager to brush aside earlier opinions with which he disagrees.
Both opinions grew out of the same case, an effort by the ACLU to block Jersey City from placing a creche and a menorah, along with some seasonal decorations, in front of City Hall. The ACLU's claim was that the display violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
Jersey City argued in federal district (that is, trial) court that the display complied with the Constitution (as interpreted in a number of Supreme Court decisions) because the sleigh and the Santa Claus and the Frosty the Snowman and the Kwanzaa ribbons that it added to the creche and the menorah "demystified" thtose two religious symbols--that is, drained them of their religious meaning.
In the first of the two Third Circuit opinions, a panel of three judges (Nygaard (Reagan appointee), Lewis (GHW Bush appointee) and McKee (Clinton appointee)) held that the district court erred in its "demystification" analysis, spelled out the correct analysis, stated that it did not see the supposedly secular additions to the display as stripping the display of its message endorsing religion, and remanded the case to the district court to apply the correct analysis.
The district court did just this, following the Third Circuit's instructions.
Jersey City again appealed. This second time, the case came before a mostly different panel: Judge Nygaard (Reagan appointee) was on it again, but now he was joined by Judges Rendell (Clinton appointee) and Alito (GHW Bush appointee).
Over a strong dissent by Judge Nygaard, Judge Alito upheld the display. Although the earlier panel had been quite clear in saying that Frosty and the sleigh and the Kwanzaa ribbons did not defeat the display's message of religious endorsement, Judge Alito characterized that as "dictum" in the earlier opinion (that is, legally non-binding commentary, rather than legally binding precedent), and concluded that the supposedly secular doo-dads in the display actually did make the display satisfy the First Amendment.
Judge Nygaard was, to use a piece of appellate technical jargon, "pissed." "This constitutional about-face in the same case," he said, "troubles me greatly, strikes to the core of the legitimacy of our jurisprudence, and exposes us to well-earned criticism for inconsistency and for giving insufficient respect to an earlier instruction by the Court." Judge Nygaard was of the view that only the Third Circuit en banc (that is, all of its members together, as opposed to just a panel of three) could set aside an earlier panel's opinion like this.
As a technical matter, Judge Alito may have been right that the first panel phrased its analysis in a way that turned its sharp condemnation of the Jersey City display into dictum. The condemnation was, however, so clear (and unanimous) that surely Judge Alito could have chosen to honor it, or pressed for en banc consideration of the case, rather than just pushing it aside and replacing it with his own vision of the right outcome under the Establishment Clause.
If Senators are interested in understanding how Sam Alito thinks about how much deference a court's earlier pronouncements deserve, they should question him closely about what it was that led him to choose to abandon the clearly expressed, unanimous view of an earlier panel in the same case, rather than honoring it or seeking the ruling of the entire Third Circuit sitting en banc.
Posted by Eric at 11:49 PM | Comments (1)
In Defense of Discernment
UPDATE: Glenn asks for suggestions of topics for future podcasts, and he gets these from a happy listener:
1. Lying Joe Wilson's 7 lives
2. Rathergate
3. Who's behind the "peace" rallies
Yes! Absolutely! Somebody needs to get to the bottom of these hot but under-appreciated stories!
Posted by Eric at 10:05 PM | Comments (1)
The Point Being?
And it's a fair question.
Posted by Eric at 10:01 PM
A Shaggy Reptile Story?
Could he have been pulling my leg?
Posted by Eric at 3:40 PM | Comments (2)
Looking for Audio/Video of Ashcroft's Finest Hour
Does anyone know where I might find this?
Posted by Eric at 3:02 PM | Comments (1)
Justice Successfully Delayed
He spent 7 1/2 years on death row.
Eventually the concessions to the star witness came to light, and the prosecutor agreed that the defendant ought to get a new trial.
A grievance was filed against the prosecutors with the North Carolina State Bar. It alleged that the prosecutors knowingly suppressed the evidence about the star witness and lied in written submissions to the court at the trial.
The State Bar ruled on the case the other day: case dismissed. The disciplinary complaint, says the bar, was filed too late.
The greatest miscarriage of justice here has been averted: the defendant was granted a new trial.
Still, something doesn't smell quite right. In a case of this magnitude, with allegations this serious, a dismissal of the complaint for untimeliness does nothing to enhance the public image of lawyers in the State of North Carolina.
Posted by Eric at 8:23 AM | Comments (5)
January 8, 2006
"Catching" Bird Flu
Posted by Eric at 7:43 PM | Comments (3)
January 6, 2006
A Vicious Debate On A Difficult Subject
The publisher says this of the book: "Steering her path between the notions of 'victim' and 'perpetrator,' Barnouw seeks a place where acknowledgment of both the horror of Auschwitz and the suffering of the non-Jewish Germans can, together, create a more complete historical remembrance for postwar generations." The book's argument appears to be that the Allies and the German people in some sense colluded immediately after the war in imposing responsibility for the war and Nazi atrocities wholly on the German people, and that this burden has imposed an unhealthy silence on the German people about their own pain and its legacy. I suppose that's the sort of project that's bound to draw strong reactions.
Posted by Eric at 10:34 AM | Comments (2)
January 4, 2006
Pulling the Plug on Padilla
And I can't imagine a way in which the case is not now moot under Article III, either. The nub of Padilla's habeas challenge is to his detention as an unlawful combatant. He's not being held as an unlawful combatant anymore; he's being held as a civilian defendant in the federal criminal process. Yes, the President might again designate him as an enemy combatant, but I can't imagine that that possibility will suffice to preserve the justiciability of Padilla's challenge.
It's a McCardle for our era.
Posted by Eric at 7:57 PM | Comments (9)
I Like Best Westerns, not Best Easterns!
Today, I got an email from them with the subject line "Help Fellow Travelers: Review Your Hotel."
Although it is an entirely domestic correspondence, I am concerned it may have been routed through an overseas server. So in an abundance of caution, let me say publicly that I do not now and never have sympathized with the objectives of the Communist Party.
Posted by Eric at 10:04 AM | Comments (2)