Disclaimer
It has come to my attention by way of the stats panel that an SA Forum user named “i hate edward said” has linked to my blog, claiming to be me. For the record, this is entirely false. I, Caleb Posner, am not a member of the Something Awful Forums or any related website. Please note that generally I do not promote my blog (other than on Facebook), so you can be certain that if somebody posts publicly claiming to me, especially (though not necessarily only) if they link to my blog or other writings, they are not me.
Earlier, I wrote about Obama’s pick for the next Supreme Court justice, token Latina candidate Sonia Sotomayor, focusing primarily on her numerous disturbing legal verdicts, mentioning only briefly the concern that ought to arise with regards to her bigotry. It seems that as more and more time passes though, additional information is coming out that makes evident her disturbing racial fanaticism.
First, looking at Sotomayor’s past, it appears that during those years she was earning her prestigious Ivy League credentials, she was also cutting her teeth in the world of radical leftist activism of the racialist variety. During her time at Princeton, she submitted a number of letters to the editor that were run in the Daily Princetonian. Among them is one where she decries the racism of her institution towards “Chicano” and “Puerto Rican” students. And what sort of discrimination was she speaking about? Not the sort witnessed at truly concerning universities such as Case Western, but one of affirmative action, or rather a lack of it. It seems that Sotomayor was, and it seems still is, of the opinion that being Chicano entitles somebody to special benefits and preference, so much so that institutions must actively recruit such candidates. Never mind that institutions like Princeton are, when positions exist, already overwhelmed by a number of qualified applicants for the position(s) in question, and thus would normally have no reason to actively recruit candidates. And for that matter, don’t bother considering how absurd it is that race, ethnicity or other irrelevant details that ought not define a person are being called for as a selection criteria, when if Caucasians were to demand such benefit anywhere (even at an HBCU), they would be branded racists and publicly shamed. Instead, what must be realized is that Sotomayor got her way and remained unhappy.
How do we know this? In 1974, Princeton hired a new minority dean. And by that, I don’t mean a dean that happened to be a minority, but rather a dean who was chosen in large measure because he was a minority (it was part of an affirmative action hire to calm down the campus radicals). The student committee, which was tasked with helping the university to make their selection, had six members. The race of sixth member was not noted, so based on the university’s demography, it is likely they were Caucasian. We do however know that the other members were three Blacks and two Latinos. And for the position, they chose a Latino candidate. Of course it should be noted that Sotomayor and a fellow racialist activist constituted the two Latino members, though she remained dissatisfied, marginalizing the substantial student input Princeton administrators solicited by way of her committee, and claiming that the position was scrutinized more closely than other hires. It goes without saying that these are both absurd claims on her part, especially with regards to the latter, for even if true, it would be appropriate. That is to say, in a normal hiring situation, where all interested individuals may seek a position, it is inevitable that qualified applications will appear, and the university will have multiple strong options to fill the existing void with a candidate for the aforementioned job. But, where the pool is restricted by artificial and superficial criteria that don’t speak to the relative merits of those in it (such as minority status), the quality of applicants is far less certain, and thus greater efforts must be made to ensure that even with the restrictive criteria in place, a suitable candidate can still be found.
Of course, one might ask why it is that Sotomayor, a clearly radical racialist, would be appointed to such a prominent position by the university. To answer that requires only two words: Accion Puertorriquena. Founded around the time she began her studies at Princeton, Accion Puertorriquena remains active on Princeton’s campus to this day, and it played a major role in expanding the academic offerings of the university relating to Latino culture and history. Whatever merit this is to that, its importance as a Latino student voice on campus, and more importantly as the Puerto Rican student voice on campus, is apparent in its use as a vehicle to harass Princeton into extreme affirmative action. That is, the group (or at the very least Sotomayor) was not so much interested in giving admissions preference to Latino students as much as it was actively recruiting said students. So important was race-based preference to the group that they insisted the university was obligated to incur substantial expense actively hunting for Latino candidates, even when they already had far more qualified applicants of numerous racial backgrounds than spaces. This of course is on top of their involvement with the Coalition Against Proposition 187 (Proposition 187, a 1994 California ballot measure (which seems strange for a New Jersey university group to be focused on…), was a ballot initiative designed to disallow welfare and other social aid benefits to illegal immigrants), which proves beyond a doubt their disturbing dedication to Latino racial radicalism.
Though political extremism is often a hallmark of youth soon abandoned, it seems that Sotomayor never changed. In 1980 she became a member of the Board of Directors for Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (now called LatinoJustice PRLDEF), which has also always been driven by an agenda of advancing the situation of Puerto Ricans and other Latinos when they were not otherwise being mistreated or in need of help. Their origins however center on ensuring that Latinos need not learn English, as their first lawsuit in 1974 was Aspira v. New York City Board of Education, which resulted at the expansion of failed bilingual education programs over English immersion classes. And much like Accion Puertorriquena, their history is one of fighting for racial preference in admissions and hiring, and in the extension of social aid benefits to illegal and undocumented immigrants.
To this very day she is (or at least through 2000 when the American Bar Association profiled her was) a member of the National Council of La Raza. As with the other radical Latino organizations mentioned, they support racial preference in admissions and employment, social benefits (and drivers licenses!) for illegal immigrants, and substantial accommodation for those immigrants (legal or otherwise) that cannot speak the language. Disturbingly, that isn’t the worst thing about La Raza. They actively support and help run Latino charter schools that are hostile to the United States as a country, and non-Latino peoples in general. Take for instance Marcos Aguilar, Principal of La Academia Semillas del Pueblo (one such school they are connected to, who said who said “We don’t want to drink from a White water fountain, we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We don’t need a White water fountain. . . . We are not interested in what they have because we have so much more and because the world is so much larger. And ultimately the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction.”
That she has been involved in not one, but three radical Latino organizations, all of them racist in their politics, is outright disturbing. That it was not merely a phase in her youth for which she has since apologized makes her an unacceptable candidate for the Supreme Court. Just as she was worried about diminished law enforcement credibility in the case of Thomas Pappas and his anonymous hate mail sent from his home, she should be worried that any verdict related to civil rights, immigration, or race will be viewed as suspect (with good cause) based on her own actions, which she does openly and without shame (thus making it problematic in a way that didn’t apply in the case she misruled on before).
What Others Are Saying
Atlas Shrugs: She has all the bells and whistles of a leftist candidate – Hispanic? Check! Female? Check! Compelling narrative that tugs at the heart? Check! Brain power? Irrelevant! The left doesn’t like too much brains, too much reason and intellect. It confuses them.
Liberally Conservative: Sotomayor is able to get away with her racist comments because she is a female minority. Imagine Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Alito making similar comments and not facing hell on earth in the press and at confirmation hearings.
New England Republican: It looks like Barack Obama was listening to Jeremiah Wright when the later was spewing his racist rhetoric those 20 years.
Neocon Express: To take a page from Jenine Garafalo, President Obama appointed a ’stone cold’ racist and intellectual lightweight to the US Supreme Court this morning.
Stop the ACLU: If the Senate does not question her on her membership to a radical organization advocating racism, there will be a major outcry. Republicans better step up and grill this women before handing her one of the most important positions of power in the U.S.
Sultan Knish: By nominating Sotomayor, Obama is very clearly looking ahead to 2012, by first nominating an Hispanic Woman, secondly a left wing judicial advocate, more specifically one whose views on ballot access will help open up that golden box of millions of votes, and in the case of a Bush vs Gore type Supreme Court case, will always argue on the side of inadequate access.
Thomas Sowell: If you were going to have open-heart surgery, would you want to be operated on by a surgeon who was chosen because he had to struggle to get where he is, or by the best surgeon you could find — even if he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and had every advantage that money and social position could offer? [...] The Supreme Court of the United States is in effect operating on the heart of our nation — the Constitution and the statutes and government policies that all of us must live under.
Tom Tancredo: I’m telling you she appears to be a racist. She said things that are racist in any other context, that’s exactly how we would portray it.
Tundra Tabloids: Obama is just doing what comes naturally, as a devout Leftist, he seeks judges that are activists in robes. If the congress won’t pass laws that socialists want, he’ll plant activist judges on the bench that will insist on by-passing the will of the people to placate the will of the few, the privliged of the Left.
With David Souter, 69, prepared to step down from the Supreme Court at the end of the current session, President Obama was tasked with finding a replacement justice. And while there were a great many compelling candidates like Alex Kozinski or John E. Jones III, who though both right of center, have far more reasoned judicial philosophies, as well as superior records with respect to previous verdicts. And especially since Souter was appointed by George Bush Sr. during his time in power, this seeming shift right would just be a historical correction from the president who so often claims to be interested in cooperation across the political spectrum (though his actions thus far suggest it is merely hollow rhetoric). Instead, Obama has chosen Sonia Sotomayor of the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, distinguished more by her Latina heritage than by her record.
Undoubtedly, Sotomayor looks impressive at first glance, in that she graduated at the top of her class at Princeton University, and then when on to graduate from Yale Law, where she was editor of the Yale Law Review. But that’s about where her merits as a potential Supreme Court justice end. Cases such as Ricci v. DeStefano, Pappas v. Giuliani, and Doninger v. Niehoff make evident that her rulings either willfully disregard the Constitution, or hinge on indefensible misinterpretations of it.
Let us begin with Ricci v DeStefano, the case most likely to trigger controversy as her nomination is considered (by the Republicans that is, since the Democratic party and most of the media seems to have already okayed her). In it, the city of New Haven, Connecticut was bound by union contracts with respect to the fire department, mandating that exams were to be used as the determinant for promotions. Specifically, the individual chosen for promotion had to receive one of the top three scores on the exam. Black candidates however performed inadequately, with a failure rate twice that of their white cohorts, meaning that none were among those first eligible for promotion after this new advancement exam was rolled out in 2003. This resulted in the city’s independent exam review board questioning whether it was a racially bias exam that could not be certified as valid in determining who would receive promotion. A competing test development company stated when asked that he believed the exam was not so problematic as to be illegal or outright invalid, and veteran firefighters noting that the exam was rather similar to what they had taken in the past. So, logically speaking, the exam ought to have been certified, after which the promotions would be issued. However, the review board was split 2-2, leaving the exams uncertified. A group of Caucasian and Hispanic firefighters who had scored well enough to earn the promotions in question thus opted to sue, claiming that New Haven’s actions violated Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause. Though she did not author an opinion in this case, we must recall that when first tasked with rendering a verdict, Sotomayor voted to uphold the District Court ruling, which sided with the city against the hard-working fire fighters on the basis of their skin color.
Pappas v. Giuliani, where her involvement is quite a bit more clear, is perhaps even more disturbing. That case deals with Thomas Pappas, a New York City police officer who was fired from his job because, outside of the office, on his own time and with his own money, he mailed hate material to an assortment of organizations that had first mailed his solicitation requests. Also important to recall is that he did so anonymously, meaning that there was an intent to avoid creating the sort of negative public image that might inspire questions about his biases with regard to police work. Further, he asserted, and this cannot be disproved, that his actions were a form of political protest. Thus, being that the material he sent out was not unlawful in the first place, that it was purposeful political speech, and that he did so without involving his employer in any way, one should think that the Court would side with Pappas, who even if genuinely racist and of poor character, has done nothing that ought to have rendered his at odds with law, or resulted in the termination of his employment in a country where there are substantial limits on the grounds over which an employee may be terminated. But Sotomayor and her liberal ilk disagreed, ruling against Pappas at the expense of the political expression rights.
Of course, her utter contempt for the First Amendment and its promises of free speech rights does not end there, as shown by Doninger v. Niehoff. I’ll spare you the overwhelmingly long version of this story, instead directing you to an article on the matter by Mark Kernes if you are so inclined. Put briefly, this was a case of Avery Doninger, a student government member at Lewis Mills High School, using some off-color language on her livejournal to describe her feelings about certain school administrators that were making every effort to impede or cancel a “Jamfest” event that the students had (with prior school authorization) been planning for quite some time. While this was going on, Doninger was up for re-election, seeking the position of Senior Class Secretary, having previously held the equivalent position for her class junior year. Having failed to display the “good citizenship” expected of candidates running for positions in student government (by using the aforementioned off-color language on her livejournal), Doninger was denied administrative endorsement, ensuring that she would be left off of the ballot, and all but guaranteeing that she would lose the election. But a funny thing happened. The students, who were impressed by her past performance and her willingness to advocate on their behalf, voted overwhelmingly for her. In fact, she won a substantial 2/3rds of the vote. But the school, so concerned about a student using the word “douchebag” on a livejournal entry that they felt the need to attempt (unsuccessfully) to silence Doninger, proceeded to disregard the results of the election and give the position to the second place candidate. And Sotomayor agreed with their actions. In the unanimous court opinion, of which she was a signing justice, Tinker’s principal that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” was acknowledged, but then rendered irrelevant by what followed. Instead, she regarded the school’s mission (something which, I might add, had no constitutional basis to exist) of imparting a “proper respect for authority” as being more critical than allowing for dissent. That the somewhat crude language was used outside of the school, and in the context of political dissent over the decisions of those in power at the school, was deemed inconsequential. Not only then was free speech dealt a serious blow, but the verdict seems to suggest that dissent is improper and should be disallowed if it is at odds with respecting the authority of people who have done little if anything to earn said respect.
And of course in her past there are a number of other disturbing verdicts, though none as important as the above. Litmus test for appointments or not, a judge who consistently makes irrational, freedom-limiting decisions should, on that basis alone, be rejected as a potential candidate for the forthcoming vacancy. But, even were one sympathetic to her politics, it is not otherwise clear that she belongs. Disregarding the absurd controversy surrounding her comment that judges make policy from the bench (which is a provable fact, and thus does not reflect something meriting further review by those of us opposed to her nomination), there are questions being raised about her fitness for the position. Famous legal scholar Jonathan Turley said of her nomination, “My main concern is the lack of intellectual depth in her past opinions. I have read about 30 of the opinions and they do not support the view that she is a natural pick for the Court. She is without question a historic pick — like Thurgood Marshall. However, Marshall was not a lasting intellectual influence on the Court.” And his point is well taken. Having the right heritage and an atypical success story does not render qualified. But if asked, Sotomayor seems to feel strongly that such details do make a difference, for speaking at UC Berkeley she said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” That of course is a reflection of the “empathy” that this token candidate is expected to bring with her. That’ll mean a great win for identity politics, and an even greater loss for the Constitution and American individualism.
What Others Are Saying
Bench Memos: Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written. She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one’s sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.
Cato @ Liberty: In nominating Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill the seat of retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter, President Obama chose the most radical of all the frequently mentioned candidates before him.
Crunchy Con: Given that we were certain to get a liberal justice out of Obama, I suppose one has to take comfort in knowing that Obama made a quota pick too, and did not choose a liberal justice who can match intellects with Roberts and Scalia.
JammieWearingFool: Great News: Obama Picks Radical Hack for Supreme Court.
Libertarian Party (USA): By nominating Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama has made it clear he prefers an activist for his personal causes over a rational interpreter of law.
Michelle Malkin: Identity politics triumphs.
Patterico: Sotomayor will almost certainly be confirmed, but she does appear to be one of the more leftist of the nominees that had been under consideration. Empathy über alles, dontcha know. Republicans should (emphasis on should) be able to have a field day showing how she’ll move the law to the left.
Moments ago, I posted my final Student Life article of this academic year. It will run in print on Friday. I will of course resume writing International Affairs with Caleb Posner in the fall and post my articles here as they’re completed.
However, my blog update frequency will only increase with the start of summer. Through the month of May updates will be infrequent, thanks to my backbreaking exam and paper load, and a desire to have a short break thereafter. Following that, until the start of the next academic year, I intend to post new articles multiple times each week (instead of the usual once weekly update). And, being that they aren’t going to be written with submission to a printed publication in mind, I intend to include among this crop of forthcoming articles several longer and more in depth pieces, similar to the Kosovo article that Serbianna reprinted last month.
I hope also to launch a podcast of yet-to-be-determined length and frequency starting in September, dedicated to in depth discussion of international affairs, and I am currently reviewing the technical requirements with my would-be co-host.
That aside, I am also happy to announce that my article on Israel-US relations, which ran in Studlife earlier this month, was recently also run by Arutz Sheva, my favorite Israeli news website. And it seems that Google News has indexed said article.
The European Union, though perhaps unworthy of continued existence, is a substantial enough entity that their forthcoming elections ought to be looked at farm more closely than is standard practice in the United States. From June 4 through June 7, hundreds of millions of Europeans from 27 EU member nations will head to the polls and vote for the domestic political parties they want representing them in the 736-seat European Parliament. Having reviewed available polling data from many of these nations, it seems apparent to me that several nations are headed in the right direction, but a few appear poised to elect some of the vilest hatemongers in all of Europe.
According to TNS Nipo (a marketing and statistical research firm), Geert Wilders and his Partij voor de Vrijheid enjoy 40% popular support in the Netherlands, and will take the plurality of the nation’s 25 seats come June. Indeed, even the most out-of-date and statistically questionable polls show his level of support at approximately 18%. In other words, Wilders will be one of this election’s biggest winners, which is excellent news. The PVV is one of the only parties that is steadfast in its commitment to defending Western civilization from the Islamist threat without relying on Christianity as a crutch. Though Wilders has given an expected nod to the Judeo-Christian heritage of Europe more than once, he has just as readily noted the humanist character of the continent that is rooted in pre-Christian Rome and Greece. Equally important, in his view defending Europe means standing up for minority rights, enhancing economic liberty, and reducing the size of the EU. One particular platform point often overlooked, yet really quite positive, is the PVV’s aim of having Bulgaria and Romania, both politically represive economic wastelands, booted from the EU.
Likewise, Czech voters appear prepared to vote in their finest, with opinion polls showing the Občanská Demokratická Strana likely to receive 1/3 of the nation’s 22 seats. The party of Václav Klaus and Mirek Topolánek is one of the only parties in Europe boldly fighting the anti-civilizational eco-hysteria that is currently en vogue, while simultaneously advocating loudly for economic liberalization, EU devolution, and Russoscepticism. The party is keenly aware of the threats that communism, Russian agression, and loss of sovereignty to outdated institutions and new liberal fads pose to the Czech Republic as a nation, and Europe as a continent. And so their continued electoral support at home, which by all accounts should be sustained through the European Parliamentary Elections, is a very encouraging sign.
Unfortunately, not all of the EU members seem interested in building a better Europe or even standing up for their own true interests. Most visably, the UK is preparing for a return to the dark ages by welcoming the anti-semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-gay British National Party into the European Parliament for the first time ever. The anti-capitalist, pro-conscription lunatics have thus far always fallen short of entry, but are projected to earn at least 3 seats, and by some accounts even more. The BNP bears the rare distinction of being branded by the European Parliament as an “openly Nazi party.” What is especially disturbing is that they, alongside some of the offensively liberal British parties, are gaining at the expense of the UK Independence Party, which has been an exemplary defender of British sovereignty, individual liberty, and reduced taxation.
With the elections still six weeks away, there is ample time for popular opinion to shift. But, at least with the information we currently have, it seems reassuring that several nations seem intent on enhancing the quality of the alarmingly powerful EU. We can only hope that in those nations instead inclined to shift support towards parties that embarrass the human species, a last minute change of heart will prevent them from making such egregious errors.
13 in Spain and South Korea, 15 in Sweden and Denmark, and 18 in North Dakota. What I’ve just listed is the age of consent in the named places, which represents the range seen among Westernized, first-world nations. Given the profound disparity that exists between the two ends of the spectrum, it is only appropriate that we have a sober discussion about the rationale behind having an age of consent, where (if at all) it should be set, and if there aren’t more relevant issues in determining what ought or ought not be legal in the realm of sexual intercourse. Doing so successfully means first abandoning the use of discrediting pejoratives such as “pedophile” or “sexual predator.” After all, supporting alterations to the law so that they are more reasonable is merely an act of good citizenship, not an endorsement of the behavior that may be rendered legal if such changes are realized.
Let us proceed by establishing the purpose of an age of consent. Two primary reasons exist. First, the goal is to prevent child exploitation by disallowing intercourse with those who lack the capacity to issue informed consent. And second, it is a means of controlling the abuse of authority that can sometimes exist when there is a profound gap in age between to potential partners. At face value, both seem to be entirely noble aims. However, upon further scrutiny, their use as justification for intrusive and non-nuanced law becomes quite obviously invalid.
I will address the latter issue first. Positions of authority are not merely a question of age. A boss has authority over his employees in a far greater capacity than a teacher might over a student. Yet there is no law forbidding their fornication. Instead, the issue of authority is dealt with at the institutional level, with many companies having strict rules regulating sexual and romantic conduct in the office or between those it employs. It seems reasonable that such mechanisms might just as easily work in schools, religious institutions, or other areas where adults potentially have authority over minors. That provides for this first aim, for arguing that the age gap is problematic in and of itself is irrational. This is evidenced by the fact that it is perfectly legal, as it ought to be, for a senior citizen to have sex with somebody old enough to be his grandchild. Such sexual relationships rarely develop however, based on disinterest of one (or both) of the parties, as would generally apply here too.
The bigger question thus becomes about the ability to consent. What benchmarks are to be used to determine if a person is capable of issuing consent? I believe that the knowledge base must be there, and the physical development must support it. In other words, I would argue that consent may be issued as soon as the minor (of adequate mental capacity) has entered puberty and received some sex education. Once they understand the mechanics, proper safety, and the potential consequences of their actions, why are they not believed to be responsible enough to have control over their behavior? Surely if children are taught of law and bound to it, they can be taught about sex and entrusted to control their own experiences thereafter.
Logic thus lends itself to abolishing the age of consent, and instead applying the above. In doing so, we become free to emphasize the real issue: a culture-specific disregard for the notion of informed consent. I speak of course of the situation in the Persian Gulf, which includes a number of oil-rich nations that fancy themselves as modern and Western-oriented, where marrying girls aged 10 and under is still rather common. To varying extent, this finds legal sanction in those nations because men like Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, endorse such sex-inclusive unions. Lest one write this off as the rantings of a closeted pedophile who has been unnaturally elevated to such heights, I feel inclined to note that his position is supported within Islamic scripture. For as Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 states, “Narrated ‘Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).” This practice is then considered exemplary because Muhammed is the uswa hasana, al-Insān al-Kāmil, essentially “the perfect man and role model” (see Qur’an 33:21). Thus, his decision to have intercourse with a nine year old girl, who we have no indication entered puberty, is sanctioned practice, and allows for such consent-devoid arrangements to this day.
While the standards of conduct were quite different in seventh century Arabia than 21st century Western civilization, such practices continue worldwide, and ought to be the focus of our concerns. After all, these girls are not only uninformed, but underdeveloped and left without choice. Thus, they cannot give or deny consent. It is that, not the ability of a 17 year old in North Dakota to have intercourse without fear of legal consequence, which threatens basic human rights and the very reasonable underlying aims that our outdated age of consent laws seek to protect.
See end of the article for updates.
Every week, I write an article for Student Life, the main campus newspaper at Washington University. The overwhelming majority of the staff is quite liberal. There is, as I understand it, one other non-liberal columnist, and his articles tend to be quite a bit less controversial. Last week however, the other non-liberal found that his column had been substantively altered before running, and he had been given no notice of the changes. His editor, the same as mine, said that he hadn’t made the changes to the column, but rather that our Senior Forum Editor, Kate Gaertner, had. She claims the changes were a matter of length, but this obviously false. While the length was cut, most of the changes made involved either the removal of contextually-necessary facts or a major softening of tone. Comparing the two versions, there is no question that the one ran was inferior, and a discredit to the author’s name.
So imagine my displeasure when this week I opened up a copy of the paper to find that I was Gaertner’s latest victim (something she confirmed via email after getting wind of my reaction). The old editors, whose term ended in April, never once made a substantive change to any of my articles, instead only making minor grammar or syntax tweaks as they deemed necessary. While I happen to have disagreed with some of their alterations, I was never truly ashamed to see my name attached to the columns as printed. That is unfortunately no longer the case. On Wednesday, I submitted my latest article about Alberto Fujimori, and saw a disturbingly different version run on Friday.
Here’s how the two versions compare (excluding the sort of minor changes I didn’t find particularly bothersome):
Original:
This past Tuesday, Alberto Fujimori, the 70 year old former President of Peru, was convicted of murder and other less serious offenses by a panel of three judges just outside of Lima, and was given a 25 year prison sentence.
Altered:
This past Tuesday, Alberto Fujimori, the 70-year-old former President of Peru, was convicted of murder by a panel of three judges just outside of Lima and sentenced to a 25-year prison sentence.
Changes:
Dropped “lesser charges” to make the sentence factually erroneous.
“Sentenced to a sentence” is terrible wording.
Original:
He was convicted not because he pulled a trigger, but because during his decade in power, it is alleged that he ordered a branch of Army Intelligence to perform strategic executions. The veracity of this assertion still unproven to a sufficient extent that he deserved conviction aside, let us consider the situation in Peru when Fujimori came to power, as compared to the shape he left it in.
Altered:
He was convicted not because he pulled a trigger but because during his decade in power, it is alleged that he ordered a branch of Army Intelligence to perform strategic executions. The degree to which he deserved conviction remains questionable, but aside from that, it is imperative that we consider the situation in Peru when Fujimori came to power, as compared to the shape he left it in.
Changes:
Massive meaning change. It goes from questioning the allegations themselves to how fair his convition was, and based on the rest of the article, it would seem to imply the question hinges upon his job in office. However, his excellence as President and his supposed guilt are largely different questions and I tried to separate them (still answering both), in the article.
Original:
Peru first returned to democratic elections in 1980 (after a dozen years of military dictatorship), at which time the student-driven Maoist Shining Path group was offered the opportunity to participate and present their platform to the voting public…Indeed, in 1989 alone, the Shining Path murdered 100 politicians as part of a campaign to prevent voting throughout Peru, because they believed the practice enforced the capitalist system they so violently rejected.
Altered:
Peru first returned to democratic elections in 1980, after a dozen years of military dictatorship. At this time, the student-driven, communist Maoist Shining Path group was offered the opportunity to participate and present their platform to the voting public…In 1989 alone, the Shining Path murdered 100 politicians as part of a campaign to prevent voting throughout Peru, because they believed that voting enforced a capitalist system that they found despicable.
Changes:
Addition of the word communist before Maoist, which is not only redundant (being that it is a school of communist thinking), but unnecessary, in that anybody who is unfamiliar with Maoism had no business reading this article. And I should hope that WashU students have learned such basic information by this point in their lives.
Further, to find an ideology “despicable” is not problematic. The problem comes in the violence. By removing the “violently reject” phrase, the sentence is too mild in its approach to the Shining Path.
Original:
But the problems Fujimori inherited did not end with the security threat posed by the massive communist insurgency.
Altered:
But the problems Fujimori inherited did not end with the security threat posed by the communist insurgency.
Changes:
Removing massively again gives the Shining Path too little blame. They controlled large sections of the country, and for years were one of the most violent and threatening insurgencies anywhere in the world.
Original:
And, not only did he drain the national reserves, but he left Peru owing more than $14 billion to foreign nations, the cost increasing greatly through interest because he refused to service the massive debt he helped create.
Altered:
In addition to draining the national reserves, Garcia left Peru owing more than $14 billion to foreign nations.
Changes:
First, it makes Garcia seem less at fault, since it fails to make clear that he was the source for much of the debt. That becomes especially important given the essay’s conclusion. Beyond that, the refusal to pay debts is important, because again that caused great problems for Peru that Fujimori had to overcome. So this change ultimately serves to advance Garcia at the expense of Fujimori, which is unacceptable.
Original:
It is only in the years since he left office and power was turned over to less competent politicians, that the group or splinter factions of it have begun to once more function.
Altered:
It is only in the years since he left office and power was turned over to less competent politicians that the splinter factions of the Shining Path organization have begun to function once again.
Changes:
This sentence was rendered factually incorrect. While the splinter factions are most active, technically speaking there is still a Shining Path, which the original acknowledged and the altered version does not.
Original:
Still, their resurgence has been greatly limited in scale by the crippling blow Fujimori delivered to the terrorist organization.
Altered:
Still, their resurgence has been greatly limited in scale thanks to the measures taken by Fujimori.
Changes:
This again gives Fujimori too little credit. He didn’t passively make a few changes in law and happen to succeed. He instead put forth a massive military effort to crush the infrastructure of the organization, similar to what Sri Lanka’s government is doing to the LTTE.
Original:
That he also managed to save Peru’s economy is praiseworthy at the very least.
Altered:
Moreover, the way Fujimori salvaged Peru’s economy is praiseworthy at the least
Changes:
The original phrasing treats the preceeding as true, and commends him greatly for ALSO fixing the economy. The new phasing, coherence issues aside, suggests that even if the above is false, he saved the economy. In other words, it undermines my entire tone and defense.
Original:
But in view of the highly questionable nature of much of what he was found guilty of, and the exceptionally positive legacy of his rule, his imprisonment is entirely inappropriate.
Altered:
But in light of the questionable nature of the accusations brought against him, and the positive legacy of his rule, his imprisonment is inappropriate
Changes:
Again, the tone is muted by removing my zeal. Words like “highly” before questionable, “exceptionally” before positive, and “entirely” before inappropriate are important in conveying the utter absurdity of the conviction, which was the entire point of the article.
Original:
Rather, pending proper alteration to the term limit laws, Fujimori should be free to run for office once more, as he has expressed an interest in doing.
Altered:
Rather, pending proper alteration to the term limit laws, Fujimori should be free to run for office once more, as he has expressed an interest in doing so.
Changes:
Adding “so” at the end of the sentence is unnecessary, and makes the sentence less coherent.
So as you can see, the changes were extensive. And if she tries to claim it was a length issue (when I meet with her, which I’m scheduled to do), as she did with the other non-liberal columnist, that will not stand. Under the old staff, I ran four articles exceeding 850 words. I never had a hard word limit, just a suggestion that the be under 1000 words. Last week, my first article under the new editors ran uncensored and was 930 words. I was however warned about keeping future submissions under 800 words. The Fujimori piece, as submitted, was 666 words long. As ran, it was 647 words. I somehow doubt a 19 word reduction for a column well below the upper limit was needed. And certainly, such changes didn’t have to fundamentally alter my tone and argument, as Gaertner’s atrocious version did.
I find it concerning that in two weeks both non-liberal writers have suffered the same fate at the hands of an editor that has only been in charge since the start of April. Her predecessors has the good sense to treat non-liberal writers fairly, so as not to force their resignation and render the paper entirely devoid of any shred of ideological balance. While the paper was (and is) overwhelming liberal, those previously in charge were never so boldly hostile to differing opinions. I can’t imagine how Gaertner will attempt to justify this, or how further the quality of the paper will decline under her control, but I suppose I’ll find out soon enough.
UPDATE: I met with the Senior Forum Editor to discuss this issue. Some highlights:
* I presented her with a list of changes and notations of why they were unacceptable (see above). She tried to argue with one or two of them, generally conceded that I had a valid point, and apologized for the errors made.
* I noted that my biggest issue was that many of her alterations changed my tone, and this was completely inappropriate. She stated that she had intended as much, because being the only international issues writer for Student Life, she wanted to make sure the position taken wasn’t too extreme. I told her point blank that I’d soon tender my resignation than moderate my tone to whatever it was she regarded as acceptable.
* Evidently disinterested in that scenario, she then proposed that I move online only, which I quickly rejected. Print may be a dying media, but I refuse to be chased out of it for not towing the liberal line.
* Next, she proposed that every week she writes a response to my column to provide balance. I made clear to her that I cover a broad range of material, some it quite obscure. So, while I wouldn’t feel the need to stop her from responding to my articles, I wouldn’t feel compelled to go mainstream either. And that would translate to substantial additional research on her part, especially on occasions where the topic of choice pertains to my areas of expertise (Israel and the Balkans).
* She then asked about doing that just when bigger international issues arose. As I noted, I generally avoid such stories, but were I to address them, her rebuttal would be fine. I did however make clear that I objected to her efforts to essentially provide “balance” against my column and not the vast multitude of liberal columns. After all, I am one of two conservative writers total, and by far the more controversial and hawkish of the two (being that the other is a libertarian).
* Ultimately, it ended with her promising to only make grammatical changes in the future, with my continued contributions hinging upon her keeping her word.
I’m still extremely concerned about the direction this paper is headed given some of her answers/suggestions, as well as those issues detailed above, though for now I’ll continue writing. But, if ever again I should see my article so butchered, then said piece shall be my last.
This past Tuesday, Alberto Fujimori, the 70 year old former President of Peru, was convicted of murder and other less serious offenses by a panel of three judges just outside of Lima, and was given a 25 year prison sentence. He was convicted not because he pulled a trigger, but because during his decade in power, it is alleged that he ordered a branch of Army Intelligence to perform strategic executions. The veracity of this assertion still unproven to a sufficient extent that he deserved conviction aside, let us consider the situation in Peru when Fujimori came to power, as compared to the shape he left it in.
Peru first returned to democratic elections in 1980 (after a dozen years of military dictatorship), at which time the student-driven Maoist Shining Path group was offered the opportunity to participate and present their platform to the voting public. Instead, they began a ruthless campaign of guerrilla warfare, which by 1992 had resulted in more than 20,000 unnecessary deaths. Indeed, in 1989 alone, the Shining Path murdered 100 politicians as part of a campaign to prevent voting throughout Peru, because they believed the practice enforced the capitalist system they so violently rejected.
But the problems Fujimori inherited did not end with the security threat posed by the massive communist insurgency. In his term as President, predecessor Alan Garcia drove businesses out of Peru through a series of anti-market actions, including his efforts towards the nationalization of private banks in 1987. By the time he left office, there had been 2.2 million percent national inflation, a decline in wages to a three-decade low, and a 20% loss of GDP. And, not only did he drain the national reserves, but he left Peru owing more than $14 billion to foreign nations, the cost increasing greatly through interest because he refused to service the massive debt he helped create.
Undoubtedly then, Fujimori was tasked with addressing two epic problems that on their own would have overwhelmed lesser men. Yet he rose to the dual challenge with remarkable ease. He crushed the Shining Path terrorist organization and restored governmental authority to all of Peru. It is only in the years since he left office and power was turned over to less competent politicians, that the group or splinter factions of it have begun to once more function. Still, their resurgence has been greatly limited in scale by the crippling blow Fujimori delivered to the terrorist organization.
That he also managed to save Peru’s economy is praiseworthy at the very least. He cut price controls and government subsidies, opened the country up to investments, and simplified taxation and tariff laws. His willingness to make drastic marketing reforms secured IMF loan guarantees, which he put to good use. In 1994, just four years into his rule, Peru was posting a 13% growth rate; the highest in the world. Total GDP growth between when he assumed office and stepped down was an impressive 44.6%, and a $10 billion foreign currency reserve was built up.
In essence then, Fujimori saved Peru from itself. He turned around one of the world’s most volatile economies and reintegrated it in the international order, thereby building a foundation for the gradual improvement in the life quality of his citizens. He also brought an end to the bloody violence and instability that threatened the social order and basic human rights of his people. It is possible that in doing so, some inadvertent violations of the law took place. But in view of the highly questionable nature of much of what he was found guilty of, and the exceptionally positive legacy of his rule, his imprisonment is entirely inappropriate. Rather, pending proper alteration to the term limit laws, Fujimori should be free to run for office once more, as he has expressed an interest in doing. This is especially reasonable with his incompetent predecessor who caused so much more damage now serving as President anew.
…so asks the College Republicans in an event they are cosponsoring with the ultra-left Social Justice Center.
How is social justice being defined? After all, if it means something absurd like working for the equality of economic circumstance, being supportive of every minority or special interest groups and their right to play the role of victim, or otherwise advancing the politically correct, historically sanitized hyper-multiculturalism that is destroying Europe and to a lesser extent the United States, then the obvious answer is no. Such ideas are the product of defective liberal thought, hinging on the suppression of individual rights for the sake of an inexact common good. If however it means tolerance and open-mindedness, judging people on their qualifications and competence rather than inconsequential details such as race or gender, or supporting a system of legal and equality and an opportunity-creating free market, then there can be no bigger advocate for social justice than the conservative. In either such case, the question would answer itself. Thus, what I find troubling is that a conservative group would adopt uncritically such an outmoded liberal buzz word and offensively use it to question to the character of their own ideological brethren.
Quite why it is that the College Republicans would willingly associate themselves with the Social Justice Center to ask such an absurd question in so inappropriate a capacity is beyond me. There are, in my estimation, only two potential answers. First, the College Republicans have become so worn down by the tide of liberal ideological oppression at Washington University that they cannot remain steadfast enough in principle to distance themselves from such nonsense. Second, this is a desperate attempt to win approval and wider campus acceptance at an institution where their image is not particularly positive as a consequence of their ideology. It may well be a combination of the two. In any case, this illustrates a serious problem of the CR that extends well beyond their partisan alignment. They are doing nothing to advance conservative intellectual discourse or conservative principles, instead facilitating the myth of balance and ideological tolerance by being the useful token organization that can be cited as a conservative force, but which has been declawed and lobotomized.
The CLA was offered the opportunity to be involved with this event, but the scant details and inappropriate name immediately turned us off. This is a decision the group made of which I am especially proud. After all, dialogue across ideological lines has its place, but playing the patsy for an exceptionally liberal organ of an overwhelmingly liberal institution as they treat conservatism in monolithic terms and subsequently evaluate it by their own warped rubric does not. If the left wishes to discuss true conservative philosophy and its aims, they must first realize that the Republican Party is by no means conservative, and that the College Republicans do not speak for us. They must further understand that such discussions will not be held on their lopsided terms over which we lack control, but in a way that treats conservatives and our ideologies fairly. There is certainly a place for such discussions, and I believe the CLA can and should play a vital role in them. But this cannot happen when we tie ideology to partisan identity and then emphasize their offshoot student groups as the chief sources of credibility in the political discourse.
In a recent interview with Joods Actueel (Jewish Actuality – a far left Jewish news magazine in Belgium), Filip Dewinter, leader of the Antwerp faction of Vlaams Belang, the nation’s largest political party, the question of Israeli membership in NATO and the EU arose. Contrary to how the Anglophonic media might lead one to assume he would respond, since after all they have slandered the party under the misnomer of “far right Neo-nazism” (as though Nazism could be anything but a liberal ideology), Dewinter gave an answer that would no doubt please most Israel supporters. He stated that while geography ruled out EU membership, the same was not true of NATO, where he would welcome Israeli membership. This begs the question though of what role Israel has in the international order, and in what way it should seek to redefine itself.
Unpopular as it may be to say in the United States, increasingly those on the Israeli right, for perhaps the first time since Kach was disbanded, are suggesting that Israel is disadvantaged by its relationship with America, and needs to redefine the terms of association if bilateral relations are to be retained. And indeed they have a compelling case. Historical precedent shows us that land won in a defensive war, as Israel fought in 1967, need not be restored to the losers or be given independence of any sort. Israel made the mistake of not formally annexing the territory at that time, but it did not become a problem until President Carter, who has proven himself to be deranged on all matter of Mideast policy, strong-armed the “right wing” Begin into surrendering a massive portion of territory to Egypt in the name of peace. Never mind that four consecutive military defeats would’ve sufficed as a deterrent against open warfare. Instead, let us ask whether the peace Israel supposedly has with Egypt is of any value. When it so readily facilitates arms smuggling for the fifth-column Palestinian insurgency and could readily fall to the increasingly powerful domestic Islamist factions, what good did such massive concessions do?
If you answered “paved the way for yet more dangerous land concessions,” pat yourself on the back. Using the return of Sinai as precedent, Clinton was able to compel Rabin, who to that point was not nearly so enthusiastic about displacing hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes to create a new enemy state, to sign the Chamberlain-like Oslo Accords. Rather than rise to crush the violent Muslim threats as Israel had so often needed to do in decades past, Oslo marked Israel’s loss of credibility, in that it began Israel’s formal recognition of the Palestinian Authority and their territorial claims on Israeli land. Even when Palestinian violence prevented the agreement from coming to fruition, Oslo went on to serve as a pretext under which every post-Rabin Prime Minister has made efforts to displace citizens for the purpose of creating yet another hostile regime in the region. And under the Bush-backed Sharon government, the very first steps to creating a new jihadist state were taken.
In the more than three years since Israel expelled its own citizens from Gaza, destroying 21 established communities to create a Hamastan where crucifixion is now a legally authorized form of punishment, Israel has suffered the consequences. Those terrorist organizations that seek to destroy it can now more easily arm themselves, and have added yet more population centers to the total territory they can rain their rockets upon. This surrender of land has of course done nothing to placate the international community, the United States included, which still refuses to recognize Israel’s capital city as Jerusalem. After Costa Rica and El Salvador moved their embassies to Tel Aviv, the international norm of allowing a country to choose its own capital within its territory is globally violated only for Israel. And indeed, that is but one of many examples of the unequal treatment Israel faces on the world stage. At best, the US occasionally votes against anti-Israel UN resolutions, usually along side the South Pacific island nations it heavily subsidizes. In practice though, this does little other than create a false illusion that the US-Israel relationship is vital only to the latter, and that Israel should be grateful for what little it gets. Nothing could be further from the truth. Israel, for its part, has always offered military assistance to the United State, who rejects it routinely, and has served as the only trustworthy and powerful ally in one of the globe’s major powder kegs. And, at least under the present system, Israel essentially obeys the suicidal commands that its American master gives it.
So what is it that Israel gains? Chiefly the benefits are financial, and truth be told, not nearly as vital in the present as might have been true decades ago. Given the global financial recession and the hostile nature of the current American government, that number can only shrink, thereby reducing the value of such an alliance for Israel. While mutual technological development, commercial exchange, and military cooperation are all part of the bilateral relationship and are worth preserving, they are far less valuable than having the freedom to set its own policy and respond properly to the grave security threats Israel faces. So until the United States is willing to redefine its relationship with Israel as one between equals, it may be better for Israel to terminate the alliance and begin to more proactively seek out different partners around the globe.
Too often, political discourse is focused exclusively on the readily apparent, ignoring what lurks beneath the surface. For instance, in discussing the War on Terror, the emphasis is primarily on our two major theaters of combat, or on rare occasion the totalitarian ideology that inspires our enemy. Certainly, discussion of such things is important, for in a clash of civilizations we must understand the enemy, and we must critically review the steps taken to date in combat against them. Still, to limit discussion to those components of the War on Terror is detrimental to our cause, for we treat the theaters and the ideology as separate, not looking for and emphasizing the real but camouflaged connection. In other words, we are ignoring the very real threat of stealth jihad.
As Robert Spencer, the noted expert on Islamic theology who wrote Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs, remarked in a recent interview, “Obviously ‘the problem’ is rooted within Islamic texts and teachings that mandate warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. Ibn Warraq’s observation that there are moderate Muslims, but no moderate Islam is absolutely true….” Realizing that, the natural question arises as to what forms this effort of subversion for the purpose of caliphate building is permitted. Dr. Walid Phares, terrorism expert and professor at the National Defense University, points out that while the jihadists often employ violent tactics, many instead have utilized the Islamic concept of taqiya (a false front, or concealment of belief) to present a moderate image while still retaining Islamist ideological aims. In other words, realizing that jihad cannot be fought only on the battlefield, especially when militarily speaking the ummah (Islamic community) is overwhelmed, many Islamists rely on liberal Western multiculturalism and political institutions to advance the same agenda without spilling blood.
The disturbing truth is that there are a great many examples of stealth jihad, most of which never get adequate mainstream attention. For instance, the Council on American Islamic Relations, often regarded as the Islamic NAACP, is a proponent of a thoroughly anti-Western agenda, and it associates readily with organizations who regard us as evil incarnate. Speaking to a crowd of Californian Muslims in July 1998, CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad stated, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.” Similarly, their Executive Director Nihad Awad participated in a conference for Hamas members and supporters in 1993. Fundraiser Rabih Haddad was convicted of helping transfer money to a Hamas front group, and other CAIR members members including Randall Royer and Ghassan Elashi. The head of their Michigan chapter Muthanna Al-Hanooti has been charged with spying on behalf of the Iraqi government. And that is just the beginning of a laundry list of disturbing details about CAIR that implicate them as a force for stealth jihad. In the United States, they are perhaps the most influential group, though it would be a great mistake to disregard the many other powerful forces for the non-violent destruction of Western civilization, including their indirect parent the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hizb ut-Tahrir.
It is therefore critical for the success in the misnamed War on Terror, which should instead be relabeled the War for Western Civilization, that we understand these there are links between the ideology and the violence, and often times said connections are the “moderate” front groups operating here and abroad. Such organizations, if not watched and held accountable for their cooperation with jihadists, threaten our very civilization. If their aims succeed, though the results may not be quite as bloody, the outcome is unthinkable. To live in a society where a woman has half the legal worth of a man, where homosexuals are executed by the state, and where the kuffirs (infidels) are forced to pay an extortive protection fee to continue living (the jizyah) is a prospect that should alarm any decent person. The best step then is to educate ourselves, and demand our political leaders to the same. To start, I strongly recommend that you attend Robert Spencer’s talk on Stealth Jihad on Tuesday, March 24 at Graham Chapel, beginning at 6:30 PM.
