Happy Holidays Everyone

Merry Christmas, heh heh heh.

Glenn Beck & Virgil Goode: Your Stupidity Astounds Us

I’d been meaning to write a post about Glenn Beck’s “interview” with Keith Ellison (D-MN). (See below) I first saw it on the Daily Show with John Stewart. It shocked me. Did Glenn Beck just insinuate that an elected US Representative is working with the terrorists? I thought the political correctness zealots in charge of television news put an end to bigoted, uneducated speech on the air. I guess I was wrong.

Glenn Beck accused Keith Ellison of embodying the worst stereotypes associated with Muslims, and then asked him to disprove his off-base assumptions. Imagine if Mr. Beck interviewed a U.S. soldier. And he said “I know you’re not a blood-thirsty, violent, megalomaniac… but prove it to me.” Can you imagine the public reaction?

Then yesterday, a letter from Virgil Goode’s (R-VA) office was released to the press. In it Goode warns constituents concerned about Rep. Keith Ellison swearing in on the Koran, that if we don’t end illegal immigration “there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.”

I think some Americans feel uneasy if they don’t have a target for their fear and hate. They lose a sense of self if they can’t define themselves against a group of people. Throughout our history, various groups have filled the “scary villain” role. (Inset your favorite target of hate in the blanks)

We need to stop ___________. If we don’t keep ____________ out of America we will lose our identity, and eventually be forced to adopt _______________’s values and beliefs.

Now, it is Muslims turn as the target of good old-fashioned ignorant American fear. It is scary that so many Americans equate Muslims with terrorists. They fail to make the mental effort to understand either Islam or terrorism. Not bothered by actual thought, they fall back onto old comfortable xenophobia. If it’s different, it must be bad.

It’s a shame that history’s lessons have gotten so dusty.

It's Getting Hot In Here... So Take Off All Your Clothes

This past week Ambular and I watched “An Inconvenient Truth.” It is scary. Al Gore lays-out a rock-solid case. There is no getting around the fact that the human race is negatively affecting the earth’s atmosphere.

I had always harbored doubts about global warming. It seemed so distant and theoretical. It could be cyclical; I doubted the existence of a constant warming trend. Besides, as a Minnesotan, I would be fine with turning the global thermostat up a few degrees.

If you have doubts watch “An Inconvenient Truth.” If you have family, friends, co-workers, or Presidents who doubt global warming (or coyly refer to it as “climate change”) try your best to get them to watch it. This is not a partisan issue. This is our latest and greatest challenge as a human-race. (Sorry for the drama, but we absolutely MUST solve this problem. Or at least collectively acknowledge its existence.)

Besides, the coasts are nice places to visit.

Exchanging Ideas: Professor Delahunty Edition

On 11-18-05 I posted a piece about Professor John Yoo’s presentation to my War & National Security Law class. For those who don’t remember, Yoo was one of the lawyers in the Justice Department who developed the administration’s controversial legal position that the Geneva Convention did/does not apply to Al Qaeda or Taliban prisoners. Yoo also penned the infamous “Torture Memo.”

But while Professor Yoo has gained some infamay and name recognition, his intellectual ally and frequent co-author Robert Delahunty has been able to fly under the radar… until now. The Univeristy of Minnesota Law School has hired Delhaunty to teach Constitutional Law next semester. Professor Delahunty is currently teaching Torts, Constitutional Law, and Public International Law at the University of St. Thomas Law School. Before that he was an attorney in the Office of Legal Council. He, like Yoo, took the position that the Geneva Convention did not apply to “enemy combatants.”

This isn’t a permanent hire, mind you. The professor who normally teaches Con Law at the U of MN is taking a leave of absence. It is my understanding that law schools in the area will “lend” their professors to fill a need at another area law school. Basically, the University of St. Thomas is “doing the U of MN a solid” by filling a need.

But some at Mondale Hall don’t see it that way. Nine U of MN law school profs have signed a letter asking the Co-interm deans to reconsider the decision to have Delahunty teach Con Law for a semester. Not surprizingly, the Delahunty “hire” has split the faculty down the middle along political ideologies. Those opposing Delahunty couch their argument in a debate about “legal ethics.” They claim that Delahunty’s positions were so far from what they believe the law is, that it demonstrats poor and/or unethical professional judgment. And therefore, Delahunty shouldn’t be allowed to teach at the U of MN.

While I do not endorse Delahunty’s position on Geneva Convention applicability, I do not oppose his right to teach Con Law. Conservaties and Liberals are both frequently guilty of employing ideologicial double standards based on context, this is just another example. A true liberal would understand that this kind of ideological warfare should occur in classrooms, not at the front door of a institution of higher learning. Here some left-left leaning professors are looking to censor a distasteful opinion, when true liberals loath censorships in any form.

During my three years at the U of MN I had law professors on each side of the political spectrum. I know I’m better for it. It was always fairly clear when professors were streaching the limits of a legal argument, and I took whatever they were saying with a grain of salt. If law has a fault, its that there are very few absolutes. Therefore, legal education will be full of debateable propositions. It is the nature of the beast.

But law students are not lemmings, hanging on every word their professors spout. If Delahunty’s opposition is successful, and they keep him out of the U of MN, they are ultimately doing a disservice to the students. Sheilding students from some points of view is paternalistic and cuts against academic idealism.

Was Delahunty an adminstration lap-dog? Yes. Was Delahunty’s legal position morally ambiguous? Absolutely. Should Delahunty be allowed to teach Constitutional Law at the Unviersity of Minnesota? Definitely. Last time I checked, this isn’t Russia.

Here is the Minnesota Daily article about the controversy: New Hire Controversial