Interesting fact of the day
The word "Armageddon" comes from the Hebrew Biq'ah Megiddo (the "a" sound in "Biq'ah" is actually not an A, but an Ayn, a Hebrew letter that is a sort of a back-of-the-throat "a" sound like in Arabic. Pronounced properly, the Ayn can sound very similar to an "ar" sound--hence the transmutation into the word "Armageddon." By the way, the letter Ayn is not to be confused in any way with the Ayn of Ayn Rand.), or the valley of Megiddo. This is a geographical region in northern Israel (near Haifa and the Galilee region) where many important battles of biblical proportions were fought, and is the location where the famous battle of "Armageddon" is supposed to take place in the end times. Currently, the valley is a hotbed for archaeological research, although many universities have withdrawn their sponsorship of the digs because of the terrorism and increased hostilities in the region as of late.

Let's punt this idea
I just don't understand why the folks who run the Coliseum and the Rose Bowl want to put NFL teams in them. Any stadium in LA would have to build luxury suites to woo the owner(s) of an NFL team, so either of those historic structures as as long term home for an NFL franchise just won't work without destroying the architectural beauty and legacy of the stadium. We went through this exercise three years ago and the NFL agreed that the Rose Bowl and Coliseum were not suitable sites for a professional team (although they are wonderful for college football and soccer). The only legitimate goal of the people who control and operate these stadiums should be hosting an NFL team while it awaits a new, modern football-only stadium to be built elsewhere in the city. Frankly, we're fine without the NFL, but for some reason everybody thinks Armageddon is nigh until LA gets a pro football team.

So I'm looking for a job...
...and apparently, so are a lot of other people. Our unemployment rate is looking more like a European country's than the 4% rate we had only a couple of years ago. I sure hope it turns around soon. Otherwise I'll be posting so many comments on here you all will get terribly sick of me--if you're not already.

Snag
Okay, so while I was fishing out my old articles from the Daily Trojan, I discovered to my dismay that the DT search engine would only return 10 pages of search results. Therefore, I had to go and find the copy of an article on my hard drive, open it up, highlight a phrase or two, and put them in the search engine to bring up the link to that particular piece. Unfortunately, it seems for whatever reason a couple of my articles have just disappeared. At least, I couldn't find them. So, for now, I linked to what I could; when I have some time down the road, I'll tediously browse the archives to find the missing articles that weren't coming up.

Site update
You may have noticed that I've added a few bells and whistles to the site. I even had a java thingamajig with scrolling headlines of the latest news stories and op-ed pieces, but unfortunately I couldn't resolve the problems I was having conforming the HTML to how it needed to be displayed in Netscape. IE viewed it just fine, but Netscape was being a pain in the ass, so I gave up on the headline thing altogether. I'm going to add more links soon, and then it's back to just posting my random opinions and commentaries. Enjoy!

Bias in academia
No, it's not just the media that reeks of hypocrisy when making claims to "objectivity" and "fairness." The Stanford Law and Policy Review recently put together a symposium on gay rights--and then rejected all the anti-gay rights articles and printed only the pro-gay rights articles. Some symposium. Of course, the peeved authors (as well as one of the co-editors) took their pieces to other law reviews that might be willing to publish their articles. They ended up in Regent University Law Review, and you can read the various articles here.

So what does this say about objective standards and honest debate in academia? Well, nothing positive, that's for sure. Read what Ty Clevenger, the co-editor who went AWOL from the SLPR, had to say:

"In fact, the most consistent theme among the articles in this volume is that a pervasive bias exists against those who stray from pro-gay orthodoxy. Many libertarians, myself included, debate the role of public morality versus individual liberty, but disputes about sexual mores are no longer the central issue in the gay rights debate. Instead, the greater threat to individual liberties comes from gay activists themselves, many of whom seem to view the slightest deviation from pro-gay orthodoxy as something akin to religious heresy...."

"As Dr. Spitzer explained, it is very easy for a gay-activist journal staff to torpedo a non-conforming article merely by assigning the article to hostile peer reviewers. Similarly, private and government funding agencies, which ostensibly fund research on scientific merit, can be subverted merely by assigning biased reviewers to the funding committees. Unlike the voir dire process for selecting jurors, establishment science has no process for vetting the fairness of peer reviewers. In fact, peer reviewers are often anonymous."

"Yet, when non-conforming researchers are forced to turn to alternative venues for publication, that fact is held against them insofar as their work is not published in a "mainstream" peer-reviewed journal. Frankly, I realize that publication of this essay in the Regent University Law Review will be grounds for criticism because Regent is identified, rightly or wrongly, as part of the "religious right." Any sort of religious affiliation is deemed grounds for grave suspicion, as I can personally attest. During the process of recruiting and interviewing authors, I had to undergo somewhat of a vetting process wherein potential authors or interviewees asked me about my own religious background and beliefs before agreeing to talk with me. While I do not object to this practice altogether, I must note that it only seems to operate in one direction. The objectivity of researchers who are Christian, Mormon, Jewish Orthodox, etc., is open to question, while the fact that a researcher may himself or herself be a homosexual is not considered grounds for suspicion of bias. The "voir dire" process, if you will, targets only one side of the debate...."

"...In the gay rights arena, however, the issue is not merely the bias of individual practitioners or researchers, but of entire professional organizations and their respective journals."

"This phenomenon is not unknown to the legal profession, which has seen the American Bar Association adopt increasingly politicized stands on gun control, abortion, and gay rights, a sore spot for many conservatives and libertarians. The question is what additional weight, if any, should be afforded these political opinions merely because the holders of these opinions claim to have relevant expertise. (Not much, according to President George W. Bush, who has ended the ABA's role in vetting judicial nominees, in part because of the ABA's perceived political biases. ) Likewise, when the APA gives its opinion on the "normality" of homosexuality based on its members' notions of morality, what makes that opinion any more "expert" than an American Bar Association opinion on whether abortion should be legal? If opinions are founded purely on the alleged expert’s personal morality or subjective beliefs, then a psychiatrist is no more an expert on homosexuality than an Orthodox rabbi or a Baptist preacher."

"Nonetheless, the fact remains that courts regularly rely on published social science research, not just individual expert witnesses, and cases concerning gay rights are no exception. Accordingly, counsel would be well advised to delve into the biases of peer-reviewed journals and professional organizations rather than taking their claims at face value. The aura of scientific objectivity clearly is long overdue for a challenge, particularly in the fields of psychology and psychiatry. Indeed, the law may, in many respects, be better equipped to insure the accuracy and fairness of social science research than the alleged scientists themselves, particularly in academic fields where political bias has overtaken empirical results....Unfortunately, those attributes [of fairness] are increasingly rare in academia or the professional journals, where viewpoint discrimination and 'political correctness' are the norm. Perhaps that dearth of honest debate explains why so many leftist academics, like Mary Coombs, think the gay rights debate is already over."

I apologize for the lenthy quoting here, but Clevenger's words are important, poignant, and revealing. I myself never take anything I read at face value and always assume the person writing has an underlying bias, but this sort of skeptical presupposition is forma non grata for the most part in the legal and academic fields--not to mention in journalism as well (yes, journalists are frequently cynical individuals, but seemingly never so cynical that they'll admit their biases are detectable in their stories). Slowly but steadily, the disenfranchised thinkers and scholars should take an axe to these professional orthodoxies and do whatever it takes to replace them with publications and venues that take all sides' voices into account.

Media ethics
Instapundit writes:

"Media ethics: Oxymoron? Or just moron? Matt Welch reports--you decide.

As with professional ethicists in most areas, media ethicists exist to pretend to do what competition would actually do if it were allowed to exist."

I couldn't agree more with that sentiment. Glenn Reynolds is right; just look at what the rise of Fox News as done to cable news programming. The backlash from mainstream journalists (if there exist such things) has been there from the start, but the intensity of it has only increased since Fox News has become the most watched cable news channel in America. To the folks at CNN and MSNBC, Fox News is "conservative" and "biased," while their own shows are "objective." Well, who gets to decide what is "objective" anyway? If it's something that defines that precarious, politically-correct balance to appease voices on all sides of an issue, then why bother with the charade? Why not just let the consumer/audience/reader decide?

"The Corner" spoof
Reason magazine lampoons the NRO crowd. Johan Goldberg didn't appreciate it, but I thought it was funny. Maybe that's because only two years ago, I was that jack-ass, know-it-all sophomore with (gasp) a sense of humor. Actually, some say I'm still an egotistical punk. Hey, what can I say--I try!

Why Le Pen won't win
I don't think most of his policies are that extreme, just misguided--a la Pat Buchanan. But I think this story illustrates why most voters will go for Chirac this weekend. Rigged elections, in France? The French have their democratic problems, but come on Jean-Marie, how can you expect anybody to take you seriously when you voice such a nutty proposition?

Bread without crusts?
I realize that crustless bread might make a lot of kids happy, but, how will the boys ever get hairs on their chests?

Amusing
"A new survey shows that the more female you are physically, the harder it is to be taken seriously in business. For example, women with very large breasts have a harder time being promoted than women with penises."

Matters of celibacy
Here is a defense of the celibacy of the clergy from the Catholic encyclopedia, and here is a history of the tradition of celibacy in the Catholic Church. Plus, check out John Derbyshire's convincing article on how modern society and it's views of sex and culture make it even more difficult for the clergy to remain celibate. The requirement of celibacy in the priesthood is, I concede, a very admirable and lofty goal, and has its functional purposes. For example, a celibate priest is much, much more able to devote his energies to the concerns of his parishioners than a Protestant pastor.

Martin Luther's crude observation that "if it doesn't go into a woman, it goes into your shirt" (and Luther was a Catholic priest, mind you, before he rebelled and left the Church), however, cuts at the weakest link in the logical progression that arrives at the dogma of celibacy. It's just not easy being celibate--in the old days or now--and our culture, as Derbyshire explains, only makes the mountain higher and steeper for those who determine to climb it.

In my view, both arguments falter on the real problem, which is the nature of authority in the church and how spiritual gifts are to be practiced. Call me a radical, but from my readings, the church was supposed to be a lot more, well, communistic (if you prefer communitarian, I'll accept that, too) in its spiritual functions. Of course there needs to be a hierarchy (Scripture is clear about that as well), but that authority (in my interpretation) was supposed to provide for the maintenance of healthy, sound doctrine based on Scripture, so that the Church wouldn't become corrupted by fallacies and heresies. The superstructure was to ensure for the survival of the local Christian communities, who all gave into and shared the blessings of the Church--and I'm not talking tithing, I'm referring to actual, functional participation (prophecy, speaking in tongues, wisdom, teaching, healing, discernment, preaching, and the rest of the spiritual gifts).

The Church today (not just the Catholic, but the entire worldwide body of Christianity) is dysfunctional. We've become the church of Corinth, to whom Paul wrote two letters in an attempt to admonish and exhort Christ's followers there to pursue a more spiritually healthy Christian community. Both Catholic and Protestant churches, by and large, have made the mistake of substituting hierarchy and authority in place of genuine spiritual community. The priest/pastor is not supposed to have all the spiritual gifts; he is merely supposed to organize, to facilitate--to shephard the flock, if you will. (Read 1 Corinthians 12 for Paul's explanation of spiritual gifts and how they should properly function in the Church.) Neither mandating celibacy nor allowing marriage among the priesthood fixes this underlying problem, the heart of which is the relationship between the Church and the community, authority and lay responsibility. I'm skeptical the current crisis will do much to effect real change in this regard, but it's what needs to occur--for the sake of all in the body of Christ.

Funny enviro-wackos
I'm not exactly a fan of the environmentalist movement, but as a driver of a Honda Civic, I do sympathize with the SUV haters. Well, this one clever bitch made little business cards that essentially said, "You have a small penis and overcompensate for it by driving a big, Earth-killing SUV!" She also put her phone number on them. As you can imagine, she received some irate calls from irate people letting her know where she could stick those cards. She writes about her tasteless adventure in the New Times LA. Check it out. You'll be rolling (no--not that kind of rolling!!!).

LAX flights--real time!
Wow, this is cool. Too bad it keeps crashing my Internet Explorer. Actually, IE seems to crash every other post for me. How worthless.

Deep Throat conspiracies
I'm with you this one, Brendan. John Dean may be publishing an online book that purports to reveal the identity of Deep Throat, but I think John Dean is going to actually admit he is Deep Throat. After reading up on the conspiracies on the identity of Deep Throat, I think Dean can be him. Even if Dean points the finger at somebody else, I'm pretty sure he probably knows. Besides, where did he find the time to conduct such a thorough investigation into the Deep Throat mystery? Isn't he busy writing articles about military tribunals and federal court nominations over at FindLaw.com?

By the way, Brendan's site looks much better since he's redesigned it.

I wish all liberals were this quick to introspect
This has been up for a while, but if you haven't read it yet, you should take some time to check it out. I am referring to Michael Walzer's extended treatment of the question, Can There Be a Decent Left? I won't comment on it, because it's powerful enough on its own. Walzer's analysis should make every political progressive and activist question his/her own position and reflect on whether he/she is in fact pursuing the best methods to achieve the desired ends.

Oy Vey!
I've noticed that I'm already at 30% of my monthly limit of 100k! I'll have to begin the search for a new webserver sooner than I thought. For now, I think I need to slow down a bit.

Stupid, ignorant Americans
Occasionally, when communicating with some of my European friends, I hear the complaint that Americans are self-centered and ignorant of any culture but their own. This also seems to be a popular theme on the op-ed pages of European dailies, in the oratory of European political leaders, and in the halls of European academia. In other words, if only Americans weren’t so stupid and uneducated about European culture, we’d agree with them more often and stop making fun of them (e.g., the silly French) or dismissing their world influence as the backseat drivers of history. Well, I rather resent this charge. I mean, really, are we that ignorant?

Let’s see. How about the millions of Americans who are immigrants themselves from Europe, or have parents or grandparents that are émigrés from the Old World? I can’t imagine they are ignorant of European culture. Or how about Latino and Caribbean Americans, who predominantly come from lands heavily influenced by Spanish, French, and Portuguese colonization and cultural imperialism--can we accurately say they don’t know a thing about European culture? Ditto for many of the Asian Americans who come from China, Hong Kong, the Philippines, and Indochina. That pretty much leaves just the blacks (with the exception of the few who also are immigrants from former African colonies), whose ancestors were forced to come over to the New World on ships run by Belgian, Dutch, and British slave traders. No doubt most blacks subsequently see no difference between the white American and the Dutch, English, German, or French cultures. To them, presumably, they can draw the fair conclusion that white means oppressor--and to hell with the finer distinctions (it's just shades of white). But somehow I doubt this is the brand of ignorance sanctimonious Europeans refer to, as they probably (and rightly) feel guilty for their responsibility in these historical injustices of their colonialism.

So then, maybe the Europeans are the ignoramuses and not us. But this doesn’t seem to hold water; after all, they import and consume our global American materialist pop culture to such an extent that their own elites fear the quick erosion of their own “authentic” European cultures.

I suspect the frustration lies in another facet of the American being. See, Americans still go to church. We believe in moral values and the rightness of our cause, going all the way back to our Founders’ vision for our society and the American dream. We’re also quite pragmatic and not nearly as caught up in philosophizing the world’s problems as the Europeans; after all, we’re too busy trying to eke out a living in the frontiers of places like Montana (Did you see the PBS special? I heard it was quite fascinating.), and even those of us who have urbanized still retain some of that core American rough-edged, pragmatic ethos. Yes, it’s largely true: we’re simple folk. So, I think the real problems such high-minded Euro-elites have with us is that we don’t grasp the distinctions between Derrida and Sartre, Nietszche and Camus--nor do we care.

In the end, most Americans came to America precisely to escape the bankrupt civil societies of Europe, Asia, and Latin America to seek a place where we would be seen first as individuals and allowed a chance to succeed. Then we can pick and choose to what extent we wish to identify with the culture of our countries of origin, instead of it being forced down our throats and forced to conform. This, ultimately, is what I think bothers European intellectuals and political elites--that we in America largely have the freedom to define our own reality and identity, rather than being inescapably “French,” “English,” or “Italian.” This is what attracts the youth of these nations to the anarchy of our pop culture, and their leaders are deathly afraid of the liberating impact that might bring. That’s why we’re stupid and ignorant, and incidentally, that’s why the Jew has always been a persecuted Other in European society--because the Jew doesn’t conform to the Euro cultural standard either. The attacks against Jews in France, Germany, Belgium, Britain, and elsewhere in Europe are merely further examples of this European self-hatred, for which the hated Jews ("NTM les juifs") and culturally imperialist Americans must bear the responsibility through scapegoating.

Go away, Maureen
I read Maureen Dowd today in the South Bay Daily Breeze (apparently the New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist is syndicated and published in lots of newspapers now) over my mid-afternoon breakfast, and her inane analysis of the Bush-Saudi meeting yet again displayed that she just doesn't get it. Dowd's is a warped worldview, one in which everything wrong with humanity can be explained through the paradigm of patriarchy and male-centered social hierarchy. She had a couple other comments recently wherein she complained bitterly of the fact that men don't like to date uppity professional women like her; meanwhile her male peers have no such troubles finding willing mates. For Maureen Dowd, this is just yet another example of how the intractable and bad nature of men works to oppress women. She refuses to see that relationships are more complicated than that. It's no wonder she's single and barren as her biological clock ticks down to its last few seconds of fertility; who would want to marry a woman who embodies all the negative traits traditionally associated with women by misogynists? She's naggy, gossipy, superficial, irrational, illogical, and spoiled. To top it off, she holds a feminist view that locates every problem in society within the character of the male species. I'm far from a relationship expert, but I've always found that when complications arise in dealing with the other sex, it's always wiser to search oneself for the problem first before accusing the other side of being at fault. If Dowd has even a dose of humility and rationality, she might yet find a man to end her singleness and misery. As of now, I'm sure no man would ever want to even take a chance asking her out on a date unless he's some type of masochistic, self-loathing fool with an inferiority complex.

A Chabad holy war?
Recently, I came across a story in the Washington Post. It seems some sicko frat boys from Wake Forest tortured a pig as an initiation prank, but I suspected something more complex was going on. So I sent the article to my Jewish friend Aaron, who happens to have some Chabad connections in the Philly area, and this is what he told me:

"Chabad has had several campaigns ranging from Moshiach-Now! to the tefillin one. One influential Chabad rabbi claims to have heard from the Rebbe in a dream and the message was this, 'Now that yiddin are becoming closer to HaShem and doing more mitzvos, it's time that those who fear heaven to declare our own holy war. Yet this war isn't aimed at innocent women and children; rather, it is the duty of man as HaShem's partner in redemption to eradicate this near-redeemed world of treyf in preparation for the coming of Moshiach.' Well, I guess the boys at Wake Forest took this literally."

Fellow goyim, it's time to unite and stop this Holy War against treyf. If we let them kill our pigs now, I guarantee you their next step will be attacking our sushi restaurants and poisoning our shellfish. Then they'll burn down In-N-Out for selling Double-Doubles. It's a slippery slope, folks. We must act now! Don't be fooled by the frat boys--they were just Gentile proxies. The real menace are those folks who walk around in black hats and long black winter coats in the midst of summer. Forget Sharon--the fanatical Orthodox must be stopped!