The Academy

Joe Palmer on the modern academy:

Until universities were divided into schools and specialized divisions, there was no such thing as an English or a Physics department. Today, now that there is more to learning than the law and the Bible, the managers have militarized the academy, making it an Abu Ghraib of the mind, and the narrow minded have penalized knowledge, a Guantánamo of scholarship, confining it in special cells where its secrets are learned and no one escapes. Our discreet packaging of knowledge is not just our way of managing and securing our rice bowls, it is also a method of satisfying the powers that be, the boards of directors, the suits who love to see order and decorum, and the professors who like to get paid for pursuing their hobbies.

nth position

Literally Bush-ed

Andy Borowitz from Truthdig on George W. Bush’s reading practices:

On a day when Washington was abuzz with the news that former White House spokesperson Scott McClellan had published a tell-all memoir, President George W. Bush offered his personal reason for not reading it.

“I have no intention of reading Scott McClellan’s book,” Mr. Bush told reporters, “because it’s a book.”

Mr. Bush said he was “surprised” that Mr. McClellan had written a book to criticize him because, he explained, “if you’re trying to communicate some criticism to me, a book is pretty much the last place you’d put it.”

The president said that he thought the chances of his someday reading Mr. McClellan’s book were “zero,” adding, “If I didn’t read the Iraq Study Group’s report, I really don’t think I’m about to read Scott McClellan’s little book.”

Presidential historian Davis Logsdon of the University of Minnesota observed that if Mr. McClellan honestly expected his memoir to somehow reach Mr. Bush’s nightstand, “that demonstrates just how little he knows George W. Bush.”

“Scott McClellan would have had a much better shot if he had put his memoir in Xbox 360 format and then slipped it into a package labeled ‘Grand Theft Auto 5,’ ” he said.

For his part, Mr. Bush said that there was in fact a book published this week that had caught his eye: the new James Bond thriller titled “Devil May Care.”

“Now, that book looks like it could be good,” he said. “Maybe I’ll have Laura read it to me.”

Award-winning humorist, television personality and film actor Andy Borowitz is author of “The Republican Playbook.”

Sexual Abuse & the Catholic Church

In an earlier post,   here   I posted an item from The Age/AU about Bishop Geoffrey Robinson of Sydney Australia, who had been ”disowned” by the Catholic Bishops Conference of Australia as a result of the publication of his book, “Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church” which asserted that the Church needed to consider radical reform from the Pope down if it was serious about tackling the issue of sexual abuse by priests.

Here are parts of an interview with Stephen Crittenden and Bishop Robinson:

Geoffrey Robinson: [...] The Catholic church has weaknesses and strengths, like anything. One of the great strengths is that power of the rock to hold the church together, but the consequence of that is that when something as massive as sexual abuse comes up, that’s where you look for some sort of direction, some sort of guidance. Had the Pope come out at that time and said, ‘Yes, here’s this terrible tragedy, scandal within the church, let’s face it, let’s reach out to victims, let’s put them before the good name of the church, let’s do all these things’, then the church’s response could have been a model. Instead there were people like me all over the world, struggling away, and all we got from Rome was by and large, silence. That crippled our response.

Stephen Crittenden: And you say it’s still crippling the church’s activities in fact in all sorts of other areas.

Geoffrey Robinson: Well I think until we not just manage this problem, but actually confront it, look for the deepest causes of it and eradicate them, then we are always going to have a problem of credibility and let me be blunt, people are not going to believe us and pay attention. So we might say all sorts of beautiful things about other subjects, but with the great danger that nobody’s listening because we have not yet confronted and eradicated this problem within the church.

[...]

When a massive crisis comes along, such as sexual abuse, that’s where you look for guidance. Had the Pope responded it would have been a totally different story. Instead we got silence. I regret saying that, it gives me no joy at all, but I was one of people around the world trying to work at this problem, trying to do our best and with only silence coming, the church fractured.

[...]

Stephen Crittenden: In the book you say that celibacy is emphatically not the whole cause of the sexual abuse crisis, but there’s a strong case to be made that it’s part of the cause. 

Geoffrey Robinson: I make the case that sexual abuse, not just by priests, but across the entire community, is actually a quite complex phenomenon. And there’s a lot still not known about it. And all attempts to look for one simple explanation of everything, are going to be misguided, and in the long run, won’t help us. If we want to overcome abuse within the Catholic church, within the whole of Australian society, we’re going to have to look at more complex things.

[..]

Stephen Crittenden: I want to touch on homosexuality because the Catholic hard right, particularly in America, which I might say they’re already reacting pretty viciously to your book online, they say the problem is that the priesthood was infiltrated by homosexuals.

Geoffrey Robinson: There are homosexual priests, I mean I’m well aware of that, and in fact a significant number probably higher than the percentage in the general community. Not a majority, or anything like that, but a significant number. There is no evidence whatsoever that it is those priests who offend against minors. Homosexuality and offences against minors are two totally different phenomena. A homosexual is attracted to others of the same gender, but is no more likely to offend against minors than is anybody else in the community, and it seems to me that picking on the homosexuals is an attempt to manage the problem, not confront it. In other words, to find a scapegoat, or a simple answer.

The whole interview is   here

Part of an article by Juliette Hughes on the controversy surrounding Bishop Robinson:

IT’S not a good time to be a woman in the Catholic Church right now. When I read Barney Zwartz’s piece last week on how the Australian Catholic bishops had put out a statement dissociating themselves from one of their most enlightened and compassionate members, I felt sick, then angry, really angry.

Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, now retired from Sydney’s Catholic archdiocese, published a book last year, Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church. It’s one of the most hopeful, honest and responsible pieces of writing ever to come out of the church. But the other bishops are running away from its wisdom, too scared to withstand pressure coming from a Vatican whose reaction was predictable, given the dismal track record of the latest two popes.

As a woman and as a lay person I’ve been doubly disqualified from having any say in the leadership of my church; it’s a galling place for a feminist to be. A quarter century of the misogynist John Paul II made it very hard for me to be proud of being Catholic: it’s been like belonging to a dysfunctional family.

Knowing a vast number of good and decent Catholic clerics has helped. We were all in it together, hanging on, waiting for sanity to prevail. So by the time John Paul’s main enforcer got himself “voted” to the papacy by a group of electors hand-picked for being traditionalist and male, most Catholics were just getting on with living and loving, trying to discern how to live ethically.

But when the church’s bureaucrats starting obfuscating about the part the church’s authorities played in covering up abuse, we needed to hear that some people in our church were actually doing the right thing.

Bishop Robinson’s response gave a lot of people hope that the church would start doing the right thing. He wrote the book after having been given the task of listening to the church’s many victims of sexual abuse in 1994. As he listened, he did something that the other bishops can’t seem to do: he felt for them, and opted to be on their side.

He became, he says, increasingly disillusioned by the reactions of the church hierarchy to the terrible situation that was unfolding. Too often the reaction from high up has been to “manage” the scandal, to try to preserve the fiction of the church’s good name, to smother the victims’ cries for help.

Why? Why do men who claim to love God and goodness actively stand in the way of justice and healing? I found two websites offered telling insights into this, (one of them quite unintentionally). The first, the Australian Catholic bishops’ website, shows the hubris that continues to wound ordinary Catholics. Its homepage announces triumphantly that 25% of Australians are Catholic, consisting of “bishops, priests, men and women religious and lay people”. (Well, hello there from the afterthought at the end of the list. As one of the 99% of Catholics who aren’t in the vainglorious first four categories, I dissociate myself from your statement dissociating yourselves from Bishop Robinson’s book.)

The Age

As a woman who was once a Catholic I am in sympathy with Ms Hughes.  One quibble, however; Ms Hughes notes that “It’s not a good time to be a woman in the Catholic Church”.  My question is, when has it ever been a good time to be a woman in the Catholic Church?

Olberman on Bush

Olberman is no Murrow but let’s give credit where credit is due.  It is a mighty relief to hear Mainstream Media rip into Bush.

 

LEAF & Bill C-484

Position paper of the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) on Bill C-484:

LEAF opposes Bill C-484 because it is little more than an attempt to grant
legal person status to unborn fetuses, while failing to provide any substantial measures to address violence against women, including pregnant women. The implications of this Bill are significant for women’s equality and could affect women’s access to abortion.

LEAF is concerned about the pervasiveness of male violence against women and children in Canadian society. Pregnant women can be particularly vulnerable to acts of physical and emotional violence. Bill C-484 does not achieve the aim of taking seriously violence against women and does not add any meaningful legal remedies to those already present in the criminal law to address violence against pregnant women. When a pregnant woman is abused or killed, loss of the fetus is harm to the pregnant woman herself. This harm can be considered an aggravating feature in sentencing.

Equality advocates have identified systemic causes of violence against women and proffered a wide range of meaningful solutions to those causes, such as adequate financial security for women and children trying to leave abusive situations, more stable funding and education opportunities for women with children, and better training for police, lawyers and judges and better funding for transition houses and women’s groups serving the needs of abused women. If this or any other Canadian government was serious about addressing violence against women, including pregnant women, it would look to the wealth of recommendations made over the years by a range of community-based organizations with expertise in assisting women and children victims of violence.

NDP Status of Women Critic Irene Mathyssen (London-Fanshawe) is seeking to move Bill C-484 from the dysfunctional Justice Committee to the Status of Women Committee.   here

Myanmar. And Congo. And Darfur …

My evening news channel, CanWest Global, says that 22,500 people are reported dead and 44,000 missing after a cyclone hit Myanmar.  These numbers have more than doubled each day since the deadly storm.  From the Guardian/UK

The dramatically escalating toll of dead and missing four days after Cyclone Nargis slammed into the south and centre of the country reflects the degree of devastation and remoteness of the worst-affected areas along the coast.

The military regime in Burma, known for the brutal repression of its people, has said it would accept international help, and teams of specialists are making their way to the affected areas.

Noppadol Pattama, Thailand’s foreign minister, said the Burmese ambassador to Bangkok, Ye Win, told him that 30,000 were missing. Asia’s worst cyclone hit Bangladesh in 1991, killing 143,000.

In the delta area to the south and south-west of Rangoon, witnesses described how 16 villages along the coast near another devastated town, Laputta, had simply vanished in the flood surge.

Aid agencies have estimated that as many as 1 million people may be without shelter after their flimsy bamboo homes were torn down by the winds or washed away in the flooding that left a carpet of mud when it receded.

“We have a major humanitarian catastrophe on our hands,” said Chris Kaye, Burma country director for the UN’s World Food Programme.

“The numbers are harrowing. Certainly, we know that in areas in the southern delta – towns like Bogalay and Laputta – were very, very badly affected by the storm surge. A surge in low-lying areas coupled with high winds served to flatten areas, taking villages and villagers with it. It’s a tragic and serious situation,” he said.

I want to know why the world rushes to the assistance of this country and these people while at the same time virtually ignoring the crises in Darfur and the Democratic Republic of Congo; why thus far we have done little to deal with rising food prices causing malnutrition in developing countries such as Haiti; and on and on.  I am certainly not suggesting that we ignore Mynamar’s people.  But we do need to check our arrogance about humanitarianism.  We help where we want to help. 

Some analysts of the situation in the DRC note that the instability and permanent state of war in that country for the last ten years, now marked by atrocities against tens of thousands of women and children, is actually rather convenient for Western countries such as the US and, no doubt, Canada and other countries who can pillage the country’s natural resources with impunity.  For instance, it is estimated that one million dollars worth of coltan  (a mineral used to produce cell phones, computer chips, laptops and other electronics) is removed from the DRC EACH DAY.  And unknown quantities of diamonds, gold and other precious stones and minerals.  If action in Iraq is to some degree about oil, is inaction in the DRC about plundering this resource-rich country?  In Darfur, China has already staked out much of the oil produced by Sudan.  If Western countries responded to the crisis there, what would they get in return?  Is this how we decide who deserves our help?  I’m not saying I know the answer.  But I think the question is important.  With respect to the mineral resources being plundered in Congo, see   this  and   this   and   this

The relationship between the pillaging of natural resources and the tragic violence against women in Congo is also documented in the compelling documentary The Greatest Silence : Rape in the Congo  by Lisa Jackson.

Gun Culture and the Feminist Writer

I’m also interested in gun culture – the west, how the gun is tied to the west and America’s ideas of gender and freedom. But, just for the record, I am for gun control. I’m not a member of the NRA. I do think some guns are interesting as objects – like a Navy Colt, it’s a beautiful object, it’s a weird object. Guns (in writing and otherwise) are a symbol of power and I’m interested in inverting them, examining them, putting them in the hands of women, but I also want people to examine their relationship to guns, to violence, to history, to people of another gender. It’s also subconscious. Everyone, I feel, has their own storehouse of imagery. The gun stuff comes from my own past; my father collects antique guns, but meanwhile he can’t hit the broadside of a barn. My mother, however, she’s a skeet shooter, a really good one. And my sister was in the (first) Gulf War; she is an amazing rifle -woman. My images of guns, definitely, are strongly connected to women. 

more here

Q&A with Sarah Messer talking about her poem Animal Groom at fishhouse poems

The UN in Congo – “Tread [more] softly”

The UN has covered up claims that its troops in Democratic Republic of Congo gave arms to militias and smuggled gold and ivory, the BBC has learned.

The allegations, based on confidential UN sources, involve Pakistani and Indian troops working as peacekeepers.

The UN investigated some of the claims in 2007, but said it could not substantiate claims of arms dealing.

UN insiders told the BBC’s Panorama they had been prevented from pursuing their inquiries for political reasons.   BBC News

WOC PhD says:

So let’s see . . . UN Peace Keepers in the DRC have now been exposed for:

• exchanging food aid for sexual exploitation of aid recipients girl children
• videocaming and circulating rape movies of women and girls
• escorting, feeding, and profiting from gold smugglers

I know the UN has an independent committee charged with investigating all crimes and all of these incidences have been investigated but here’s a thought: screen your workers instead of censoring the media! There is no excuse for re-abusing the people you are there to protect. And when you complain about the public being told about it, you just make the abusers look like the rule rather than the exception.

 

Will the “Real” Jeremiah Wright … Do We Know Him?

What is the meaning/what are the meanings of the words that the Reverend Jeremiah Wright has spoken in the last few days, in an interview with Bill Moyers on PBS (watch the whole interview  here  ) and during several press conferences today?  I suppose that many of us, no doubt viewing ourselves as intelligent people, think that we are in a position to decide (I’m talking about white folk in particular).  I don’t think so.  At least, we are not in that position immediately.  We have a lot of work to do first.

I’m not a racialized person living in America.  I assume that racialized people living in America have a lot to tell me before I might begin to understand their experience and their relationship to power, politics, the media etc.  I like the Reverend and I can relate to much of what he says, even his speech after 9/11.  But many people don’t like what he’s said, including Barack Obama apparently.  I’ve read some of the Reverend’s sermons, listened to videos of ENTIRE sermons and done some reading, as well as listening to African Americans and their responses on tv news shows.  I might be starting to APPROACH an understanding of what Wright’s sermons mean to his parishioners.  Yet others feel free to speak conclusively about what he means, immediately, without looking deeper, without speaking to people whose interpretations may be more accurate.  That’s dumb but more importantly, it’s racist.  It’s not a discussion or a conversation.  It’s privilege utilizing privilege and dominance to determine meaning.

Moreoever, I don’t describe myself as a Christian, though that is in my history.  I know nothing at all of the “prophetic tradition” in African American churches.  I have a good background for coming to an understanding and I’ve taken steps in that direction.  But I don’t pretend to understand as yet.  Until I do, beyond saying that I can relate to the Reverend and his people, I cannot judge.

With respect to Barack Obama, if anything, I’m disappointed that he has “renounced” these sermons of Rev. Wright.  I’d have thought a lot more of him if, as part of the discussion he urges upon his fellow Americans, he helped them towards an understanding of his long-time pastor, a man he clearly admires and only looks hypocritical distancing himself from.

Until I learn more, this will have to do:

First, a reminder of the incendiary, flame-hot words of one of America’s righteous heroes, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. -

“God didn’t call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war. . . . And we are criminals in that war. We’ve committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I’m going to continue to say it. And we won’t stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place…[God will say:] And if you don’t stop your reckless course, I’ll rise up and break the backbone of your power.” 

MLK has God telling his people, “his” America, that he will rise up and break its backbone?  Not gentle words.  And more than gentle words were needed.  Tell me, if anyone had listened to words such as those spoken by Rev. Wright in 2001, where might America be just now? where might the world be?

If you want to read another opinion about Rev. Wright, check E.J. Dionne Jr.,    here

And this:

How dare Reverend Wright and King violate their assigned space! Next thing you know, they’ll be sitting in the front row of the bus, scaring the bejesus out of the bus driver and the proper people. All of whom can respond with anger. It’s right there, in the rulebook.   here

And, on March 29th when the first “Wright wars” raged, here’s David Newiert’s take on the brouhaha:

The Washington Post’s report on Obama’s speech observed that this was a controversy that “threatens to engulf his presidential candidacy.” Yet as far as anyone can tell, it was having only a marginal effect on the polls in the race before it blew up on the networks, and it was not generated by either of Obama’s political opponents, or by any particular interest groups.

No, this is a controversy cooked up almost entirely within the media realm. Once they sank their fangs into it, the whole zombielike corps of pundits, cable talking heads, and radio talk-show hosts couldn’t let go of it. And equally remarkable was the bias that was on display in discussing it: News anchors and talking heads flatly referred to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s videotaped remarks as “anti-American,” “hate-filled,” “vicious,” “offensive,” and so on and on.

It’s telling that none of them also observed that, for the most part, Wright’s remarks (aside from his conspiracist comments about AIDS, which were indeed inexcusable, but which received little or no play before Obama’s speech) were factually accurate, and deeply reflective of a reality that most African Americans live with — and which most white Americans do their best to ignore, deny, and forget. The remarks that were broadcast all over YouTube and replayed endlessly on the cable talk shows were, no doubt, were impolitic, but they were also largely true.

 more at firedoglake

And more today from peterr at firedoglake:

Let me start with some disclosure: I know Jeremiah Wright. I’ve worshiped at Trinity United Church of Christ a time or two. I’ve heard Wright speak at clergy conferences. I’ve had a couple of one-on-one conversations with him.

With that said . . . Oh, that man can preach. But as any preacher will tell you, it helps if people would listen. As a preacher with some 20+ years of my own experience in the pulpit, I shudder to think what would happen if some of my sermons were snipped and sliced and diced in the same manner as those of Jeremiah Wright.

The most lamentable aspect of the way Wright has been swift-boated is the manner in which his critics snipped his quotes out of context. CNN’s Roland Martin, underneath the broader radar of the media, noted that Jeremiah Wright’s now-infamous sermon addressing 9/11 was completely misrepresented:

One of the most controversial statements in this sermon was when he mentioned “chickens coming home to roost.” He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News. That’s what he told the congregation.

To hear the media speak about it, though, this was Wright trying to burn down the White House. I’m not surprised that you didn’t hear this on Fox — though the initial interview with Peck took place on Fox! — but the fact that the media missed this is stunning. Even on CNN, apart from the blog post, you’d never get the idea that their reporters ever listened to the whole sermon. and judging from this morning’s performance by reporters at Wright’s appearance at the National Press Club, they’re still not listening.   more here

And while we’re reading and learning and trying to catch up, those of us who are NOT African Americans, let’s remember that African America is made up of multiple communities and many, many people with a wide variety of experience and interpretations of their own.  I know this is a bit of a rant and I do try to avoid that.  Can’t help it on this one.

 

G-awed

Family Research Council Washington Update by – do I have to say? – find it here but I’m copying the whole bit so you don’t have to go to the site.  Don’t work your brain too hard trying to sort out this “logic”.

Down to Earth Day

An estimated billion people are celebrating Earth Day around the world, but few seem to understand its true motivation. Today isn’t just another reminder to use recycled paper or drive energy-efficient cars. It’s a calculated attack on the sanctity of human life. Population control is inextricably linked to the environmental and abortion movements. For years, the Sierra Club and other green militants have said that the best way to consume fewer resources is to have fewer children. Their own website says, “Talk to your decision-makers and demand an increase of funding for voluntary family planning programs and access to comprehensive sex education for young people.” Last year, Optimum Population Trust released a paper that was even less subtle. It claimed that children are “bad for the planet” and called on nations to reduce the global population by five billion–which would only be possible by forced abortion and sterilization. And how could we forget Barry Walters? The Australian professor published an article last year advocating a “baby tax” for every couple with more than two children. The crisis du jour is global warming, but even that is just another excuse to fund “Planet” Parenthood and similar groups. Stewardship of God’s creation is the responsibility of every Christian. But we must realize that there’s a greater threat to the environment than climate change or scarce resources–and that’s the threat of environmental extremism that elevates the planet above people.

via Bennett Gordon at  Utne Blogs

Voluntary family planning?  Comprehensive sex ed for young people?  Oh my g-awed.  Here’s a bit by the horrible professor who thinks “children are bad for the planet”:

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.

“The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”

In his latest comments, the academic says that when couples are planning a family they should be encouraged to think about the environmental consequences.

“The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account,” he added.

Professor Guillebaud says that, as a general guideline, couples should produce no more than two offspring.

The world’s population is expected to increase by 2.5 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050. Almost all the growth will take place in developing countries.   more here

Aaaah, sounds reasonable to me.  I don’t see anything about forced abortions or sterilizations.  And the professor is from the UK.  Not Australia.  Although the piece is published in an Australian newspaper.  Picky picky.