Take Back Our Campus!

TBOCLIVES.BLOGSPOT.COM

2004-11-11T23:18:00.000-05:00

Take Back Our Campus! has moved to tboclives.blogspot.com. The move was inspired by two shifts in the mode of TBOC!.

--The first is that the humble and attractive Christian Evangelist has delegated editorship to a board of (only occasionally) like-minded persons, of which he is a member. This fits much more to the (anarcho-socialist) temperment of the site. This may also mean that one may see disagreements between the editorial board members as to what content is appropriate for the site. We like this. This will be interesting. This will all be blogged.

--The second is that we wanted a new design to coincide with the addition of new contributors. We like the new design. We would marry it if such a thing was possible in the conservative climate of our country.

Go now to our new home.

TBOC Seeks New Editor and Contributors

2004-08-28T22:03:00.000-04:00

We are so honest and sincere. You are so honest and sincere. We would loan you up to fifty bucks and not even worry about it.

TBOC is currently seeking a new editor and any budding columnists who wish to report on politically oriented (orientated for our British friends) gossip and events at SLU.

Why? Following a cocaine-influenced decision to relocate below the Mason-Dixon and establish some working-class credibility before making millions in his grandfather's bank in Westchester, our current editor is busy. He rises at 6 am every day to earn enough to pay for a small room with a bathroom down the hall. He is besieged by charming southern debutantes who wish only to make babies. They are of all races and extremely fetching. Take our word for this.

Please send an e-mail, as short or as long as you want (and maybe a sample piece, paper, or something else cool), to us at takebackourcampus@yahoo.com. Please send from a SLU e-mail account, as we want SLU students and/or hourly wage staff to write for us. It may seem unfair that we know your identity before you know who we are.

We'll show you ours if you show us yours.

Robert David Johnson and the Students for Academic Freedom-- Not Quite "Non-Partisan"

2004-08-17T18:03:00.000-04:00

Robert David Johnson's "Global Studies, Universal Bias," a dishonest piece of partisan vitriol, was recently reprinted by the Students for Academic Freedom. Unsurprisingly, he again refuses to make a full disclosure regarding his tenure difficulties when criticizing Roberta Matthews.

Johnson, a self-proclaimed "fairly liberal Democrat" keeps odd company. He publishes in The Weekly Standard and FrontPageMag.com, both notoriously conservative rags. During his fight for tenure with Brooklyn College, one of Johnson's biggest supporters was none other than ex-Leftist Ron Radosh.

Johnson learned an important lesson from Radosh-- it's much more profitable to be a conservative. Like Leftist apostate Christopher Hitchens, Johnson, the once-proud Hillary supporter, has found not only self-aggrandizing conservative "victimhood" (posited against a totalitarian Leftist elite) but also the big bucks invested in conservative ideology-- in 2001, over $2 billion was invested in conservative think tanks. [For a more detailed analysis of this last point, see either Matt Bai's "Wiring the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy" from the New York Times, 7/25/04, or Lewis Lapham's "Tentacles of Rage" in the September 2004 issue of Harper's.]

Thus Johnson's latest bedmates come as no surprise. We'd like to introduce our readers to Students for Academic Freedom. In their words, they are "a movement dedicated to the ideas that 1)a university is an educational institution and not a political party; 2) that its resources and authority should be used for learning and the pursuit of knowledge, not to indoctrinate students in a political ideology; and 3) that the principles of academic freedom and a good education require that students have access to a diversity of viewpoints in courses, required reading texts and in campus activities programs."

However, after reading SAF's handbook, we experienced a brief moment of deja vu. "Wait," we said to ourselves. "Isn't this a lot like another boring conservative treatise we've recently read?" Indeed, it was-- the College Republican National Committee Chapter Manual.

The two manuals are markedly similar, even down to the annoying tendency to add a comma to clauses connected by a conjunction. (e.g. "To separate clauses with a comma as well as a conjunction is redundant, and it is retarded as well.")

Page numbers referenced are the pages as viewed in Adobe Acrobat, not the pages listed on the printed versions of the manuals.

"Get rid of any cchairs (sic) around your table! Chairs encourage people to sit, and SAF recruitment table workers should remain standing-- ideally out in front of the table to intercept students as they walk by." (Students for Academic Freedom Handbook, p.44)

"Get rid of any chairs around your table! Chairs encourage people to sit, and College Republican recruitment table workers should remain standing-- ideally out in front of the table to intercept students as they walk by." (College Republican Chapter Manual, p.15)

"The best time for tabling is the first and second weeks of school between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, at student club fairs, during registration and orientation, and during fraternity/sorority rush weeks." SAF, p.44)

"The optimal time for tabling is the first and second weeks of school between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, at student club fairs, during registration and orientation, and during fraternity/sorority rush weeks." (College Republican Chapter Manual, p.15)

"Position literature and signs neatly. Dress neatly but casually, in keeping with campus standards." (SAF, p.45)

"Position literature and signs neatly. Dress neatly but casually, in keeping with campus standards." (College Republican Chapter Manual, p.15)

"Actively solicit! This is the key to the success of the table operation. The people working the table must get out and actively solicit people! There are several rules that should be followed to do it right:" (SAF, p.45)

"Actively solicit! This is the key to the success of the table operation. The people working the table must get out and actively solicit people! There are several rules that should be followed to do it right:" (College Republican Chapter Manual, p.15)

"Pick out the prospect. Maintain eye contact and smile as he or she approaches the table, and physically block his path. Ask him to join Students for Academic Freedom. Gain his attention-- look him in the eyes, and be sure to smile. Offer an SAF recruitment flyeror (sic) brochure and introduce yourself. Hi, I'm Sammy Student. Would you like to join the Students for Academic Freedom? This forces him to make a decision." (SAF, p.45)

"1. Pick out the prospect. Maintain eye contact and smile as he or she approaches the table. 2. Physically block his path. 3. Ask him to join the College Republicans. Gain his attention-- look him in the eyes, and be sure to smile. Offer a CR recruitment flyer or brochure, and introduce yourself. 'Hi, I'm Carol Conservative! Would you like to join the College Republicans?' This forces him to make a decision." (College Republican Chapter Manual, p.15)

"Do not waste time by arguing with a single individual who opposes SAF. You will sign up large numbers only in proportion to the number of people you ask. If you spend five minutes arguing with a particular student, fifty others will walk by. The purpose of the table is not to change people's minds. Your goal is to identify and recruit students who are willing to get involved and help you do SAF activities." (SAF, p.46)

"Do not argue or engage in a long conversation with one individual. Democrats and radicals should be ignored completely. You will sign up mass numbers of people only in proportion to the number of people you ask. If you spend five minutes arguing with a liberal, fifty good potential College Republicans will walk by. The purpose of the table is not to change people's minds. Your goal is to recruit the cream-of-the-crop; those who are already enthusiastic about the GOP." (College Republican Chapter Manual, p.16)

"Ask those recruits who are most enthusiastic to stay and help you at the table signing up new members. Pay special attention to those who stay and help. They are your top prospects for your leadership team! (SAF, p.46)

"Ask those who are most enthusiastic to stay and help you at the table signing up new members. Pay special attention to those who stay and help. They are your top prospects for your leadership team!" (College Republican Chapter Manual, p.17)

Interview with Robert David Johnson

2004-08-11T21:14:00.000-04:00

The following is an e-mail interview with Robert David Johnson. The numbered questions are the original e-mail sent to Johnson. Replies to his response are noted as such:

I sort of responded to these questions in a posting
earlier today on the site, but will be happy to do so
directly here, as well.

Dear Dr. Johnson--

I'd like to interview you, at your convenience, preferably through e-mail. I have a few questions, though you're more than welcome to write at length about whatever you like. I promise to post your responses unedited.

1.) Did any of your editors [at either The Weekly Standard or FrontPageMag.com] ask for a full disclosure regarding your criticisms of Provost Matthews? If not, why didn't you offer one yourself?

I'm not sure what you mean by "full disclosure" on
this point. As I said in my response posting, it is no
secret that I have been a strong, public, and
consistent critic of Ms. Matthews' curricular and
personnel policies over the last 12 months, just as I
have been a strong, public, and consistent critic of
the Arts of Democracy program and the AAC&U's agenda.
I believe that the educational philosophy of Ms.
Matthews and the AAC&U--which calls for abandoning a
liberal arts education for a "liberal" education that
would prepare students for citizenship in a "diverse
democracy," with the implication that such preparation
differs from what citizenship in a "democracy" would
require--would badly serve Brooklyn's students, and
higher education in general.

TBOC Replies: As Johnson notes, he has been a critic of Roberta Matthews' policies "over the last twelve months," though apparently not prior to his 2002 tenure difficulties, in which Matthews, as Provost of Brooklyn College, played a part. Whether or not his critisms of Matthews are the result of a personal grudge is known only to Johnson. However, the mere appearance of such unseemliness would require a disclosure about his strained relationship with Matthews.

2.) While you offer plenty of examples of "Global Studies" programs across the nation, you don't offer an explanation as to why they are biased. The course at RIT offered counterpoints from Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington. Similarly, a course about the works of Edward Said is not inherently biased. It may be so if Said's work is treated as gospel, but every indication is that Said's work was treated with suitable academic rigor. If these courses are in fact biased, a more substantial critique is needed.

With regard to the RIT course, my quotations are from
the "learning goals" of the course, which are written
by the professor and are posted on the RIT "Arts of
Democracy" website. A statement that students
completing the course will understand the "Western
veil of ignorance" regarding Islam or recognize how
Islam has been the victim of a system of "global
apartheid" suggests a biased approach: there is no
academic consensus on either of these points, yet the
professor asserts them as facts that students will
take from the course.

With regard to the Said question, I would concur, very
narrowly, with your statement that a course focused on
Said is not inherently biased. A program calling
itself "global studies," however, that features Middle
Eastern offerings that all seem oriented around the
Said approach, and with nothing in Israeli or Jewish
history, is biased.

Consider, for example, the wording of the public
activity requirement from the Collins course: "using
what we have learned, we organize and produce a public
activity of some sort; with the goal of educating the
community about the importance of understanding what Edward Said has called ‘the question of Palestine.’”
Imagine if Collins had used the opposite of this
wording: "using what we have learned, we organize and
produce a public activity of some sort; with the goal
of educating the community about the importance of
understanding what Ariel Sharon has called ‘the
question of Greater Israel.’” I believe that most people would consider such wording suggestive of bias.

>TBOC Replies: We agree with Johnson that his Ariel Sharon example would constitute a biased approach. However, this is because Sharon, far from being a scholar, is a soldier, politician, and war criminal. To compare Said to Sharon is to confuse the advocacy of an academic with the maximalist demands of a brutal killer. Would Johnson be so quick to cry "bias" if the wording was instead, "what [militantly pro-Zionist historian] Benny Morris has called 'the Palestinian refugee problem'"?

Johnson claims that a course "oriented around the Said approach, and with nothing in Israeli or Jewish history, is biased," but what Johnson fails to see is that whatever the semantics, Palestinian history is Israeli history. Without the notion of Israel, the would be no "question of Palestine" or "Palestinian refugee problem"-- there would be only the land of Palestine as, pre-1947, it had been known since Herodotus. Israeli and Jewish history is bound up in any discussion of modern Palestine. Perhaps Johnson has a problem not with the exclusion of Israeli history, but with the fact that the history can now be told by the conquered as well as the conquerers.

3.) I'd like to interview whoever sent you the link to this site about his/her concerns with SLU's Global Studies department and the concept of "Global Studies" in general. If you could provide his/her contact information (or pass the word along), I'd greatly appreciate it.

No one sent me a link re St. Lawrence's "global
studies" site. I had never heard of the concept of a
"global studies" department until Ms. Matthews
produced a document in April 2004 advocating creation
of a "global studies" department at Brooklyn. As I was
already aware of how she defined "global studies"
courses because of the Arts of Democracy project, I
was alarmed by this news.

So I took a day in May going through the websites of
every four-year college and university in the country
to see how many had "global studies" departments.
There aren't, as I mentioned, all that many such
departments, and there are a few that fit what would
be a common-sense definition of "global studies":
i.e., heavy doses of international relations,
political philosophy, and diplomatic history classes,
along with requirements in foreign languages, to open
the possibility for intercultural communication.

The strong majority, however, were structured like
SLU's, with little or no indication of intellectual
diversity in the offerings. And so, since the
discipline of "global studies" doesn't exist, I went
to the Global Studies Association website and read the
papers presented at this year's conference. Academic
inquiry into international matters did not seem high
on the association's list of priorities; one-sided
political messages did. As someone who has attended
quite a few conferences of both History and PoliSci
organizations over the past 15 years, I've never seen
anything like the array of clearly non-academic papers
at the GSA conference.

I welcome the idea that students should know more
about the theories regarding international relations,
the history of world affairs, as well as the
background to inherently transnational issues such as
war or environmental change. In the academy, however,
we don't need to establish new departments to teach
about these issues, departments--as I point out in my
piece--that establish ideological litmus tests that
would exclude certain fields (foreign languages,
diplomatic history, mainstream economics, political
philosophy) that any reasonable understanding of the
world would have to include. Instead, we need to
ensure that colleges and universities continue to hire
professors in political science, economics, history,
and philosophy departments that teach about these
fields.

Hope this is somewhat useful--

KC

We appreciate the time you've taken to respond to our work.
Best,
Christian
Editor, Take Back Our Campus

With the link question, we were asking who sent Johnson the Take Back Our Campus link, as we're a small website not even available on Google. If whomever sent Johnson the link to our site sees this, please e-mail us at takebackourcampus@yahoo.com. We're still interested in an interview.

TBOC Replies: Johnson believes that previously established departments are more than adequately equipped to provide students with an understanding of the world, as if academic inquiry has reached some kind of penultimate stage. This view is not unknown to history. Prior to the Enlighenment, scientists functioned mainly as librarians, cataloguing the discoveries of the Greeks. The pre-Enlighenment scientists believed that all knowledge had been established. They thumbed their noses at newfangled ideas like "empiricism."

Similarly, Johnson refuses to consider that the advent of a new discipline could offer new modes of knowledge to our collective ken. Instead, he charges these departments with "bias," the ultimate ivory taboo, in an effort to bury these scholars. As empiricism was an affront to the teachings of the Church, Global Studies is seen as an upstart by the established "disciplines" of the academy. And in both cases, the offended zealots have attempted to silence those with whom they disagree.

Is SLU's Global Studies Biased-- Ask the Biased Expert

2004-08-08T11:34:00.000-04:00

Robert David Johnson’s “Global Studies, Universal Bias,” recently published by FrontPageMag.com, attacks the comparatively new discipline of Global Studies. What makes Johnson’s screed stand out, however, are his particularly vicious words for our very own Global Studies department at St. Lawrence.

“Global Studies, Universal Bias” is the extended remix of an article by Johnson, “School for Scandal,” published eight months earlier in The Weekly Standard. The two articles feature the same basic point—that Global Studies is a biased discipline—and Johnson has no compunction about lifting sentences virtually whole cloth from his earlier article, despite the fact he does not own the copyright to “School for Scandal” (the copyright is controlled by The Weekly Standard):

“The new curriculum will help students answer such questions as, ’Was September 11 contrived?’ and ‘What did the United States government know and when did it know it?’ and ‘Whose rights would be violated now?’” ("School for Scandal")

“Such questions included, ‘Was September 11 contrived?’; ‘What did the United States know and when did it know it?’; and ‘Whose rights would be violated now?’” (Global Studies, Universal Bias")

While complaining of bias in academia, Johnson shows his own intellectual dishonesty. The two articles also include similar attacks on Roberta S. Matthews, Provost of Brooklyn College, and a fairly minor figure in the face of the whole discipline of Global Studies. Matthews, one must note (though Johnson does not in either article), was Provost of Brooklyn College in 2002, when that institution denied tenure to Johnson. He twice attacks Matthews and deliberately does not disclose the fact that she (among others) denied him tenure. Neither publication's editors, out of ignorance or lack of integrity, insisted on a full disclosure. (Johnson was later granted tenure after charging that the liberal Brooklyn College was discriminating against conservatives. As such, the shrill tone of these pieces come as no surprise. Complaining got him tenure.)

Johnson is also riled (in both articles) about a course offered at the Rochester Institute of Technology that offers a discussion about the “Western veil of ignorance.” Though the course readings include noted conservatives such as Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington, Johnson seems particularly incensed about the term, “Western veil of ignorance.” Johnson misses (both in “School for Scandal” and again, eight months later, in “Global Studies, Universal Bias”) the obvious reference to John Rawls’ notion of the “veil of ignorance,” a staple of 20th century Western thought and a concept familiar to any second-year undergrad with even a passing interest in political science or philosophy.

Some of Johnson’s complaints are unfounded and sophomorically sensational. Selecting a passage (almost at random) from “Global Studies, Universal Bias”: “The ‘intent of the course,’ Professor Robina Bhati states, ‘is that a better understanding of global political economy will lead to an improvement in the rationality and justice of our everyday life.’ Students’ grades are based on the professor’s “measurements” of their progress in achieving this goal.” [Emphasis added] While Johnson does his best to make this sound sinister (e.g. “’measurements’”), he seems genuinely baffled by the academic grading process. Small wonder he was initially denied tenure.

The new material in “Global Studies, Universal Bias” consists of an opening few paragraphs about the 2004 Global Studies Association conference and a concluding attack on “[t]he most fully developed ‘Global Studies’ department, at St. Lawrence University….” However, Johnson does not abandon his paranoid readings of Global Studies material in the tired retread of his earlier piece, claiming that the SLU Global Studies department “openly imposes an ideological litmus test for new hires, who must be familiar ‘with the theoretical debates surrounding area, global, development; ethnic, native, or post-colonial studies,’ fields know for their strong ideological bias.” One wonders why Johnson suffers so much consternation at a department’s modest requirement that faculty must know the discipline in which they teach.

“This year, St. Lawrence’s ‘Global Studies’ major featured a special seminar on Palestinian activist and theorist Edward Said.” Johnson is wrong on a minor account here—the seminar was an interdisciplinary Senior Seminar, taught by Global Studies’ John Collins and Patricia Alden of the SLU’s English department. However, Johnson provides no evidence as to why offering a course featuring the works of a premier polyglot of the 20th century is proof of “bias.”

At the conclusion of the FrontPageMag.com piece, Johnson focuses his poorly rifled barrels on SLU’s Professor John Collins: “The course [Collins’ ‘Palestinian Identities’] concludes with a forced political activity: ‘using what we have learned,’ Professor John Collins notes, ‘we organize and produce a public activity of some sort; with the goal of educating the community about the importance of understanding what Edward Said has called “’question of Palestine.’”” Collins does not call for the explicit advocacy of Said’s political views—only a “public activity” to introduce the Israeli-Palestinian issue to the rural community of Canton, New York.

What is clear to even the dullest reader is that Johnson is not writing to convince anyone of his claims. He writes for an audience already convinced of his assertions. He makes irresponsible charges of “bias,” declines to offer any evidence in furtherance of his assertion and lazily relies on his partisan readership to mentally fill in the blanks.

While Johnson is not above pandering to his audience or using his pen to settle a few old scores (with Provost Matthews), St. Lawrence is an odd choice for his vitriol. He couldn’t have come across it on his own-- his world consists of the same few tired points and old grudges. What spook resides among us, on our quiet hill, amidst our planned foliage? What disgruntled student or faculty would implore Johnson to dust off an old piece, affix a closing attack on the SLU Global Studies department and republish it on FrontPageMag.com? Rather than engage SLU's Global Studies department in open debate, this specter has chosen to secure the services of a hack columnist always willing to lash out at perceived liberal bias.

If any of our readers know who this might be, post in our comments section or send us a note at: takebackourcampus@yahoo.com. We're dying to find out.

We Get Letters! We Get Lots and Lots of Letters! Vol. 4

2004-08-05T19:06:00.000-04:00

In response to yesterday's question-- Are the SLURs really as stupidly classist and bigoted as they seem? Or as they claim, are rich kids smarter than those on financial aid?-- we received this letter from correspondent "Public School Trash," who wrote to us at takebackourcampus@yahoo.com.

First, it seems to me (and to the professors I've discussed this with) that rich kids tend (not always the case, as I've known several rich kids who aren't trust fund brats, they have trust funds but work hard) not to care particularly about school.

One thing that the professors I've spoken to told me repeatedly is that they'd prefer a class of north country kids and lower-income kids. You know why? Because they work hard, they came to SLU to learn. Not to get a free diploma. Yes, we are scholarship kids, yes we have TAP grants, but let me tell you something about how financial aid and slu's tuition hurt lower-middle-class students.

(Keep in mind that i'm not deliberatly attacking anyone at this point, i'm just pointing out things i've noticed)

SLU has a scholarship for north country kids called the Augsbury Scholarship. They also have their big awards of 15k, 12.5k, and 10k. I was second in the running for my school's Augsbury, and I instead got the 12.5k. When tuition was 32k, it was a good chunk of the tuition. When I graduated, it was 38k and rising still. 12.5k doesn't go too far, especially when your family has lost their jobs due to the economic crash of the Bush regime (my parents worked for Ames. Yeah, I'm a north country kid). I was told by fin aid that, sure, I could pay 8k a year. So much for free diplomas, huh? Sorry, I don't have a trust fund or Mommy and Daddy's gold credit card to fund my tuition. Seriously, I swear some people need a good slap in the face to realize that not everything is in black and white.

Actually, as anyone who's ever partied with Paris and Nicky knows, gold credit cards are for losers. Today, all the cool kids carry platinum credit cards. The really cool kids possess the secret black credit card, which allows one to buy anything. An anonymous poster wrote in yesterday's comments:

in theory, the rich kids could go anywhere, right? if you can pay 40k at slu, you can pay 40k at harvard. why would anyone choose to go to slu? because slu is nothing more than a finishing school for the dumb rich kids. if you had a choice between like harvard and slu, or williams and slu, or even middlebury and slu, what good reason would anyone have for picking school number 60-something in the ranks? otoh, most of the lower income students and those on financial aid get the best deal at slu and so have little choice but to attend. the good thing is that the no-choice-but-attend students dilute some of inbred stupidity of the rich. that makes being in class easier.
Anonymous

Agree? Disagree? Leave a note in our comments section or drop us a line at takebackourcampus@yahoo.com.

NYS Temporary Budget Passed-- TAP Awards Unmolested, HEOP Still in Danger

2004-08-04T16:40:00.000-04:00

The New York State Legislature passed an emergency spending bill on Monday. Prevailing were liberal efforts to keep the Tuition Assistance Program unmolested by Pataki's budget cuts. TAP Awards serves 310,000 New York state residents and is crucial in providing access to higher education to children of middle- and lower-class families. We're kind of happy-- at least things didn't get worse.

However, the future of the Higher Education Opportunity Program (HEOP, created in 1969), remains up in the air. Gov. Pataki's proposed budget seeks to cut the program by more than 5 percent, bringing its state funding from $22 million to $20.9 million. The lack of a nominal increase to account for inflation means that HEOP's budget is effectively cut an additional 3-4%.

The HEOP program costs $168 million to run annually, with $82 million coming from federal funds and $64 million from the private colleges and universities that choose to participate in HEOP. But that's a pittance when one considers that HEOP services over 5600 students per annum, which breaks down to less than $30,000 per student per year-- less than the $32,000 per year New York state spends to incarcerate a single person.

Our sources in the SLU Republicans wrote us: "What is it, 70 or 80% [of students] have financial help at SLU. An unmentionable minortity (sic) I am sure come (sic) from the Bronx and get full rides. Because they can play basketball and use other words besides dawg, they are let into fine schools like SLU." (Go here to see the post and the SLURs' nearly endless invective of racism in its original context. This is highly recommended).

In this spirit, we present the following to our SLUR friends: 80% of HEOP students (across the state) have cumulative averages of more than 2.0. 30% of HEOP students have averages above 3.0. [Wow! That exceeds the academic performance of the average SLU student! And of the average SLUR!-- ed. Is that true?-- CE. Yeah. I went to their meetings. They call each other "Mr." and "Ms." to sound distinguished but otherwise they make George W. Bush look literate. They refuse to accept any facts that don't agree with their worldview and get angry instead of arguing.-- ed.]

[Source for HEOP facts is the 2003 Annual Report to the Governor.]

I can't argue with my editor. [True!-- ed.] But I'd like to ask our readers: Is this true? Are the SLURs really as stupid and racist as they seem? Or are rich kids smarter than those on financial aid? Give us your thoughts and stories in our comments section or send them to: takebackourcampus@yahoo.com. We promise to post them unedited.

Oops, They Did It Again-- "It Wasn't Us! It Was the Intelligence Agency!"

2004-08-03T12:44:00.000-04:00

The Bush camp has claimed that yesterday's incident of racial profiling is not the result of any Bush-Cheney campaign policy, but standard practice of the Secret Service. Curiously though, it was not a Service agent who requested the information from the Arizona Daily Star, but a Bush campaign worker. The journalist, Mamta Popat, had previously photographed New York Senators Schumer and Clinton without being asked to specify her race prior to receiving press credentials. Several other journalists were given press passes without specifying their race.

Normally, we like when Bush administration officials blame their own failures on intelligence agencies. It's like when you see your hot ex-girlfriend wearing fishnets in a bar and she invites you into the ladies' room to split an eighth of coke. It's exciting and a little naughty, but if it happens too often, it's just trashy. It wasn't even a month ago that Bush celebrated the Senate intelligence subcommittee's report blaming the CIA for the flawed intelligence that would eventually lead to the war in Iraq.

We're not really sure why the Bush/Cheney campaign tried to pass the blame on this one, though. They could have admitted that Republicans are racist and just don't like Black people. It's not like Black people don't already know this. That's why Bush only got eight percent of the Black vote in 2000.

Their Next Question Was, "Is It True? You Know, What They Say About Black Guys?"

2004-08-02T19:43:00.000-04:00

"President Bush's re-election campaign insisted on knowing the race of an Arizona Daily Star journalist assigned to photograph Vice President Dick Cheney.... 'It was such an outrageous request, I was personally insulted,' [Managing Editor Teri] Hayt later said."

Free Speech and More Case Law

2004-07-31T10:15:00.000-04:00

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 US 46, 50; 108 S Ct 876; 99 L Ed 2d 41 (1988) protects the right of satire. The judge felt that no reasonable person would believe Rev. Jerry Falwell would engage in sex with his own mother-- in the words of the court, "could not reasonably be understood as describing actual facts or events." Our detractors may argue that Rev. Falwell is a public figure and therefore subject to a separate standard of protectiuon.

Thus we must cite a case in which a private citizen feels he has been defamed. See DeAngelo Bailey v. Marshall Bruce Mathers III, a/k/a Eminem Slim Shady, Case No. 2001-3606-NO. Bailey objected to Slim's song, "Brain Damage" in which Bailey (a former schoolmate of Shady and now a 33-year old sanitation worker) is referred to as a bully. Hon. Derborah Servitto summed the case in the following rhyme: "If the language used is anything but pleasin'/It must be highly objectionable to a person of reason/...The lyrics are stories no one would take as fact/ They're an exaggeration of a childish act/ Any reasonable person could clearly see/ That the lyrics could only be hyperbole."

[Why do all your cites involve either rap, pornography, or Al Franken?-- ed. Why? Because I like it that way.]

And that, boys and girls, is why satire remains protected in this country. We at TBOC proudly stand behind both our journalism and our satire.

But That's Not the Only Thing They Have in Common

2004-07-31T10:00:00.000-04:00

"Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do."
--Opening line of Ann Coulter's column covering the Democratic National Convention. The column was originally written for USA Today. After seeing the column, the editors chose not to run it, calling it "unusable" and "not funny."

Go Ahead and Sue Us, You Preening Little Fuckers

2004-07-29T15:09:00.000-04:00

This came to us, via our comments section:

(And by the way, just a word of advice--I'd add to your disclaimer that none of your statements are factually accurate. In case of a new lawsuit, save your ass against a defamation claim.)
a defamatory statement: a false statement of fact.
Anonymous

First, get your definition straight. If we post "1+1=3" this is certainly a false statement (and we must point out that "false statement of fact" is an oxymoron), though not a defamatory statement. See Phipps v. Clark Oil & Ref. Corp., 408 N.W.2d 569, 573 (Minn. 1987), which defines a defamatory statement as that which "tends to injure the plaintiff's reputation and expose the plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, or degradation."

But here's the hitch-- you must prove that these ostensibly "defamatory" statements are untrue. If the statements are true, we can post whatever we like. If we want to print that Mike Owen supported Pretorian apartheid in the 1980s, we can. If we want to mention that John Jaunzems has made racist statements about illegal immigrants, we can. If we care to let slip that after decades at SLU both Mike and John are Associate Professors because they haven't published anything, we can. If we want to point readers to Steve Horwitz's pompous Rush fan page, we can. If we point out that when losing an argument, Steve Horwitz has been known to make utterly baseless allegations of anti-Semitism, we can point that out because it's true. We can post as many pictures as we like of Dolly Dolphin. These things are all true.

In order to make us pay, you have to prove that our false claims actually damaged your reputation. This isn't going to happen in the case of satire, which no reasonable person would mistake as true. That's why satire is constitutionally protected as free speech. [For a nice example of this, see Fox News Network, LLC v. Penguin Group (USA) Inc., and Alan S. Franken, Index No. 602514/2003, which ruled no reasonable person would believe that Fox News endorsed Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them and was therefore protected as satire.]

One brief addition-- a plaintiff may become "libel-proof." That is, the court may rule that the plaintiff's reputation could not be further damaged through defamation. [See Marcone v. Penthouse Int'l Magazine for Men, 754 F.2d 1072, 1079 (3rd Cir. 1985)]. If someone publishes a ridiculous piece in The Stump, we have every right to mock her for it.

Just so you know-- all our statements are factually accurate and our satire is protected. Go ahead and sue us. See how many billable hours your attorney can rack up. We'll laugh and blog about you. It's called free speech.

Does He Look Like a Future CIA Assassin?

2004-07-28T11:29:00.000-04:00

Commenter "Dolly Dolphin" has alerted us that a noted St. Lawrence Republican (see picture at right) has an away message reading "I think I want to be a CIA trained (sic) assassin someday." It's a good thing killing people doesn't require proper hyphenation.

It is also fortunate that President Bush lifted the ban on CIA-sponsored extra-legal killings in 2001.

We're sure that one of TBOC's favorite SLURs can do justice to the proud tradition of buffoonish CIA assassinations. A few quick examples:

--Following the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961, the finest minds of the CIA rallied to imagine such ridiculous methods as an exploding cigar, an exploding sea shell, a poisoned wet suit, a mob hit, and a double agent with a poisoned pen to assassinate Fidel Castro. (We at TBOC wish a happy early birthday to Castro, who will be a healthy 78 on August 13.)

--The botched 1959 attempt to murder Iraqi Prime Minister General Abd al-Karim Qasim. However, Qasim was only wounded in the attempt and the shooter, hit in the leg by a fellow gunman, fled to Tikrit. The CIA's wounded would-be assassin was a 22-year old Ba'athist thug named-- who else?-- Saddam Hussein.

--Following faulty information provided by the CIA in 1998, President Clinton ordered (in a bungled attempt to kill Osama bin Laden) the bombing of an pharmceutical factory in the Sudan, cutting off medical supplies for approximately half the country and causing the deaths of thousands. One month later, the CIA decided against kidnapping Osama bin Laden from a desert compound outside Kandahar because they didn't want to endanger their operatives' lives. TBOC is proud to present those operatives (who had no care for lives of the Sudanese) with (in the words of Gov. Schwarzenegger) the Girlie Men of the Week Award.

Will any of the SLURs ever join the CIA, that elite corps of inept and murderous cowards? TBOC thinks they are prime recruits.

She'll Still Put You on a Leash and Mock Your Genitals-- But At Least Now She'll Be Pretty

2004-07-25T12:04:00.000-04:00

The New Yorker reports soldiers (and their immediate families) are offered free plastic surgery at taxpayer expense.

A Defense Department spokeswoman confirmed the existence of the plastic-surgery benefit. According to the Army, between 2000 and 2003 its doctors performed four hundred and ninety-six breast enlargements and a thousand three hundred and sixty-one liposuction surgeries on soldiers and their dependents. In the first three months of 2004, it performed sixty breast enhancements and two hundred and thirty-one liposuctions.

Faculty Spotlight-- Steve Horwitz

2004-07-24T09:42:00.000-04:00

Name: Steve Horwitz
Department: Economics
Title: Professor of Economics, Associate Dean of the First Year
Why Mike Owen and John Jaunzems Should Look Up to Him: After only fifteen years here, Horwitz is a full professor.
On Second Thought, Why No One Should Look Up to Him: His Rush fan page.
Description of Rush, Unintentionally Funny: "This is a band that plays rock that demands to be taken seriously."
Description of Rush, Childlike in Its Innocence: "They do indeed touch the heart."
Description of Rush, Slightly Erotic: "When Geddy sings (in 'Presentation'): 'Just think what we might do,' it sums up everything that 'touches' me about their music."
Description of Rush, Celebratory Sign-Off: "The love-in shall continue!"
Fun Fact About Horwitz: He has never read Norman Finkelstein's work, yet maintains it is anti-Semitic.
Bonus Fact: He will accuse you of being anti-Semitic at the drop of a hat. For example, if you're concerned about the neo-fascist impulses of the SLU Republicans, he'll probably call you anti-Semitic.
[Editor's Note: Why did we bother writing this? It's impossible to satirize a man whose Rush fan page is a parody of itself. We could have just linked to that and saved ourselves half an hour.]

Dear Republicans-- (vol. 2)

2004-07-22T19:12:00.000-04:00

You fucking morons-- you're supposed to undermine Democrats, not democracy. Do you understand the difference? Apparently not. As journalist Ritt Goldstein reported in 2002 "Foundations are in place for martial law in the US," a plan that called for the detention of "at least 21 million American Negroes" (or in this case, likely Arabs), similar to the internment of the Japanese-American population during WWII. In the last few weeks, Bush appointee DeForest Soaries has asked Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge for permission to postpone the election in the event of a terrorist attack.

One must recall the burning of the Reichstag when considering this proposition. Bush's behavior edges ever closer to that of Hitler (the two main differences being that Hitler was elected and good for the economy). Could the Bush administration be nervous that Kerry holds a small lead in the latest polls? Or that those Americans who consider US involvement in Iraq a mistake has been steadily rising, going from 42% (February 2004) to 58% (June 2004)?

Faculty Spotlight-- John Jaunzems

2004-07-19T15:07:00.000-04:00

Name: John Jaunzems
Department: English
Professional Status: After nearly three decades at St. Lawrence, he remains an Associate Professor due to the fact that he hasn't published a single word.
His Work of Late: Fan fiction-- he's been writing stories where he teams up with Sherlock Holmes. Instead of uploading his work to a fan fiction website, he e-mails his missives to the entire faculty. [Editor's Note: Jaunzems' fan fiction doesn't have nearly enough sex in it.]
Why This is Stupid: Everyone knows that Stevenson's Long John Silver would have been the more appropriate literary character to solve the mystery of monolegged ex-professor Peter Cain.
A Randomly Chosen Snippet of Jaunzems' Clunky Writing: "'You have summoned me by your words,' Sherlock said."
Why We Couldn't Find a Picture of Jaunzems: The dictionary had already taken it for placement next to "hack."
Why He Made the Spotlight: For being an academic who supports the Patriot Act. [Editor's Note: No wonder he supports it-- he hasn't published anything and he doesn't use the library. There's nothing of his for Homeland Security to monitor.]

Contact Information:
Office: Richardson 111
Office Phone: 229-5151
E-mail: jjaunzems@stlawu.edu

Faculty Spotlight-- Michael Owen

2004-07-17T14:32:00.000-04:00

Name: Michael Owen
Department: Geology
Likes: Rocks, racial separation, governments controlled by white minorities, soil samples.
Dislikes: Leftists, most things that aren't rocks or white people.
Hobby: Staunchly defending the white race.
Other Notable Features: Hasn't published anything since the late 1980s. Consequentially, has yet to become a full professor after 21 years at SLU.
Best Moment: During a faculty meeting in the 1980s, SLU Professors voted to divest the University's holdings from the racist regime of South Africa. Dr. Owen rose and gave an impassioned speech against the anti-apartheid movement.
Why He Made the Spotlight: It's not like racism is a controversial issue. Most people are opposed to a legalized racial hierarchy. That's why TBOC is proud to spotlight those who, for some reason, aren't.
[Editor's note: It's a good thing Black people know that geology is for virgins and losers, otherwise they might have to take a class with Michael "Don't Criticize Apartheid" Owen.]

Contact Information:
Office: Brown 148
Office Phone: 229-5975
E-mail: mowen@stlawu.edu.

The Best of TBOC, vol. 3

2004-07-17T14:12:00.000-04:00

[Editor's Note: This Student Spotlight originally attracted much ire from liberals, so we've decided to repost it. It was authored by ex-contributor "2MuchBushNDick." Please enjoy. We will be returning with new posts next week. The theme will be either "Faculty Spotlights" or "Why Tolerance is for Tools and Helps Support a Corrupt Establishment." Please let us know your suggestions.]

Name: Allison T. Turcotte, aka The Woman, aka The Beast, aka Yetti McHuge-Bitch
From: North Creek, New York
Class: 2004 (at least she's supposed to be).
Notables: Author of article in the Fall 2003 issue of The Stump, entitled "I Am A Woman," in which she made her claim to fame as "A Woman" (we are not positive if this is true or not). She is a rafting guide on the Hudson River, where she has only lost three clients, including one small child (which she allegedly served at the afternoon barbeque). Lives in the Habitat for Humanity House, but by and large does nothing. Dated Alfred J. Wright, another huge Habitat Bitch. She tends bar at the Hoot Owl a few nights a week, but most people seem not to tip on nights she works.
Quotables: "I fold laundry to relax because I am anal," "I am a fat ass." "I burp too, and expel all sorts of gas." "I am a walking contradiction." "If god had intended for something to be up my ass, he would have put something there" "I make perfect silver dollar pancakes, like only a woman knows how." "I am a woman." [Editor's Note: We've all smelled the gas, but you could have fooled us on being functionally literate.]

Contact Information:
Residence: Habitat for Humanity House, Room Number Pending
Email: aturco04@stlawu.edu
Phone: x6984
CMR: 588
Voicemail: 232

Robert Conquest-- MI5 Operative?

2004-07-16T14:08:00.000-04:00

Commenter "sportnorikeybrownppl" has made an interesting claim: Robert Conquest was not a "historian," he was an MI5 agent whose original job within the organization was to plant false stories about the Soviet Union in the British press.
(For those who don't know, MI5 is basically the British equivalent of the FBI.) If this claim is correct, then "Another Perspective" probably should apologize for referring to a spook as a "historian."

Let's look at the evidence:

--In 1946, Conquest began to work for the Information Research Department, a top-secret branch of the Foreign Office funded by MI6, the British equivalent of the CIA (The Guardian, 12/9/98). In Britain, governmental files are normally made public after 30 years. The files of the Information Research Department remain classified on grounds of "national security" (The Independent, 2/26/95).

--One of Conquest's duties was to keep tabs on public figures who might have ties to Communist movements. In 1949, his assistant, Celia Kirwan, solicited a list of 38 leftists "who were untrustworthy or unsuitable for anti-Communist writing" from George Orwell (The Independent, 10/25/02). As an interesting side note, both Conquest and Orwell were madly in love with the very worthy Ms. Kirwan. Alas, her body was too bootylicious for both men. (Click here for a picture of TBOC's favorite anti-Communist British bombshell.)

--The nature of the "anti-Communist writing" is worth examining. Conquest claims that the "[Information Research Department's] role was to promote and propagate research precisely into the areas of fact then denied, or lied about, by Sovietophiles" (Hoover Digest, 1999 no.2). Why, then, would these "areas of fact" remain classified fifteen years after the fall of the Soviet Union?

--Scott Lucas of The Independent (2/26/95) provides a different explanation: "The cardinal principle [of the IRD] was that none of its outlets should identify the Government as its source, so maintaining the fiction that Britain, unlike the Soviet Union, did not engage in state propaganda.... in 1977, the IRD had a list of more than 100 journalists on nearly every national newspaper who, wittingly or unwittingly, would use its material."

--The Socialist Review (February 1999) claims that these publications included The Economist, the Observer, Guardian, Financial Times, Telegraph, Mail and Mirror.

--The IRD also covertly sponsored several publishing companies-- Ampersand, Allen and Unwin, The Bodley Head-- that published Conquest's work (The Independent, 2/26/95) including Justice and the Legal System in the USSR, The Politics of Ideas in the USSR, Industrial Workers in the USSR, Soviet Police System and several others.

The evidence concludes that he was an operative for an MI6-sponsored organization. Further, he produced material for an ideologically-driven government under the guise of independent scholarship-- a move that is intellectually dishonest at best. He also attempted to control the flow of information to the British press, the ramifications of which are still classified for reasons of "national security."

"Another Perspective," it's your turn.

We're Not Mad-- We're Just Disappointed

2004-07-15T18:40:00.000-04:00

[Editor's Note: After much complaining from our readers about how we should "make substantive arguments" and "be open to other opinions" and "stop claiming gin and root beer is a real drink," we finally decided to host an actual debate. To our dismay, we have yet to hear back from our Republican friends. This letter is to our Republican friends. If you are a leftist, you may stop reading now. (P.S. To all the leftists-- We were too busy "gaying it up" yesterday to remember: Happy Bastille Day!)]

Republican friends--

You are usually so prompt with your comments to TBOC. Often, within minutes of first posting we have comments from you. Whether you write to call us "faggots" or "public school trash" or even just to remind us that you are smarter than Karl Marx, we always cherish your letters.

But is has been two days since we asked your opinions about capitalism and racism; nearly a week has passed since we asked you to renounce your racist and fascist ties. Are you rereading the Turner Diaries in preparation for the coming race war? We see that Brooks Brothers is having a summer clearance sale. Perhaps that is occupying your attention.

In any case, we deeply regret that you pussied out.

Sincerely,
The Folks at Take Back Our Campus

Federal Marriage Amendment To Be Defeated-- [Insert Cock Ring Joke Here]

2004-07-14T12:37:00.000-04:00

"The states can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this states' issue."
--George W. Bush when asked about gay marriage on The Larry King Show (2/15/00).

Strange then, to see a story headlined, Bush Promotes Measure Against Gay Marriage. Of course, one more lie from Bush is no surprise.

But TBOC is happy that by all accounts, the amendment is doomed to fail.

Like a defeated Skeletor, Sen. Bill "Cat Killer" Frist [R-Tenn.] vowed to return. "This is the start. And it's not going to be over tomorrow. We'll be back in the future."

"You can say I'm a hater," said Sen. Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum [R-Penn.]. "But I would argue I'm a lover. I'm a lover of traditional families and children who deserve the right to have a mother and father."

We see Sen. Santorum's point, but you don't have to start a hateful campaign against gays to be a lover of children. Whatever happened to candy and a van?

Update: The proposed amendment was defeated this morning. The tally was 48-50, with Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards choosing to campaign rather than attend the procedural vote and go on official record with their positions toward gay marriage.

That was clever. Because now we have no idea how they feel about gay marriage.

Really.

No fucking clue.

Two Posts Today! vol. 2 Is Socialism Totalitarianism?

2004-07-13T14:49:00.000-04:00

[Editor's Note: This is the second argument that's been occurring in our comments section. I won't try to summarize. I'll let the poster speak in her own words.]

By excepting the Soviet Union and China you except the central issue. The point is that socialism LEADS to totalitarianism when it's tried seriously.
And if you get to say "well it's never really been tried" then I get to say the same about true capitalism.
Your turn.
Another Perspective | 07.12.04 - 9:36 pm |

Oh yeah, I'd give a complete list of the critics of socialism who've made that argument, but it would overspill your comment size limit.
But here's a few to start: Historians: Robert Conquest, Boris Brutzkus, Stephane Courtois et.al., Joshua Muravchik. Economists: Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Frederick von Hayek, Shumpeter. Political theorists/philosophers: Robert Nozick, Hannah Arendt. And most of the folks in "The God that Failed."
My question for you is: how many of those authors have you even read?
Another Perspective | 07.12.04 - 9:50 pm |

Sometimes I don't know what possesses me. I should just dismiss this as ad hominem teasing, but for some reason I feel the need to answer.

I've read Conquest, though he's scholar of Soviet history, which is to say that he is critical of totalitarianism and not socialism. I haven't read Brutzkus or Courtois. I am curious, though-- why did you add Israeli apologist Joshua Muravchik to the list? He claims that the only true socialism occurred in Israeli kibbutzim (after the mass murder, rape, and ethinic cleansing of the Palestinians).

I've read Friedman and moreover studied the effects of his economic policies on Latin America. I must admit I've never read Sowell or von Hayek. I've never read "Shumpeter" but I have read Schumpeter. (That must be embarrassing for you.)

I don't know why you included Hannah Arendt. The Origins of Totalitarianism has nothing to do with socialism. It deals with the origins of anti-Semitism and colonialism from the mid-1880s onward. Again, you might be confusing Stalinism with socialism.

I have a little more to say about Nozick, simply because I see what you're trying to get at, but you're misinterpreting him. In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, the former Harvard professor argues that all individuals have inalienable rights. He believes that the only state capable of respecting these rights is the "Night Watchman" state, a minimal state that protects citizens from harm but does little else. He also believed that inequalities within a market could be just, so long the exchanges occurred between consenting adults.

However, you're missing the subtlety of his argument. His corollary to these principles concerns historial injustice-- namely, that the state is free to interfere to correct historical injustices and that due to historical injustice one's consent may be coerced. In essence, inequality may only be just when all parties consent to it.

However, if capitalism is inherently racist and sexist then it offers the possibility of consent only to white males. (But that thinking is for the other argument.) Your question is now: Exactly how does socialism lead to totalitarianism?

If you have a longer argument, e-mail us at: takebackourcampus@yahoo.com.

Two Posts Today! vol. 1 Is Capitalism Racist?

2004-07-13T14:12:00.000-04:00

[Editor's Note: It occurred to us that the conversation of the past few days is actually about two very different things. The first, drawing on the world systems theory of Immanuel Wallerstein and other post-colonial critics, argues that racism and sexism is bound up within the inequalities inherent in capitalism. Because capitalism requires a surplus of laborers in order to keep wages low and profits high, means must be created to subjugate certain groups of people to ensure that their manual labor will always be available. Hence stereotypes arise-- Blacks are lazy and stupid, Latinos are slothful, women are irrational and physically weak, Jews love hard candy, etc. (Okay, I just made up that last one.)]

Why have I separated the arguments? In the words of one poster:

It might be true that capitalism ends up being racist for logical reasons (I don't think it does), but then we could say it might be true that socialism ends up being about mass murder and forced labor camps for logical reasons (and I think it does). What's good for me is good for you my under-read friend.

The logical statement of "If A is B, then C is D" is baffling on a number of levels. Keeping the two arguments together only confuses the issue more.

Who says that redistributing wealth into an ever-concentrated number of hands AND murdering brown people are mutually exclusive? Capitalism has seemed to have done just fine doing both for quite a long time, though one (the murdering of brown people) might be an effect of the other (redistributing wealth).
Anonymous | 07.12.04 - 8:00 pm |

"Socialism doesn't prescribe murderous demagogues to head a country. Totalitarianism, however, is more than open to the idea."
And no theorist of capitalism prescribes that capitalism is or should be racist. (Of course, as I noted in an earlier thread, there are many anti-capitalist racists, but you chose to ignore the evidence.) It might be true that capitalism ends up being racist for logical reasons (I don't think it does), but then we could say it might be true that socialism ends up being about mass murder and forced labor camps for logical reasons (and I think it does). What's good for me is good for you my under-read friend.
By excepting the Soviet Union and China you except the central issue. The point is that socialism LEADS to totalitarianism when it's tried seriously.
And if you get to say "well it's never really been tried" then I get to say the same about true capitalism.
Your turn.
Another Perspective | 07.12.04 - 9:36 pm |

Actually, Another Perspective, capitalism is inherently racist. Because capitalism relies on a surplus of laborers, there needs to be a way to keep a certain group of people down. This has manifested itself in different ways throughout history; sometimes the Irish play the part of the 'nigger', most of the time it's brown people.
different anonymous | 07.12.04 - 9:55 pm |

Actually Different Anonymous, it doesn't. That Marxist claptrap is both theoretically and empircally wrong. Ask your professors to give you things to read from the last 50 years and maybe you'll learn a thing or two about how capitalism actually works. You might still think it has problems, but at least you'll know what you're talking about.
Face it folks, Marx was just wrong about how capitalism works. That doesn't necessarily mean it's great, but really... find some more recent critics who actually understand it a bit better.
And if you want to talk about surplus labor, go look at the history of really existing socialism.
Another Perspective | 07.13.04 - 8:33 am |

Another Perspective (or Chunt)-- you've made that the claim that capitalism is not inherently racist. Materialize your argument. You must make a higher claim than, "Face it folks, Marx was just wrong about how capitalism works." And pointing to "the history of really existing socialism" is barely literate. You need to answer why racism persists within capitalism but is anathema to socialism.

We Get Letters! We Get Lots and Lots of Letters! vol.3

2004-07-12T12:27:00.000-04:00

Recently, we saw this exchange in our comments section:

Actually, I agree with you that capitalism is not a meritocracy. The best arguments for capitalism have nothing to do with the question of merit, and the fact that it's not a meritocracy hardly proves it's a bad system. Capitalism doesn't reward people for hard work or morality or similar forms of "merit," and most serious theorists of it don't say that it does.
Yes, silly college Republicans might believe that, especially if their families have done well by capitalism and such an argument reflects well on themselves, but they're wrong and they ultimately do a disservice to capitalism by making those arguments.
Does that qualify as substantive enough?
Another Perspective | 07.10.04 - 4:56 pm |

Is "Another Perspective" still Chunt? Just wondering.
reaganrots | 07.11.04 - 12:29 pm !

Another Perspective (or Chunt, whatevs)--
I'm interested here. Since we agree that capitalism has nothing to do with merit, then we agree that it is an arbitrary system designed to perpetuate the wealth of an ever-concentrated number of families.
I'd like to pose two questions for you:
1.) How does one defend capitalism as right, just (or even efficient) if not by merit?
2.) Are the developments of slavery and other forms of racial exploitation simply historical anomalies, or as some critics have suggested (see Wallerstein and the other world systems theorists) an intrinsic part of the capitalist system? If they are historical anomalies, how and why do they continue to persist?
If you can't fit your response in the comments section, please send it to takebackourcampus@yahoo.com. I'll be glad to post it unedited.
Christian Evangelist | 07.11.04 - 1:58 pm |

You are so funny. You accuse others of playing rhetorical tricks then try to pull one on me. Because I agree capitalism is not about merit DOES NOT mean I think it's "arbitrary" yadda yadda. Nice try at leading the witness. I thought all you radical types were capable of overcoming all these binary oppositions?
I'll answer your first question later, but for now I'll just suggest that you need to expand your reading list if you think merit's the only way to defend capitalism.
As for your second question: I'll answer that if you'll answer this:
Are the developments of mass murder and forced labor camps simply historical anomalies, or as some critics have suggested (see any number of critics of socialism) an intrinsic part of the socialist system? If they are historical anomalies, how and why did they continue to persist in so many socialist systems and end with their collapse?
Another Perspective | 07.11.04 - 9:33 pm !

Thank you for complimenting our humor.

I would suggest your critics (please cite a name) are looking only at the cases of Russia and China, which are more properly termed totalitarianism. Socialism doesn't prescribe murderous demagogues to head a country. Totalitarianism, however, is more than open to the idea.

For examples of democratically-elected socialist governments, consider Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran (1951), Salvador Allende in Chile (1970), Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua (1984), etc. Interestingly, the US saw fit to violently overthrow Mossadegh and Allende and install murderous dictators. The US also sent Contras to murder Nicaraguan civilians in an attempt to oust Ortega-- all for the sake of capitalism.

Forced labor and mass murder are not intrinsic parts of socialism-- they are anathema to it. But they hardly ended with the death of Stalin. In 2000, the International Labour reported that 171 million children were engaged in dangerous work, including 8 million performing slave labor.

As for mass murder, please look at the rising number of civilian deaths in Iraq-- estimated to be as high as 10,000.

But if the point of capitalism isn't to redistribute wealth into an ever-concentrated number of hands, what is it? To murder brown people? Let us know.

The Best of TBOC, vol. 2

2004-07-11T14:23:00.000-04:00

[Editor's note: If you've been reading for months and have already seen this, we apologize. If you have something we might like to post, send it to us at takebackourcampus@yahoo.com. In the meantime, we present to you the feature that first made people start reading TBOC-- the Student Spotlight.]

Today's TBOC! Student Spotlight: Brian Lind

Name: Brian K. "Kendall" Lind, aka The Great White Hope
From: Albany Area, NY
Class: '04 [Editor's Note: Didn't graduate until Summer '04 due to his lack of a senior thesis. Claimed he was unable to finish it because of stress caused by this website.]
Notables: Prominent campus guilty white liberal pacifist, CIA informant, founder of MASV (formerly MSSV--Men Stopping Sexual Violence), OP guide, works in career services, wrote the Extreme Right Side of the Hill column in The Hill Nazi, dated Jackie Roy (former Hill "We have Jews on our staff!" News editor), against All Men's (or All Women's) Lacrosse club, makes GW Bush look literate, choked on piece of venison meat on hot date, women frequently complain that he touches them without being asked. Generally incapable of dealing with, and obsesses over, the personal criticism that comes with being a public figure (Thelmo senator, right-wing columnist), and wanted TBOC! to be meaner about Pete Snedeker's profile. [Editor's Note: I wonder if we can get out of any of our academic obligations for being talked about on a website...] Is believed to suffer from extreme paranoia. By comparison, J-Lo has a petite derriere. Has started posting on TBOC! as "Kendall," a name we find "rediculous." Used to use the unclever moniker of "prunebushin04."
Quotables: "So it's legal if I pay a girl to have sex with me, as long as I videotape it, right?" Editor's Note: Not even if you had a hundred dollar bill hanging out of your zipper, Brian.
Contact Information
Email: blind79@stlawu.edu

The Best of TBOC, vol. 1

2004-07-10T10:43:00.000-04:00

[Editor's Note: Since the site has been getting more traffic lately, we've decided to repost some earlier entries that never quite got the attention they deserved. This was originally posted in early April. We know the SLURs read this site almost daily. We'd love to hear a justification or renunciation of your racist and fascist ties. Longer responses can be sent to: takebackourcampus@hotmail.com. We promise to post them unedited. If you wish to remain anonymous, let us know and we will withhold your name from publication.]

Racist, Fascist SLU Republicans
There’s been much ado about calling Republicans “fascist” and “racist.” The Saint Lawrence University Republicans were pretty upset about it, denying the allegation (which, for the record, wasn’t directed at them, but at their national chapter).

As Mikhail Lermontov wrote: “Perhaps it cuts too close to the bone?”

In the Spring of 2003, the SLU Republicans invited a speaker named Dan Flynn, author of Why the Left Hates America, to come to St. Lawrence. Flynn’s fee (a flat $500) was supported by University funds, unlike some blogs.

The problem is that Flynn’s parent organization, Accuracy in Media (which sponsors Accuracy in Academia, headed by Flynn at the time of his visit), is very open about its views.

In January of 2002, AIM’s website (under the heading of “AIM Events”) featured “In Defense of Western Man,” the 2002 incarnation of the racialist American Renaissance Conference. One of only two events designated by the group as events “to attend,” the conference featured a list of speakers that read like a Who’s Who of proponents of the pseudo-science of eugenics, including Phillipe Rushton, Jared Taylor, Sam Francis, Michael Levin, and Nick Griffin of the neo-fascist British National Party. Following AIM’s advice to “click here for more info” brought you to a manifesto that began, “In all parts of the world, whites are afraid to speak out in their own interests. The cost of ‘diversity,’ racial differences in IQ, the threat of non-white immigration—politicians and the media are afraid to discuss what these things mean for whites and their civilization." (Extra!, March/April 2002).

Res ipsa loquiter.

Believe It Now, Fuckers-- Taxes and the Myth of Equality

2004-07-09T17:22:00.000-04:00

Over the past few days we've been writing about tax cuts and inequality. We thought it might be time to put up some data.

Bush's 2001 Tax Cut
Four our of five tax payers earning less than $73,000 per year received an average of $350, while seeing a decrease in federal funding for schools, universities and health care. Meanwhile, the richest 1% of the population stands to get $45,000 per annum by 2010. The total tax breaks for that year is estimated to be $234 billion, $121 billion of which will go to just 1.4 million people. The other $113 billion goes to 139 million Americans. The rich save more than 100 times what the poor will.

Bush's 2003 Tax Cut
A quick scenario from 2005-- a married couple (possibly gay-- we'll see how the Federal Marriage Amendment vote turns out) with two children earning $41,000 a year will pay $323 less in taxes than they otherwise would have. Their counterparts earning $530,000 save $12,272.
In case you don't have a calculator handy-- the couple that earns twelve times as much saves forty times as much.
Most taxpaying Americans will see their after-tax income rise less than 1% due to this cut. Those making over $1 million will see their after-tax income rise 4.4%.

[Figures taken from Peter Singer's The President of Good and Evil: the ethics of George W. Bush. Dutton; 2004.]

Surely even a Republican can see the basic ridiculousness of this proposition. (Or "rediculousness" if you're Brian Lind.) Those with higher incomes receive more tax cuts-- not only as a dollar amount but even as a percentage of their tax burden.

This brings us back to Thomas Frank's thesis that we posted several days ago. Poor and middle-class Americans can't be voting for Republicans because of their fiscal policies-- that's the electoral equivalent of walking into Riker's with a blonde wig and a 144-pack of condoms.

Instead, Republicans focus campaigns on social promises they'll never deliver. Conservatives control the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court. If Republican brass actually wanted to ban gay marriage, end abortion and repeal gun control laws, they could do it in a heartbeat. But Conservative politicians need these things to keep poor and middle-class whites afraid of a "liberal agenda" and unknowingly voting for ever more exploitative economic policies.

Does He Look Like His Family is Stupid and Lazy?

2004-07-08T17:17:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, we received this letter from a SLU Republican:

What you liberal schmucks don't get is that the GOP represents a hand up, not a hand out. In this country we are not guaranteed equal condition but equal opportunity to choose our condition. So in other words, if I were a worthless, co-dependent wretch I suppose I would choose a system that is different than the American one. Face it, welfare seekers, people who take iniaitive (sic) are the ones the system was designed for.

Tax cuts are designed to reward the hardworking. It is that simple. The fact is that they are proportionate. Obviously if you pay more into the system you are going to get more back.

We live in a system that favors the hard working. We also live in a where some people find it easier to whine about how other people have made their life unfair so therefore someone owes them money. Get over yourselves and get a job.
TaxCuts4Me

We enjoyed it. Thank you for writing.

However, this seemed to remind us of something. Read over a sentence from a letter sent by former SLU Republicans secretary Adam Casler:

Someone classifies themself (sic) as a Republican, and the red flags go off for you people, you fit them (sic)into a stereotype of being rich and, as you not quite so eloquently put it in Jake Shea's profile, a drug addict. Well, I hate to be the one to go outside of the box on this one, but I'm neither, not that it is any of your concern.

As a thought exercise-- why isn't Mr. Casler's family rich? If we as Americans have "equal opportunity to choose our condition," why did Mr. Casler's family choose not to be rich? In other words, is Mr. Casler's family stupid or lazy? Perhaps they are both untalented and slothful. That would certainly explain why they're not rich.

However, that explanation assumes that we operate in a meritocracy. Not so. We live in a capitalist economy. It is not talent or brains that increases fiscal wealth, but the continuous accumulation and reinvestment of capital and the subsequent exploitation of workers' labor.

Republicans-- you would do well to acknowledge the economic realities of the United States and capitalism in general. After all, it is most unseemly to imply that your comrade's family is buffoonish and wasteful.

They'll Huff and They'll Puff-- and Blow Your Log Cabin Down

2004-07-08T10:46:00.000-04:00

SLURs get ready!

DC activist John Aravosis has embarked on a campaign to out all congressional members, staffers and their associates if they support the Federal Marriage Amendment.

The Amendment would change the constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Or as Republican strongman Arnold Schwarzenegger so eloquently put it, "Gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."

Who will be the first one outed? We think we know. After all, he wasn't very discreet at the ASEAN Regional Forum in Jakarta.

But why are Republicans nervous about being outed? After all, being gay is nothing to be ashamed of. Oh, wait-- that's right. Gay conservatives will suffer an unending torrent of abuse from those in their own party. Think Republicans aren't homophobic? Check out our comments section to see them sling insults like "fag" and "twinkletoes," as well as physically threaten those they perceive as gay.

The Rich Get Richer, the Poor Get Poorer

2004-07-07T15:35:00.000-04:00

We received this letter yesterday:

The less wealthy will obviously support an administration that believes in tax cuts and economic growth. Why would someone who doesn't make a lot of money support a party or a president who vouches for taxing away their income? One of the fundamental basics of the GOP is that the money the people earn is to be spent at the earner's discresion. It is both foolish and frivolous to support overfunded social programs that suck up our nation's resources. For this reason, it only makes sense that the less wealthy vote republican.
Proud to be a SLU Republican xxxxx

We read the letter. We read the letter again. It still made no fucking sense.

Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts (in a report sponsored by the non-partisan Urban Institute) “are best seen as net tax cuts for about 20-25 percent of households, financed by net tax increases or benefit reductions for the remaining 75-80 percent of the population.”

Essentially, this causes those in the bottom economic quintile to lose $1500 a year in benefits and services, about 21% of their income. Households with incomes above $1 million per year gain $59,600, about 3.1% of after-tax income, per annum. Bush’s tax cuts screw the poor and benefit the grossly rich.

Two more quick examples for students:
Bush’s reduction in federal funding for public schools leaves the counties of New York state $133.2 million short of what it would cost to implement the Bush-driven initiative. In St. Lawrence County alone the cost is $1.7 million. The cost, rather than coming out of the federal budget, falls to property owners and unequally burdens farmers. The quality of public school education suffers (and the education of the poor and working classes) as more tax cuts are given.

Tuition for SUNY schools, traditionally providing higher education to the economically disadvantaged, increased 28% in one year alone, making economic mobility tougher than ever.

You folks want to talk about issues? Talk about this. Then try to explain why poor people still vote Republican.

Elitism and the Republican Party

2004-07-06T09:41:00.000-04:00

"This is an impressive crowd. The haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base." --George W. Bush, at an October 2000 fundraiser for the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation.

In case anyone hasn't noticed, the Republican readers of this site tend to be snobs. They use quasi-British locutions like "Sport." They hurl insults like "trailor [sic] trash" and "towny" and "public school trash." [Though this could be coming from a single person-- we don't know because no one ever leaves their name.]

So it would seem that Republicans don't care about poor people. The GOP's fiscal policies (eliminating the estate tax, busting unions, privatizing Social Security, etc.) certainly show that this is true. But for some reason, poor people care about the Republican party.

For example, the poorest county in the nation is more than 80% Republican. The same is true of poor counties all over Kansas and the Dakotas. And the south has been solidly Republican since Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

How has the Republican party convinced some poor people to vote against their own interest? It should be mentioned somewhere in here that among US whites, income has almost no correlation to political affiliation.

Thomas Frank's new book, What's the Matter With Kansas? offers that the biggest success of the Republican party was mobilizing voters around social issues. But the scam is a catch-22-- in order to keep the poor mobilized around social issues, the threat of liberalism must remain ever present.

This is vexing for observers, and one might expect it to vex the movement's true believers even more. Their grandstanding leaders never deliver, their fury mounts and mounts, and nevertheless they turn out every two years to return their right-wing heroes to office for a second, a third, a twentieth try. The trick never ages, the illusion never wears off. Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again; receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors; receive electricity deregulation. Vote to get government off our backs; receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meatpacking. Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization. Vote to strike a blow against elitism; receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEOs are rewarded in a manner beyond imagining. (Thomas Frank, What's the Matter With Kansas?, p.7)

So what does this mean for the upcoming election? First, the Bush campaign is going to do anything it can to steer the debate away from the economy. See the campaign's stunning non-answer of "One thing's sure... pessimism never created a job."

For the Democrats, it may mean more with the selection of a charming southerner as Kerry's running mate. If John "I'm not a liberal Democrat" Kerry can manage to avoid alienating core supporters and keep swing voters focused on Edwards' smile, the Dems might be able to pick up some of those precious contested states.

Homophobic Republican Slur of the Day

2004-07-03T12:31:00.000-04:00

Calling us "twinkletoes" in the comments section. [See yesterday's post below.] But seriously, Republicans, if you think we at TBOC are a little fruity, these pictures must make you flip the fuck out.

Colin Powell dressed like construction worker from the Village People. Go here to watch the streaming video of the Secretary of State singing "YMCA."

Do you think it makes Powell uncomfortable when it looks like Randy Jones could kick his ass?

We know this reminds us of something...

George W. Bush as an Andover cheerleader. In fact, he was head football cheerleader during his senior year.

Just imagine-- Bush and a megaphone cheering those big sweaty men to victory.

But life still somehow seems incomplete. If anyone could find and send us pictures of racist Republican hero Trent Lott as a varsity cheerleader at the University of Mississippi, we would be much obliged. He attended UM as an undergrad from 1959 to 1963. We know the pictures are out there. We want them. Like a 1981 Bush needed a couple of bumps and a draft beer.

Letter From a Lady Republican

2004-07-02T17:02:00.000-04:00

We received a letter today. We like getting letters from lady Republicans. It made us laugh. We laughed like children. We wish for you too to laugh like a child.

Here's an idea "Evangelist"---
If Republican divorce rates are truly higher - and your lefty source isn't being biased - my guess is that it's because Republican women don't put up with any shit. Case in point: Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton. What Republican woman would allow herself to be humiliated and demeaned in front of America and NOT leave her husband? Not only did he cheat on her with COUNTLESS women, but he even went so far as to stick cigars in unmentionable areas/spots, and later lie about all of this under oath!!!
Just a thought, twinkletoes.
Clinton likes Cubans

1.) First, our "lefty source" is the National Center for Health Statistics. We made this clear in our first posting. Why are you so quick to cry "bias"? Do you like being a victim that much? You can view the raw data here.

2.) As for the charge that Clinton fornicated with "COUNTLESS" women, we disagree. We think they were very well counted during Ken Starr's investigation that cost over $70 million dollars of taxpayer money.

3.) With regard to the "unmentionable areas/spots," we would like to state for the record-- the word is "vagina." It is very mentionable. Fox News has no problem showing a picture of one (being penetrated no less!) on the air. Why are some Republicans so uncomfortable with this word? Vagina. Some feminist critics would suggest you're trying to hide the feminine in order to subjugate it. Vaginas.

4.) Finally, your main contention is that "Republican women don't put up with any shit." One of TBOC's favorite right-wing groups, the Promise Keepers tells women to put up with a lot of shit.

The Promise Keepers call for men to "take" their role as the dominant member of the family. In the words of Promise Keeper Tony Evans: "I am not suggesting that you ask for your role back, I am urging you to take it back. There can be no compromise here."

Since you offered the example of Hillary Clinton, we'll look at Phyllis Schlafly. Schlafly got royally screwed by the Reagan administration, yet continues to schill for the Republican party even now. In the words of Catherine MacKinnon (circa 1982):

Mrs. Schalfly tells us that being a woman has not gotten in her way.... I submit to you, though, that any man who had a law degree and had done graduate work in political science; had given testimony on a wide range of important subjects for decades; had done effective and brilliant political, policy, and organizational work within the party; had published widely, including nine books; was instrumental in stopping a major social initiative to amend the Constitution just short of victory dead in its tracks; and had a beautiful, accomplished family-- any man like that would have a place in the current administration.

[From MacKinnon's brilliant essay, "Not By Law Alone." Available in her book, Feminism Unmodified.]

After tirelessly campaigning for Reagan, and despite being more qualified than many men in the administration, Schlafly was refused a place in his cabinet, even after expressing her interest in working for the Defense Department. Yet she still supports the Republican party. We think she's put up with a lot of shit. Hell's bells, she qualifies as an honorary wife of a Promise Keeper.

Whatever. Vagina.

But we know for a fact that Republican women like putting up with shit. That's why they continue to read Take Back Our Campus.

Why Did Fox News Put Jack Ryan in Charge of Graphics?

2004-07-01T12:24:00.000-04:00

Fox News pulled a Janet Jackson yesterday, when an advertisement for Your World with Neil Cavuto showed a pornographic image, blurring the actress' breasts but clearly displaying genital penetration.

[For our elderly and/or myopic readers, click here for a larger image that even more clearly displays the genital penetration.]

In case you're wondering, the segment was going to be about this ruling to strike down a 1998 anti-pornography law that was found to infringe on free speech.

(But we know what you're really wondering-- yes, Hon. Clarence "Long Dong" Thomas came down firmly on the side of porn.)

Could all this kinky sex in public places be the reason Republicans get divorced 29% more than Democrats? (We feel like we have to ask again because no one really answered us the first time. Seriously, Republicans-- if you just give us a few quick guesses we promise not to ask again.)

TBOC Presents: The "What the Fuck" Factor

2004-06-29T10:02:00.000-04:00

As you've probably noticed, we've been getting a lot of comments on our site. Some supportive, some critical, some ad hominem and nasty. We thank you for all of them.

Some comments, however, are simply confused. We honestly have no idea what they mean. They may be confused in grammar, syntax, spelling, ideation, etc. These are infused with what we call the "What the Fuck" factor. Whatever they are, they give us headaches.

Thus, in the spirit of capitalism (we recently bought stock in Tylenol), we present you some of our favorites:

Hey there everyone, just wanted to share this with all of you. Here is a political compass test to show you where you are on the political and economic spectrum. And a quick note, Exoo, my ugly beak-nosed, buger eating classmate, not one question here asks if you hate Jews, Gays, or African Americans.

First of all, a "political compass test" is never presented. And "booger" is spelled incorrectly. But what is this obsession racists have with noses? The Semetic nose is hooked, the Black nose is wide-- why do you care? Maybe you could explain this to me. I promise to post it on the site.

Wait, hold on, lets backtrack. Christian, you have a big dick in your mouth at work? You graduated from college and you are working at SLU's library? You are a piece of shit making minimum wage. It is all quite funny how you think you are so cool, oh, and by the way, saw you driving down mainstreet. It seems that Christian Exoo has been representing the Republican Party all along. I saw a support Bush sticker on his car. And he is terribly ugly, representing the son of the Hunchback of Notre Dame perhaps? This poor kid, he must have a terrible level of self- confidence. Don't worry there cutie, I will stick up for you.

This letter (besides bearing a distinctly stalker-esque tone) switches from the second to the third person halfway through and then switches back to second at the end. But that alone doesn't qualify it for the "What the Fuck" factor.

I've mentioned this before and I'll write it again-- sarcasm doesn't function well in print. It doesn't help when you're barely literate and cannot manage to stick to a single point of view.

[As a public service-- the SLU Writing Center is open Tuesday and Thursday, from 10-4. They're very nice and learned people and they want to help you.]

Clarity is a virtue. Remember-- we won't be insulted unless we know what you're trying to say.

Bush and Hitler: An Unfair Comparison

2004-06-28T16:26:00.000-04:00

If anyone has seen the latest campaign ad at GeorgeWBush.com, one might be sharing our perplexity. The video clip features Al Gore, Howard Dean and... Adolph Hitler?

The point of the ad is to decry the unfairness of some left-wing criticisms of Bush-- namely, that the Bush presidency bears an uncanny likeness to the Third Reich.

Here at we TBOC agree that such comparisons between Bush and Hitler are unfair. Those who would level such words are reactionaries with a too small command of history. It should be obvious to anyone that there are two very important differences between Bush and Hitler.

1.) In November 1932, the Nazis won 196 seats in the Parliament, more than any other party. Hitler was democratically elected.

2.) Hitler was good for the economy.

As always, comments, thoughts and death threats may be sent to: takebackourcampus@yahoo.com.

Who Says Republicans Are Homophobic?

2004-06-27T14:09:00.000-04:00

In case anyone missed this in the comments:

you are a fag, your're (sic) a big fucking fag, and I am going to kick the shit out (sic), just wait until this semester rolls around, watch your back you gay ugly piece of shit

I hope you don't talk this way to Andrew Sullivan.

But let's look at this threat. We think it's best to reduce it to a three part statement.

1.) We are gay.
2.) The writer will inflict harm on us.
3.) However, this harm will not come until September.

What the fuck? We get the part about the ass-kicking, but what kind of pussy offers a temporal qualifier? Saying, "I'm going to kick your ass... but not for another two months," really takes the urgency out of it.

If you're going to kick someone's ass, it has to be now. Otherwise, you're just that dickwad from study hall who keeps talking about the tattoo he's thinking about getting. You're going to the prom with your fat platonic friend who wears cats-eye glasses.

We Get Letters! We Get Lots and Lots of Letters! Vol. 2

2004-06-26T10:48:00.000-04:00

TBOC received a letter in response to this post about Republican divorce. Namely, that those who live in Republican states are getting divorced nearly one-third more than those from Democratic states.

Well, I normally would say that I am surprised to be featured on the web, other than the Admissions website where you obtained my picture and some of my co-curricular activities. However, given the fact that most of my friends have already been featured in a profile on the TBOC website, I figured that it was only a matter of time before there was a reference to me, after all, it is guilt by association isn't it?? Someone classifies themself (sic) as a Republican, and the red flags go off for you people, you fit them (sic)into a stereotype of being rich and, as you not quite so eloquently put it in Jake Shea's profile, a drug addict. Well, I hate to be the one to go outside of the box on this one, but I'm neither, not that it is any of your concern. I do have two question (sic) for you however: Why was my name in the Rush Limbaugh article regarding marriage? I don't know any of you, how can you presume to judge me and say imply sic that I hate "gays, Blacks and Jews?"
Adam Casler

We at TBOC were at first delighted but have now grown weary of this sniveling lack of commitment. In all seriousness, we get a letter full of recycled Real World tripe such as, "I don't know any of you, how can you presume to judge me and say imply (sic)...."

In order to be a Republican, one must support Republican party politics. That includes expansionist foreign policy, supply-side economics, and a hatred of gays, Blacks and Jews.

But no one answered our original question-- Why are Republicans divorcing 29% percent more than Democrats? We thought it was because soon after marriage, many Republicans realized that marriage is more than a mutual hatred of gays, Blacks and Jews. If we're wrong, let us know.

Please post in the comments or send us e-mail at takebackourcampus@yahoo.com.

Star Trek, Public Sex, and More Republican Divorce

2004-06-25T18:31:00.000-04:00

Senate candidate Jack Ryan (who shares his name with the uber-American Tom Clancy character) has dropped out of the race following the release of nearly 400 pages of documents from his 2000 divorce.

The Illinois Republican was formerly married to Star Trek actress Jeri Ryan, a marriage that ended due to his sexual perversions. The actress' statements claim that the Senate hopeful "insisted that I go to sex clubs with him" in New York, Paris and New Orleans.

Check out some particularly juicy bits, related below--
[Jack Ryan is referred to as "Respondent"]

The clubs in New York and Paris were explicit sex clubs. Respondent had done research. Respondent took me to two clubs in New York in one day. One club I refused to go in. It had matresses in cubicles. The other club he insisted I go to. Respondent did not like to go out to dinner, and we went out to dinner that night. He said the least I could do in return was go to the club he wanted me to go. It was a bizarre club with cages, whips, and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling. Respondent wanted me to have sex with him there, with another couple watching. I refused. Respondent asked me to perform a sexual activity upon him, and he specifically asked other people to watch. I was very upset....

Why are Republicans so kinky and divorced? The statement goes on to get even better--

Then during a trip to Paris, he took me to a sex club in Paris, without telling me where we were going.... People were having sex everywhere. I cried, I was physically ill. Respondent became very upset with me, and said it was not a "turn on" for me to cry. I could not get over the incident, and my loss of attraction to him as a result.

Fortunately, the campaign website, JackRyan2004.com, is still up. The site advises, "With control of the US Senate at stake, Jack's life experiences and passion for giving back to the community make him the best candidate to keep this seat in Republican hands."

But where have those hands been?

Rush Limbaugh Divorced-- For the Third Motherfucking Time

2004-06-23T14:55:00.000-04:00

Rush Limbaugh announced last week that he and his wife are divorcing.

It's no surprise that his wife might not want to be married to a morbidly corpulent deaf junkie, but divorce seems to be a trend in Republican households.

As reported by Doug Henwood in the latest issue of The Nation, the "red" states, those states that voted for Bush in 2000, have a divorce rate 29% higher than the "blue" (Gore) states.

[For the raw data, see the National Center for Health Statistics.]

What's the matter, Sports and Squires? Did you suddenly find out that a marriage is more than a mutual hatred of gays, Blacks and Jews?

We at TBOC sincerely hope none of those Republican women end up as single mothers.

Logic Puzzle of the Day: The Calculus of Babylon

2004-06-21T09:54:00.000-04:00

Trent Lott in this weekend’s New York Times Magazine:

Trent Lott: There are terrorists in Iraq who have been drawn into that part of the world. Every day we eliminate some of them; that's one more that won't be coming here.
New York Times: What do you mean by eliminate them? Where are the terrorists and insurgents going to go?
TL: Well, they are going to be killed. When they attack our troops, 20 or 30 or 40 at a time are being eliminated.
NYT: We can't kill everyone who hates America!
TL: We can kill a lot of them, particularly when they try to kill us.

All this leads us to today’s thought exercise. For the sake of mathematics, we’re going to use Lott’s presuppositions:

1.) There are a set number of terrorists in the world. Once one is killed, “that’s one more that won’t be coming here.” No further people will be driven to adopt anti-American ideology. If they do, they won’t pick up arms.
2.) Iraq is some sort of ideological magnet for terrorists. If the United States was not occupying Iraq, they would come to the United States and not Palestine or Chechnya, where they would be someone else’s problem.
3.) “20 or 30 or 40” terrorists are killed during each skirmish.

So the question is—How many terrorists do we have to kill? And how many troops are they going to kill? And what’s the ratio of these two figures?

The coalition has already suffered just under 1000 deaths—957 to be exact, including 840 Americans. And according to the Pentagon, there have been at least 5138 US servicemen wounded. That’s to say nothing of the rest of the coalition.

But let’s run with this. An independent estimate of Iraqi military casualties places the figure at somewhere between five and six thousand troops. That’s pretty much a one-to-one ratio—for every American killed or wounded there’s one member of the Iraqi military killed or wounded.

Fair’s fair, right? Except that I’m leaving out non-combat casualties. But so is the Pentagon, so it’s hard to get a handle on these things. United Press International posted a story last November claiming there were nearly seven thousand non-combat casualties from US forces alone. Eight months later, that number must have at least doubled. So that means for every one Iraqi soldier killed or wounded, slightly more than three US soldiers are killed or wounded.

The ratio doesn't improve much when we include civilian casualties. Last week The Guardian reported that between 5000 and 7000 civilian deaths have been documented in Iraq, though the number could be as high as 10,000. These numbers pretty much bear out with 14 other Iraqi body counts.

So while between five and six thousand Iraqi troops have been killed or wounded, along with five to ten thousand civilian deaths. But the US has 840 troops dead, at least 5138 wounded in combat, and more than 14,000 non-combat casualties. Which gives us a ratio of about 10-16:20. At the most, two US servicemen are killed or wounded for each Iraqi (militant or civilian) casualty. At the other end of the scale, we have a ratio of about 4:5, where four Iraqi (militant or civilian) casualties equates to five American military casualties.

Therefore by Lott's calculus, every twenty Iraqis killed costs us between twenty-five and forty American casualties.

Which makes one wonder: With superior training and arms, what the fuck are we doing to get beaten so badly?

Great Moments in Republican History, vol. 2

2004-06-20T14:26:00.000-04:00

When Republican Bill Frist succeeded Trent Lott as Senate Majority leader, Frist had only served one term in Congress and had no prior political experience. In fact, he never even voted before he ran for Senate in 1994. (LA Weekly, 1/10-16/03) It seemed that becoming the Majority leader would be a daunting task for the Tennessee Senator. In fact, Tennessee Republican Howard Baker, a former Senate Majority leader himself, once described the job as "herding cats."

That was encouraging. After all, Bill Frist had plenty of experience with cats.

In his 1989 autobiography, Frist declared he used to adopt stray cats, take them back to his apartment and promptly cut them to shreds. A small sample of his style:

It was, of course, a heinous and dishonest thing to do. And I was totally schizoid about the entire matter. By day, I was little Billy Frist, the boy who lived on Bowling Avenue in Nashville and had decided to become a doctor because of his gentle father and a dog named Scratchy. By night, I was Dr. William Harrison Frist, future cardiothoracic surgeon, who was not going to let a few sentiments about cute, furry little creatures stand in the way of his career. In short, I was going a little crazy.

But no need to worry. Killing animals is the way many great men begin their lives-- like Jeffrey Dahmer and Kip Kinkel.

Great Moments in Republican History, vol. 1

2004-06-20T14:11:00.000-04:00

Senator Trent Lott wrote a column for a publication of the Council of Conservative Citizens. He was often seen speaking to their members, telling them they “stand for the right principles and right philosophy.” (St. Petersburg Times, 12/15/02)

The Council is recognized as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. See the Council’s website denouncing Home Depot as “’Homo’ Depot,” articles asking “What is wrong with White South Africans?” and concerns over “Jewish Socery.”

When speaking at an engagement celebrating fellow Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday, Sen. Lott proclaimed: "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we [Mississippi] voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

Sen. Lott was referring to Sen. Thurmond's 1948 bid for the presidency. His campaign slogan was "Segregation Forever!"

For those racially insensitive remarks, Lott was asked to step down as Senate Majority leader. He was replaced by Tennessee Senator (and medical doctor) Bill Frist.

Dear Republicans...

2004-06-18T18:39:00.000-04:00

You’re not oppressed. Please stop claiming that you are. It only makes you look like silly little bantams crowing that the sky is falling.

As exhibit A, I present a section Terry Gross’ October 2003 interview with Conservative lobbyist Grover Norquist, first aired on National Public Radio’s Fresh Air.

Grover Norquist: I think it speaks very much to the health of the nation that 70-plus percent of Americans want to abolish the death tax, because they see it as fundamentally unjust. The argument that some who played at the politics of hate and envy and class division will say, 'Yes, well, that's only 2 percent,' or as people get richer 5 percent in the near future of Americans likely to have to pay that tax.
I mean, that's the morality of the Holocaust. 'Well, it's only a small percentage,' you know. 'I mean, it's not you, it's somebody else.'
And this country, people who may not make earning a lot of money the centerpiece of their lives, they may have other things to focus on, they just say it's not just. If you've paid taxes on your income once, the government should leave you alone. Shouldn't come back and try and tax you again.

Terry Gross: Excuse me. Excuse me one second. Did you just ...

Grover Norquist: Yeah?

Terry Gross: … compare the estate tax with the Holocaust?

Grover Norquist: No, the morality that says it's OK to do something to do a group
because they're a small percentage of the population is the morality that says that the Holocaust is OK because they didn't target everybody, just a small percentage. What are you worried about? It's not you. It's not you. It's them. And arguing that it's OK to loot some group because it's them, or kill some group because it's them and because it's a small number, that has no place in a democratic society that treats people equally. The government's going to do something to or for us, it should treat us all equally. …"

You control the White House and the Senate. Can you stop whining about being a "political minority"? I would really like that.

Sincerely,
Christian Evangelist

P.S. Can you try to hate gays a little less? That would be much appreciated.

Top Five Reagan Facts

2004-06-15T10:39:00.000-04:00

1.) He owned more horses than books. (Mirror, June 13, 2004)
2.) Though he spent World War II on a movie lot, he claimed to have liberated Nazi extermination camps. See Christopher Hitchens in Slate.
3.) Referred to African terrorist Jonas Savimbi, a man who once personally beat to death the entire family of a political rival, as Angola’s Abraham Lincoln. (New York Times, 3/5/02)
4.) Supported the apartheid regime of South Africa. Asked “Can we abandon this country in every war we’ve ever fought?” Claimed in 1985 that, “They have eliminated the segregation we once had in our own country.” See Mokhiber and Weissman in Common Dreams.
5.) Claimed that Nicaragua planned to invade Texas. (Christian Science Monitor, 8/6/86) Also claimed that Iran, Libya, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization were supporting Daniel Ortega and the Sandanistas. (Washington Post, 1/25/85)

Have your own favorite Reagan moments? Post in the comments or send us a letter.

Reagan Dies-- old friends Saddam, Osama don't make it to funeral

2004-06-13T16:36:00.000-04:00

Yes friends, the Gipper is finally dead. In fact, he's been dead for a week. Why did we wait so long to post? We wanted to make sure it wasn't a joke preying on our eager and sincere hearts, like this mistake that so brightened our eyes one year ago until we found out that Ronald Reagan still lived. We are still cross about that.

But finally, time has accomplished what John Hinckley could not. Could time be seeking the affection of the lovely Jodie Foster?

Though Reagan the man is dead, his many accomplishments live on:

--The funding and training of Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Reagan's CIA trained Bin Laden in the tactics he uses to kill United States citizens, such as laundering money at the Bank for Credit and Commerce International, the same institution the CIA uses to finance its vespertine operations. Bin Laden also spent time with Gulbadin Hekmatyar, the head of Hizb-i-Islama (Party of Islam), the CIA's favored group of Mujahiddin. In 1989, the CIA shipped high-powered rifles to a group of Mujadhiddin that included Bin Laden. (See Extra!, 1-2/02; The Economist, 9/15/01; Le Monde, 9/15/01; Jane's Intelligence Review, 10/1/98). For a nice example of how Reagan abetted the rise of Bin Laden, see Fred Kaplan's recent Slate piece.

--Warmly embracing Saddam Hussein, even as the dictator continued to wage war against Iran and violate Geneva Conventions like they were his own personal harem. In 1988, after Hussein's brutal use of mustard gas in the slaughter of Kurds, Reagan vetoed a measure that would have imposed sanctions on the dictator (please don't forget that it was likely American helicopters that were used to drop the deadly poisons). Go here to see a 1983 photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein. Here see Reagan enjoying a fireside chat with Hussein's foreign minister Tariq Aziz, circa 1984.

All the time Bush spent searching for a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, he could have simply looked to his father's boss, the now dead Ronald Reagan.

We Get Letters! We Get Lots and Lots of Letters!

2004-06-05T15:13:00.000-04:00

To everyone who has written-- we promise to respond to each one of you. We savor each of your letters like fine wine or adulterous kisses. Please keep writing. Here's the first letter we received, in response to our comments on the SATs.

Although it's certainly true that the SAT has a history bound up with racism and eugenics, two points are worth making:

1. Many of the early 20th century eugenicists and racial testers were on the political left.

2. When the SAT was imported to Harvard, the reason it was put to use was to level the playing field there AWAY from wealthy east cost boarding school kids who were getting in based on their connections. Yes, the SAT was perhaps racially problematic, but it did have some class advantages.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/where/history.html
Another perspective

Thanks for taking the time to google "SATs AND race" before commenting on our piece. That's a mighty feat of research. Now, to respond:

1.) No eugenicists or "racial testers" (whatever those beasts be) could be leftists, as “racist” and “leftist” are mutually exclusive categories. Racism would automatically exclude one from being a leftist.

2.) As for the “class advantages” you seem to think the SAT provides—let’s look at Harvard, which you seem to revere. The Harvard class of 2006 is 8.9% Black (Harvard Crimson, 4/4/03). However, over 10% of the student population is “legacy” students—that is, they are the children of Harvard alumni (Christian Science Monitor, 2/6/04).

Yes, you read that correctly. Harvard accepts more children of alumni than Blacks. According to the last census, Blacks make up about 12.3% of the American population. The children of Harvard alumni represent significantly less. Could it be the “wealthy east coast boarding school kids who were getting in based on their connections” are still profiting from collegiate nepotism? The ostensible equality of the SATs is merely a lie to cover the racist base of higher education.

TBOC Now Accepting Submissions

2004-06-04T18:54:00.000-04:00

Good news, everyone! Take Back Our Campus is now accepting submissions and letters at:

takebackourcampus@yahoo.com.

We've set up this account for two reasons:

1.) For those who wish to send us a private note, to praise our site or claim it is some analog of "ethically abhorrent" (in the words of one Vilas Hall denizen).

2.) So all those who wish to publish their St. Lawrence-related gossip or polemics can contact us directly.

This saves you the hassle of being directly affiliated with TBOC. "Why is this necessary?" one might ask. The answer is this: Two of TBOC's ex-administrators were unkindly visited by the jackbooted nasties at Security for no crime other than maintaining this site.

We wish for all our friends the opportunity to lead civil and good lives. This is unlikely when wrathful and sullen thugs show up at one's door to escort one to security offices and ask for a written statement while refusing to charge one with an actual offense.

Therefore, we've chosen expression over accountability and decided to keep secret the identities of our contributors. We hope to hear from you.

SLU and the SAT: Racist at the Core

2004-05-15T15:13:00.000-04:00

As the academic year ends, we look forward to the coming fall, when a new crop of students enters our university. What has brought them to us? Money, mostly. Occasionally money and legacy. Something in common with all students is the Scholastic Aptitude Test, which St. Lawrence University uses as a guarantor of admission to the academy.

Widely known is that Black and Latino teenagers regularly score lower than their White counterparts, even with the same economic class. Why is this happening?

The SAT was written in the early 1920s by Princetonian Carl Brigham, a psychologist who specialized in theories of racial intelligence. It was adapted from the Army Alpha, a competency exam that concluded "89% of Negroes" had a mental capacity below that of a 13-year-old. In contrast, the Aryan races scored very well—idiocy in Swedes was less than one-half of 1%, in Germans just two-tenths of 1%, and in the Dutch less than one-tenth of 1%.

Naturally, Brigham was worried about this. “The decline of American intelligence will be more rapid than the decline of the intelligence of European national groups, owing to the presence of the negro,” he wrote. “The results we obtain by interpreting the army data… support Mr. Madison Grant’s thesis of the superiority of the Nordic type…”

(For the curious-- see Edwin Black’s War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s campaign to create a master race, specifically pages 81-83.)

Logically, it follows that using the SAT, a test racist from its inceptions to its outcome, makes SLU nothing less than inherently racist. Other colleges, such as Sarah Lawrence, have already stopped relying on the SAT when considering students’ applications.

Fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, we still persist in barring minorities from educational institutions. If SLU wishes to shed the racist skins of yesteryear, it must be rid of the SAT.

Today's Student Spotlight is Allison T. Turcotte

2004-05-10T02:27:00.000-04:00

Name: Allison T. Turcotte, aka The Woman, aka The Beast, aka Yetti-McHuge Bitch
From: North Creek, New York
Class: 2004 (at least she's supposed to be).
Notables: Author of article in the Fall 2003 issue of The Stump, entitled "I Am A Woman," in which she made her claim to fame as "A Woman" (we are not positive if this is true or not). She is a rafting guide on the Hudson River, where she has only lost three clients, including one small child (which she allegedly served at the afternoon barbeque). Lives in the Habitat for Humanity House, but by and large does nothing. Dating Alfred J. Wright, another huge Habitat Bitch. She tends bar at the Hoot Owl a few nights a week, but most people seem not to tip on nights she works.
Quotables: "I fold laundry to relax because I am anal," "I am a fat ass." "I burp too, and expel all sorts of gas." "I am a walking contradiction." "If god had intended for something to be up my ass, he would have put something there" "I make perfect silver dollar pancakes, like only a woman knows how." "I am a woman." Editors Note: We've all smelled the gas, but you could have fooled us on being a woman.

Contact Information:
Residence: Habitat for Humanity House, Room Number Pending
Email: aturco04@stlawu.edu
Phone: x6984
CMR: 588
Voicemail: 232

UnPop Those Collars PLEASE!!!

2004-05-09T17:46:00.000-04:00

heres an article from the Georgetown Lampoon, its by I.M. Adick, III (Isn't there a SLUR with that name? Oh wait, that's J.R.S.S. III, I bet it's the same guy!!).

--------------------------------------
Opinion
Wearing Your Collar Down is for Poor People
By I.M. Adick, III

When my ancestors came over to this great country 400 years ago, they had a vision for a utopia, free from minorities, liberals, poor people, homosexuals, and immigrants. There are few today who share such lofty ideals, but we're easy to find: Pastel polo shirts, loafers without socks, tucked-in shirts, but most importantly, collars up.

Call me a douchebag. Call me an arrogant little cocksucking dickhead. Beat the shit out of me if I'm not with fifteen of my B-frat friends (unlikely). But just know this: I interned at Smith Barney this summer. Where did you work? A Blockbuster? That's right you insignificant sack of dogshit; I'm going to be your boss. So take your t-shirt wearing, financial aid, blue-collar ass over to Blockbuster and get me a copy of Old School. Do you even own a tuxedo?

Look at my girlfriend. You think she'd go for someone who didn't have his collar up? I don't think so. I remember the night I met her. I bought her so many $9 drinks she couldn't even walk. So I drove her home in my BMW 328ci, but not before I took a few "liberties" with her. The next morning I took her to brunch and went to the mall, where I bought her some blouses. You assholes don't know the first thing about being a gentleman. You probably don't even know how to sail.

When I get out of business school, I'm going to be making $120,000 a year. Add that to my trust fund, and I can buy a country club membership, a ski house, and still have enough money to go barhopping around the city in my designer clothes and shit-eating grin. Maybe I'll offer you a hundred bucks to flip my collar up for me. I earned it you middle-class fuck up. I bet you went to public school.

You're so predictable. I bet I can guess your political party just by looking at you. My cronies and I range from elitist northern liberals to heartless conservative bastards. I've wasted enough time with you. Get some rich parents, an internship, and a pink polo with the collar up, and then maybe I'll let you hang out with me.

Be sure to check out our sponser, The Anti-Popped Collar Club! http://www4.ncsu.edu/~ncdoyle/home.html

Today's (Other) TBOC! Student Spotlight: Carla Hunter

2004-05-09T03:21:00.000-04:00

Name: Carla Hunter, aka Chunt, aka Cchunt, aka chunternator, aka the first lady of Thelmo, aka The Amazon
From: Vermont
Class: Much like many of our other features, she will be graduating in December, but of 2007...Don't ask us how it happens this way, coincidence? Perhaps not.
Notables: Dating the President of Thelmo (though maybe not...we'll see what the Summer brings, stay tuned for play-by-play updates as this story unfolds). Thelmo "representative" in Sykes Hall, though her constituencies contend she doesn't actually represent them...now Carla, how many times do we have to tell you, not everything can be about you. Works in the Bookstore and allegedly frequents the "dirty" magazine section. Has a propensity for accusing people of things before getting all the facts. Runs a clothing swap program with Dean Petty. Is a Platinum card carrying member of stylishpreppy.com. Has the uncanny ability to cry on command. Believes "Jesus Saves." Is a walking counterintelligence program. "Frequents" the soc lab, but never to actually do work. Enjoys eavesdropping on other people's conversations. Likes cameras. Was the class "tattle-tale" in Elementary school...and has yet to grow out of it.
Quotables: "I gave her a one."referring to the rating she gave Dean Petty's picture on HotOrNot.com. If girls on this campus didn't dress so slutty, there wouldn't be as much rape. "{cry, whimper, whimper, cry, deluge}"

Contact Information
Residence: Sykes Hall
Email: cchunt03@stlawu.edu
Phone: x6817
CMR: 727
Voicemail: 2807

Today's TBOC! Student Spotlight: The Birthday Girl Herself, Liz Wardell

2004-05-09T02:30:00.000-04:00

Name: Elizabeth A. Wardell, aka Dolly Dolphin
From: Saratoga Springs, NY (see an aerial shot of the place here!)
Class: Sort of '04, but is graduating in December.
Notables: Leader of "famous organization" (St. Lawrence University College Republicans). Quoted in Wall Street Journal editorial, but whined that it wasn't really what she said and that her quotes were taken out of context (Boo-fucking-hoo). Dating Sport; allegedly they are into Water Sports. Feels silenced in class, which would make sense, except that she never goes to any. In the past, has had flings with both Shawn Mayo-Pike and Josh Lynch. For Liz, life is one bad hair day. At many times, her friends find themselves wondering if a squirrel got caught in her hair; also, why they are friends with her. Is known to be extremely manipulative. Clearly has Jake's minutiae in a vice. This one's easily offended, boys and girls, so look out! Has penchant for 80s prep look--popped collars and all. Occasionally wears baseball cap, a la Britney Spears (as seen in tabloid photos). Compulsive liar, evidenced by rodent-like face and overly-large, beady eyes. Big fan of loving herself, with Toy Fluid.
Quotables: Unfortunately, while there are fun notables, Liz, like Peter, is as "plain as vanilla ice cream." Thus, we have no quotes at the moment. Perhaps if she stopped silencing herself, we might have some. How about it, Liz?

Contact Information
Residence: Sykes Commons Floor
Email: eaward01@stlawu.edu
Phone: x6689*
CMR: 2349
Voicemail: 3958

*Don't worry kids, we know they're going home for the summer. Just make sure you don't forget your Larry!

Questionable Behaviors? Indeed.

2004-05-07T16:22:00.000-04:00

In The Road to Wigan Pier, George Orwell wrote that “The lower classes smell.” For the rest of his life, those words were leveled by critics accusing him of contempt for the poor. However, these critics failed to read the context of the quote. As Orwell puts it “the secret of class distinctions in the West… is summed up in four frightful words which people nowadays are chary of uttering, but which were bandied about quite freely in my childhood. The words were: the lower classes smell.”

And so the same mistake was made by the sure kith of these critics, those so offended Nse Obat’s screed in The Stump. I have no right to compare Obat to Orwell, or anyone with even the flimsiest purchase of the English language. But it is worth our time to examine the basic error of those who feel so wronged. No parsing or “diacritical analysis” is necessary-- just the simple ability to connect one sentence with the next.

“I have been called a ‘runaway slave.’ I guess that would make Rance Davis and
Margaret Kent Bass the ‘house Negroes.’”

Mr. Obat, displaying a degree of literacy quite out of character with the rest of the piece, is carrying a metaphor in a voice not his own. Those who would call him a “runaway slave” would, by the same metric, refer to Mr. Davis and Ms. Bass as “house Negroes.” Simply dialogical-- written in plain English, n’est-ce pas?

However, certain members of the faculty chose not to read the piece, but to excoriate The Stump for publishing it. Pens were uncapped, flasks were uncorked, and the distinct smell of a morning gin drunk mixed with the flattering odor of ivory outrage.

This righteous liberal flavor served only to mask the actual issue that was exposed by The Stump. Mr. Obat’s final point angrily mentions “a Diversity Scholarship (that brings in more mix color and Asian students than traditionally underrepresented people of COLOR)….” Rather than asking what magazine’s agenda was in publishing this rant, we might ask ourselves a very different question.

What was the administration doing in employing a man with obvious preferences for “people of COLOR” over “mix color and Asian students” in a position of power? As an Admissions Counselor, Assistant Director of Admissions, and finally, Assistant Director of HEOP, Mr. Obat wielded considerable power over “mix race and Asian students” as well as his preferred “people of COLOR.” (Mr. Obat, it should be noted, required none of these positions to wield considerable power over a water fountain.)

The question we should be asking is, “How does a barely literate chauvinist with an anger-management problem rise to a mid-level administrative position at St. Lawrence?”
We should be grateful to The Stump for publishing this letter and raising questions about inter-race relations at St. Lawrence.

As for Mr. Obat himself-- well, he’s long gone from this campus. And there’s no use crying over spilled water.

TBOC! Supports The Stump, Questionable Behaviors

2004-05-07T02:56:00.000-04:00

TBOC! is deeply concerned about the state of this university. Over the past week, a storm has struck the Faculty-Staff listserv where liberals and conservatives alike have disavowed former University employee Nse Obot, the Stump and those associated with the Stump. We, at TBOC!, send our support and solidarity to Nse and the Stump for printing such a realistic article on race-relations at SLU. Nse accurately details structural relationships at this university that many are simply afraid to talk about.

Over the past few days, there has been a one-sided campaign of guilty liberal trash coming out of the facstaff listserv. Many faculty have expressed their "outrage" about Nse's letter in the Stump, in which he refers to Maragret Bass and Rance Davis as "house negroes." This is interesting on a number of levels. First of all, it generally proves Nse right. Second of all, where was the outrage from the faculty when Dan Flynn came to speak? Or Dinesh D'Souza? Where was the outrage when John Jaunzems made racist remarks about illegal immigrants? Or over the fact that certain members of the econ department are also local leaders of the Promise Keepers? Where was the outrage over the racist attacks on Professor Robert Torres? Instead, the liberal outrage (mostly from white faculty) occurs only when key figures are attacked or targeted or painted in a negative light: Margaret Bass and Rance Davis.

Most absurdly of all, some faculty members have referred to Nse's piece in the Stump as "racist." Now, we realize how hard the liberal faculty try to be "colorblind" but unless you lived under a rock for the past few years, it's hard not to notice that Nse is BLACK. Perhaps his opinion on the structural positions of administrative figures of color is, hence, more valid than that of sensitive, liberal, overwhelmingly white faculty and a few scattered uncle toms and sellouts. Yet this is hardly taken into account. Instead the faculty are ready to break out the pitchforks and torches in typical lynchmob fashion (no pun intended).

Rather than asking, as faculty have, "How could a student write something like this?" they should be asking "WHY would a BLACK student write something like this?" (while also noting that at the time he left, Nse WAS NOT a student, something else most faculty seemed to have overlooked).

Lastly, Daniel Hernandez has posted some of the most offensive emails, suggesting that Professor Kenneth Gould of the Sociology Department has "an agenda" in having Nse's work published in the Stump, since he is the faculty advisor for the publication ("I wonder what his real agenda is"). So here's our response to you, in particular, Daniel:

After a dead student's body turned up, you called her friends and neighbors to a meeting, and proceded to describe in graphic detail exactly how the decomposition process works, traumatizing and horrifying many students. And you're in counseling services? Daniel, what was your agenda??? Sound like an unfair question? That's sort of what we're getting at here. We suspect that Dr. Gould's was probably giving students autonomy over their own publication. So, what was yours?

White faculty need to take a step back rather than deciding they are in a place to critique letters from students and/or employees of color who are expressing their completely valid criticisms. The liberal faculty here were more useful before, when their heads were still buried happily in the sands of inaction and willful ignorance.

Today's TBOC! Student Spotlight: Jake Shea

2004-05-06T01:20:00.000-04:00

(Dramatization)
Name: Jake Robinson Stuart Shea III, aka Sport, aka Bourgie Asshole, aka Zack from Saved By The Bell
From: Somewhere very, very white. And rich (Kennebunk, ME -- click here for an aerial photo!)
Class: '08 (Ok, so he had some issues getting in, but Daddy took care of it)
Notables: Set off fire alarm (allegedly on a coke binge--see photo above) in Sykes which comes with a nice $500 fine (wonder who paid for that?), dating Liz Wardell: leader of a "famous organization" (Jake's words to describe the SLURs), has extreme fondness for dressing like "a pansy ass rich boy" (sweater around the shoulders, pastel colors, collars up, etc.), stole giant M&M from Northstar Cafe (see photo above), comes to Thelmo directly from personal yacht, and can buy his way out of trouble (see quotes below). Also, has hamsters (don't ask why, you don't want to know--but they did just have babies. TBOC! expects the female will probably become a welfare mom) in his room. Believes that rich conservatives, due to their small numbers, qualify as "a minority group," and in fact are oppressed. In Men's Crew.
Quotables: "Rules don't apply to me; I can buy my way out of trouble." "Buy some stock, spend 70 hours a week in an office, and then tell me you don't want to do everything you can to keep your hard earned money; welcome to the republican party sport, welcome." "I am not worried, my scummless self WILL ['get to run multi-million dollar corporations'], trust fund untouched." "Polo logos? Looks awfully materialistic." "He [Bob Torres] is half white! How can he say these things? He's half white!" "Torres & Bin Laden--Both in Hiding, come out come out wherever you are, Sally."

Contact Information
Residence: Rebert Blue Wing 225
Email: jrshea04@stlawu.edu
Phone: x6201
CMR: 2250
Voicemail: 2716

Today's TBOC! Student Spotlight: Brian Lind

2004-05-05T00:38:00.000-04:00

Name: Brian K. Lind, aka The Great White Hope
From: Albany Area, NY
Class: '04
Notables: Prominent campus guilty white liberal pacifist, CIA informant, founder of MASV (formerly MSSV--Men Stopping Sexual Violence), OP guide, works in career services, wrote the Extreme Right Side of the Hill column in The Hill Nazi, dating Jackie Roy (former Hill News editor), against All Men's (or All Women's) Lacrosse club, makes GW Bush look literate, choked on piece of venison meat on hot date, women frequently complain that he touches them without being asked. Generally incapable of dealing with, and obsesses over, the personal criticism that comes with being a public figure (Thelmo senator, right-wing columnist), and wanted TBOC! to be meaner about Pete Snedeker's profile. [Editor's Note: I wonder if we can get out of any of our academic obligations for being talked about on a website...] Is believed to suffer from extreme paranoia.
Quotables: "So it's legal if I pay a girl to have sex with me, as long as I videotape it, right?" Editor's Note: Not even if you had a hundred dollar bill hanging out of your zipper, Brian.

Contact Information
Residence: Sykes Hall
Email: blind79@stlawu.edu
Phone: x6722
CMR: 345
Voicemail: 0119

Today's TBOC! Student Spotlight: Peter Snedeker

2004-05-04T05:00:00.000-04:00

TBOC! is proud to announce a new regular column that will appear daily over the next week, in order to better get to know some of our great students at SLU. Try and guess who will be next tomorrow!

Name: Peter Snedeker, aka Snickerdoodle, aka Schnedipoo, aka Schnedikins
From: Sudbury, MA
Class: '06
Notables: Thelmo President, Men's Lacrosse, CA for the Intercultural Floor in Sykes, Parents are on the 2003-2004 Parent Committee (Jim, SLU '71 & Betsy, SLU '74), Sister (Katherine) graduated from SLU in '02. Dating Carla Hunter - the "first couple of SLU" - and sources say "there's trouble brewin' in the white house." Spent Spring Break in an exclusive resort in Florida with the first lady on Daddy's credit card. Often described as being less interesting than "vanilla ice cream." Is known to use his power as Thelmo president to spread rumors about lawsuits. Deploys Carla to obtain information about the Left. Drives a shiny new black Volvo.
Quotables: "I love you guys for doing this." This was said to two students spray-painting "Stop and realize you are lucky to be here" over another student's plea to end gender violence on campus. "I would be more than happy to sit down with you and discuss any concerns that you might have with what I have said, or with my work as Thelmo President. Feel free to email me or give me a call at ext. 6805 so that we can set up a time to meet. I hope to hear from you soon."

Contact Information
Residence: Sykes Hall
Email: pssned02@stlawu.edu
Phone: x6805
CMR: 14
Voicemail: 8633

Over One Million Descend on Washington

2004-04-26T13:37:00.000-04:00

SLU students from SAGE and WAG attended two demonstrations in Washington D.C. this past weekend. The first, on Saturday, was against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund's biannual meetings. The protest was significantly smaller than usual (normal numbers for the even tend to hover around 25,000), however this was all overshadowed on Sunday. On the 25th, the March for Women's Lives took place on the Mall. A meticulous official headcount numbered the crowd at 1.15 million--over 1 out of every 300 Americans was present. SLU students proudly joined hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of women and their supporters to fight the assault on women's rights being perpetrated by the Bush administration and the radical right, from health care to privacy to reproductive rights to sexual education. Speakers at the event included Ashley Judd, the actress who played Wonder Woman, Whoopi Goldberg, Moby, Maxine Waters, Kathleen Turner, Susan Sarandon and many more. Demonstrators marched with signs with statements such as "Keep Abortion Legal," "U.S. Out of My Uterus!," "Wombland Security: A Cop for Every Uterus," "Former Fetuses for Choice," "Who Decides?," "Stand Up For Choice," and "My Body is Not Public Property".

The Pentagon Doesn't Want You to See This

2004-04-24T13:05:00.000-04:00

The Pentagon is attempting to ban media outlets from publishing photos these photos of soldiers' caskets. Why? Because seeing these photos might diminish support for the war in Iraq.

The photos, obtained by author and activist Russ Kick through a Freedom of Information request, depict the coffins of American soldiers killed while serving in Iraq.

Pass these photos around. Let's fight for free speech.

Problems with Free Speech?

2004-04-21T11:18:00.000-04:00

I have heard that there are certain members of our campus community, possibly including the president of our very own student government, who dislike this website, therefore proving their lack of dedication to free speech. I find this very sad, but also very problematic. This website was created by the students of TBOC as a space for dialog. While it was hoped it would be used as a space in which the Left could share similar instances of being silenced or harassed by members of our campus Right, I think that it should also be open to dialog, debate, and deconstruction of ideologies. In such a space, it is necessary to feel uncomfortable and be challenged without turning and hiding behind security or the administration saying you are being harassed. We are not harassing anybody; we are being critical of specific ideologies, which we consider racist, fascist, and unacceptable.

If you are dissatisfied by the website, a more appropriate response may be to share your feelings in the comments section of this blog, explain what you do or don’t like about this site, and make suggestions. We are not going to be pushed by the Right once again, we are not going to stop using this site, we are not going to censure what we say to save someone’s face. All of the information we post is from first hand sources, quotes are quotes we or people we know, heard first hand. If you have a problem with a quote, don’t even try to deny it because they are all direct quotes, but rather perhaps give us more context. Perhaps Sean meant something other than breasts when he said, “All I wanna see is some titties!" after being denied entry into a strip club. I can’t imagine what he may have meant, but he should feel free to come forward and say something like “yes I said that, this is why I was feeling the need to see titties at that given moment…” just an example. Basically my point is if you said something you regret saying, don’t get pissed off at us just because we heard you, if you take some action you are embarrassed about, it should be a learning experience and perhaps you won’t say shit like that again! Take responsibility for your actions; don’t cry harassment every time you are quoted. This last point is especially true of any elected official, have you ever seen the anti-Bush websites, they often quote bush saying stupid things…it comes with the job. My advice, if you can't deal with it, resign.

Important Green Wall News

2004-04-13T01:10:00.000-04:00

The Green Wall was torn down this evening by "the wind" (students, as usual--we are still working on whom), and damaged. It is in the process of being repaired. After it is resurrected, it will be repainted green and used ONLY as an outlet for public grieving over the tragic loss of Emily Mounce. We ask that all members of the St. Lawrence community respect the purpose of the wall now, and not use it for any other purpose. Eventually, students would like to present the wall to Emily's family. Heavy-duty tape will be provided by the wall for photographs and other postings on the wall that may be subject to damage from the weather. We will also try to provide paper bags and tin foil to protect candles from the wind.

On a separate note, the banners at Piskor are remaining. Maintenance says that they have no plans to remove them; it seems they have found a welcome home at the Sociology Department.

Reports now being released of U.S. massacre in Fallujah

2004-04-12T17:47:00.000-04:00

Reports are streaming in of a growing massacre being perpetrated by U.S. troops in Fallujah, which has now claimed over 600 Iraqi lives. For more details, visit eattherich or Democracy Now!.

A Conservative Student's Voice & TBOC!'s Response

2004-04-12T17:42:00.000-04:00

For the record, I would like to state that there are Republicans on this campus who absolutely abhor what the SLU republicans are doing. Not all Republicans can be painted with the same brush. Keep that in mind. But otherwise, I applaud what you are doing with this website and the Green Wall. Keep up the good work!

ajm -- a republican unaffiliat

ajm,

Please understand that the "fight the right" posters, etc., are referencing only the SLURs, and not all campus conservatives. I certainly understand how they could be construed, and not with out very justified reason, as applying to all conservatives on campus. The problem many students face is that when the SLURs are addressed directly by name, they have a tendency to cry "harassment" to the administration, although there is nothing in the Student Handbook that would qualify such a charge. As a result, the posters are, by unfortunate necessity, more broad in attack. I believe there is an archived post (the first post made on this blog) that clarifies that this site is in no way meant to target all conservative students; we know and appreciate that many are good, well-meaning people with whom some of us may simply disagree. I would personally just like to let you know that we by no means intend to target all conservatives despite the fact that it is clear how some of our campaigns could come off that way. If you have other conservative friends on campus, please let them know this as well.

We see the SLURs as a dangerous element here, and do make a big point, if only privately (again, by necessity) to distinguish between SLURs and other conservative and republican students, and welcome conservative students opposed to the SLURs in our struggle.

Thank you for voicing a very important concern which we have been unable to address adequately prior to this point.

Students For Sexual Violence?

2004-04-11T03:26:00.000-04:00

Stop and realize you're lucky to be here.
These were the words spraypainted over other words: "When violence against women ends, I will tell other stories."
Who spraypainted this cruel and calous response to a call end end violence against women? Two students, under the watchful eyes of no less than our Thelmo president, Peter Snedeker. Peter, it seems, was there to provide the moral support. "I love you guys for doing this," he said, within earshot of three other students.
Dean Petty and President Sullivan were also watching, but from a much safer distance. Likely, they probably didn't want to be caught near Pete, who is supposed to remain apolitical as president of Thelmo.

[Correction: Initially this post implicated two SLURs in the vandalism of the anti-gender violence message on the green wall. Upon a visit from one member of the organization, it turns out that this was not the case. Names will come soon.]

Racist, Fascist SLU Republicans

2004-04-10T22:16:00.000-04:00

There’s been much ado about calling Republicans “fascist” and “racist.” The Saint Lawrence University Republicans were pretty upset about it, denying the allegation (which, for the record, wasn’t directed at them, but at their national chapter).

As Mikhail Lermontov wrote: “Perhaps it cuts too close to the bone?”

In the Spring of 2003, the SLU Republicans invited a speaker named Dan Flynn, author of Why the Left Hates America, to come to St. Lawrence. Flynn’s fee (a flat $500) was supported by University funds, unlike some blogs.

The problem is that Flynn’s parent organization, Accuracy in Media (which sponsors Accuracy in Academia, which Flynn used to head), is very open about its views.

In January of 2002, AIM’s website (under the heading of “AIM Events”) featured “In Defense of Western Man,” the 2002 incarnation of the racialist American Renaissance Conference. One of only two events designated by the group as events “to attend,” the conference featured a list of speakers that read like a Who’s Who of proponents of the pseudo-science of eugenics, including Phillipe Rushton, Jared Taylor, Sam Francis, Michael Levin, and Nick Griffin of the neo-fascist British National Party. Following AIM’s advice to “click here for more info” brought you to a manifesto that began, “In all parts of the world, whites are afraid to speak out in their own interests. The cost of ‘diversity,’ racial differences in IQ, the threat of non-white immigration—politicians and the media are afraid to discuss what these things mean for whites and their civilization." (Extra!, March/April 2002).

Res ipsa loquiter.

Green Wall Update

2004-04-10T20:03:00.000-04:00

Currently the wall remains standing, and the banners remain hanging; the wall in it's 15th hour, the banners in their 10th. Photographs will be coming soon, but be sure to check them out before they come down. Who knows how long they will stay up? We are expecting that if they don't come down tonight, that the wall, if nothing else, will likely be defaced. Stay tuned, and remember: Only you can fight the right.

The Green Wall Strikes Back

2004-04-10T13:32:00.000-04:00

In the early hours of the morning, a team of dedicated tboc! freedom fighters erected a new green wall. Initially, Lindsay Farrar & Co. tore down the wall, presumably of their own initiative. Shortly after, however, a maintenance crew arrived on the scene, nailed the wall back together, and put it back upright. The new wall was followed by a banner drop from Piskor, including statements such as, "No war but class war," a call to end racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia on campus, and "Dear America, Thanks for all the money, sorry about your kids! Love, Halliburton."

It was later learned that, as suspected, the administration had co-opted the wall, telling prospective students that the university actually encourages freedom of speech. Dean Petty, speaking to groups of prospective students and their families, brushed off posters aimed at her perpetual inaction regarding cases of racial and sexual harassment and assault, claiming that the university refused to remove such posters because of SLU's commitment to free speech.

Currently, posters are being made for wheatpasting to the new STUDENT green wall, clarifying that the wall and banner drops were in fact not administratively sanctioned in any way shape or form. If this were any other weekend, they read, such posters and banners would be immediately removed.

Stay tuned for more updates!

Beware of The Bank Beaver

2004-04-10T01:52:00.000-04:00

Message from FightMadCowboyDisease

There is a violent stalker amongst us. He (or she?) is about three feet long, sixty pounds, brown, with a paddle-shaped tail. That’s right, folks, I did indeed say paddle-shaped tail. This violent stalker is none other than the notorious bank beaver. The most recent attack perpetrated by the bank beaver occurred on 26 March when two female students had large rocks thrown at them while they were walking around the outer campus. These women, understandably terrified, reported the incident to two security guards patrolling the area. The security guards rolled their eyes when the students identified themselves and explained what had happened. One of the security guards then asked: “I guess we could check it out if that would make you feel better.” A few days later, one of the women was called to security (not both women—just the one) to clarify some of the details regarding the incident. Both women went to security to clear up some “discrepancies” between the security report and the statements given by the women. After about an hour-and-a-half of clarifications, the women were informed that security and the Canton police were almost 100 percent positive they had determined who had been involved in the incident. After a dramatic pause, the women were asked: “Have you ever heard of a bank beaver?” So watch out, kids, there’s a violent beaver on the loose looking to stalk and attack young women (particularly outspoken women). If you have any information on the whereabouts of this beaver, please call campus security immediately. If you are walking across campus at night and think you are being followed by a beaver, or a similar medium-sized rodent (such as a muskrat or large squirrel) please use the blue lights on campus to notify campus authorities of the situation. Together, we can make our campus safe from the mass rodent conspiracy.

Are you ready to serve?

2004-04-07T15:31:00.000-04:00

As the pentagon begins to process of "quietly moving to fill draft board vacancies nationwide", the draft is becoming more and more of a real possibility. While SLU Republicans fiercely deny the existence of any such legislation, insisting that this is merely an unsubstantiated rumor, you can view summaries of the two bills here and here, and the entire text of one of the bills here. The primary bill, HR 163, titled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, was initially proposed by the Democrats to make the point that if everyone between the ages of 18 and 26 had to serve a two year manditory stint in the military, support for the war would probably wane even more than it has as of late. However, now the Republicans are pushing the bill, so that the draft could be reinstated by the Spring of 2005.

Congressmember Stark of California, when the bill was initially introduced on January 8, 2003, stated, "Mr. Speaker, I am an original cosponsor of the Rangel/Conyers bill, the Universal National Service Act of 2003 (H.R. 163 ), which would reinstate a national draft. I would like to explain my support for this legislation. I ardently oppose war with Iraq. The evidence simply does not exist to warrant sending our nation's young people to sacrifice their lives in Iraq. I believe America ought to be an advocate for peace, not imperialism. Yet, war is on the horizon. The President is intent on invading Iraq whatever the cost. Thanks to the President's brand of hotheaded bully diplomacy, war with North Korea may also be imminent. The only real question that remains is whether or not Americans are ready and willing to bear the cost? ... It is my understanding that out of the 435 Members of this House and the 100 members of the Senate, only one--only one--has a child in active military service. Who are we to know the pain of war when we ourselves will not directly bear the brunt of that action? It won't be us mourning the loss of a child or loved one. Maybe some of you in this Congress would think twice about voting for war in Iraq if you knew your child may be sent to fight in the streets of Baghdad?"

All students are encouraged to attend events this evening regarding the situation in Iraq, at 8:00pm in Griffiths 123.

The SLU Republicans get creative with statistics

2004-04-06T14:44:00.000-04:00

It was discovered today that the HERI survey referenced in the SLU Republicans recent letter* to The Hill News had only a 70% rate of response. Considering they must have been well aware of this, having had access to these statistics, it seems strange (or obvious) why they didn't include this little fact in their letter as well. We suspect that this is probably because of the "lying gene" they possess--a genetic trait present most prominently in Republicans. This would seem to leave the results of such a survey at least questionable, especially when placed in the capable (or lying) hands of the SLU Republicans. One is left to wonder: how might the results of the survey be different had the remaining 30% of the faculty responded to it? Also noteworthy is the fact that they used percentages rather than numbers--percentages implying "out of 100 percent," numbers being what we know for sure. In their case, percentages do make it much easier to lie and get away with it.

*See below.

"Exploited Classrooms"?

2004-04-05T23:28:00.000-04:00

In a recent letter to the Hill News from the SLU Republicans, the group states that "Challenging students to think critically about their own beliefs is a learning experience all of us can benefit from. There is, however, a line that is crossed when the classroom is exploited and used as a tool to indoctrinate students." Indeed, this seems to be the only new statement being made in the letter. The rest--that the faculty are predominately liberal, that SLU GOPers feel "harassed," in part by "attempts at physical intimidation" (yes, readers, that one's as confusing to us as it is to you)--are really nothing that they haven't said, or whined about, before. But just how "new" is this "new" argument? At first glance, you might say to yourself, "Huh. That looks awfully familiar. SAF (Students "for" Academic Freedom) couldn't have put it better." If that's what you thought, then your suspicions were entirely valid. The SAF website is filled with press releases and articles chalk-full of the same accusation. Here's a little taste:

"Horowitz believes campuses indoctrinate students with liberal ideas and punish students and faculty members who do not subscribe to liberal beliefs."

"The ['Academic Bill of Rights'] would have prohibited faculty from introducing controversial topics unrelated to course content because of fears liberal professors too often use their platforms as pulpits and indoctrinate, rather than teach, students."

"I feel like professors abuse their power by using the classroom to indoctrinate students. I'm not in class to learn their political agenda."

"'We need to send a message that liberal professors who would come here to indoctrinate students aren't welcome here,' Hefley said."

"Leftist professors think nothing of intruding their political passions into the classroom in a manner that is inappropriate and abusive, and an unprofessional attempt to politically indoctrinate their charges."

"'When I take a look at the courses that become the diversity training, it seems to be an attempt to indoctrinate with liberal ideas,' he said. 'They seem to be a little coercive in the way they do that.'"

"'We have some of the best professors in the world here at CU, but some of them are here to indoctrinate us,' said Brad Jones, College Republicans chairman."

"In part, the bill is meant to ensure that professors do not use the classroom to indoctrinate students to their particular viewpoint..."

"I have encountered countless instructors and professors that make it their duty to indoctrinate students with leftist ideas..."

Of course there's plenty more, but you get the idea. Try searching their website yourself for the phrase "indoctrinate." Based on all of this, you'd think St. Lawrence would not only be literally churning out batch after batch of brainwashed liberal students, but attracting plenty of them too. After all, as the SLU Republicans write in their aforementioned screed, "Only 8.6% of male full-time faculty members that participated in the [HERI] survey considered themselves conservative," and, "Not a single full-time female faculty reported being 'conservative.'" The problem is, as it turns out, 19% of incoming freshman identify as conservative (which is actually up from last year), some even identifying as "far right."

"Nineteen percent!" you say? "Why, that's only a 1/5th of the incoming class. That means the rest are all godless lefties!" Not quite--47% identified as "moderate."

The letter ends on the note that, "Certain individuals have been all too eager to assume they know the beliefs of SLU Republicans and even those of certain members." So here's our response: You are a branch of the College Republican National Committee, which is an offshoot of the Republican National Comittee and the Republican National Party. All of these organizations have platforms and agendas, and all are in lockstep with one another. The only way we could be "assuming" anything is if the SLU Republicans are in fact not Republicans at all.

Sorry guys. It just goes to show, you can't dump perfume on bullshit and expect people to think it's roses.

Promise Keepers Among Us?

2004-04-05T22:14:00.000-04:00

It has recently come to the attention of tboc! that there are, among the faculty at St. Lawrence, members of the Promise Keepers. By "members," we mean that one is, in fact, a leader of a local chapter. Who are the promise keepers, you ask? Well, they've had a number of fairly large national rallies, and are essentially an extremely nutty right-wing fanatical religious group. What do they believe in? Well, let's see what some of their more prominent voices have said. For one, they don't seem to like gays and lesbians very much. Bill Bright says, "Arrogantly demanding their rights, activist gays and lesbians have become a militant voice in American politics, influencing elections and affecting the policies of high government leaders. Their public demonstrations and political lobbying have fooled many in our country into believing that they deserve special status." Tony Evans concurs: "It's been too long that three percent of homosexuals control our moral majority."

Don't sound like a very happy bunch, do they? Don't fret, though. They do have a good word for at least one thing--slavery! Wellington Boone states, "I believe that slavery, and the understanding of it when you see it God's way, was redemptive." This makes sense, considering their view of women. Again, Tony Evans: "I believe that feminists of the more aggressive persuasion are frustrated women unable to find the proper male leadership. If a woman were receiving the right kind of love and attention and leadership, she would not want to be liberated from that."

Now here's the fun part: try and guess which professor is a Promise Keeper?

Left Radio

2004-04-03T11:17:00.000-05:00

"Air America Radio -- What Rush Limbaugh would listen to if he wasn't going deaf from drug use."
If you haven't been living in a hole lately, then you've probably heard of the new liberal/lefty talk radio station, Air America Radio. Featured show hosts range from Chuck D, who has a morning show, to Al Franken, to Janeane Garofalo, host of the Majority Report, a show later in the evening. The station is a mixed bag, with something that will undoubtedly appeal to progressive students no matter where they sit on the liberal-to-left spectrum. Now you may be saying to yourself, "But we don't have a station around here that carries Air America." And you'd be right. But thanks to the wonders of the internet, you can listen to high quality broadband live streaming of the station right from its website. If you're in the market for other radio programs, you can also try Democracy Now! (which also has streaming video), hosted by award-winning journalist Amy Goodman, and Free Speech Radio News.

Why do College Republicans want to be your friend?

2004-04-01T09:57:00.000-05:00

Because they like you? Maybe. Or maybe it's because they want your vote. Let's see if their official Chapter Manual has something to say about it: "if your College Republican floor leader 'Carol Conservative' walks down the hall of her dorm and sticks her head in 'Megan Member’s' room, and says, 'Megan, the College Republicans are having a rally for Senator Smoot on Saturday at 1. You’re going, right?' This member will have a much harder time saying no because she knows and likes Carol, and if she commits, she will most likely be there because she doesn’t want to let her friend Carol down. ... The same holds true for the voter registration and absentee ballot drives your College Republican chapter will run. If you use the campus canvass, 'Carol Conservative' will be able to know exactly who on her floor has been identified as a Republican or as an undecided. Because she will have a relationship with these students based on friendship and commonalities, she will be able to personally ask these individuals, 'As a personal favor to me, will you fill out this absentee ballot form and vote for Senator Smoot?'" (p. 20).

What's that? You're a democrat? A lefty? Beware. The Chapter Manual lists a variety of activities for College Republican chapters, including: "Take over the College Democrats or other leftist clubs, and endorse Republicans and conservative causes and issues instead" (p. 49). And remember, when your group is holding any events, that the Manual stresses the potential to get out the right-wing gospel at every liberal happening--or just shut the even down--going so far as to cryptically suggest, "President Nixon considered using a helicopter to extinguish the flames of the candle-light vigil peace protesters during the Vietnam War" (p. 48). Nice, kids. Nice.

This just in:

2004-03-31T18:03:00.000-05:00

US troop deaths in Iraq have now climbed to 600, on the same day that the St. Lawrence University Republicans ran a table in the Student Center about Bush & Homeland Security. Rumor has it they are also planning a Kerry flip-flop poster campaign. Interestingly enough, the creation of a National Homeland Security Agency was one of Bush's own flip-flops, which he opposed before 9.11, and then supported after the fact. Similarly, he opposed an independent investigation for 9.11 families into the events of 9.11, and then later decided to agree to it. This last one shouldn't come as a surprise, since Baker, lawyer for the Bush family, who has an office in the White House, is also having his law firm represent the Saudi royal family in a case brought against them by the families of 9.11. Might explain why 25 pages of the initial report after 9.11, detailing Saudi involvement, were kept out of the hands of the 9.11 commission by Bush.

Students for Academic Freedom?

2004-03-31T13:25:00.000-05:00

One of the darlings of the more overtly fascist right is the so-called "Students for Academic Freedom," or SAF. Don't be fooled by the name, these jackboots care nothing about "academic freedom;" so much so that the American Association of University Professors condemned the group's "Academic Bill of Rights." At this point, you might be noticing a trend -- "academic freedom," "bill of rights," etc. What you may not have noticed if you haven't had the joy of visiting their website (www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org) is that their very existence is a massive exercise in doublespeak.

One of the real gems on the site is a manual titled "How to Research Faculty Bias." Now, the title alone is a little creepy, but you might find it benign. That is until you follow the link, and read the whole title of the manual, "How to Research Faculty Bias (Using Voter Registration Records)." Orwellian? Yeeeahhh. You can probably figure out what the gist of the manual is, but just in case you'd like to see it for yourself, you can link to it here. Guess what you do with the dirt you dig up? That's right: compile it, and send it off to SAF. You're probably wondering if the St. Lawrence University Republicans are friendly to or have had contact with the SAF, and rightly so. The next time you see one of them, ask. However, when you're asking, you can know with all confidence that the answer is a resounding "yes."

The left speaks out.

2004-03-30T16:33:00.000-05:00

As mentioned, part of the reason for creating this site was because many students and professors on the left have been harassed, intimidated or mistreated by other (mostly conservative) students and faculty on campus. Many of these students and professors would like to speak out, but feel that it is futile to do so, and that no one is listening anyway. Still others fear repercussion and physical reprisals for raising their voices. Post your grievances in the comment section below, and we can begin to discuss a more concise plan of action to address these problems. If you do not feel comfortable using your name, you can, of coruse, post anonymously.

THE FIGHT FOR ACADEMIC FREEDOM BEGINS HERE.

2004-03-27T12:46:00.000-05:00

There is a battle raging on America's campuses. We, the concerned students of TBOC!, have established this website to respond to the attacks on both the local and national level by the College Republican National Committee, the Young America's Foundation, Students for Academic Freedom, and numerous other nationally funded and coordinated attack dog organizations that range from the hard-right wing to the extremist, racist, and proto-fascist. Too many good students and professors at St. Lawrence have been harassed, intimidated, and kicked around by prominent right-wing students and organizations, while prominent "liberal" students, organizations and administrators lay down on their spineless, turncoat backs. We will no longer tolerate the bullying, boorish tactics of these wolves in sheep's clothing, employed solely to achieve their warped and ignominious ends. It's time to turn the tide against these two-faced foes of liberty! Students and faculty of St. Lawrence: stand up and fight back!