Category: Culture

Kevin McCullough remains on the story from the University of Oregon, where school administrators forced an employee to remove a “Support the Troops” sticker from his campus truck, claiming it violated their ban on political speech. That assertion fell apart yesterday and the question of Oregon’s motivation remained open. Now, Kevin sees that Oregon has embarked on an ambitious fun-raising drive, and thinks that the university known as the Berkely of the North wants to establish its leftist credentials in order to boost donations:

On Sunday – the University of Oregon went public on its goal of seeking donations in record form – 600 million. The univeristy’s own press release calls it “the most ambitious in state history”:
“The University of Oregon has a long and proud tradition of competing with the best, but competing is not enough — we must excel,” said Frohnmayer, who made the announcement at news conferences in Eugene and Portland. “Our future is our choice, and we choose distinction. That is the mission of Campaign Oregon. We have a very ambitious goal for the dollars we seek in this campaign and an even more ambitious goal in the legacy we hope to leave: a great university for Oregon for generations to come.” …
“Campaign Vice Chair Tim Boyle of Portland added that the success of the campaign so far shows that “the University of Oregon has a group of visionary supporters who can see that the university is poised for great leaps forward in teaching, research and service and who are willing to contribute their own resources to make that happen.”
“Visionary Supporters” were the words that jumped out at me from that quote.
Was it in fact a “visionary supporter” who was say “anti-war/anti-American” who then decided to complain to the administration about the harmless magnetic ribbon that had been attached to the vehicle?

In fact, the press release I linked above lists some of the sponsors already on board. I looked up a couple of them for the 2004 cycle:
Keith Thomson: $3,000 in contributions to Oregon Democrats
Julie and Rocky Dixon: $2500 to Democrats. Also, John Dixon, who works at the same company as Rocky Dixon, contributed $5500 to Democrats.
The other names are either foundations or too vague to check. It certainly appears that they intend to market their campaign to a narrow political market — which makes their decision to ban the stickers more understandable, and more of an indictment of Oregon and its supporters.

After a rash of criticism following his statements to a political gathering of Congressional heavyweights, Dr. James Dobson and Focus on the Family clarified their objections to the music video produced by the We Are Family Foundation. Instead of focusing on SpongeBob Squarepants, Dr. Dobson clearly states that his objection comes from the use of the video and its accompanying teaching material being presented in the schools outside of the control of parents:

We applaud the ideal of championing to children the value and dignity of every human life as well as respect for our differences. What we vehemently object to is using these beloved characters to help advance an agenda that’s beyond the comprehension of 6 and 7 year-old children, not to mention morally offensive to millions of moms and dads.
The video in question is slated to be distributed to 61,000 public and private elementary schools throughout the United States. Where it is shown, schoolchildren will be left with the impression that their teachers are offering their endorsement of the values and agenda associated with the video’s sponsor. While some of the goals associated with this organization are noble in nature, their inclusion of the reference to “sexual identity” within their “tolerance pledge” is not only unnecessary, but it crosses a moral line.

The tone in this argument is much more reasoned than that provided by the spokesman for Focus on the Family on Thursday. When approached by the New York Times, Paul Batura said, “We see the video as an insidious means by which the organization is manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids. It is a classic bait and switch.” It comes closer to my original post on the subject, in which I also expressed annoyance with the constant barrage of non-essential teaching and the focus that teachers and administrators place on that at the expense of actual learning. I agree that this practice has great potential for abuse and indoctrination and should be eliminated.
On the other hand, it’s a pretty narrow line to walk to claim on one hand that moral values should be taught at home, and at the same time push for religious teachings in public schools, such as Intelligent Design and creationism, especially in earlier grades. Objectively speaking, both sides of this issue can claim that schools would fall into indoctrination, and the question becomes less pure and more partisan as to which belief systems one chooses to proclaim in public schools. That’s why I argue that public schools should stick to educating students and let parents teach moral values as they see fit. (Note: I support allowing students to pray, read the Bible, and form religious clubs in public schools, as these are voluntary activities.)
At the least, though, Dr. Dobson should have anticipated the reaction towards an attack on this video program and built a complete message regarding their objections. Part of the reason this misunderstanding took place is that Focus on the Family was woefully underprepared to explain their position to believers and opponents alike. When this story broke in the Times, I searched the Focus on the Family website and could find no reference to SpongeBob except for a movie review. That’s a mistake on the part of Focus leadership, and it allowed others to fill the message in for them.
I still disagree with Dr. Dobson’s focus on SpongeBob (read Joe Carter’s take for a good explanation), but I agree with the general thrust of his argument. I wish he had made that more clear from the start.
UPDATE: Read Hugh Hewitt for more; as always, Hugh puts things in excellent perspective. I agree that people were quick to get personal while attacking Dr. Dobson, but I think that this was self-inflicted to a certain degree.

The recent surprise announcement of Spanish bishops of the Catholic Church in support of condom use to halt the spread of AIDS caused an uproar amongst the faithful around the world. Most have treated the debate with earnestness and thoughtfulness. Some have resorted to the absurd:

Debate in Spain on the use of condoms to prevent the spread of Aids turned to farce yesterday when an 82-year-old Vatican loyalist vowed to die without ever using one.
Manuel Fraga, the regional premier of Galicia and a former minister under Franco, backed the Vatican’s stance against condoms.
“I have spent my life telling the truth without condoms and I plan to die without ever having worn one,” he said.

How tough do you suppose that will be?

David Kirkpatrick reports in today’s New York Times that conservative activist Dr. James Dobson has attacked a cartoon character for alleged homosexual subtext as well as its alleged involvement in a gay-rights promotional video. It appears that Dr. Dobson has not only overreacted, but has gotten some key facts wrong:

Now, Dr. Dobson said, SpongeBob’s creators had enlisted him in a “pro-homosexual video,” in which he appeared alongside children’s television colleagues like Barney and Jimmy Neutron, among many others. The makers of the video, he said, planned to mail it to thousands of elementary schools to promote a “tolerance pledge” that includes tolerance for differences of “sexual identity.”
The video’s creator, Nile Rodgers, who wrote the disco hit “We Are Family,” said Mr. Dobson’s objection stemmed from a misunderstanding. Mr. Rodgers said he founded the We Are Family Foundation after the Sept. 11 attacks to create a music video to teach children about multiculturalism. The video has appeared on television networks, and nothing in it or its accompanying materials refers to sexual identity. The pledge, borrowed from the Southern Poverty Law Center, is not mentioned on the video and is available only on the group’s Web site.
Mr. Rodgers suggested that Dr. Dobson and the American Family Association, the conservative Christian group that first sounded the alarm, might have been confused because of an unrelated Web site belonging to another group called “We Are Family,” which supports gay youth.

Dr. Dobson refused to back down from his attack, even after getting the above information. His spokesman, Paul Batura, calls the video an “insidious means” to brainwash children and that Focus on the Family would stand by its accusations against Rodgers and SpongeBob.
I’ll start with where I agree with FotF. Promoting multiculturalism and taking “tolerance pledges” with cartoons have no place in public schools. The underlying point may be good, but public schools serve the entire public, and I do think that these exercises are a class of brainwashing for political purposes. These programs are far too susceptible for particular ideologies to co-opt them. Besides, we have way too many distractions from real learning in our schools as it is. Why not focus on reading, math, and social studies, which has the benefit of supporting multiculturalism through education instead of through brainwashing?
However, in this instance, Dobson and his group show a little paranoia in their approach to opposing homosexuality. First we had the jeremiad against the Teletubbies (from Jerry Falwell’s group), and now it’s open season on a cartoon character? How silly do we have to get before it ends? The Times notes that gay men have made SpongeBob a mascot of sorts, but that’s hardly the fault of the show’s creators. Some gay men do the same thing with Joan Crawford (thanks to Faye Dunaway’s campy portrayal in Mommie Dearest) and Marilyn Monroe. Does Dobson propose eliminating them from television as well?
Perhaps Rodgers is lying, and Kirkpatrick is covering for him when he reports that no mention of sexual identity can be found on this video, even though it has aired several times on television anyway. But to me, Rodgers has a pretty reasonable explanation, and Dobson doesn’t. However, Dobson is correct about the tolerance pledge at the We Are Family Foundation website, if not the video, and it does mention sexual identity. That hardly qualifies as “promoting” a homosexual lifestyle; I’d say it ranges more towards the “don’t pick on gay people” spectrum of tolerance, as you can see:

Tolerance is a personal decision that comes from a belief that every person is a treasure. I believe that America’s diversity is its strength. I also recognize that ignorance, insensitivity and bigotry can turn that diversity into a source of prejudice and discrimination.
To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own.

Mostly, this kind of obsessive screeching gives the conservative cause a bad name. Hugh Hewitt recently described James Dobson as one of the most influential people in America; I think that’s a bit of an overstatement, but Dobson has tremendous reach. With that comes responsibility, and I think Dobson has failed in that responsibility here. When influential culture warriors on the right do that, it reflects poorly on all conservatives. It’s precisely this kind of nit-picking that took the intellectual steam out of the Reagan Revolution by discrediting its culture, and that led to the Clinton years.
Dobson does good work in many areas, and my family has supported his organization in the past. However, all Dobson accomplishes by attacking SpongeBob is to make himself look ludicrous. Dobson needs to quit obsessing on cartoon characters and get back to working on real-life issues.
UPDATE: The WAFF site allows users to stream the entire music video to their screens. It’s just a music video of Rodgers’s song “We Are Family,” with a large number of characters from kids shows (animated and live-action) pantomiming the singing, which still comes from the original recording by Sister Sledge. Diana Ross even makes an appearance. Some might find that objectionable, I suppose. However, nothing in the music video makes any reference to homosexuality, and I doubt that kids can even understand the words to the song as it’s played. Why anyone chooses to make an issue of this is beyond me.

Street gangs have become much more brazen and organized in their campaigns to intimidate and eliminate witnesses, reports the New York Times today. Not only have they adopted the “Godfather”-style of Sicilian omerta in demanding utter silence from their members and neighbors as well, they’ve actually started producing their own terror shows on DVD to emphasize their point:

In Boston, a witness to a shooting by a member of a street gang recently found copies of his grand jury testimony taped to all the doors in the housing project where he lives.
In Baltimore, Rickey Prince, a 17-year-old who witnessed a gang murder and agreed to testify against the killer, was shot in the back of the head a few days after a prosecutor read Mr. Prince’s name aloud in a packed courtroom.
And in each city, CD’s and DVD’s titled “Stop Snitching” have surfaced, naming some people street gangs suspect of being witnesses against them and warning that those who cooperate with the police will be killed. To underscore its message, the Baltimore DVD shows what appears to be three dead bodies on its back cover above the words “snitch prevention.”
These are only a few examples of what the police, prosecutors and judges say is a growing national problem of witness intimidation by youth gangs that in some cities is jeopardizing the legal system and that bears striking similarities to the way organized crime has often silenced witnesses.

The gangs have increasingly networked with each other to create crime cartels similar to the cooperation and competition between Mafia families of old. The FBI wants to restructure its focus on gang activity to destroy them in a similar manner as they did the Mafia families. Fox Butterfield reports that the FBI has now made gangs its top criminal priority, although he overstates its importance vis-a-vis terrorism. Counterterrorism is a different if related discipline. However, the change in focus is still significant, especially when one considers that bank robbery and other such traditional federal crimes still require attention. After all, up to now gangs have been treated as a local problem.
But the FBI attention isn’t the only indication that the problem has grown into a national problem. The DVD production of “Stop Snitching,” a form of “entertainment” being passed around gang-controlled neighborhoods, has its own special guest star:

Last month, the Baltimore police found that a two-hour DVD titled “Stop Snitching” was being sold on the street. It features young men smoking marijuana, flashing wads of $100 bills, waving guns and making violent threats, some against specific witnesses. “He’s a rat, a snitch,” one man sings, continuing with obscenities. “He’s dead because I don’t believe he’s from the ‘hood.”
The maker of the DVD has said he was only documenting the attitudes and concerns of people in West Baltimore.
The DVD has drawn particular attention because of the appearance on it of Carmelo Anthony, 20, a National Basketball Association star with the Denver Nuggets who grew up in Baltimore. Mr. Anthony does not make any threats in the DVD.
Calvin Andrews, Mr. Anthony’s agent, said, “He was not aware a DVD was being produced. He was just hanging out with some guys from the neighborhood who had a video camera.” Mr. Andrews added of Mr. Anthony: “He doesn’t condone the message about intimidation.” The case of Mr. Prince, the Maryland teenager murdered after his name was read in court, illustrates the difficulty of protecting witnesses.

The involvement of “Mr.” Anthony only highlights the increasing ties between gang chic and the professional sports industry. It’s no secret that NBA and NFL merchandising has targeted gangs and gangbanger wannabes for their products; a number of professional teams changed their colors in the 1990s to include black more prominently, a favorite of gangs for their colors. On our radio show yesterday we discussed the prison culture that permeates the NBA and to a lesser extent the NFL, and this shows the extent to which that has corrupted professional sports.
I welcome having a fresh and national focus on the gang problem. However, some of the solutions discussed for dealing with the witness intimidation threaten the openness of the American justice system:

Mr. Conley, the Suffolk County district attorney, is working with Massachusetts officials to create a state witness protection program here and to try to pass legislation that would make it a crime for anyone to distribute grand jury testimony, as happened with the witness who saw his testimony taped to the doors in the Franklin Hill housing project where he lived.
In Maryland, Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. and Patricia C. Jessamy, the state’s attorney for Baltimore City, are supporting a bill that would reclassify witness intimidation as a felony, instead of a misdemeanor, and raise the maximum punishment to 20 years in prison, from 5 years.
The bill would also create a “hearsay exception” that would allow past statements by witnesses to be admitted at a trial if the witness disappeared or was unwilling to testify.

I think that the first two suggestions make a lot of sense. In fact, I’d say that witness intimidation should be scaled to the crime involved in the primary case and carry the same penalty, up to life imprisonment in murder cases. That might keep some of the parasites off of the witnesses, although I doubt it would stop them entirely. The last suggestion has much more danger associated with it. Essentially, it allows the prosecution to use unreliable witnesses in a wide variety of cases without the defense being able to cross-examine them in court in front of the jury. I understand the thought process behind the suggestion, but the unintended consequences of this change would dramatically tip the justice system against the defendant.
Hopefully, the renewed focus of the FBI can help to eliminate the scourge of gangbangers that has reduced our inner-city neighborhoods to war zones. If we can protect witnesses better through the federal system, I’m all for it.

Today’s lesson in upholding standards comes from Principal Jim Bennett of Lemoore Union High School in California, who followed through on a warning to his students to stop simulating sex during school-sponsored dances. When students ignored their principal, he responded by canceling the rest of the school dances for the entire year:

Principal Jim Bennett of Lemoore Union High School said he warned students at a winter formal dance last month to either quit dirty dancing or face the possibility of not dancing at all.
But he said the students continued “freak dancing,” a form of sexually suggestive dancing that involves grinding the hips and pelvic area.
The ban on dances includes the school’s Sadie Hawkins dance in February and the junior and senior proms in the spring, but Bennett said they could be rescheduled if students modify their behavior.
“It’s really up to the kids at this point. They have to take some responsibility,” Bennett said.

For those who haven’t seen this before, “freak dancing” is not just the kind of sexy dancing popularized briefly by the Patrick Swayze movie, Dirty Dancing. It appears more inspired by catwalk strippers and big tippers on The Sopranos’ Bada-Bing! “gentlemen’s club.” Girls turn their backs on their partners and grind their rears into the boys’ crotches, or the two twist their legs and give a performance straight out of the Kama Sutra.
It’s not new; freak dancing has been going on for a few years. School administrators have tolerated it, declining to put moral judgements on student actions. However, when a school sponsors an event, they expect certain behavior from its students. They certainly don’t condone grope sessions off the dance floor, so it’s hard to understand why they allow them in front of everyone.
Bennett has the right idea. He clearly articulated the school policy, and the students violated it. They now have to face the consequences. This resulted in a typical teenager response:

“Some students save up all year to buy a dress or rent a tuxedo and buy flowers for the prom,” said student body president Zohra Lakhani, a 17-year-old senior. “To crush everyone’s dreams, it’s not fair.”

It sounds like the student leadership needs to learn some lessons about life and responsibility. Bennett has his work cut out for him.

Today’s Opinion Journal reports on a strange Austrian custom whose time has surely passed — The Krampus Run. This may sound like a bowel disorder to American ears, but to Salzburg natives, the Krampus rampage represents a cherished if chaotic Christmas tradition … but the mayhem aims squarely at women, in what seems to be celebration of male rage:

The Krampus is to Salzburg what the bull is to Pamplona, an oversized beast that sends an adrenaline rush of terror through the cobblestone streets of the old town, all in the name of cultural heritage. For a full week during the start of the holiday season, scores of Krampuses stalk the cobbled ways of Salzburg and its surrounding villages. The Krampus is a hybrid-beast of pagan origins that has been affixed to the Christmas season and looks like he stepped out of the pages of Maurice Sendak’s “Where the Wild Things Are.” Only instead of inviting young boys for midnight monster romps, they stalk young women, fondling them, throwing them over their shoulders and whipping them with wooden switches until their shins and thighs are black and blue. They prowl the streets, wander onto public buses, and storm downtown restaurants where, after assaulting female patrons, they are treated to free schnapps to fuel their further fury.

According to author Timothy Ryback, some Austrian women declare themselves thrilled to participate in the Krampus tradition, while others live in fear of the ridiculously attired men. Ryback, an American who lives in Austria, faces a divide even in his own home; his wife abhors the tradition while his 9-year-old daughter delights in it.
Try doing this anywhere in America and see what happens. In blue-state America, you’d get sued into oblivion, and in red-state America, the Krampus would be lucky not to get shot. I have to indulge my cultural bias here and wonder what the hell Austrians are thinking. If the Krampuses targeted everyone, I suppose I could see it as a bit of fun, although I’d draw the line at terrorizing schoolchildren. If the Austrians developed a bit of code for willing victims — say, a blue ribbon in the hair or some such — then that would make more sense. But a tradition built on beating women randomly for just being out in public between four and eight in the afternoon sounds more like a male rage fantasy than a harmless holiday tradition.
Given the history of that region, one would think that the Austrians would show more circumspection about encouraging random beatings of particular demographic groups. The popularity of such a ritual seems more revealing of the Austrian and Teutonic culture than the Salzburghers might find comfortable. At the very least, I’m happy to report that American men almost universally find women’s legs more attractive when they’re not bleeding and bruised. Too bad Salzburg men have different predilections.

Nelson Mandela has created a tradition for South African Christmases where he and his wife throw a large party and hand out gifts to any children who attend — usually the poor. Unfortunately, South Africa has no shortage of poverty, as Eastern Cape police discovered:

A children’s Christmas party given by former South African President Nelson Mandela was thrown into chaos after thousands turned up for free gifts.
Police fought to hold back up to 75,000 children and adults attempting to get into the venue in Mr Mandela’s home village of Qunu, Eastern Cape.
Police said they were unprepared for the massive surge. No-one was injured.

What did Mandela have to say to this tidal wave of children descending upon his party? Not much, considering he absented himself from the proceedings, although for perfectly understandable reasons: his son is critically ill and he’s staying at his bedside. The rational action would have been to cancel the party, or at least postpone it.
It could have been worse; no one was injured, but before anyone could get killed the party had to be postponed. Also, a number of children collapsed from the heat and lack of food, and some of them wound up abandoned — including a four-month-old child.
The BBC report finishes with a moment of irony:

Mr Mandela and his wife have been actively involved in promoting the welfare of children for many years.

They have, and good for them; but this annual party looks a lot like a political stunt, and a potentially deadly one. After children had to be hospitalized in 2002 for injuries due to trampling, someone should have pulled the plug on this tradition. There are other ways to ensure that poor African children get gifts, even if it makes it more difficult for elderly African statesmen to get headlines.

Taiwan’s pro-independence parties suffered a defeat in legislative election yesterday, a result sure to please mainland China and a signal that the Taiwanese may be tiring of the adversarial tone between the two Chinese nations:

The coalition that included President Chen Shui-bian’s party had been widely favored to win control of the legislature. But the opposition rallied, keeping its grip on parliament.
The opposition won 90 of the 176 seats that are directly elected by voters, while the president’s group won 76 seats, the Central Election Commission said. The remaining 10 seats were still unconfirmed, the commission said. …
Since he was elected in 2000, the Taiwanese president has repeatedly urged Chinese leaders to meet with him. They’ve rejected his invitations because Chen has refused to endorse their view that Taiwan is part of “one China.”
Chen has been telling voters that Chinese leaders will be more willing to talk to him if his party won greater control of parliament. He has warned that if Beijing keeps ignoring him, Taiwan will drift further away from the mainland.

From the vote, it would appear that the Taiwanese do not want to continue a policy that results in severed communications with Beijing. Although most of the island nation wants to remain autonomous from Beijing’s control, most fear that an overt independence movement would bring swift military reaction from China. The vote yesterday reflects a more conservative approach, maintaining the status quo of de facto independence while allowing Beijing to plausibly continue its illusion of control.
One woman who voted with Chen feels no such fear, although one wonders whether her faith may be misplaced:

Voter Tsai Ming-tai said she supported Chen’s party and wasn’t worried about how Beijing would react. “We can’t stand China. Whatever we try to do, China tries to block it. Anyway, if a war breaks out, America will help defend us, and China is afraid of that,” the 34-year-old businesswoman said.

Given the vehemence of the anti-war movement in the US and the deployment of our forces overseas, I wonder if she isn’t fooling herself. Our policy has been that we will provide military support to Taiwan in case of attack from China, but just as in the 1960s and 1970s, I doubt the political will to honor our treaties exists, especially in the House. I think that such action would receive a majority vote, but it would gather few Democrats who worry about the power of MoveOn and International ANSWER in their next election. Much has been made — correctly — about the power of incumbency in House races, but the primaries can be highly competitive if someone wants to spend the money.
We can barely muster the Democrats to go after terrorists and to eliminate the environments that produce terrorists after 9/11. I don’t see them leaping towards a war with China simply because we signed a paper decades ago promising to protect Taiwan.

Today’s Star-Tribune runs a cautionary tale for teenagers who think that their behavior has no consequences. Unfortunately for one Minnesota teen, his night of debauchery and crime left him permanently disabled and fortunate not to be dead. His so-called friends showed their true colors the moment things went sour — demonstrating exactly why parents warn their children about running with the wrong crowd:

Minutes after he was thrown from a stolen car and paralyzed after a night of drinking and joyriding, the teenage boy begged his buddies not to leave him behind in a roadside ditch.
“Please don’t leave me here to die,” the 14-year-old from Stewartville, Minn., pleaded with friends, according to a police report.
But that’s what they did, according to a juvenile petition filed in Mower County this week charging four teenage boys with felonies in connection with the Nov. 4 incident near Racine, Minn.

The 14-year-old was no angel; he participated in the car theft — a major felony — as well as smashing mailboxes and general mayhem. Since the other teens involved were a couple of years older, it appears to be a case of a young boy trying to fit in. He must have thought rather highly of these hooligans when he went out that night. Now, of course, he learned that character shows through in small ways as well as large, and the idea that these idiots would think of risking anything to help an injured “friend” must surely look as foolish to the young boy now as we adults instantly recognize from experience.
Parents often warn their children about hanging out with troublemakers. This lesson could teach a few before they get left, broken and freezing, in a country ditch in the middle of nowhere by cowards they unfortunately idolize.