Don't Ban Fraternities. Address the Bigger Problems.
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=33264"><span class="small">Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, TIME</span></a>
Sunday, 17 May 2015 08:17
Abdul-Jabbar writes: "It's been a bad year for Fraternity Row. Hazing violence, rape accusations, and racist rants have a lot of people wondering whether fraternities still serve a useful purpose or instead create an atmosphere of fear, elitism, and danger that is the antithesis of what higher education should be about."
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. (photo: Andrew D. Bernstein/NBAE/Getty)
Don't Ban Fraternities. Address the Bigger Problems.
By Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, TIME
17 May 15
Is their behavior a sobering reflection of America’s unconscious values?
t’s been a bad year for Fraternity Row. Hazing violence, rape accusations, and racist rants have a lot of people wondering whether fraternities still serve a useful purpose or instead create an atmosphere of fear, elitism, and danger that is the antithesis of what higher education should be about. Several schools — including Rutgers University, Johns Hopkins University, and Emory University — have announced limitations of fraternity parties, while some frats have been temporarily closed. Just this week, New York City’s Baruch College was hit with a $25 million lawsuit over a hazing death. Commentator Bill Maher recently called for banning fraternities, comparing their hazing techniques to that of ISIS. Even frat icon and Old School star Will Ferrell, a former fraternity brother, said in March that colleges should consider “getting rid of the system altogether.”
Once admired as the ultimate college experience of fellowship, lifelong business connections, and good-natured fun, to many people today, fraternities are the social equivalent of the greasy guy on the subway taking photos with a hidden shoe phone.
The debate over banning fraternities can best be answered by watching the opening scene in the pilot episode of HBO’s series, The Wire. Detective Jimmy McNulty is sitting on a stoop with a pal of a man known as Snot Boogie who’s been shot dead in the street. As the cops work the nearby crime scene, the dead man’s pal explains that every Friday they would play craps in the alley, and every Friday, when the pot got big, Snot Boogie would grab the cash and run. They’d run after him, catch him, and beat him. McNulty asks the obvious question: “If every time Snot Boogie would grab the money and run away, why’d you even let him in the game?” To which the friend replies, “Got to. It’s America, man.”
Yeah, it’s America, man. The land of freedom of speech, the freedom to gather, the freedom to make a fool of yourself. Where we punish individuals for crimes, not whole groups.
Fraternities offer real, practical benefits: Many engage in charitable community service, lifelong friendships are forged, and they can be safe havens from academic stress. They also create networks that can improve business and political careers. Since 1877, 69% of U.S. presidents have been in fraternities. Since 1910, 85% of U.S. Supreme Court justices have been in fraternities. In addition, 76% of U.S. senators, 85% of Fortune 500 executives, and 71% of men in Who’s Who in America have also been in fraternities.
The main issue isn’t whether or not fraternities should be banned, but what the toilet-circling reputation of fraternities says about our culture in general. Is their behavior a sobering reflection of America’s unconscious values, or an abhorrent aberration birthed from self-entitlement and pampering?
Let’s start with hazing, the usually infantile, sometimes sadistic, often humiliating initiation ritual pledges are put through before they are deemed worthy of joining, and sometimes after. The philosophy behind hazing is the same used by every organization from the military to certain businesses to religious cults: Strip the initiate of individual identity until they place their loyalty to the group over themselves. Fraternities should immediately eliminate the practice. A Huffington Post/YouGov poll found that a hefty majority of Americans want to see fraternities caught hazing removed from campus.
Another behavior of some fraternities is blatant racism, as seen in the video of Oklahoma University fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon boys singing, “There will never be a n***** in SAE. You can hang him from a tree, but he can never sign with me.” That chapter has since been closed. It shouldn’t have been. The act was outrageous but still within the parameters of free speech. Instead, the fraternity should have made social amends through outreach programs within the black community. Hopefully, this incident will result in a decline of new students wanting to join fraternities where such behavior is tolerated.
The much more important behaviors involve sex and alcohol. These abuses are more widespread, affect many more people inside and outside the fraternities, and are indeed reflective of American attitudes. They are especially significant because booze and sexism are more aligned with the male manifesto of machismo that reverberates throughout society.
Let’s admit it, we are a booze-obsessed nation. Many Americans, especially the youth, are convinced us that we can’t have a good time without alcohol, often a lot of alcohol. The red plastic cup is as much the symbol of coming of age as getting a driver’s license. Non-drinkers are often relentlessly pressured to drink. Being drunk is glamorized on TV and in movies as proof of having had a good time. “Let’s get wasted!” is viewed as a rallying cry for fun rather than as a cry for help.
For some, this Romanticizing the Stoli is symbolized by frat parties, where booze and bad behavior flows like the river of urine on the back lawn. In fact, it’s these legendary parties that attract a lot of boys to fraternities because it’s clearly a place where they can live out their adolescent fantasies of bacchanalian excess.
Before we dismiss this as just college kids enjoying life while their young, let’s think of the consequences: About 88,000 people each year die of alcohol-related causes, making it the third leading preventable cause of death in the U.S.; the cost of misuse of alcohol problems is about $223.5 billion a year; nearly half of college students who drink also binge drink; about 1,825 college students between 18 and 24 die from unintentional alcohol-related injuries each year; 97,000 students in the same age range are victims of alcohol-related sexual assault or date rape.
That last statistic leads us to the even worse problem of sexual exploitation and abuse of women. Pennsylvania State had a recent scandal involving a fraternity’s Facebook page on which they posted nude photos of unconscious women. Brown University suspended two fraternities recently for “facilitated” sexual misconduct. According to John D. Foubert, a professor of higher education and student affairs at Oklahoma University who studies sexual assault, research has shown “that fraternity men are three times more likely to commit sexual assault than other college men.”
While it’s easy to blame fraternities and be done with it, the real underlying problem we need to face is this: Where do our young men first get the idea that sexual exploitation and boozy behavior are OK? That alcohol will make them “the world’s most interesting man”? That girls are attracted to boys who treat them like they’re in porn magazines?
Let’s not ban fraternities. Let’s regulate them much more strictly regarding alcohol use and sexual harassment. Let’s punish individuals rather than organizations. Then, let’s take a closer look at how much our ads, TV shows, movies, and music perpetuate the kind of dim thinking that encourages this abuse.
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=31206"><span class="small">David Cay Johnston, Al Jazeera America</span></a>
Sunday, 17 May 2015 08:11
Johnston writes: "Governments have reasons to dirty up journalists who report truths they wish would be kept from the people. They want to discredit honest reporting that calls into question the trustworthiness of government officials and the effectiveness or legality of government conduct."
Ahmad Muaffaq Zaidan (photo: Anjum Naveed/AP)
Journalists Are Not Terrorists
By David Cay Johnston, Al Jazeera America
17 May 15
Reporters need freedom to do their jobs, even if it means contacting unsavory characters
he U.S. National Security Agency placed an Al Jazeera journalist on a terrorist watch list on the basis of contacts he made with sources, according to an Intercept report published last week. The story should alarm the public about government threats to journalists and misuses of raw intelligence data.
Ahmad Muaffaq Zaidan, Al Jazeera’s Islamabad bureau chief, was identified as a member of both Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood by an NSA software program called Skynet that analyzes communication metadata such as phone contacts and location. On the basis of whom Zaidan telephoned, who called him and where the calls took place, Skynet labeled him a member of both organizations. The Intercept reported these findings on May 8 based on analysis of one of the numerous documents released by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
One of those documents, an NSA PowerPoint slide listing Zaidan’s imagined affiliations, would be ridiculous if it weren’t so serious. This is how America’s intelligence apparatus with its massive funding, cutting-edge computers and armies of big-brained analysts identifies enemies of the state? Is it any wonder that so many civilians have been accidentally killed in drone attacks?
Zaidan’s predicament is not unique. The same NSA algorithm, applied to my calls for the last half century, would label me some sort of real life Raymond Reddington — the criminal mastermind of the NBC series “The Blacklist” — in contact with violent revolutionaries on both the right and left. The metadata would show an astonishing array of criminals and corrupt officials in contact with me over the decades. I’ve placed calls to a few bombmakers, spies, Mafia hit men, con artists, more drug dealers, pimps and prostitutes than I can remember and a host of corrupt government officials and cops.
Only by interviewing people like these can we ever know more than the official version of events. Governments and corporations often dislike journalists telling unofficial facts and truths, especially when they cast doubt on the official version. Many of the rogues I have known were more honest and forthright and their information was more reliable than what elected and appointed officials said.
Taking risks for information
Anyone who has read Zaidan’s years of reporting would call him a dedicated and fearless journalist whose beat is to write about unsavory people. You would think intelligence agencies would be especially grateful for journalists with the guts and skill to get perceived enemies of the state to talk to them. Stories by journalists such as Zaidan, Lawrence Wright or Seymour Hersh are rich with useful information, thanks to the extraordinary risks they take to dig it up.
Reporting on people naturally involves actually talking to them. When John Miller was an ABC news correspondent, he sat down with Osama bin Laden in 1998. Instead of being labeled a member of Al Qaeda, Miller went on to become a high-level official at the FBI and the NYPD.
Zaidan’s reporting has held up over time and has often included specific and accurate details that officials denied at the time. Whether years later the clips show you got it right — that is the best test to separate serious reporters from those who are more government stenographer than journalist, more gullible than skeptical. Unfortunately, it is this sort of professional commitment to the truth that attracts government hostility.
Governments have reasons to dirty up journalists who report truths they wish would be kept from the people. They want to discredit honest reporting that calls into question the trustworthiness of government officials and the effectiveness or legality of government conduct. They want to make sure people do not hear unofficial versions of the facts. They want to poison the well, getting editors to distrust their reporters so stories at least get muted. The more they succeed, the more damage is done to our democracy.
Restoring confidence
Zaidan, fortunately, works for a news organization with integrity and backbone, one with long experience dealing with many governments trying to intimidate reporters and shut down inconvenient journalism.
The NSA conclusion, Al Jazeera said in a statement, is “yet another attempt at using questionable techniques to target our journalists and, in doing so, enforce a gross breach of press freedom.”
While pronouncements like these are welcome, they are not enough. Around the world, journalists are under increasing assault. Last year 61 were killed and 221 were in prison for doing their jobs. Many arrests are bogus, designed to block coverage of official conduct. In the U.S., reporters are being arrestedmore and more just to make sure you are not informed. The public must demand more of its leaders.
President Barack Obama should take steps to restore confidence by telling the NSA to apologize to Zaidan and by announcing that no one ever will ever be labeled anything based on the pattern of their telephone calls, emails or other communications.
If our liberties are to endure, we must have journalists who aggressively pursue the truth without being labeled anything except honest reporters. And their work must not be impeded by political pressure, especially patently false labels.
The Federal System of Killing People Still Functions
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>
Saturday, 16 May 2015 13:52
Pierce writes: "The whole proceeding was a public ritual of expiation, and now the ritual will be completed, maybe a decade from now, with the one blood sacrifice that the law allows."
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. (photo: Getty/AFP)
The Federal System of Killing People Still Functions
By Charles Pierce, Esquire
16 May 15
In which we discover that the federal system of killing people still works.
t wasn't going to end any other way for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, not after it was determined that a trial that fairly screamed for a change of venue wouldn't get one. (They tried Tim McVeigh in Denver, after all.) The whole proceeding was a public ritual of expiation, and now the ritual will be completed, maybe a decade from now, with the one blood sacrifice that the law allows. It was indeed darkly amusing to hear U. S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz wax sententiously about due process of law. Aaron Swartz's loved ones must have been amused. But this one was over as a legal proceeding almost before the first gavel fell.
Judging by the punditry, it is the popular "reasonable" liberal position to say that you don't agree with the death penalty, but if you did, Tsarnaev would be the perfect candidate for it. Which is a moral contortionist's masterpiece. Why Tsarnaev and not Rudolph? Or Kaczynski? Why are they somehow less "perfect" candidates for the exercise of national retribution? You start measuring your choices like that and, pretty soon, you need an electron microscope. Nobody is the "perfect" candidate for the death penalty because the death penalty is an abomination in a free society. One by one, the several states are coming to realize this. The federal government is bringing up the rear on the issue. This is disproportionate and grotesque.
(Also, can we hear again about how we have to keep The Evil Ones locked away at Gitmo because the federal civilian criminal-justice system can't handle them? The same day that Tsarnaev was condemned to death, a former aide to Osama bin Laden was sentenced to life without parole in a New York federal court. In neither case did magical Super Muslims appear to vaporize the walls of the courthouses with their heat vision. And, yes, Lindsey Graham is a hysterical fool.)
So the system got what it was aiming for all along. Some day, maybe a decade from now, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will be killed by the federal government. And Eric Rudolph will still be alive.
I don't know what to make of the mess concerning The Clinton Guy Shocked By Blowjobs, except that he probably should have told his bosses at ABC. Any situation that allows Howard Kurtz to employ the phrase "conflict of interest" without his tongue's turning to a serpent and his fingertips to flame can never be a good one. Elite political journalism in this country is a whorehouse with 500 piano players. Roger Ailes is picking candidates outright, and I'm supposed to be horrified that a former Clinton aide gave some dough to a Clinton charitable foundation. Jesus, George, just stop apologizing already.
I think Jonathan Chait gets most of it right and then, alas, falls back into a booth at the cocktail lounge of the Mena Airport. There is a concerted attempt to use the Clinton Foundation to destroy Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, and the people engaged in it do not care if they destroy the vast charitable enterprises of the campaign along the way. Chait is correct when he points out:
The mere fact that a donation might come with an ulterior motive does not taint all donations. If Stephanopoulos needed some angle to get in the room with the Clintons, donating to their foundation would not be the way to do it.
But then, inevitably, the ironclad Clinton Rules fall upon us again.
He is the victim of the ethical taint of the Clintons' poorly handled business dealings, combined with an underlying right-wing suspicion of the liberal media, but what his critics have yet to produce is a coherent case against him.
The "ethical taint" is what you mention when you really got nothin'. There's nothing unethical per se in handling your business dealings poorly, even if you believe the Clintons did, which I don't necessarily. (Here's Ken Vogel, checking in from Morocco with another beauty:There is no evidence that she tailored her official positions to suit Morocco's preferences because of personal or financial relationships. But the overlap between her diplomatic portfolio and the funding for her family's philanthropy illustrates the way nearly any foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation can be viewed through the prism of U.S. policy. And it highlights why countries, companies and individuals that could benefit from her past and possibly future public service might be inclined to support the foundation. And monkeys might fly out of my...never mind.) Have I mentioned that I already hate this campaign?
And, speaking of elite level journalism, this also happened. We are all living in a fool's parodies.
Weekly WWOZ Pick To Click: "Don't Start Me Talkin'" (Sonny Boy Williamson): And, yeah, I pretty much still love New Orleans.
Weekly Visit To The Pathe Archives: Here's a newsreel from 1948 about whether or not the UK should do away with hanging. The Commons passed a bill to suspend it, but the Lords rejected it. 'Twas ever thus. History is so cool.
The paleontologist at Yale University and University of Chicago is trying to learn more about the evolutionary stepping stones that led from dinosaurs to birds by altering the molecular makeup of modern fowl so they exhibit ancient attributes.
Remarkably, the new research, published this week in the journal Evolution, reveals you can give rise to reptilian snouts simply by inhibiting a select few genes in chickens. Knock out the beak, and a snout pops up in its place. "We've demonstrated a part of the underlying molecular mechanism in the evolutionary transition - the characteristic bird face," Bhullar told CBS News.
This guy will have his own show on The Learning Channel by December. Guaranteed.
Big weekend this weekend for one of the shebeen's favorite correspondents. Congrats, grad. You're a special one.
I'll be back on Monday with some deathhouse gobshitery. Be well and play nice, ya bastids. Stay above the snakeline, or beakless chickens will haunt your every thought.
FOCUS: Palestinians Welcome Pope's Recognition of Their State
Saturday, 16 May 2015 12:13
Cole writes: "The Arabic press widely and favorably reported the news that the Vatican has recognized Palestine as a state in a new treaty with it, despite a strong protest from Israel."
Pope Francis and Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas embrace last year at the Vatican. Israel's president Shimon Peres is at left. (photo: Gregorio Borgia /AP)
Palestinians Welcome Pope's Recognition of Their State
By Juan Cole, Informed Comment
16 May 15
he Arabic press widely and favorably reported the news that the Vatican has recognized Palestine as a state in a new treaty with it, despite a strong protest from Israel. The recognition was of Palestine within 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital. It came as part of a treaty between the Vatican and Palestine regarding the place and activities of the Catholic Church in Palestine. The Vatican maintains that since the UN General Assembly gave Palestine non-member observer state status in 2012, it has regarded Palestine as a state. This treaty is, however, the first formal document enshrining that recognition.
Dr. Hanan Ashrawi of the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization welcomed the decision (she is herself a Palestinian Christian). She said, “The significance of this recognition goes beyond the political and legal into the symbolic and moral domains and sends a message to all people of conscience that the Palestinian people deserve the right to self-determination, formal recognition, freedom and statehood.”
About 8% of the roughly 2.5 million Palestinians living under Israeli military occupation in the Palestinian West Bank are Christians. Most are Eastern Orthodox, but a minority are Catholics. Christian Palestinians are even more numerous in the diaspora caused by the Israeli ethnic cleansing campaign of 1948, which expelled 750,000 or so Palestinians from their homes and made them homeless refugees abroad (the total Palestinian population has by now grown to some 11 million).
Egypt’s al-Yawm al-Sabi` reported that a leader of Fateh (a prominent constituent party of the PLO), Dr. Jihad al-Harazin, said that the recognition was a victory for Palestinian diplomacy and a form of spiritual support to the Palestinian cause, given the importance of the Vatican to the West. He pointed out that the step comes not long after recognition by Sweden, which joined the Czech Republic, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Malta and Cyprus in Europe. Likewise, a number of European parliaments have voted non-binding resolutions in favor of recognizing Palestine during the past year.
The Vatican is also in the process of beatifying two Palestinian saints.
Given that some Catholic countries, such as Ireland and Spain, are already inclining toward a recognition of Palestine, this blessing of such a move by the Vatican may help accelerate that political momentum.
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=34760"><span class="small">Elizabeth Warren, Elizabeth Warren's Blog</span></a>
Saturday, 16 May 2015 10:16
Warren writes: "Long before I ever even thought about running for office, Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold was fighting hard in the US Senate for working families. So I'm happy, excited, delighted, thrilled, and all-around ecstatic that Russ just announced today that he's running to return to the Senate in 2016."
Russ Feingold. (photo: Tony Williams/AP)
Go Russ!
By Elizabeth Warren, Elizabeth Warren's Blog
16 May 15
ong before I ever even thought about running for office, Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold was fighting hard in the US Senate for working families.
So I’m happy, excited, delighted, thrilled, and all-around ecstatic that Russ just announced today that he’s running to return to the Senate in 2016.
Russ and I first met in the 1990s, back when I was trying to stop a terrible bankruptcy bill in the Senate. Even when the odds were against us, even when the big banks and credit card companies did everything they could to squeeze struggling families harder, Russ threw himself into the fight.
I saw first-hand then what many people already knew: Nobody fights for the values we share like Russ Feingold. And it’s not just standing up to the big banks – from his landmark legislation to keep money out of politics, to his outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq, we know we can count on Russ when it really matters.
Now here’s the catch. You and I know all too well what happens when someone stands up to the powerful interests: they come at you with everything they’ve got. And as enthusiastic as I am about getting Russ back into the Senate alongside me, I know that the other guys will be pushing with the same energy – and a whole lot more money – to keep him out.
As great as it would be to have Russ return to the Senate, we also should talk about who he’d be replacing. Ron Johnson was elected with the Tea Party tidal wave in 2010, and his policy positions aren’t just extreme – they are flat-out dangerous.
Ron always knows who he is fighting against: “We are up against a strategy that is taking place by liberals, progressives, Democrats, whatever they call themselves nowadays, Socialists, Marxists.” As much as we need Russ Feingold in the Senate, we need Ron Johnson out of the Senate. This is a two-fer.
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.
t’s been a bad year for Fraternity Row. Hazing violence, rape accusations, and racist rants have a lot of people wondering whether fraternities still serve a useful purpose or instead create an atmosphere of fear, elitism, and danger that is the antithesis of what higher education should be about. Several schools — including 
he U.S. National Security Agency placed an Al Jazeera journalist on a terrorist watch list on the basis of contacts he made with sources, according to 
ong before I ever even thought about running for office, Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold was fighting hard in the US Senate for working families. 
