"He's ethnic but nonthreateningly ethnic — and so this is the Obama thing again."

John McWhorter, musing about the presidential potential of Marco Rubio.

(Via Insta.)

Andrew Cuomo vs. Carl Paladino = Fredo Corleone vs. Fredo Corleone.

... says Nick Gillespie, who's allowed to say things like that because his mother is Italian.

(Sloppily video'd from the Eliot Spitzer CNN show tonight.)

"I just updated my will and trust and, with heavy heart, cut out what was a significant bequest to my alma mater, Brooklyn College."

Says Bruce Kesler. The reason: The school chose one book to give to all incoming freshman to read to give a sense of a "common experience," and the book is "How Does It Feel To Be A Problem?: Being Young and Arab in America," written by "a radical pro-Palestinian professor" who happens to teach at Brooklyn College.

[The book contains] interviews with seven Arab-Americans in their 20s about their experiences and difficulties in the US. There’s appreciation of freedoms in the US, and deep resentment at feeling or being discriminated against post-9/11....

The title of the book is drawn from communist WEB DuBois’ same question in 1903 in his treatise The Souls of Black Folk. The current book consciously draws a parallel, ridiculous on its face, between the horrible and pervasive discrimination and injustices that Blacks were subjected to a century ago and Arab-Americans today.

The author asserts “The core issue [of Middle East turbulence] remains the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination,” that the post-1967 history of the entire area is essentially that of “imperialism American-style,” and that the US government “limits the speech of Arab Americans in order to cement United States policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Again, preposterous....

Online I found two professors who protested to the college president. One, retired from Brooklyn College, said: "This is wholly inappropriate.  It smacks of indoctrination. It will intimidate incoming students who have a different point of view (or have formed no point of view), sending the message that only one side will be approved on this College campus. It can certainly intimidate untenured faculty as well."

I can't imagine wanting freshman to get the message that they are about to be indoctrinated. On the up side, for freshman: If the school makes it clear right in the first week, you may still be in a position to quit and get your tuition back. If they're subtle about it — and it's so easy to be subtle about it — you're drawn into it. Clear efforts at indoctrination are repugnant. One recoils. It's like evil-tasting poison. The evil taste is a great benefit. You reflexively spit it out.

So now I'm picturing the Brooklyn College freshman, hurling "How Does It Feel" against the wall. In the movie I'm inventing in my head, the soundtrack is Bob Dylan — how does it feel — as The Freshman stomps out of Brooklyn and into a life without higher education indoctrination...

Teachers teach that knowledge waits...

Ah, but where does The Freshman go?

For them that must obey authority
That they do not respect in any degree
Who despise their jobs, their destinies
Speak jealously of them that are free
Cultivate their flowers to be Do what they do just to be*
Nothing more than something they invest in

We were talking last night: Why are you doing what you are doing? Do you need death staring you in the face to take that question seriously?

Maybe you don't need death staring you in the face to ask whether you have the courage to be true to yourself and not just to do what others expect you to do. And how much courage does it take when those who expect you to do what they want are so crude about it? But if you don't do what they want, what will you do? Where else is there to go?

What would I do if I were there where you are, dear Freshman? Because I'm old, and I've already made a lot of choices, I don't want to tell you what to do.  This post began with the old man's point of view: Bruce Kesler saying he's got lots of money and he's cutting Brooklyn College out of his will to express himself. But what should a young person do? I'm still an old person answering that question, but I was driving through the bohemian section of an American city the other day and thinking... oh, just about what I was thinking in the early 1970s: I want to live the artist's life. That doesn't mean you need to be an artist, but there is an art to living, and you are more a work of art than a thing you invest in. Yet even if the main thing you want — in this awful economy — is to be something you invest in, a radical left-wing indoctrination is a godawful investment decision.

***

And I still haven't said that I got to Kesler via D.G. Meyers via Instapundit. Meyers says:

In my experience, few if any of the Brooklyn Collge freshmen will even bother to open the book. I can remember the title of the book that was assigned to all incoming freshmen at U.C. Santa Cruz the year I went up there (it was Arthur Koestler’s Act of Creation), but that’s the sum of what I remember about the book. I bought a copy, but never heard it discussed anywhere on campus. Same for the various books that were assigned to incoming freshmen at Texas A&M University over the years. After the English department made a fuss over choosing them, they were never mentioned again.

Yes, but it's not that easy: Brooklyn College also assigns its book in a required English course. I remember the book that was assigned for orientation week to freshmen at the Residential College (at the University of Michigan) in 1969: Kurt Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle." 40 years later, I can't think of a book I'd rather read. In fact, it happens I was rereading it yesterday.

All of the true things that I am about to tell you are shameless lies.

It's nice to be told that right at the outset so you know what you're getting into. Very nice.

***

* I've corrected that line in "It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)" after cutting and pasting the lyrics from the official Bob Dylan site. I was surprised to see the line "cultivate their flowers to be." It didn't have the right number of syllables, and it didn't lead properly into the next line, and I didn't remember ever hearing it. Meade questioned it too and played the original recording to get to the very familiar line (which also makes a lot more sense). It was weird seeing "cultivate their flowers" — which I took as an allusion to Voltaire's "we must cultivate our garden" — because Meade, with whom I share a love of Dylan, has made a life out of cultivating flowers, and cultivating flowers is something you're more likely to do if you've chosen to defy disrespected authority and see yourself as much more than something you invest in. Not that you can't build up great wealth by starting a gardening business.

About that warning label on the reprint of the Constitution (and other documents from the Founding Era).

"This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."

Why a warning label?
	Had you heard of Wilder Publications before? It's PR, plain and simple.
	It will help young people get into something they might otherwise reflexively reject.
	It's a cute way to get parents thinking about discussing the Founding documents with their kids.
	The Founding documents deserve (and invite!) critique, especially on the subject of equality.
	These documents live and evolve and it's good to cue readers to interpret them appropriately.
	Here's the edition for liberals to buy. They can see that it irks conservatives.
pollcode.com free polls

"We have a temperamental WASP in the White House."

Writes Andrew Sullivan.

IN THE COMMENTS: I wrote:

At first I thought Sullivan's sentence was missing a word, that he was referring to the past and meant to write "We have had..." So, we used to have a "temperamental WASP" in the WH, but now we don't and people need to understand that somehow. Then I decided what he meant was "temperamental" not in the sense of moody and unpredictable, but as the adjectival form of "temperament." So, Obama has the temperament of a WASP. I guess you're allowed to have a big old stereotype about white people. And he's applying that stereotype to Obama.

John Stodder wrote:

For the record, I think Karl Rove was the first guy to compare Obama to the WASP stereotype of the sarcastic guy at the country club, leaning against the wall, smoking a cigarette and making comments about everyone else at the party. I always thought that was the oddest perception, but it's turned out to be very apt.

Correct! ("He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by.")

"Public school pupils should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people."

So reads the text of the new Arizona law expressing a strong and controversial opinion about what is commonly known as "ethnic studies."

The law prohibits the teaching of any classes that promote “the overthrow of the United States government,” “resentment toward a race or class of people,” “are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group” or “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”

Is it odd or obvious that this is controversial?

“I wouldn’t want to show proof of citizenship, but I also don’t feel it is racial profiling."

"You are going to look different if you are an alien, and cops know."

Says an Arizonan named — to the NYT's delight? — Mr. White.

[The new Arizona law] gives the local police broad powers to check documentation “when practicable” of anyone they reasonably suspect is an illegal immigrant....

What will be seen as constituting reasonable suspicion? How will it be possible not to unfairly burden all the Hispanic citizens?

“This law might kick some of these immigrants out,” said Mr. Lowis, 76.... “They vandalize the golf course, throwing flags in the ponds. Burglaries. There are too many immigrants. I get tired of seeing all these people standing on the corner.”

Such sentiments propelled the bill through the Republican-controlled Legislature, with supporters listing well-publicized cases in which illegal immigrants committed rapes and shot and killed police officers....

The linked article is called "Growing Split in Arizona Over Immigration."

No Democrats in the Legislature supported the bill, and only one Republican voted against it.

While those opposed to the law are making the most noise....

No details in this article about that.

... the quiet support can be found here, though some people are uneasy about being cast as anti-Hispanic and several people interviewed declined to be named out of concern they would be thought of as prejudiced.

“I don’t want people to be afraid to come,” said Pam Sutherland, who is a window manufacturer and a fan of the crime sweeps but is also concerned about the state’s image. “I just want them to do it legally.”

For many, though, support for the law comes down to a way to vent frustration that, in their view, the federal government has not done enough to control immigration — particularly in a state on the border where reports of drug busts, houses overcrowded with illegal immigrants and people dying in the desert trying to get here fill the airwaves.

So where's the "growing split"? I don't get the headline, and I sense the NYT's frustration looking for evidence of anti-Hispanic attitudes. Where is the discord? It seems like ordinary people are struggling with a serious problem and the ethics of solving it. (The 2 political parties are, of course, acting in accordance with their perceived political interests.)

"No, no ma'am. He's a decent family man with whom I happen to have some disagreements."

John McCain, interrupting a woman who began her question "I'm scared of Barack Obama... he's an Arab terrorist...," from a Swampland blog post titled "McCain Denounces Pitchfork-Wavers."

ADDED: Video:



AND: The video shows that Ana Marie Cox did not transcribe the quote correctly. It's not: "I'm scared of Barack Obama... he's an Arab terrorist..." It's: "I can't trust Obama. I have read about him, and he's not he's not he's a uh he's an Arab." "Terrorist" is simply not there. The McCain quote is a bit off too. He says: "He's a decent family man citizen that I just happen to have some disagreements with on fundamental issues." Don't pin "terrorist" on the little old lady in the audience, and don't pin "whom" on the presidential candidate.

AND: Note that Time's Cox (or whoever did the transcription) not only added "terrorist" but also substituted "scared" for "can't trust." What does that say about the mind of the transcriber? It suggests the press is looking for evidence of fear and fear mongering. I think we're seeing a grasping for more evidence to justify blaming the campaign for deranging the minds of McCain's supporters. But if this woman's concern is that Obama is an Arab and that you can't trust him because of that, then it has nothing much to do with the Ayers connection that the McCain campaign promoted this week. So spike the quote with "terrorism" and "scared."

BUT: If she only said "he's an Arab," why did McCain say "no" and "He's a decent family man citizen..."? "No" makes sense as a simple correction of fact, but why "He's a decent family man citizen" as if Arab-Americans are not decent citizens who care about their families? I think McCain blurted out an accidental, implied ethnic slur.

UPDATE: Josh Marshall is conspicuously struggling to say that the woman -- her name is Gayle Quinnell -- really did say "Arab terrorist":

You can see the video I've embedded below. The gist is that Quinnell apparently did say "Arab terrorist." (ed.note: It would be more accurate to say that she insisted he was one in the interview. It's unclear from interview whether she actually used the second word with McCain.)

No, dammit. Here's the transcript of what she says in the interview. She never says "terrorist." It's obvious that she doesn't say that word to McCain. In the interview, the interviewer tries to put that word in her mouth, but she does not say it.

Here are the relevant parts from the interview transcript:

Quinnell: I’m afraid of what’s going to happen to this country.

Aigner [Adam Aigner of NBC News]: What would you think would happen? Do you think it would become Muslim country and what would that mean?

Quinnell: It would be bad...

Noah Kunin, Senior Political Correspondent from The UpTake: ... And just to be sure to make sure we got your quote OK, you called Obama and Arab terrorist?

Quinnell [P]ardon?

Noah: You called him an Arab terrorist? Is that correct? Why do you think he is an Arab?

Quinnell Because his dad is....

Did she hear the first question and mean to respond to it, or is she responding to the second question that leaves off the word "terrorist"? That's an awfully unfair way to ask the question, and Kunin ought to have followed up and pinned her down. The woman is, 75 and there is noisy music in the background, and she has to lean her head in and say "pardon." Under the circumstances, ascribing the word "terrorist" to her is patently unfair.

Come on, Josh! Take it back.

Gelatinous judge.

Here's a judge that got taken of a case, a divorce case involving the rich Sheikh Khalid Ben Abdfullah Rashid al-Fawaz:

... Mr Justice Singer, a family division judge, had said during the private hearing that the sheikh could choose "to depart on his flying carpet" to escape paying costs.

The judge also said the man should be available to attend hearings "at this, I think, relatively fast-free time of the year".

The court of appeal said the judge had said the sheikh should be in court so "every grain of sand is sifted", and called his evidence "a bit gelatinous ... a bit like Turkish Delight"....

The judge tried apologizing:

"My comments were poorly chosen. They were not intended to be racist, nor have I ever intended any disrespect or disregard for the tenets of Islam, or for the Sheikh's Saudi nationality and Arab ethnicity.

"My judicial work and public speeches clearly demonstrate that I am in no sense racist."

Apparently not. Singer put some élan and comedy into his remarks, but that's no excuse. If you want to horse around, don't be a judge.