Ryan Wagner’s letter to the editor in today’s Badger Herald begs serious questions about the role of the administration in student affairs.

Although I have long believed that the university should ideally operate in an apolitical vacuum, I do grant some leeway to the university when the views they espouse directly correlate with their immediate and expressed interests.

The university’s stance against the marriage amendment was logically sound, if for no other reason than it adversely affected the way they were able to attract top talent to the university and thus related specifically to their interests.

Taking Ryan’s claims on face value, as I personally cannot say that I received the email he speaks of, the university’s alleged support of this issue certainly doesn’t fit the bill of this self-interested permission, but worse yet, it runs dangerously close to violating existing Wisconsin statutory law.

Wisconsin statute �

I've got my camcorder and am ready to go. We'll see how well this goes, but for now, it looks pretty civil. I'm proud of the Madison student body so far - we haven't turned this into a sideshow yet. However, when Horowitz comes, we may not be so lucky.

Kevin Barrett is in attendence. Any surprise?

Chris Dols has told us he is trying his best to restrain himself from heckling Horowitz, but he can't promise anything. Fingers crossed!

7:33 - Mike Hahn is here! OMG. rise for the pledge of allegiance? Wow. It feels like high school again.

The heckling has started again. CAN laughing at calling Horowitz distinguished and people openly yelling.
Uh-oh.

7:38: Here comes horowitz. He's flanked by CR's holding Islamo-Fascist awareness signs. Give me a break.

7:44 - He has started by talking about the inhumane treatment of Muslim women in Iran and elsewhere. No heckling now. Very serious mood.

7:45 - So far there is nothing that controversial about what he's saying yet. This is a man whose points are often obscured by a few overstated and controversial remarks or statements. He's doing a good job of avoiding that right now. Disagree with him, yes, but at least he's not being insenitive - yet.

7:46 - "We use the term Italian Fascist, despite the fact that not all Italians are racist." He's making the point that this doesn't describe all Muslims and he's right. However, when he remarks, "We use the term white racists pretty frequently, does that mean that all white people are racist?" Someone in the very back sheepishly answered: "Yes."

7:49 = "The attacks on this week are...well..quite stupid." "There are lots of crazy people who take this stuff quite seriously." Laughter "Well, if you had a target on your back, you wouldn't be laughing." Laughter. "Ok, well, maybe you would.

7:55 - Kevin Barrett nearly disrupted this whole thing by trying to ask a range of 9/11 questions. Ok, so he really just ranted. Everyone shot him down. Even CAN.
So, he and his 9/11 Inside Job accomplice - out of here. Whoops.

7:56 - Horowitz says most of the ignorance surrounding this issue comes from the White House and their "War on Terror" which is, "just a tactic. It confuses the public."
He's saying that we must not confuse Islam with these "Islamo-Fascists." No shouts yet.

8:01 - "The Jew hatred in parts of the Muslim community, stems directly with it's relation with the Nazis." Is it really DIRECTLY related to the Nazis?

8:02 - He's now trying to argue for these "Islamo-Fascists" trying to establish a global empire, NOT a nation-state, which he claims they hate. He's starting to insert a little bit of Iraq into the speech. And here comes Israel.

8:03 - "When people say the US and their policies are responsible for 9/11, realize they underminded the Shah of Iran." Also arguing that we've worked to help the Muslim community, so this really isn't our fault. Well, when it's for your own interests, some can see through that "end justifies the means" rhetoric. We may not be directly responsible, but our involvement in these areas in the first place, good intention or not, isn't exactly welcomed with open arms in every case.

8:07 - Ok, not he's delving into the history of the Ottoman Empire and the distinction between "Arabs" and "Turks." This is probably where historical distinctions are going to be lost on the audience or blindly accepted. Especially when many conflate "Arab" with "Muslim."

8:11 - Arguing that the Palestinian people were exploited by the Arab state, not that they had land taken from them by Israel. He's really limiting this talk to the discussion of Middle Eastern politics, and not delving into specific "Holy War" claims or background. Probably for the best, as even those within specific religions are going to divide on this subject.

8:15 - Genocidal movement led by Nasrallah and Ahmadenijad. Hezbollah is a "Nazi organization and he is a nazi, by any definition of the term." He has recommended those "deluded liberals" read a book called "Reading Lolita in Iran." "The Shah was a dictator, but he was a progressive dictator in these areas!"

Progressive dictator? Is that possible? Have we ever seen a benevolent dictator?

8:18 - Oh boy. Now he's saying the left has an alliance with the Islamo-Fascist? "Go on the boards and see these attacks and see who's in bed with whom." Ok, those are the sort of comments that cause huge misunderstandings and closes dialogue. Let's not start down the wrong path, David.

8:22 - Well, now he's discussing Iraq and saying the left tried to defend Saddam Hussein and that they're on the wrong side of "the battle for freedom in the twentieth century."

Unfortunately, he's alienating CR's too, who didn't like the comment he made that the Iraq war has been "mismanaged" and improperly "explained" by President Bush. CAN laughs, CR doesn't seem amused.

8:26 - "The reason we stopped Saddam Hussein is very simple. Adolf Hitler..."
Ok, stop there. I'm tired of the Nazi comparison. To try and compare anything to the Nazis is a losing argument. You're saying that Saddam was about to march across the Middle East conquering? Please, he was completely incapable of that. In fact, if Ahmadenijad is your new hitler, then we probably did him a favor.

Alright. He's done. Qand A!

It has been said many times before: If Henry Kissinger can win the Nobel Peace Prize, anyone can.

Al Gore's recent work promoting global warming is to be commended. His congressional opposition to the Reagan administration's support for the genocidal Hussein regime also warrants mention. These are the only significant, nice things that I can think to say of him.
The son of segregationists - his father, Senator Albert Gore Sr., participated in the Southern filibuster of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 - the dauphin's record as a "public servant" is equally reprehensible. As Vice President he headed the hawkish coalition in the White House on Iraq, urging President Clinton to ceaselessly bomb the already brutalized country throughout the 90's - to what end was never made clear. He was a stalwart supporter of the barbaric sanctions, which are estimated to have murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.

In 1993, he famously debated lunatic Ross Perot on NAFTA on the Larry King show. Arguing that the legislation would be good for both American and Mexican workers, he likely managed to sway a few skeptical yet crucial Democratic congressmen. One million displaced Mexican corn farmers later, Mr. Gore hasn't repented.

His record on the death penalty is nauseating. As Vice President, he oversaw the expansion of the federal death penalty, and, like his boss, could never bring himself to oppose the execution of youth offenders or the mentally handicapped.

By writing this, I don't mean single out the former Vice President; he carries the typical baggage of a centrist Democrat. It is the obtrusive contradiction between his reception of the world's most important humanitarian award and his egregious public record that warrants the above attention.

The question, then, must be asked: Why would the Swedes give their precious prize to such a figure? It's purely political. Europe's fashionable, liberal cultural elite will do anything to embarrass the Bush administration, and, as Christopher Hitchens notes in his most recent Slate column, the Nobel Prize is their most effective way to do it. Thus, Jimmy Carter (Peace Prize, 2004) and Harold Pinter (Literature Prize, 2005), two vocal opponents of the Bush presidency, were enthusiastically greeted in Stockholm. I wouldn't object to the latter two, but it is, nonetheless, sad to see how the Nobel has become so corrupted.

"It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just our thing," said Gerald Cox in regards to electing the same old cookie-cutter candidates to the office of president of the United States.

"And then when our children are all grown up," writes Cox, "we tell them not to believe in men like Mr. Obama. And while we'd like to elect a man like Mr. Obama, we live in a country that doesn't."

Therein lies the argument of a loser and a quitter.

Please, do not misunderstand me. Gerald is anything but a loser or a quitter as anyone would gather from his superb writing and articulate personality. No, what I am speaking of is his disappointing political outlook, as outlined in the waggish style of evaluating Sen. Barack Obama's bid for the presidency that Gerald followed and that is rapidly gaining popularity.

Gerald's humor is the same that Jon Stewart uses every time he refers to "Obamania" while playing celestial choral music on set to sarcastically signify God's personal deliverance of a political savior in Barack Obama. It is the same humor that makes me chuckle every time Smathers or I comment on the fervor of Students for Obama, or every time I remark on the divine glory that seamlessly emanates from Obama press releases.

But this humor is easy, it is lazy, and it is shabby. It is the kind of humor that exposes a sad reality about our collective state of mind: we are afraid of ourselves.

Indeed, ourselves.

Whether it's me, Gerald or Tucker Carlson, we construct an implausibility to Mr. Obama because we see in him a change that we believe is too different and too difficult to enact in ourselves. We are like the person who told himself he would go running this morning but was too lazy to get up, and now sits at an ice cream shop making fun of the runners who go by in order to appease his self-reproach. Meanwhile, he stuffs his face with the same, old vanilla soft serve that he later loathes every time he looks in the mirror. But he is too afraid to change, so he declares superiority above the concept of change.

The fact of the matter is that we don't tell our children to stop believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy -- they figure it out for themselves.

Instead, a more proper analogy for our country and its political trepidation would be a child who has never ceased believing in these mythical figures. Who has gone through life believing in what he wants because it is too hard to face the truth, too hard to change, too hard to grow up and face a scary reality.

Furthermore, we are a narcissistic, egotistical and stubborn society of adults. We refuse to believe in a hero because we feel it will reflect on our own insecurities and we refuse to face our own needs because they require change. We call ourselves pragmatists and realists as an excuse to hide from change we say, "will never happen" -- as if change is beyond us. As if change is guided by a mysterious third party; in the process, denying our own free will within a democratic system.

We declare socialism and communism and ignorance. We laugh at a call for change or a "sappy editorial" as a sign of weakness and intellectual otiosity. But in the process, we sink deeper into fear. We wrap our minds in a circular reasoning that makes it impossible to change and "unreasonable" to want to change.

We create the false dichotomy between heart and mind, and then choose the latter because we do not trust our instincts and our desires. When in reality, our hearts and our minds have always worked best in conjunction, and remain the only combination that best evaluates our needs as a society and as individuals.

Yes, Barack Obama is a hope monger. But so are you.

We are creatures of reason and hope and progress. And it is not Mr. Obama who's guiding principle is a fantasy reminiscent of a mythical character, it is the seasoned Washingtonians and self-proclaimed realists who have lost touch with reality and paraded it as experience.

Ask yourself not whether a heroic figure "exists," but whether you want one to. Ask not if there have been a number of politicians who have lead with staunch honesty and undying hope, because we know they have been few and far between. Instead, leave your ego and your fear at the door and ask yourself if that is the type of leader you truly want.

You might just find that Christmas come early next year.

The sentiment behind Carla Dogan's Wednesday column entitled "Inebriation needs moderation at games" is understandable. In fact, she has every right to complain. At some point everyone gets frustrated with drunken students. However, I think she steers her argument in a very dangerous direction.

Specifically, I take great exception to her assertion that "Students who approve of the "show and blow" policy may or may not be a minority, but popularity is irrelevant once a new policy or law takes effect." Speaking frankly, I think this is an ignorant that detracts from her column. There are two main points that discredit her viewpoint on this issue.

First of all, laws or policies without popular support are often implemented in backhand or secret ways. Often this happens for a very good reason. On the whole, they are often either illegal or just general bad ideas. Observe the Bush Administration's wiretapping and surveillance schemes.

Finally, the "irrelevance" of popular opinion once these laws or policies are on the books discounts the possibility of them ever being repealed or changed. In fact, it literally shits on the entire democratic process. This statement puts the interests and wants of the government or authorities before the interests of the people, essentially inverting the design of a democracy. The statement advocates a complete lack of accountability for the government.

Hopefully Carla will correct her mistaken understanding of how a democracy works. After all, Prohibition wasn't repealed because of its popularity. It was repealed because a bunch of do-gooders tried to impose an unpopular policy on a populace that didn't want to listen to them.

I appreciated reading Carla Dogan's informed response, entitled "Inebriation needs moderation at games," to my column on Tuesday, "Get up, stand up for drunkeness" (if for no other reason than that it remained within the boundaries of thoughtful debate, unlike the other response columns to my pieces this semester). I shall now return the favor.

I first take issue with the only not-so-informed premise of her piece. To quote her: "I think I speak for, well, the entire student body when I say that students over 21 have the legal right to get wasted before the game, but don't have the legal right to attend said game until they have dried out for a while." While no accurate statistics of students' opinions on "show and blow" have yet been assembled, I leave it up to the readers - who I am utterly confident disagree with her affirmative position on the policy - to assess the truth of her opinion. I, for one, have not encountered a single student who approves of "show and blow" and this is not necessarily because I hang out with a pro-alcohol crowd. The notion that students at UW must accept limits on there boozing is, likely, one that can be presumed to be a priori false.

Her discussion of students' rights is also troubling. She quotes Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." I couldn't agree more. If Ms. Dogan also truly concurred with the former Justice's sentiment, then I can not understand how she reached her conclusion. If an intoxicated student cuffed a student in the head at a Badger game, then no one would object to his being charged with battery - not underage drinking or public drunkenness. Drinking alcohol is a personal choice, one which should not make one above law. With that said, it is not drinking itself which is the problem - it is the disorderly conduct, which Ms. Dogan so fears.

Unlike Ms. Dogan, we must distinguish between booze and crime. While the former often leads to the latter, it is not a cause and effect connection. Indeed, the crime-free majority here at UW - part of the boozing vast majority - prove this empirically. If Ms. Dogan really believes that my rights end where hers begin, then why would she object to my consumption of alcohol?

The notion of "rights" needs elaboration. When I use the term, it should be obvious that I am not referring to a legal claim. Indeed, the current law is precisely that to which I am objecting. Rather, when I use the term "rights" I am affirming our natural claim to individual freedom (see the Holmes quote above). Human beings should be imbued with all the freedom society can allow, since this results in the least amount of distortion of the individual's wants and personality. Societal obligations create guilt and anxiety and should therefore be curtailed as much as possible. I hardly see how my natural desire to drink would threaten societal welfare.

Ms. Dogan is advocating unnecessary boundaries on the human experience. If she is truly the sympathizer of French existentialism her column would indicate, then she would champion human freedom. If she truly objects to the effects of Sartre's pour soi, then she would denounce unnecessary public intrusions on the private life. Both Camus and Sartre built their philosophy on the bankruptcy of collective values. The individual must determine for himself what is right and wrong and not subject himself to the puritanical ranting of the latter day prohibitionists.
The law may determine Ms. Dogan's morality, but it will certainly not interfere with mine.

Should be posted much, much faster, now that I've finally got this whole system worked out. Sorry about the delays. Over the next few weeks we'll be streamlining this whole project, which is still in its infancy. So be patient with us, and we promise to argue with you and the growing number of people who stumble upon this blog every day. Thanks!

Great column today by Gerald in today's Herald.
http://badgerherald.com/oped/2007/10/01/bet_mtv_worse_than_o.php
(Although I can't imagine the two would get along in person, and would love to be a fly on the wall for their eventual meeting. Then again, when I first hired Gerald, he claimed to be conservative.) I used to watch the factor regularly back when I had more of a stomach for arguing with my TV set. Although I disagree with him on most everything, and thought he was a huge dick, he never struck me as a racist or bigot. (In fact, he's always gone out of his way to say that gays and lesbians should be able to adopt)

Unaware of the extent of some racial issues and the cultural heritage of slavery and Jim Crow that we are living with today? Yes. Racist? No.

He was simply making a point to viewers who, like himself, are ignorant of normal Black society.
Although Bill O's word choice wasn't the best, that is how a lot of old white men speak, and he shouldn't be punished or villified for it. If he's making an effort to understand Black America, no matter how awkwardly, good for him. Bill O's doing more than most if that is the case.