27 April 2008 @ 11:49AM >> Senator Barack Obama’s “spiritual advisor” and pastor of 20 years is the gift that keeps on giving... to the Senator’s opponents:

We cannot see how what we are doing is the same thing al-Qaeda is doing under a different color flag, calling on the name a different God to sanction and approve our murder and our mayhem.-Reverend Jeremiah Wright

(Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt.)

24 April 2008 @ 1:12PM >> Fellow Bucknell alumnus Michael Malice, a founder of the popular Overhead in New York website, more recently the subject of a book-length profile by American Splendor icon Harvey Pekar, has launched a new online venture.

Called “Worst Email Ever: The Internet’s Inbox,” what the site chronicles is fairly obvious.

Had I known there would eventually be an appropriate venue for airing some of the venomous missives sent my way, I would have made a practice of hanging on to many more of them.

Still, I was able to dig up a few, and I’ve sent them along to Mr. Malice. These e-mails are now publicly available for all to enjoy.

---

P.S. For you Harvey Pekar fans out there, here’s the scene from David Letterman that couldn’t make it into the film American Splendor. Yikes.

23 April 2008 @ 8:44AM >> Barack Obama’s hometown of Chicago is famous for its political history in which the dead rise from the grave to show up on election day and cast votes for Democrats.

But, perhaps thanks to the messianic effect Senator Obama seems to have on some voters, his dead supporters go a step further. They actually open their checkbooks:

The [Los Angeles] Times’ campaign finance expert Dan Morain has found Obama campaign records reporting a $50 donation by Roy Scheider, who lists his occupation as actor and his home as Sag Harbor, N.Y. Remember him from many great movies including “The French Connection” and “Jaws” and the immortal line: “You’re gonna need a bigger boat”?

According to the campaign records, Scheider made the donation on March 10 last month.

Trouble is, Scheider died exactly one month before that, on Feb. 10 at the age of 75.

As the reporter notes, “Scheider was unavailable for comment.”

22 April 2008 @ 8:16PM >> Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri seems upset that conspiracy theorists are robbing his terrorist network of the recognition it deserves.

CNN reports:

Al-Zawahiri also denied a conspiracy theory that Israel carried out the September 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., and he blamed Iran and Shiite Hezbollah for spreading the idea to discredit the Sunni al Qaeda’s achievement.

Hey, Ayman! Don’t forget that the Western left has a stake in promoting the al-Qaeda-didn’t-do-it theory. After all, if they’re forced to acknowledge that the attack was perpetrated by al Qaeda, then they can’t also claim it was an “inside job” orchestrated by the U.S. government.

Al-Zawahiri accused Hezbollah’s al-Manar television of starting the rumor.

“The purpose of this lie is clear — (to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it,” he said.

And plenty of Westerners have bought into it, too.

19 April 2008 @ 10:45AM >> In the New York Sun, John McWhorter, the former Berkeley professor and current Manhattan Institute Scholar who appears in Indoctrinate U, has some thoughts on the type of groupthink documented in the film:

I’ve just attended a showing of Evan Coyne Maloney’s fine documentary about political correctness on college campuses, “Indoctrinate U.” Finally what we usually only read about: University of California Regent Ward Connerly shouted down by a near-violent audience, or an English professor whose department tried to blackball her when they found out she was a Republican.

The film got me thinking about how I was treated when I was teaching at Berkeley and wrote a book against racial preferences. The truth is that if someone made a movie about my life and had students throwing bricks through my office window and a cabal of professors signing a petition calling for my tenure to be revoked, it’d be good drama but sloppy history.

Most people, including professors, are not especially political, and I should say that the Berkeley administration was nothing but supportive of me, seeming to value that my new press presence kept Berkeley in the news more than anything else.

Sure, I got some catcalls, and God knows what sorts of things were being said behind my back. And there was, in fact, one “Indoctrinate U”-type episode. A black education professor invited a black-ish star sociology professor to come to campus and “debate” me, and the event turned out to be an occasion for audience members loudly booing me and hurling extended tirades.

To me, it was all in a day’s work: you don’t do what I do expecting not to be hated. What has never left me, however, is a chat I had with the education professor a few days later. He actually thought the event — a know-nothing burning in effigy in which my opponent had clearly not even read my book — had been a useful debate. To him, that public spanking was a productive and appropriate response to my opinions — at a university no less. I will never forget his sober expression, his sad, earnest eyes: he actually was sincere.

This is the ideology “Indoctrinate U” is about, and it is mistaken to treat these people as bullies, willfully precluding debate by hurling epithets like “racist” and “sexist.” This analysis implies an insecurity of these people which they do not feel. They thrill as much to the idea of open dialogue as anyone — but they think that a radical leftist perspective is truth, not opinion. To them, dialogue about a conservative perspective’s correctness is no more legitimate than dialogue about heliocentrism.

Read the rest of McWhorter’s thoughts.

15 April 2008 @ 11:50PM >> The only thing that can be more gratifying to a filmmaker than having a packed house is having the house packed with a lively audience that responds enthusiastically.

Thanks to everyone who made it to last night’s New York City premiere of Indoctrinate U.

It was truly a special night, and it makes me all the more certain that the only thing standing in the way of massive success for Indoctrinate U is making sure that enough people get a chance to hear about the film.

If you haven’t been able to see Indoctrinate U in your area, you can now download the film and order DVDs from the Indoctrinate U store.

14 April 2008 @ 9:11AM >> Reminder: The New York City premiere of Indoctrinate U is this evening at 6:30PM. For more information, visit the Indoctrinate U website.

Also, I’m scheduled to discuss the film and the premiere on Fox & Friends tomorrow morning at 7:40AM (Eastern time).

13 April 2008 @ 5:01AM >> A lack of action in Iraq leads to a pretty funny conversation in this video.

(Hat tip: Peter Mertz.)

11 April 2008 @ 9:16AM >> In an apparent change of corporate policy, Starbucks is being a little more laissez faire about what it allows to be printed on its customizable Starbucks cards.

After the Wall Street Journal ran a piece on Monday in which Starbucks was accused of repeatedly rejecting the phrase laissez faire—apparently for violating an unspecified part of company policy—the story was covered widely online.

So, as a public service to you the reader, I decided to place my own order for a laissez faire Starbucks card. Perhaps as a result of the negative publicity, Starbucks is now allowing the phrase. My card, shown here, arrived yesterday.

10 April 2008 @ 7:55PM >> In response to this post, Jason of Shock & Blog e-mails:

How is it that when Christian parents complain about such books, they are at best politely dismissed and at worst attacked as intolerant bigots, but when Muslim parents complain, schools can’t bend over backwards fast enough to accommodate them? Is it because people fear violent reprisals from Muslims more than from Christians? Or is it just a matter of the “secular” schools actually being against Christianity specifically instead of all religions in general?

It all goes back to the Multicultural Hierarchy, which dictates that actions can’t be judged without knowing on whose behalf those actions are taken.

Therefore, an action (such as removing books that offend some religious sensibility) can be considered fascistic when done at the request of Christians, but the exact same action, when done in the name of Islam, is considered a sign of tolerance and understanding.

That’s because Christians rate higher on the Guilty Oppressor scale and lower on the Victim scale than gays, who apparently don’t rate as high in the Multicultural Hierarchy as Muslims do.

Of course, the hidden story here is that gay rights activists have been silent. Is the gay community content with suddenly playing second fiddle to a constituency that places higher in the Multicultural Hierarchy? Or, as Jason suggests, are they just afraid of inciting a community with an outsized proportion of members who’ve shown a propensity to commit murder over far more trivial matters?

9 April 2008 @ 8:16AM >> I’m happy to announce that the DVD of Indoctrinate U is now available for purchase.

If you’d like to buy a copy of the DVD, head on over to the Indoctrinate U Store and you can have one in your hands in just a few days.

Unlike the downloadable Virtual DVD (which is also available at the store), the physical DVD comes with bonus DVD extras.

Reminder: This upcoming Monday (April 14th) is the New York City premiere of Indoctrinate U. Because this is a sponsored event, tickets are free. Seats are available, but you must RSVP in order to reserve your spot.

8 April 2008 @ 12:13AM >> In the 1980s and ’90s, many schools began adding children’s books to the curriculum that portrayed gay relationships. At the time, some people objected, but the people who objected did not outrank gays in the Multicultural Hierarchy, so the books stayed in the classroom.

But because multiculturalism depends more on faddish following than coherent philosophy, today’s politically correct darlings can be quickly cast aside as more exotic and fashionable groups are anointed with Victim Status.

In the schools of one British town, gays are now being looked on as no better than those rapacious Dead White Males who, because they fanned out from Europe over centuries past to destroy everything good in the world, needed to be purged from the curriculum.

Say hello to multiculturalism’s new power constituency:

Two primary schools have withdrawn storybooks about same-sex relationships after objections from Muslim parents.

Up to 90 gathered at the schools to complain about the books which are aimed at pupils as young as five.

One story, titled King & King, is a fairytale about a prince who turns down three princesses before marrying one of their brothers.

Another named And Tango Makes Three features two male penguins who fall in love at a New York zoo.

Bristol City Council said the two schools had been using the books to ensure they complied with gay rights laws which came into force last April.

They were intended to help prevent homophobic bullying, it said.

But the council has since removed the books from Easton Primary School and Bannerman Road Community School, both in Bristol.

A book and DVD titled That’s a Family!, which teaches children about different family set-ups including gay or lesbian parents, has also been withdrawn.

The decision was made to enable the schools to “operate safely” after parents voiced their concerns at meetings.

[...]

Members of the Bristol Muslim Cultural Society said parents were upset at the lack of consultation over the use of the materials.

Farooq Siddique, community development officer for the society and a governor at Bannerman Road, said there were also concerns about whether the stories were appropriate for young children.

[...]

He added: “In Islam homosexual relationships are not acceptable, as they are not in Christianity and many other religions but the main issue is that they didn’t bother to consult with parents.”

7 April 2008 @ 8:09AM >> For some reason, the term laissez faire is verboten at Starbucks:

Laissez-faire. It’s a policy that made Starbucks vastly successful. But don’t try to put that phrase on a customized Starbucks Card.

The cards are supposed be personalized to reflect customers’ tastes and uniqueness. They are available in a range of colors, often given as gifts and used by regular customers who prefer to prepay for their java.

But when my friend Roger Ream, president of the Fund for American Studies, received a Starbucks gift card for Christmas, he found there was a limit to how personalized a card could be. His card required him to customize it on the company’s Web site. So he went to the site and requested that the phrase “Laissez Faire” be printed on his card. A few days later he was informed that the company couldn’t issue such a card because the wording violated company policy.

[...]

But why should it be considered inappropriate? The phrase itself is an imperative. It’s French for “leave us alone,” more or less. And it comes to us through history as advice offered to Jean Baptiste Colbert, finance minister under the French King Louis XIV in the 17th century. Colbert is best known for his statement: “The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.” When Colbert asked a group of merchants, “What do you want from us?,” the answer was, “laisser nous faire.” “Laissez-faire” is, then, an old piece of economic advice with an impeccable French heritage.

Maybe Starbucks considers the phrase inappropriate because it’s “overtly political commentary”? Certainly my friend regards it as a firm statement of political philosophy.

And so, at my suggestion, my friend went back to the Web site and asked that his card be issued with the phrase “People Not Profits.” Bingo! Starbucks had no problem with that phrase, and the card arrived in a few days.

I wondered just what the company’s standards were. If “laissez-faire” is unacceptably political, how could the socialist slogan “people not profits” be acceptable?

My assistant and I tried to get the company to explain its policy. We started by trying to purchase a card with the phrase “Laissez Faire,” and were rejected as my friend had been. We then asked a company spokesperson why. He suggested that it might be because “laissez-faire” is a foreign phrase. That seemed possible and a reasonable precaution.

So we tried another foreign phrase – “Si Se Puede,” or “Yes we can.” It’s the United Farm Workers slogan, now adopted by Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. That sailed right through. The senator’s political campaign slogan was acceptable.

Starbucks has always been something of an alternate universe.

---

Update: Yesterday, I placed an order for my own “Laissez Faire” Starbucks card. I guess the publicity led to a change of policy, because today I got an e-mail saying the “order has been completed and will ship within the next business day.” (8 April 2008)

Update 2: My laissez faire Starbucks card has arrived!

4 April 2008 @ 10:20AM >> Apparently, if vodka maker Absolut had its way, Texas, California and much of the southwest United States would be given to Mexico.

At least, that’s the only conclusion one could reach after looking at an ad campaign Absolut is running in Mexico.

The ads, with the bold caption “IN AN ABSOLUT WORLD” show a fictional map of the United States where much of its territory has been taken over by Mexico.

Oddly, Absolut’s distributor, V&S Group, claims in their Corporate Responsibility statement, “We strive to achieve good relations with the world around us.”

Really? In what way does this ad further that goal?

Maybe this is how international borders would be drawn in an Absolut world. But in an Evan world, there will be no more drinking of Absolut vodka.

(Hat tip: Gateway Pundit and AbsolutAds.com.)

3 April 2008 @ 8:05AM >> Spam blogs, sometimes called “splogs,” are phony blogs set up to earn money by displaying ads. Splogs steal content from other sites so that they appear to the untrained eye as genuine blogs. When people conduct web searches, that stolen content drives traffic to the site, raising the revenue from advertising.

It’s a sleazy practice, and at times, I’ve seen posts from this site appear on splogs. Recently, I found a splog that copies text from this site, but it also does something new: it changes certain words in the post to modify the content slightly.

This page copied part of a post called Am I a Fair-Weather Friend of Free Speech?

I realize that by linking to the splog, I am helping them achieve their goal of increased traffic. Still, it’s an interesting development in the evolution of spam, and it seems worthy of note.