Magna cum saudi

[aways]

From IBD:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=2&issue=20051229

Representatives of autocratic theocracies that finance terror, oppress women and consider homosexuality a capital crime are welcomed at Harvard and other campuses. But not the U.S. Marines.

At many of our so-called institutions of higher learning, which have become de facto liberal re-education camps, there's a crusade to ban military recruiters. These champions of diversity and human rights say the problem is the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuality, which they say violates their anti-discrimination policy.

It may have escaped the notice of these scholars, particularly those at the Harvard Law School, but under the U.S. Constitution the military is controlled by civilians. It was Congress, not the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that passed "don't ask, don't tell" into law. If they have a problem with how the armed forces treats homosexuals, they should write their congressman � excuse us, congress person � and take their righteous indignation to the ballot box next election.

Of course, this righteous indignation is somewhat selective. While banning recruiters because of "don't ask, don't tell," they welcome and honor members of Congress who voted for it. Last year, Rep. Nita Lowey, who voted for it in 1993, was welcomed to the Pace University School of Law last year to receive the "Pioneer of Justice and Equality for Women and the Law."

Lowey also voted last year to significantly strengthen the Solomon Amendment, which would withhold federal dollars from schools that ban recruiters, and which 36 law schools argued this month before the U.S. Supreme Court was unconstitutional. But an Army JAG (Judge Advocate General) recruiter, who is powerless to change "don't ask, don't tell," or repeal the Solomon Amendment, is vilified and banned.

The schools argue that federal dollars should not be used to compel them to propagate opinions with which they disagree. Yet they impose on students fees that are used to reimburse speakers whose opinions the students may find repugnant.

In hearing oral arguments on the Solomon case, Chief Justice John Roberts said that nobody infers academic endorsement of the views and policies of every recruiter allowed on campus. And as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted, recruiters and speakers come and go, while schools are free to indoctrinate, uh, educate their students on a perpetual basis.

But if opposition to repugnant views is the issue, why did Harvard, while it was justifying the ban on military recruiters, accept a $20 million gift from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and agree to set up a Middle East research center?

We could be wrong, but it's doubtful that the center will be involved in defending Israel's right to exist.

Talal, a member of the ruling family of a repressive, totalitarian, sexist theocracy, is the individual whose $10 million gift to 9-11 families was returned by then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani after Talal said, "Our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the world turns the other cheek."

Putting his money where his mouth is, the prince in 2002 participated in a Saudi-sponsored live-broadcast telethon to benefit the families of homicide bombers who killed Israelis. It eventually raised $100 million, $27 million of which was his personal donation.

In Saudi Arabia, homosexuality is a capital crime, and penalties allowed by Sharia law for such "deviant sexual behavior" range from imprisonment to flogging to death. In the past, people accused of homosexual behavior have been beheaded.

Maybe Harvard's policy on Saudi repression is "don't ask, don't tell."

[Joeaksa]

Allen,

Not sure how much time you have spent in Saudi, but I have lived there and just returned from the area. One comment on your statement.

Homosexuality may be a crime there but its also practiced on a daily basis. I did not really believe it at first but have heard several stories over the years. Finally talked with a few more people this last visit and guess its time to start believing it.

Boys and girls do not get together after puberity, so how in the world do they learn about sex before getting married? Without getting into too much detail they take the young boys out in the desert and teach them by letting him bugger another boy in the rear. Guess its not queer unless they do it all the time but sure not the way I want to learn.

Also, AIDS is legally not in the country but at this time they have 4 hospitals in kingdom holding only AIDS patients, with the 5th hospital being built right now. There are many locals with the disease but they do not want to admit it in public. Every person coming in on a long term visa must be tested for this and many other diseases before being let in the country.

Oh yea, a good friend of mine is Prince Alwaleed Chief Pilot in Saudi. Right now he has a Boeing 747-400 & Airbus A-340 for private flights around the world. He can be rather difficult to work with I am told but pays very well...

Joe A

[aways]

Hi Joe --

Thanks for those insights. They're pretty eye-opening... I've never traveled to SA, I just find it hypocritical that the Academic Left, with all its pretense to individual rights for women and gays seems to have no problem with the "official" Saudi position on homosexuality, as long as the money keeps flowing in... Anything and everything "non-American" is judged by a far different and less critical eye by the elietes in this country.

[nostatic]

maybe the "academic" isn't as left as you think...

[Joeaksa]

Allen,

I heard this first back in the 90's when I lived there and asked several of the Saudi pilots I trusted. It was too far fetched for me to believe it. Was back there recently and ran into some others I got to know and was told the same thing, so am throwing it out with a grain of salt. It surprised me then and now.

As well found out from a friend who works on one that there is a high rate of homosexuality on indian reservations here in the states, one of the last places I would have expected it. Oh well, guess there is still a lot of things for us to learn about our world.

The official position on many things with SA are one thing if you are living there, and can be greatly different for everyone else. Its really the magic kingdom where life has not changed for a lot of its people in the last 600 years.

Joe

[aways]

Originally posted by nostatic
maybe the "academic" isn't as left as you think...

No, they're just as left as I think (know). However, it's fair to say that maybe they're not as principled as I thought.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by aways
No, they're just as left as I think (know). However, it's fair to say that maybe they're not as principled as I thought.

I never said they were principled.

What are your data points though? For knowing they're left (and of course, left relative to what...)

[aways]

Originally posted by nostatic
I never said they were principled.

What are your data points though? For knowing they're left (and of course, left relative to what...)

You're joking, right? I mean, really, you can't be serious...

From the Washington Post, no "conservative" paper...

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

read the rest at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

[nostatic]

but its "the liberal media." How can you believe that? You don't trust it for information on any other subject...

[aways]

Originally posted by nostatic
but its "the liberal media." How can you believe that? You don't trust it for information on any other subject...

Hah, joke's on me..., and I thought you weren't being disingenuous... I'll know not to take any of your future posts seriously.

P.S. BTW, the source of the data was meant to convince you, not me... I don't need to be enlightened on the subject. I'm glad that you chose to change the subject rather than argue an indefensible point.