Consensus on Global Warming at WSU?

Not if you saw the June 10 edition of WSU Today online. The original headline of a photo story by Shelly Hanks and Robert Frank on Tuesday's Pullman snowstorm read "Global Warming? R-i-g-h-t." You can view the Google cache of that version here.

After the story was linked to Tom Nelson's blog (a well-known global warming skeptic site,) and a link to Tom Nelson's blog was surreptiously embedded into the WSU Today headline, the headline was changed to read "Global warming? Not today." See for yourself here.

As April commented on the Tom Nelson blog:

Recheck the headline at the WSU site. It's been politically corrected. I'm not surprised, just sickened. The writer probably has to go through retraining so as to embrace the "empirical evidence" that the morally corrupt leftists at WSU have to offer. We wouldn't want any dissent, now would we?

My First Encounter With John Streamas

At this week's Palousitics lunch, during our conversation regarding the merging of victim's departments, I learned that the execrable John Streamas has been granted tenure. I recounted an exchange I had with this intellectual Lilliputian and what it means to have someone like this "instructing" students. What follows is a column I wrote in response to a newly enacted law banning the use of the word "oriental" in official Washington documents, John Streamas's e-mail to me in response along with my reply to Streamas.


Original Lewiston Tribune column, from July 6, 2002.

It's amazing what will motivate liberals to swift and decisive action and what will leave them absolutely paralyzed. Liberals anguish when they have to place limits on behaviors as obviously wrong as public nudity or even public defecation. But on genuinely trivial and pointless issues, liberals get themselves all pumped up with self-righteousness, pound their chests and march to the sound of the guns.

For example, take the issue of politically incorrect speech. When it comes to banning words, liberals can act with the greatest dispatch. In Olympia, the Washington Legislature just banned the word "Oriental," when used to describe people of Asian ancestry. It's still OK to have Oriental rugs and Oriental art, just as long as they are not made by Orientals. Get it?

On the other hand, Moscow, which remains a remote outpost of '60s liberalism, a vestige of a bygone time somewhat like an appendix, can't seem to decide on something as simple as a dress code.

For about five years now, Moscow has been unable to enact an ordinance that would dissuade women from baring their chests in public. Such a law is needed in Moscow precisely because it seems to attract or produce just the sort of women who have to be told not to run around naked.

Moscow's sister city, San Francisco, another hangover from the '60s, has also been struggling for years with the problems caused by its most treasured citizens, who are inclined to deposit their bodily wastes upon city sidewalks. Only in San Francisco, the notorious Baghdad by the Bay, could liberals wrestle with their consciences over whether or not to outlaw urinating and defecating on city sidewalks. Homeless advocates worried about the effect the law might have on the homeless.

The San Francisco City Council finally managed to pass the law last week. But they could only bring themselves to do so by publicly proclaiming that the law was aimed not at the homeless, but at rowdy drunks leaving bars. Until then, the city held its dogs to a higher standard of behavior than its humans. It has long been illegal to leave dog waste on San Francisco's sidewalks.

Outlawing the word "Oriental" was the brainchild of state Sen. Paull Shin. He said that he was inspired by Martin Luther King's efforts to ban the word "Negro." King found the word "Negro" offensive because it reminded him of slavery.

So if we are to comprehend Sen. Shin's crusade to ban an offensive word, it's worth reviewing the origin of that hated word "Oriental." As everyone who needs to find his way around knows, to be used properly, maps must first be "oriented," with the top of the map pointing north. But this was not always so. In Europe, before the invention of the magnetic compass, the top of a map was not north, but east. So until navigators had a tool for establishing magnetic north, they had to "orient" their maps by pointing the top of the map in the direction of the rising sun. As such, everything above the top of their maps came to be known as the "Orient" and everything found in the "Orient" was "Oriental." So I suppose Paull Shin's objection to the word "Oriental" is that it reminds him that Asia is east of Europe.

I'm not sure that I'm really getting my arms around the problem here. Sometimes it's just not so easy to understand the chronically indignant.

Now, back to Baghdad by Paradise Creek. Thanks to a judge who, a few years back, tossed out Moscow's tactfully worded anti-nudity law, the city council is now trying to formulate a law with enough anatomical details that it threatens to violate anti-pornography laws. The problem is that, as currently written, bikinis and dresses with plunging necklines would violate the law. Councilwoman JoAnn Mack complains that every woman in Moscow owns a dress that would violate that law.

I hope that's an exaggeration. There are plenty of women in Moscow and elsewhere who really should not wear such a dress.

Nevertheless, that liberals require years to decide that women should not strut around bare-chested in public or to outlaw defecating in public, but can ban words like "Oriental" or "one nation under God" tells us something about their minds, and why we should trust them with authority.

John Streamas's letter to me.

I assume that it is you, and not the other three Costellos at WSU with a Michael in their name, to whom I should address this response to the piece in the Lewiston newspaper on the word "Oriental." (If I assume incorrectly, then ignore the rest of this and press Delete.)

You assume that "Oriental" derives from navigation and mapmaking. > A glance into your OED or even your Webster's New World Dictionary would > show that it derives from old European words for "eastern." This may seem > benign, but any student of high school mythology knows that the East of > European tradition signifies darkness and death. But of course this is > the East of the European imagination--not any East as any Asian knows it.
This is a crucial point, as one tenet of Western (I'll bet you don't say "Occidental") democracy is the autonomy signified by our power to represent ourselves. Whites stopped saying "nigger" not out of the kindness and generosity of their hearts but because African Americans finally persuaded them to recognize its racism. Only a few recalcitrant racists still use the term--which is why today a few young blacks have re-appropriated it, as a show of autonomy and retribution. Similarly we Asian Americans are trying to persuade you whites to stop saying "Oriental," which is our equivalent of "nigger."

Generally, this is succeeding. For every Applebee's that still advertises its Oriental entree, there must be a dozen restaurant reviewers who now refer to Asian cuisine. The few holdouts grumble as if it is THEY who are victims of "political correctness" and its threat to their freedom of speech. Or else, like you, they whine about their own victimhood even as they dismiss our causes as "genuinely trivial and pointless." This is one tactic of institutional racism--deny subjugated peoples a voice and then presume to speak for them. I'll bet you took no surveys of Asian Americans before presuming to defend the imposition of this label on them. At least I hope the significance of the fact that the legislation outlawing the label was introduced by a Paull Shinn is not lost on you.

We work for a university that loudly proclaims its commitment to what it calls diversity. It wants us all to sign a Diversity Pledge, whose six points all assume that racism is a function only of individual hatred and not of institutional practices. I urge my students to refuse to sign such a pledge until the institution first commits itself to improving the racial climate here. I teach ethnic studies, in the CAC department. And I would bet that most first-year students in my 100-level classes have at least a vague sense of the problem inherent in use of the word "Oriental." So I have few fears that your own Orientalism will influence them. Yet I am disturbed by the fact that you see fit to express it in print. I have met a few faculty, staff, and administrators here who need a few lessons in the sorry history of race in the US. Presumably courses such as CAC 101, which help meet undergraduates' requirements, comprise this university's effort to teach diversity to our students--an education that these recalcitrant faculty, staff, and administrators themselves lack. And so I invite you to enroll in, or at least sit in on, my Fall semester CAC 111 course: Introduction to Asian Pacific American Studies. In it you will read a few good works of Asian American literature (yes, we're actually quite good in activities other than math), see a few films related to Asian American history and culture, and learn both the particular racisms affecting particular Asian Pacific American communities and the general patterns of racism into which these particularities fit. Learn our history as we tell it ourselves--don't rely on your Orientalist sources.

But if you have neither the time nor the desire to accept my invitation, then consider this passage from the Introduction of Edward Said's 1978 book Orientalism, the standard text on the subject (and note that the "Orient" is, for Said, definitely not merely East Asia): Unlike the Americans, the French and the British have had a long tradition of what I shall be calling Orientalism, a way of coming to terms with the Orient that is based on the Orient's special place in European Western experience. The Orient is not only adjacent to Europe; it is also the place of Europe's greatest and richest and oldest colonies, the source of its civilizations and languages, its cultural contestant, and one of its deepest and most recurring images of the Other. In addition, the Orient has helped to define Europe (or the West) as its contrasting image, idea, personality, experience Orientalism is never far from what Denys Hays has called the idea of Europe, a collective notion identifying "us" Europeans as against all "those" non-Europeans, and indeed it can be argued that the major component in European culture is precisely what made that culture hegemonic both in and outside Europe: the idea of European identity as a superior one in comparison with all the non-European peoples and cultures. There is in addition the hegemony of European ideas about the Orient, themselves reiterating European superiority over Oriental backwardness, usually overriding the possibility that a more independent, or more skeptical, thinker might have had different views on the matter.

In a quite constant way, Orientalism depends for its strategy on this flexible positional superiority, which puts the Westerner in a whole series of possible relationships with the Orient without ever losing him the relative upper hand.

I wish to add, finally, that your defense of the word "Oriental" offends me, and it offends other Asian Americans I know on this campus. It also amuses me. I had thought of using your column in class but then realized that my students, even the most obstinately conservative, would wonder why you make a fuss over what you call "trivial and pointless," and so I dropped the idea--just as I hope you will seriously consider dropping your presumptions of authority over what we wish to be called. We are Asians, Pacific Islanders, Asian Pacific Americans, and whatever else we wish to call ourselves. We are NOT Orientals unless we say so.

John Streamas
Assistant Professor, Department of Comparative American Cultures
112A Wilson Hall
streamas@wsu.edu
(509) 335-4791

My response to Herr Streamas

John Streamas,
I understand that the chronically indignant can never be satisfied. But I will answer you anyway. I assume nothing about the origins of the term “oriental” as describing the east. It is documentable history, not any assumption upon my part. It was only after the invention of the magnetic compass that maps were oriented to the north. Occidental does refer to the west. It is the same history. If you are a student of mythology then you know that some traditions place the sources of evil in the north or the south.

Do not assume that I use the word oriental, except perhaps to describe a rug. I don't know that I've ever used the word to describe a person in my adult life. I don't use the word because it is a dumb word. Asian suits me just fine. I was not defending the word or anyone who uses the word, only pointing out that abolishing words is silly.

And who chooses the words? When I was in high school, self-anointed “leaders of the Mexican-American community” chose the word “chicano” to describe Mexican-Americans. This was very offensive to me and my family. You obviously don't know that I'm about half Mexican. To us, the word chicano referred to someone who was uncouth, rather like calling someone a hick or rube. But, the word was applied to us without our permission.

Finally, I find it somewhat ironic that you would demand a pledge of uniformity as a proof of commitment to diversity. But, I don't find it surprising.

Oh, and by the way. I don't want you to call me a “white” anymore as you did in your letter. From now on, refer to me as a “person of pallor.”

Michael Costello

Education or Proselytization?

The following comment was left by "bmartin" on the "Livin' in the AmeriKKKa" thread.

I have personally taken a class from Kelvin Monroe and it was one of the best classes I ever took. I used to have conservative views but after taking his class he taught us a different way to think opening our eyes to the truths of this world. He at no point forced us to take in his beliefs. He taught us how to think and no form of indoctrination took place. I find it funny that some undergraduate students think they know better then KJM or Hentges. The more you learn, the more you know just how dumb you are. Obviously, this isnt the case for college republicans. I think you guys need to take in Monroes advice and stop sipping the kook-aid fellas

peace and spread the love

I'm sure Mr. Monroe is a wonderful teacher. But let's imagine for a moment that he was teaching a religion class and bmartin had been a Muslim, Jew, atheist, etc. What if bmartin had become a born-again Christian as a result of Mr. Monroe's influence? I wonder how long he would be teaching classes after that?

I'm sorry. I'm not buying this whole "my eyes were closed until they were opened by the CES department" spiel. As the father/stepfather of five children ranging in age from a sophomore in college to a pre-schooler, I have seen firsthand the leftist, politically correct, "white men are evil" version of social sciences taught in our public schools. My kids can't tell you much about Pearl Harbor or D-Day, but they sure know about the Japanese-American internment camps. One kid even thought Martin Luther King had squared off against Robert E. Lee in the Civil War and saved the world.

Solution To Political Polarization - One Pole

I suppose that Dinesh D'Souza’s speech at Washington State University late last month was indeed polarizing, as its critics charge. After all, how can you even have poles when only one side of a debate is permitted a voice? As is typically the case on a college campus, every effort was made to shout down a conservative voice and further, to intimidate those who might consider inviting another conservative speaker.


Edward Weber, the director of the WSU’s Thomas S. Foley Public Policy Institute, expressed dismay last week in a Spokane Spokesman-Review guest editorial at the vitriol generated by the appearance of a conservative speaker. The title of Dinesh D'Souza’s speech was "Racism is not the Problem" and in it he argued against racial preferences in public policy. Dr. Weber seemed to have been taken by surprise by the antagonistic response from the left that the speech or even the invitation evoked.
“The question-and-answer period immediately following the talk and ensuing commentary in WSU's campus newspaper, The Evergreen, made clear that many took offense at D'Souza's message, going so far as to accuse D'Souza and, by extension, the Foley Institute, of further polarizing the campus on the issue of race, and accusing the Foley of being irresponsible,” he wrote.
Welcome to my world Dr. Weber. This is WSU, where faculty feel free to confront and attempt to bully the College Republicans for taking a position on a debate that departs from their own. This is WSU where the administration purchases tickets for protestors, with a former president’s approval, so that they can disrupt and shout down a play. This is WSU, where a student of mine once informed me that she and several others had been paid out of state funds to protest a speech. This is WSU where a student was nearly forced out of the College of Education for holding conservative religious beliefs and for wearing a camouflage cap to class.
It was a revealing editorial that everyone should read. In it Dr. Weber admits that he had allowed himself to be intimidated into shunning conservative speakers.
“While no one has ever stopped me from inviting a conservative speaker to WSU, the hegemony of the left-leaning liberal viewpoint is such that the only grief I've ever received from my advisory board or others is when I have invited John Ashcroft, John Sununu, Mr. D'Souza, and a handful of others to campus under the Foley banner. I have never been interrogated or otherwise questioned about any liberal speaker so invited....”
“As a result, I have shied away from inviting too many of "the wrong kind" of intellectual. For that lack of courage I must apologize to all of the conservatives on campus -- students, staff and professors -- and in the surrounding communities of Washington State. I should have fought harder to bring more conservative voices to campus.”
That’s an admission that should leave honest people quaking, but is more likely to cause WSU’s academic lefties to lift their chins high in smug satisfaction. Here is a man who is entrusted with encouraging philosophical conversations and yet confesses that he has allowed himself to be bullied into muzzling one side of the debate. All the while he insists that he believes in the “marketplace of ideas.” He just lacked the courage to stand up for that belief.
And of course, the left does not believe in any marketplace, whether it’s the marketplace of ideas or the marketplace of retail stores. The left believes that it should be making choices for all of us who lack their intellectual capacity and fail to grasp the issues as they do. Stated simply, the left does not trust the great unwashed to arrive at the correct conclusions when presented with both sides, and so only one side should be allowed on the podium.
There is quite an irony to this episode as the former speaker of the United States House of Representatives Thomas Foley himself was not especially tolerant of contrary opinions. Before the voters sent him packing into an earlier than he had planned retirement, he was attempting to shut down conservative talk radio by re-imposing the “Fairness Doctrine.” It wasn’t enough for him that the left either dominated or monopolized all other news and entertainment. In its own way, the Foley Institute has upheld one of its namesake’s doctrines.

The Columbus Day storm

Today, Christopher Columbus has and will take a lot of flak from many directions, and probably justifiably so. A murderer he was, a conqueror—by our definition of the word—he was, and a catalyst for the trans-Atlantic expanse of explorers and the eventual devastation of native populations he was. But was this so unusual for the time, or for any period in history? Does he deserve to have his holiday ridiculed and slandered?

No, I don’t believe so. First of all Columbus Day was never meant to be a day to celebrate terror, torture, or the destruction of civilizations. Columbus Day celebrates the beginning of a new age in the Western world: the Age of Exploration, which paved the way for the Reformation, the Age of Enlightenment, and the modern era. Today celebrates the embarkation of three tiny ships made of popsicle-sticks crammed with poor souls that took a brave and major step toward the advancement of the world in general. Today we celebrate a great accomplishment for man-kind, just as we may celebrate Neil Armstrong’s first lunar walk or Benjamin Franklin’s realization that lightning was electricity. We hold Columbus Day as worthy of celebration by the simple fact that without the voyage of the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria our world may have been drastically different.

To say that we should not celebrate Columbus Day because it also sparked the decline of the Native American is a hypocritical statement to make. Like most pivotal events in human history there was a winner and there was a looser. In the case of the natives of the Americas it was a brutal and devastating lose. But like so many holidays it is the positive that we prefer to commemorate. Should Christians not celebrate the birth of Christ every year because it would later inspire the Crusades, the Inquisition, or the Thirty Years War? Should we forget about celebrating Veteran’s Day because, by definition, it is commemorating people that at one point had to kill other human beings? I do not believe so, because I chose to uphold the good that I believe these holidays represent. It is because of Christ that many of us believe in salvation. It is because of veterans that the United States stayed the United States.

And it is because of Columbus and his voyage that I am here today, whether or not he did terrible things or inspired terrible or unfortunate things.

To consider the foul treatment of Native Americans at the hands of European expansionists as a historically tragic event is to forget how human civilization was established. It is true that Europeans conquered the Americas by destroying long-established civilizations. But many of these indigenous civilizations were also formed through conquest. Historians are generally in agreement that the Incas, the Aztecs, and the Algonquians (to name only a few) were built when one group of people decided to expand and take over their neighbors, often with bloody and devastating results. They all maintained their supremacy through fear, torture, intimidation, and death. In one year, the Aztecs reportedly sacrificed as many as 10,000 enemy prisoners (about 28 per day) to their Sun God. When the Spanish conquered the Aztec Empire in the 16^th century, they didn’t do it alone: They were helped by local tribes that had lived in fear of the Aztecs for centuries. The Inca of the Andes region performed sacrifices similar to those of the Aztecs, though not as numerously. And the Algonquians of North America violently subjugated enslaved, tortured, and murdered their neighbors to maintain power. When the Europeans brought violence to the Americas, it was nothing new to the natives.

Violence has been a natural part of human development since people first began to live in large groups. Anthropologists today are hard-pressed to find a group of people that has lived in the same place they always have for as long as any human being has lived there. In other words, most, if not all, civilizations and cultures are what they are because of conquest. The Anglo-Saxons are not the original people of Britain. There ancestors stole the island from the Celts. The Celts in turn stole the island from the Druids. The people of present day France have their ethnic roots in west-central Asia. The modern Japanese came from mainland Asia, displacing the natives that inhabited the islands before them. The Zulu of southern Africa likewise migrated from somewhere else, pushing the indigenous people out of their way. To claim that Columbus inspired something evil is to claim that all of human history is evil as well.

Finally, I want to acknowledge that I do not condone or agree with in any way the treatment the natives received from the Europeans, or vice versa. I personally believe the death of so many great civilizations was a tragic and sad event. I simply wish to point out that it is in no way unusual in the history of mankind. It did not occur in a vacuum, and to say that he imposed his evil will on innocent, peaceful people is blatantly and historically false. Such behavior was also a norm in Europe. Just imagine how terrible white people have been to their own kind throughout history and you will realize that European expansionism was not something reserved exclusively for “weaker people.”

Perhaps critics of this holiday are right about Columbus, but this should never detract from the incredible impact they had on history. Maybe instead of calling it Columbus Day it should be called “Exploration Day.”

Religion Rights are NOT Human Rights

Nice thing about those in Latah County and Moscow, is that I learn from them all the time. I learned causing harm to a stream is okay if Moscow does it. I learned that you can overuse water, as long as you complain about someone *else* doing it. This goes along with carbon offsets. You can overuse, as long as you are smug about it. You can cut down the trees on your property, as long as you make an issue about someone else doing it. Do as I say, not as I do.

I learn a lot from Moscow and Latah county, and I have now learned thatreligion rights are not human rights.

Religion has no part in process

A dispatcher from the Latah County Sheriff's Office posted a message to her church's e-mail list regarding job openings suitable for "good Christian men." In response to concern by members of the Latah County Human Rights Task Force, Lois Blackburn and I visited with Sheriff Wayne Rausch on Aug. 17. We were pleased he was willing to discuss this matter with us. We learned he had written a letter of correction to the dispatcher, who had apologized.

We assured Rausch the concern we expressed did not relate to the particular church that was contacted, but rather the principle that religious affiliation should never be a part of a job search and that it is unconstitutional to have a religious test for hiring. Our concern is to maintain the separation of church and state and to assure Latah County residents that people of all religions or no religion are welcome to apply for government positions and all will be treated equally and fairly.

Rausch assured us religious affiliation is not a part of the hiring process. We also believe he understands that it is inappropriate for religion to be discussed by his government employees relative to their professional work, and contacting any church regarding open positions and discussing the religion of the people in office gives the wrong impression to our community.

We asked the Sheriff to explore ways to contact the media to clarify his policies regarding this matter, and he agreed to do so. (Opinion, Aug. 21)

Joann Muneta, chair, Latah County Human
Rights Task Force, Moscow

When I read this message I am so shocked to see that it is not about protecting *everyones* human rights. What about the human rights of the person who posted a job notice to fellow worshippers? Does he not have human rights? Do human right exist for Christians? Why did the Sheriff even meet with these people and give them credibility? He should have said that any of his people can, via word of mouth, announce job openings.

This whole thing sickens me like you would not believe.

I need The PES!

College Texts

Liberalism is alive and well in some military colleges in the United States.

Yes, indeed it is alive and well. I'm sorry to say my eldest son called me to ask if I had any of these the following history texts around the house: A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present by Howard Zinn, Give Me Liberty: An American History Vol. 1 by Eric Foner, and Confederate Emancipation: Southern Plans to Free and Arm Slaves during the Civil War by Bruce Levine. I told him I did not have copies of these books as he ticked off the books' authors. I let him know these books have a very strong liberal bias and are considered some of what elitest types of people call "revisionist history." I told him it was quite likely his professor was going to present a rather left leaning viewpoint. His response, "I'm not surprised. Guess this class might not go as well as I hoped."

I recognize that people have very different view points on the world and what has happened in it over the course of time. It is simply that I expect when teaching my child or anyone else's child for that matter that they present a balanced view. It is even more irking when professors who seemingly claim to know everything claim they do present a balanced view and would NEVER let students know their true bias or feelings. HA! The HA not withstanding, students do need to be presented both sides, it is just that in many classes students are given one side or the other, with no real understanding that the truth often lies somewhere in the middle of it all.

"Exposing the leftist myth of 'fair trade'"

Today's column by Michael O'Neal in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News is his best yet. He accurately skewers the elitist, wealthy, latte liberal set, in much the same fashion as Matt Taibbi did in his column.

Readers of Charles Dickens' "Bleak House" may remember the frowsy Mrs. Jellyby, who spends her days engaged in voluminous correspondence to raise money and recruit emigrants for the purpose of ameliorating the condition of the natives of Borrioboola-Gha, an imaginary colony in Africa. The quintessential do-gooder, she utterly neglects both her own family and the crushing poverty right under her nose in London. Poverty for her is a cause because it's over the horizon.

Prompting this book report was a recent trip to Portland. Like Jim Carrey's Truman, we escaped the dome that is Moscow-Pullman to idle away a few days in the naked city. They actually have little bakery shops and costermongers and fish markets, places called Starbucks that sell coffee by the jeroboam, scores of nutritional sustenance solution establishments (restaurants), and even by golly a trolley.

A store similar to the Moscow Food Co-op called Whole Foods Market purveys, among other essentials, organic litter so that environmentally sensitive cats can tarry with a good conscience, and briquettes for the grill made from a substance called "natural wood" - in contradistinction, one presumes, to unnatural wood. We're told at every turn that "Portland Recycles!" The exclamation point makes clear they mean it. And, in downtown Portland, there wasn't a big-box store in sight, unless you count all the chic, multistory department stores that occupy what looked suspiciously like big boxes. During our window-shopping experience, we strolled through 10,000 Villages, a home-furnishings emporium that sells items made primarily in Africa. The store adheres to the principles of "fair trade," though the vendeuse I chatted up was never able to give me much of an explanation of what that means without simply repeating the words "fair" and "trade." The store, eschewing profit, is organized as a nonprofit and staffed by volunteers, a congregation of Mrs. Jellybys who should feel awfully darn good about themselves because, presumably, they're helping the natives in Africa.

OK, so I thought that since the place is a nonprofit, the prices should be pretty reasonable. I was quickly disabused of that notion. A small hutch that might cost $300 or $400 under the principles of unfair trade cost upwards of $900 at 10,000 Villages. A desk that one could purchase from a profit-making enterprise for a grand cost twice that at the fair-trade store. I don't know who's getting hosed here, the guy in the bush, or me.

Shoppers also are told that the wood used to make the furniture was harvested according to the principles of sustainability - though once again, no one was able to explain why harvesting a U.S. oak to make a $300 hutch that a middle-class person can afford is evil, but cutting down an exotic African hardwood to make a $900 hutch that only the affluent can afford is an act of sanctification.

"Fair trade" is just another slogan the left has dreamed up to make themselves feel better about their wealth. Pundits enjoy fulminating against the wealth of Bush and his "cronies" - a favorite word among leftists - yet the data shows that contrary to conventional wisdom, liberal families earn about 6 percent more than conservatives. Liberals don't know what to do with all their lucre, so they concoct stuff like "fair trade" so they can buy spendy furniture made with exotic woods, then tell the rest of us that their purchase is an act of virtue because it's helping ameliorate the condition of the natives of Borrioboola-Gha.

"Fair trade," like "living wage," "affordable housing," and similar bromides, is so much whipped syllabub - all bubbles and no substance. It has the ring of, well, fairness, but in reality it does little more than create artificial price supports that encourage oversupply of the goods in question. In the long run, it leads to inefficient allocation of resources and labor because it encourages production of goods for which demand is limited - and in the case of furniture, to harvesting lumber for products no one can afford, unless you're a well-heeled John Edwards liberal who doesn't know what else to do with your money.

Meanwhile, on the way back to our hotel, we came across more than one homeless guy sleeping on cardboard in doorways. We wanted to help, but they weren't far enough away.

Where There's Smoke, There's FIRE

College Republicans at San Francisco State University faced disbandment of their club after burning flags last October.......the flags of Hamas and Hezbollah. It seems the flags of the two terrorist organizations have the word "Allah" written on them, unbeknownst to the CRs (a Ku Klux Klan flag, which contains a cross, was also burned, but thus far no outrage over that). I wonder how the WSU PC/Diversity Mafia would have reacted to an incident like this? The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) spang into action. Even the ACLU defended the CRs. The club has been spared.

See story here and here.

HT: Bruce Heimbigner