January 11, 2006

SO POT ROAST IS THE FINAL SOLUTION?:

The Alito testimony you won't hear (Stephen R. Dujack, January 11, 2006, LA Times)

Late last Thursday, Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued a list of witnesses to testify for the Democrats on Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s nomination to the Supreme Court. I was on that list — a mere writer with a bachelor's degree — among all the distinguished household names. But by the end of the day Friday, I wasn't on the list anymore. [...]

In my case, it was an L.A. Times Op-Ed article I wrote. In "Animals Suffer a Perpetual Holocaust" (April 21, 2003), I defended People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals for using a quote of my grandfather's. Unlike me, my grandfather was a famous man, Isaac Bashevis Singer, who had escaped anti-Semitism in Europe in 1935 and won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1978.

My grandfather, a principled vegetarian, famously wrote: "In relation to [animals], all people are Nazis. For [them], it is an eternal Treblinka." Three years ago, PETA built a campaign around that quote, but critics charged that the words were not really Isaac's, only those of one of his characters. My Op-Ed article affirmed that from my personal knowledge Isaac felt that way — that the cattle-car reality of factory farming compared to the Holocaust. And I agreed with him.


Presumably a Jew would have to have left Germany in '35 to write something that stupid.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 11, 2006 5:40 PM
Comments

Didn't the Dolpher convert to vegetarianism around the time he started taking over the government from the Weimar folks?

Posted by: John at January 11, 2006 6:43 PM

This is why it had been such a blunder to expose this wacko before he testified. The time to take him down would have been after he appeared on television. Tactics, tactics.

BTW, does anybody know whether the charge that the Concerned Alumni group actually "opposed" minorities being admitted or merely objected to quotas?

Posted by: Lou Gots at January 11, 2006 6:57 PM

Remember, Lou, on the Left, opposition to quotas is opposition to women and minorities.

Posted by: Mike Morley at January 11, 2006 7:13 PM

As a Princeton graduate who has some familiarity with CAP ("Concerned Alumni at Princeton") -- which was experiencing its last breaths when I was at Princeton (mid-1980s) -- I can safely say that it was a typical old-line conservative group, opposed to co-education (which started at Princeton in 1969) and affirmative action as well as the general dumbing down of educational standards (and loosening of social standards) that occurred during the 1960s and 1970s. It was "retrograde" by contemporary liberal standards, certainly, but hardly an advocate of the oppression of women and minorities. It was subjected over the years to vicious mischaracterization and abuse by the university administration and liberal faculty and students.

Posted by: Steven M. Warshawsky at January 11, 2006 7:22 PM

CAP was kind of a joke when I was at Princeton (late 70's, early 80's). No one took their calls to limit the number of women and minorities seriously, and some of their members were actually more concerned about the fact that the football team was no longer a national power and spent most of their time agitating for a coach who would bring back the single wing offense.

Posted by: Foos at January 12, 2006 11:45 AM

Mike,
Your statement that "on the Left, opposition to quotas is opposition to women and minorities" was mirrored by a news anchor yesterday (I think it was CNN) when she referred to Alito belonging to "The Concerned Alumni of Princeton; a group opposed to women and minorities." I was shocked to here it described that way, but I shouldn't have been.

Posted by: Patrick H at January 12, 2006 12:05 PM

Foos. What you said. Now we're mixed up again, so I shall ask it again:

Had CAP sought to limit the numbers of women and minorities or had they sought to have them admitted on the same basis as everyone else?

Mike is right about the left confusing the two concepts, but for the rest of us, those who read, write and understand the English language, there is a big difference.

So which is it--limit minorities or limit quotas?

Posted by: Lou Gots at January 12, 2006 12:16 PM
« CHENEY TIME: | Main | IS ANYTHING THE ANCIENTS THOUGHT WRONG?: »