Monday, January 17, 2005

More bogus, right-wing, Republican "persecution", college style.


(A story that goes back a couple of weeks that I passed on at the time, but a recent development makes it worth chuckling over. So here you go.)


In the beginning was Foothill College student Ahmad Al-Qloushi who, according to reliable right-wing media (chuckle), was lambasted by an obviously evil, biased, left-wing liberal college professor for simply praising the United States in an essay.

Which begat much frothing and howling in the right-wing blogosphere, as numerous conservative wankers, dittoheads and howler monkeys chipped in about the despicable liberal evil that is academia.

Which begat an outraged press release from that college's Young Republicans who, of course, only care about the integrity and sanctity of the academic process.

Which begat some actual investigative journalism by someone at the San Jose Mercury News (scroll down to "Needed: a grain of salt") who pointed out the curious fact that "Al-Qloushi happens to be president of the Foothill College Republicans -- a fact the group's press materials neglected to mention". Oops.

Which, all by itself, is enough entertainment for one posting but is nicely completed by the capper that the essay itself is, quite simply, a piece of shit.

And thus endeth the story.

ADDENDUM: Back then, Jesus' General had his typically wicked perspective on this as well, here and here.

FRI, JAN 21 UPDATE: (Been out of town for a couple of days, no access to the 'Net. Ouch. Regular blogging to resume in a day or so.)

I wanted to think I didn't have to point out the following, but for the irony-impaired, there was one thing about Al-Qloushi's essay that jumped out at me. If we are to believe that the posted essay is actually Al-Qloushi's (and it's always possible that it's a fake, but all of the evidence seems to suggest that it's legitimate), read carefully the actual assigned essay topic (emphasis added):

3. Dye and Zeigler contend that the constitution of the United States was not “ordained and established” by “the people” as we have so often been led to believe. They contend instead that it was written by a small educated and wealthy elite in America who representative [sic] of powerful economic and political interests. Analyze the US constitution (original document), and show how its formulation excluded majority of the people living in America at that time, and how it was dominated by America’s elite interest.

As you can see if you are even moderately literate, the topic is clearly asking the student to discuss an issue related to the U.S. Constitution at the time of its writing. Now, regardless of whether or not you agree with the topic itself, the restriction to discussion of the "original document" is unmistakable.

And yet, in making his case, Al-Qloushi quotes Thomas Jefferson and (you guessed it) George W. Bush. Apparently, this George W. Bush guy is just a stunningly historical dude, whose superpowers reach across space and time to affect even the drafting of the original U.S. Constitution. Is this guy the greatest president ever or what?

But that's not even the best part, as Al-Qloushi (allegedly) writes:

The United States constitution might have excluded the majority of people at the time. But it progressed and America like every nation in the world progressed and became a greater nation the constitution is now a document held in great esteem by Americans the Founding Fathers of America are greatly enshrined in dollar bills and the American people are proud of their country and history.

In other words, after struggling mightily to disagree with the actual assigned topic, Al-Qloushi admits that it's effectively true, but changes the subject by immediately talking about how we should ignore all that because the Constitution has "progressed". And, once again, when conservatives don't like where the goalposts are, they just move them elsewhere.

Next up: the "theory" and "fact" of biological evolution.

8 comments:

CathiefromCanada said...

Great post, cc!

Jay Gatsby said...

His post suck!

Now that I'm out of neocon mode, yeah that paper does bite. I mean...it was a college esay right? I write better in my posts...

Jay Gatsby said...

except for that one error up there hehe. I meant sucks.

Anonymous said...

Jay-- really, what exactly about CCs posts sucks? that CC attempts to dissect what is reported in our useless media outlets? that he filters through fundamentalist christian BS? that he expresses opinions contrary to those of mainstream America? you seeming a neo-Nazi, one would think you would appreciate his efforts. but no, you think he sucks simply because you disagree 99% of the time.
Even though I am a liberal, I have the utmost respect for conservatives who take time to FULLY, ARTICULATELY, research and express their opinions. I absolutely take the time to consider what they suggest. while I may be an athiest, I also fully respect those who choose to practice religion--only if they do not proseletyse me and also respect my life choices as an individual protected by our bill of rights. You see, this whole left-wing right-wing thing is putting labels on ideas, making things black and white. Life is shades of gray. Life is treating others the way you wish to be treated. You dont have to believe in god to believe in that.
You want to debate with this guy, personally I think you'll lose. Debating is not belittling and harassing a fellow blogger. Please, grow up and write some researched, articulate postings and the rest of us who read CC might actually pay attention.

Jason said...

"Al-Qloushi happens to be president of the Foothill College Republicans"

So what? You've done ABSO-FRAGGIN-LUTELY NOTHING other than smear, smear, smear to "disprove" Al-Qloushi's claim against the professor in question:

-"reliable right-wing media" (used sarcastically)

-"frothing and howling in the right-wing blogosphere, as numerous conservative wankers, dittoheads and howler monkeys" (smear)

-"that college's Young Republicans who, of course, only care about the integrity and sanctity of the academic progress" (sarcasm)

-"some actual investigative journalism" (smear)

-"Al-Qloushi happens to be president of the Foothill College Republicans -- a fact the group's press materials neglected to mention" (smear)

-"the essay itself" (purported, but entirely unconfirmed, copy of the essay - doesn't stop you from using it as the real thing, though)

-"a piece of shit" (smear)

"And thus endeth the story."

Your story gets an F and qualifies you for a remedial course in brain-usage.

CC said...

From CC:

As much as I would like to ignore Mr. McHue, his latest screed is a perfect example of what you should have come to expect from my detractors, and from conservative hacks in general. Mr. McHue howls:

"So what? You've done ABSO-FRAGGIN-LUTELY NOTHING other than smear, smear, smear to "disprove" Al-Qloushi's claim against the professor in question..."

Which is amusing since, as absolutely everyone can read, I never even addressed Al-Qloushi's accusation against Professor Woolcock. I have no way of knowing if Woolcock told Al-Qloushi to get mental help, just as McHue has no way of knowing that, either. Which is why I didn't talk about it. Not surprisingly, since McHue can't refute the rest of my post, he fabricates what I wrote and attacks that.

And we all know what that's called by now, don't we?

CC said...

From CC:

(Additional amusing observation.)

I didn't even notice this the first time around, but one of the comments regarding Al-Qloushi's paper is one of the funnier things I've read in a while regarding his statement that, "The United States constitution might have excluded the majority of people at the time. But it progressed ..."

Responds one commenter:

"It’s interesting to see conservatives (who presumably back the President’s desire to see more ‘strict constructionists” in the judiciary) arguing for the progressive, changing nature of the Constitution. Do I see a self-contradiction raising its head?"

Yes. Yes, you do. Who needs Comedy Central when you have Republicans?

Jason said...

I never even addressed Al-Qloushi's accusation against Professor Woolcock.roflmbo!!! 'More bogus, right-wing, Republican "persecution", college style.' Sure looks to me like you addressed the accusation as "bogus" and mockingly refering to it as "persecution."