(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.