The 18th-century Quaker activist (and early abolitionist) John Woolman is quoted as having said this (below the fold) as he lay dying:

What bothers me most about David Horowitz's jihad against American educational institutions is that it deflects from the very real need for reform within academic faculties.  One of the problems facing our colleges and universities is a lack of intellectual diversity amongst the teachers, as Peter Schuck points out, but the solution is not the "Horowitzian" one of mandating political diversity through political control of educational institutions.

Behind David Horowitz's continuing attack on American higher education lies a deliberate misreading of both the purposes and methods of learning.  In his latest salvo, a book called The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America published by the far-right Regnery, Horowitz lists 100 college teachers whose views, he claims, are subverting our youth.  (Follow the links in this earlier diary of mine for more about the book itself).

No, this isn't a new question--and it certainly isn't an unreasonable one to ask: even the timid White House press corps is willing to put it forward.  As a result, the Bush administration has been "answering" it over and over again, ever since the story broke late last year.  Its answers, though they do seem to satisfy a great number of Americans, always fall flat on close examination.  They are not providing the "real" reasons.

So what is the real reason?

David Horowitz ends a recent op-ed piece in The Los Angeles Times with these words:

I believe that the majority of university professors in this country are people of goodwill, and the campaign I have launched is designed to encourage them to take a stand in defense of educational values and academic freedom in the classroom.

Oh, really?

Shakespeare's Sister, Inc. is looking for non-fiction books to publish through the print-on-demand service lulu.com.

Check below the fold for details.

Sylvia Plath, you are one of my favorite poets, though 40 years dead.  So forgive what I have done to your poem "Daddy."

See it, below the fold:

Happy birthday, Phil Ochs!  I only wish you could be here to share it with us... you would be 65 today.

I've been a fan of yours for almost exactly 40 years, still remembering quite clearly the first sound of your voice that I experienced.  Through the eighties and nineties, in the early years after you left us, many saw your music as assocated irrevokably with one time, the sixites, and having no modern relevance.

They were wrong--even then.

Today, however, your lyrics are dead on.  America has regressed--a depressing reality.

You, though, were always able to lift us from depression (even if you could not, ultimately, do that for yourself).  Your optimism and idealism raised us once; I hope it will be able to do so again.

This is the next-to-last of my cycle of diaries on a variety of left-wing blogs on your songs.  If, on some celestial computer, you want to read the earlier ones, click here.

The song I want to talk about now is "What's That I Hear?":

On Monday, December 19th, Phil Ochs, the great topical songwriter of the sixties, would be 65 years old had he lived.

Ochs was certainly a voice of his own age, but he speaks surprisingly well to the situations we find ourselves in today--and is worth listening to, as we struggle to find the idealism that was such a cornerstone of his life and work.

For the next few days, I'll be (and have been) creating a round robin of diary posts on different blogs, linking them in hopes that I can lead as many people as possible to his music through my discussions of his lyrics.

In this one, I present, more than discuss, his song "The Marines Have Landed on the Shores of Santo Domingo."

You're probably getting sick of my carols... but I just can't help it.

Ever since O'Reilly, one of the least Christ-influenced people I've seen on TV, declared war on Christmas (I got that right, didn't I?  Certainly, he seems against Jesus and all he stood for), I've been obsessed with Christmas carols.

OK, maybe I get them a little wrong, too...

My contribution to the War on Christmas:

Are we ruled by children?  It seems that way.  (Bear with me: I am trying to control my anger, here--the killing of Stanley "Tookie" Williams last night is an absolute outrage, but there's no way to bring him back).

Think about this:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger refused to grant him clemency, citing Williams' lack of remorse.

Is that the rationale of an adult looking carefully at a situation?

No, it's the response of a child.  It reminds me of George Bush, who purportedly made jokes about Karla Faye Tucker--executed in Texas under his watch.

Yeah, yeah: you've heard enough about it.

But this is really diabolic.

Not the attacks on Christmas--nothing devilish about them, for they don't really exist.

What's really diabolic is the design behind the outcry against attacks on Christmas.

Defending Christmas?  No, that's not what it's about.  What we have here is another attack on diversity.

This morning on MSNBC, in discussing the impending execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, Don Imus said he was all in favor of it, for it "sends a message."

He continued, explaining that message:

If we even think you did something, you're gonna get it, so don't screw around.

Say what?