What was it I said the other day about how “multiple overlapping congressional investigations are hardly indicative of a growing uproar; they’re indicative that you’re in Washington, D.C., it’s a weekday, and the Earth still spinning on its axis”? Well, check out Drudge’s latest top headline: “Congressman calls for hearings over GOOGLE’s China decision…” Heh.

What the hell, let’s do two simultaneous caption contests… the more the merrier…

That would be Ted (a.k.a. Dr. Zak, a.k.a. Becky’s dad) and me at the reception. Bring it on! :)

And the winner of the previous contest is… Jazz! Honorable mention to Uncle Rick.

And now, on to contest #7, featuring Casey and Kristy at the rehearsal…

This one just cries out for a funny caption. Ideas?

In a fitting end to one of the more embarrassing attempts to fuse politics and entertainment, George Galloway has been voted off Big Brother in the U.K.

Joe Loy, guestelectionblogging.

New York Times:

…Detailed counting of results in individual constituencies, which make up half of the parliament’s 132 seats and where Hamas is predicted to do well, is not expected to be completed until Thursday, making predictions of a final outcome tentative or hazardous.

Numerous Fatah candidates are competing against each other, which could allow Hamas candidates to win in some constituencies with a minority of the votes.

[Well that’s rather Stupid, Fatah. / ~ the guestblogger < ]

But judging from the surveys of voters leaving the polls, Fatah, though battered, should be able to form a working majority in coalition with other independent or secular parties like that of Salam Fayyad, the former finance minister who is considered a likely choice for prime minister.

As exit polls of voters indicated that Fatah may have fended off the Hamas challenge, celebratory gunfire echoed through Ramallah’s streets…

Hey I gotta good idea, why don’t WE adopt the colorful custom of Celebratory Gunfire following Elections? :) I bet the idea would Fly in the Redstates anyway. / Then maybe Sporting events could be Folded In too, and So forth. : > Yes, Full-automatic Exuberance R Us. ;}

Read the whole tentative hazardous thing.

Ron Artest has officially been traded from the Indiana Pacers to the Sacramento Kings after a bizarre cat-and-mouse game among the teams, Artest and his agent. Peja Stojakovic will join the Pacers.

Perhaps I should ask Spike Lee on Friday what he thinks of the trade. He’s a big Pacers fan, right? :)

You can read the Observer’s latest articles about Vaginagate here, here and here. But nevermind that, there’s much more important “BREAKING NEWS” to report on:

Campus buzz that the popular South Bend bar the Boat Club - a notorious underage drinking haven until police raids forced it to shut down more than a year ago - is on the verge of reopening its doors was temporarily quieted Wednesday when the St. Joseph County Alcohol and Tobacco Commission voted to revoke the bar owner’s liquor license rather than allow it to be transferred, a board member said.

Nooooooo!!! You can take our academic freedom, but you can never take our Boat Club!!! :)

CNN Breaking News: “Seven people are dead and three others critical after a school bus and a truck collide near Jacksonville, Florida, an official says.”

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, President Bush pledged to leave no stone unturned in investigating what went wrong in the government’s response. In his address to the nation on September 15, 2005, the president said:

I also want to know all the facts about the government response to Hurricane Katrina. … Four years after the frightening experience of September the 11th, Americans have every right to expect a more effective response in a time of emergency. When the federal government fails to meet such an obligation, I, as President, am responsible for the problem, and for the solution. So I’ve ordered every Cabinet Secretary to participate in a comprehensive review of the government response to the hurricane. This government will learn the lessons of Hurricane Katrina. We’re going to review every action and make necessary changes, so that we are better prepared for any challenge of nature, or act of evil men, that could threaten our people.

The United States Congress also has an important oversight function to perform. Congress is preparing an investigation, and I will work with members of both parties to make sure this effort is thorough.

Alas, in keeping with a pattern of Bush Administration behavior that should be familiar by now, it is beginning to sound like this was, to be blunt, a lie. And “members of both parties” are rightfully upset. The AP reports:

The White House is crippling a Senate inquiry into the government’s sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina by barring administration officials from answering questions and failing to hand over documents, senators leading the investigation said Tuesday.

In some cases, staff at the White House and other federal agencies have refused to be interviewed by congressional investigators, said the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. In addition, agency officials won’t answer seemingly innocuous questions about times and dates of meetings and telephone calls with the White House, the senators said.

A White House spokesman said the administration is committed to working with separate Senate and House investigations of the Katrina response but wants to protect the confidentiality of presidential advisers.

“No one believes that the government responded adequately,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. “And we can’t put that story together if people feel they’re under a gag order from the White House.”

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the committee’s Republican chair, said she respects the White House’s reluctance to reveal advice to President Bush from his top aides, which is generally covered by executive privilege.

Still, she criticized the dearth of information from agency officials about their contacts with the White House.

“We are entitled to know if someone from the Department of Homeland Security calls someone at the White House during this whole crisis period,” Collins said. “So I think the White House has gone too far in restricting basic information about who called whom on what day.”

She added, “It is completely inappropriate” for the White House to bar agency officials from talking to the Senate committee.

There’s executive privilege, and then there’s obstructionism for obstructionism’s sake. This clearly appears to cross the line into the latter category.

A White House spokesman says the administration has “cooperated” because “the administration’s deputy homeland security adviser, Ken Rapuano, has briefed House and Senate lawmakers on the federal response” and another homeland security adviser will present the senate with “a ‘lessons learned’ report” in several weeks. Riiiight… by that logic, if the police want to investigate me for murder, I can “cooperate” with their investigation by “briefing” them on the fact that I was not involved and submitting a “evidence report” listing all relevant items they might have found in my house, all the while refusing to be interviewed or searched.

The shameless, arrogant bullsh*t seems to know no bounds with this administration. (Hat tip: A Nun Mouse.)

Guestblogger: Josh Rubin

Maryland may be the next state to legalize gay marriage. On Friday (yeah, I know I’ve taken my sweet time getting this posted), a state circuit court judge ruled that the law banning gay marriage is “discriminatory” and “cannot withstand a constitutional challenge.” The judge stayed her decision, and the Attorney General for the state has said that the decision will be appealed.

And the state’s governor, Bob Ehrlich (R) has sworn he would veto any bill passed by the legislature allowing gay marriage and that he opposes any attempt at amending the state constitution to allow gay marriage. There is already a push, given this court ruling, to put a pro-gay marriage amendment on the ballot this November. But the way Maryland’s amendment system works, 3/5 of each house of the General Assembly would have to approve the amendment before it can be put on the ballot this fall.

Last year, a poll showed that Maryland residents opposed civil unions, 48-42. I couldn’t find anything more recent, but if this makes it onto the ballot, we’ll definitely have a few polls to look at.

In his address to the faculty announcing Notre Dame’s new policy on the Vagina Monologues (previous posts here, here, here and here), university president Father John Jenkins said:

The V-Day efforts each year — the day on which the Vagina Monologues is performed on campus — is a movement for the elimination of violence against women. There are many laudable goals associated with the performance of this work. Among them are that women have a positive, accepting attitude of their own bodies, that they see their sexuality as a gift that is to be cherished, that they take pride in their identity as women, and that they form communities which will support such attitudes. The most urgent and laudable goal of all is the elimination of violence against women, which I personally and this university as a whole unequivocally support.

He later added, “I pledge myself to work to advance such goals at Notre Dame.”

In the same speech, however, Fr. Jenkins announced his decision regarding this year’s performance of the Monologues:

It will be performed in a classroom setting. There will not be fund raising activities, as occurred in previous years, through the selling of tickets and an auction.

Thus, in spite of his stated agreement with V-Day organizers’ commitment to combating violence against women, Father Jenkins has made it impossible for them to pursue that goal through this year’s Monologues. Fundraising for this worthy cause, the one thing about the Monologues that we can all agree on, has been cut out of the equation.

The university may have legitimate reasons for structuring the Monologues in this way, but fundraising for the battle against violence is, at the very least, collateral damage of Jenkins’s decision. As newly re-constituted, the VMs will do nothing (at least financially) to aid women who have been victimized by violence. The Monologues may remain an interesting and worthwhile “academic” exercise, but they have been stripped — by Jenkins’s decision — of their “most urgent and laudable goal.”

So I think Father Jenkins needs to put his money where his mouth is. Last year, according to campus V-Day organizer Kaitlyn Redfield, the Vagina Monologues raised about $15,000 for the cause. That’s pocket change to a university with an endowment of over $3 billion. So I challenge Notre Dame to affirm its commitment to the goal of combating violence against women by making a special donation of at least $15,000 to an anti-violence organization, in order to make up for the lost revenue that is directly attributable to its last-minute change of policy with regard to the Monologues.

The university’s money need not go to the exact same organizations that the V-Day proceeds would have gone to. I don’t know for certain, but I can easily imagine that some issues might arise there because of ideological and moral disagreements with certain groups. But the point isn’t that a particular organization not be deprived of funds, it’s that the cause not be deprived of funds. There are plenty of Catholic and “Catholic-approved” organizations out there that are fighting the good fight, and they could certainly use the money. Monologues opponent Becky Austen, a 3L who agrees with me about this donation issue, was kind enough to suggest several possibilities:

The FaithTrust Institute
The Family Violence Prevention Fund
Fortress International or the Life Against Assault League (addresses here)

The university could also donate the funds to Catholic Relief Services or Catholic Charities USA with the stipulation that they be used specifically for efforts related to combatting violence against women.

Regardless of where the university chooses to donate the money, this is clearly something Notre Dame ought to do, especially in light of the last-minuteness of its decision with regard to the Monologues. Some might say, “well, the students should have a different, more Catholic-appropriate fundraiser.” But the VMs have been allowed at Notre Dame, fundraising and all, for four consecutive years, and the organizers had every reason to believe they would be allowed again this year — until Monday. With less than a month until the performance, it is unreasonable to expect the people who are deeply involved in this project to suddenly shift gears and pour their heart and soul into a different fundraiser. The university’s decision simply occurred too late in the game to make such demands reasonable. The onus here is on Notre Dame, not the V-Day organizers.

That said, “find some other way to raise the money” is certainly a valid suggestion for future years. This need not be done instead of the Monologues, whose permanent fate is still undecided. But if the VMs are going to be kept indefinitely in a “classroom setting” with no fund-raising aspect, or perhaps even shut down altogether, the university should encourage student groups to raise money for this important cause in other ways, ways that everyone can agree with. This brings me to my second suggestion for Father Jenkins and the administration: I challenge Notre Dame to match all funds that are raised by student organizations for the anti-violence cause through university-approved events. If the university wishes, it can limit this commitment to the “V-Day” time period, or to certain types of events — there is plenty of room for discussion about what is a reasonable commitment. But the point is that fundraising for the cause should be vigorously encouraged, even if the university feels the Monologues cannot be, and an offer of matching funds would be a great way to encourage it.

If the university takes the two steps that I am suggesting, it will not end the debate over the Vagina Monologues. Donating money to the anti-violence cause, and encouraging universally acceptable fundraisers by promising to match the funds that they raise, will not make the university’s decision to censor or marginalize the VMs any more acceptable to those who believe that such an action is an unwarranted violation of academic freedom, nor should it. The two issues are fundamentally distinct and separate. Regardless of what the university does about the fundraising issue, we can still have a vigorous debate about the academic-freedom issue, and we will.

But the fundraising issue is the one we can all agree on, and that’s why I’m challenging the university to demonstrate its commitment to that “most urgent and laudable goal” with more than just words. Father Jenkins said, “I pledge myself to work to advance such goals at Notre Dame.” Well, I think I’ve suggested two reasonable ways to start fulfilling that pledge.

I recognize that, if the university takes these steps, it may actually erode public support for the position I personally hold, which is that the Monologues and events like them should not be censored. As a commenter on an earlier post pointed out:

There are only a few people on campus who fervently believe in the importance of promoting an alternative sexuality and other core values of TVM performance. Many more moderate people are not opposed to TVM, but give our support because of its efficacy as a fund raiser for domestic violence. I think removing the fund raising aspect was a more shrewd way for the administration to ultimately dispose of TVM.

That may be true, and if that’s the university’s strategy, I deplore it. I sincerely hope Our Lady’s University wouldn’t engage in such an underhanded, Karl Rove-like tactic.

But ultimately, I believe that the cause of combating violence against women is more important than one campus’s argument over whether to allow the Monologues — which isn’t to say that the latter isn’t important, just that former is very important. Thus, given the realities of this particular university, I would rather see these steps taken instead of holding out hope (probably in vain) that Notre Dame will acquiesce to return the Monologues to their previous status. If that happens, great, but in the mean time, we should continue fighting the good fight to combat violence against women. And Notre Dame, if it truly believes what it professes to believe, should help.

Students and faculty can submit their opinions about Father Jenkins’s Vagina Monologues decision here.

In his speech to the faculty, Jenkins said:

I will not make a decision on this matter until members of this community have had the time to express their views, and I have had the time to consider them. I will not respond to all letters, emails, and essays, but, as I said, I will read and give thoughtful consideration to each person’s contribution.

He also clarified the role of others’ opinions in his decision-making process:

As I begin my presidency, I am aware that, as I make particular decisions and undertake initiatives, I am establishing patterns and expectations for how I will lead in this position. Consequently, it is important not only what decisions I make, but how I make them. On matters of significance, I will always strive to make decisions, consonant with my authority, according to my most informed and considered judgment about what is best for this university and its mission. I will not lead by consensus, nor by majority vote, nor in response to the pressures that individuals or groups inside or outside the university may bring to bear. However, prior to making a decision on an important matter, I will, as appropriate and practicable, strive to solicit and listen to the views of relevant individuals and groups. Central to the obligations of my office are the twin responsibilities of listening to the views of members of this community prior to a decision, and then making that decision.

Regardless of my opinion about his ultimate decision, I definitely admire the way Father Jenkins is going about this whole process, particularly his willingness to hold question-and-answer sessions in front of potentially hostile student and faculty audiences. He doesn’t have to do that — he could simply issue a proclamation from on high and be done with it. But this is far better. History professor Gail Bederman (who, in some alternate-universe reality, is Becky’s Ph.D. mentor right now, but I digress), expressed this view well in the Observer:

“It was an extremely positive thing to do, and certainly not an easy thing to do, getting in front of the faculty who [Jenkins] knows have very strong opinions on these issues, just laying them out for folks to engage with,” she said.

Though Bederman said she disagreed with Jenkins’ stance on “The Vagina Monologues” and similar events - saying that to exclude them from the University would “shut down a lot of hard intellectual work” - she fully embraced his open approach to decision-making.

“‘Authority versus Academics,’ this is a huge issue that has been dealt with for quite awhile,” she said. “[Jenkins] has to make the hard decisions, and for him to stand up and say, ‘I’m happy to talk, we can have a forum’ … I just hope the faculty and students realize what a model this is at what should happen at a university.”

Indeed.

P.S. I’m going to submit some feedback in keeping with my “challenge” above. I encourage others to do the same.

Kaitlyn Redfield, V-Day organizer at Notre Dame, sent me this e-mail late Tuesday night:

Concerned by Father Jenkins’ narrow construction of academic freedom?

UNITED for FREE SPEECH begins TOMORROW, Wednesday at 9PM in the WELSH FAMILY HALL SOCIAL SPACE.

Whether or not you agree with the values present in “The Vagina Monologues” or in the Queer Film Festival, the fact that student expression may be curtailed is a concern for ALL of us. The beginning of censorship - however it is framed - is cause for alarm.

Father Jenkins invited us to conversation on the issue of academic freedom. We have a responsibility to vigorously respond to his invitation.

Tomorrow at 9pm we will meet in the Welsh Family Social Space to begin coordination of a student response. Bring your friends and your laptops.

Seize this opportunity to assert your commitment to the belief that all voices and stories - no matter how diverse or different - should be heard and welcomed in this family.

I’m sure the use of the term “censorship” will cause some controversy, especially in light of Father Jenkins’s assertion that he is concerned about “sponsorship, not censorship.” (The phrase “however it is framed” in Kaitlyn’s e-mail is obviously a response to this, and perhaps a tacit acknowledgement of my dad’s argument.) However, looking at this definition of the noun “censor” — “a person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable” — it seems to me that the phrase “the beginning of censorship” is quite accurate. It’s not government censorship (the most pernicious kind), but if Notre Dame is going to start stamping certain types of political, literary and artistic events as immoral and thus unsuitable for the university (and somehow distinguishing, inevitably, between major and minor violations of Catholic morality), then yes, that is a form of institutional censorship.

(I can say “Brits,” right? / Can I say, “& some Argies”? / Oh. No. OK :) Joe Loy, guestreminiscing: where is Dame Maggie Thatcher now that we Need her steely & veddyplummy tory Resolve? :>

From IrelandOn-line :) ~

A British warship anchored in Argentina for the first time since the two countries went to war over the Falkland Islands 23 years ago, meeting a chilly reception in its homage to those who died in the conflict.

The captain of the icebreaker HMS Endurance, Nick Lambert, and interim Tierra del Fuego Governor Carlos Saladino presided over today’s memorial ceremony in Ushuaia, 2,150 miles south of the capital, Buenos Aires.

Captain Lambert called the visit “historic” and said he hoped it would mark the start of “a very good relationship between Argentines and Britons”, according to Argentine news media.

But some residents, still bitter over the war, raised a poster reading: “Killer pirates: English out of here!”

Arrrr, by Jove! Soverrreignty, sirrr! Arrr. / Whole thing.

Now that the latest big foreigncountry Elections, in Canada where the Tories won and in Middletown CT where they Didn’t :) are out of the way, All Eyes turn to the West Bank & the Gaza, where the Big Question is whether the terrorist radical revolutionaries of RIRA / nowait, Checkthat / of Hamas, that is, will oust the respected democratic moderates of Sinn Fein / nono of FATAH, we mean, that’s it, Fatah, yeahyeah, whether The Irgun will beat The Haganah. / (No, wait, is That right? … ) Joe Loy, guestconflating. :|

(Read the Whole small ABC Thing; & the somewhat Wholer whole BBC Thing , for which: God Bless England. :)