Intelligent Design, My ASS!

HARRISBURG, PA -- The Supreme Court stated in Edwards v. Aguillar, that "[f]amilies entrust public schools with the education of their children, but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family."

Unfortunately, we live in a time when social conservatives and right-wing "christians" are becoming increasingly aggressive in their efforts to attempt to force their superstitions upon members of society who choose to have more rational beliefs.

As part of this aggressive promotion of religion, a majority of the Dover Area School District has chosen to use the code words "intelligent design" in order to promote the creationism superstition in the public schools under their control.

Under Lemon v. Kurtzman, in order to avoid a First Amendment violation, the school board must have acted with a secular purpose, in a way that does not promote (nor inhibit) religion, and the act must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion. State action violates the establishment clause if it fails to satisfy any one of these factors.

Accordingly, despite what many anti-constitutionalists (yes, fuck you Elizabeth Dole) would like us to believe, the First Amendment both protects our freedom of religion AND our freedom *from* religion. For the right to choose to *not* believe is certainly as important and as fundamental as the right to choose *what* to believe.

With this as a legal backdrop, the Dover board has some problems in this case. The first problem I see is testimony that clearly demonstrates that the majority's motivation was to promote the christian superstition of creationism. Although there has been some attempt to characterize this as promoting intelligent design as a means of offering an alternative theory to Darwinism, I can't see a shred of honesty in this characterization.

The board members' comments, if they are true, clearly show that they wanted to not only promote the existence of a deity, but to promote the christian version of this deity.

If they truly wanted to offer alternatives to scientific theories, then why has the board only chosen to offer an alternative to Darwinism? If the school board had decided to simultaneously offer alchemy as part of their chemistry curriculum; phrenology as part of their biology curriculum; magic as an alternative to physics; and astrology as an alternative to astronomy, then their motives would at least seem more pure (but still suspect).

So, the first prong appears to be a slam-dunk by the plaintiffs -- there is no way that this school board acted with a secular purpose, and their reported comments make this abundantly clear.

The second prong, promotion of religion, is not as much of a slam dunk, but I think that the plaintiffs have won the point here too. Intelligent Design is nothing more than code for "creationism." Yes, there have been some nut-jobs who have said that the creator might have been aliens (or goblins, I guess), but ultimately, the purpose and effect is to indoctrinate children into the belief that "someone" or "something" created the universe. You don't need to be an atheist to find this repugnant. For example, Buddhism has no creationism myth. If a family is trying to raise their child as a Buddhist, and that child is indoctrinated to believe in an intelligent creator, then the school is forcing a superstition onto that child that tells them that their religion cannot be correct.

Now, the counterargument is that if you are trying to raise your child as a christian, that Darwinism is at odds with fundamental literal reading of the bible. Well, science is not a religion... and promotion of science that may call religion into question is not something that runs afoul of the First Amendment. Under the constitution, science is allowed to challenge your religious beliefs, but not vice versa. Promotion of ID, a religious superstition with absolutely zero scientific backing certainly has the effect of promoting one religion over others as well as over non-religion.

As far as the "excessive entanglement" prong goes, this is the weakest side for the plaintiffs. The Board isn't having priests teach ID, and isn't requiring religious attendance. And, from what I have seen, they have not added the bible to the reading curriculum in this district. I see the "excessive entanglement" prong as the highest hurdle, and I am not certain that I have seen or heard any evidence thus far that clears this hurdle.

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs seem to have a 2-1 lead, at the very least. More like a 2-0-1. If the ACLU loses this case, then either the lawyer threw the case on purpose, or the judge learned his ethics from Antonin Scalia.

Derek Jeter - Where da white women at?

EAST 183rd ST, BRONX - I am really disturbed to say this, but I actually am taking Derek Jeter's (swallows) side in something. Don't get me wrong, he's a total douchebag, but this shit is just plain wrong.

Apparently some asshole sent Jeter (swallows) a threat letter calling him a "traitor to his race" for dating white women. The letter matches characteristics of similar letters sent to famous black guys who cross the racial divide to collect their pussy.

These letters are sent from somewhere in northeastern Ohio and Pennsylvania, criticize interracial relationships. Jeter's (swallows) letter demanded that he stop dating white women or he will be "castrated, shot or set on fire."

Jeter (swallows) probably wouldn't be at the top of my list of Yankess to treat in such a way, but I am all for castrating, shooting, and setting any member of the Yankees on fire. I'd really like to see Gay-Rod or Giambi on fire... but I digress.

First off... Jeter (swallows) mother is white. So, who the fuck is he supposed to bang? And, I really don't get why so many black guys get a few bucks and the first thing they buy with it is a gold-digging white woman. But, hey, I'd rather see them throw their money away on a white woman than on an Escalade. Well, I guess one gets the other in those circles.

Anyhow, Jeter (swallows), I'm (I am ready to puke as I say this) on your side. Hell, Jeter (swallows) and any other black guy with a few bucks is welcome to my share of the white women out there. There are enough hot Asian women out there for me to be satisfied for a long time, and if any of these idiot black celebrities ever saw Somali, Rwandese, or Eritrean chicks, they'd never want white pussy again. Well, I mean the chicks from those places that get to live in a civilized country for most of their lives -- something about all the dust and flies makes them age badly in their native habitat.

I'm sickened. Someone actually made me sympathize with Derek Jeter (swallows).

Zombie Porn?

Yes, this email is real....

From: REDACTED
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 4:46 PM
To: REDACTED
Subject: wanting to film a movie but not sure if it would be obscene or not

Sir,

I want to film a movie that involves women and zombies, but no sexual content between either or. Simply put, the women enter a room, the zombies rip their clothes off (to get to their flesh) and then the zombies eat the women (eating the women without any sexual acts tied to the eating part). I live in Montana. I've been trying to search for any laws against obscene material, but I can't find any. I did find something about a federal obscene law. However, I find the woman body for pleasurable and I also have a fetish for clothing getting ripped off. Unfortunately, the ripping of clothing seems to close to simulated rape, which I don't find arousing at all. Ex... A woman runs through the woods, running through branches rips her clothing off. A woman runs from zombies, their hands slightly tearing off each article of clothing. As soon as the girls have their clothes torn off, the zombies begin tearing their skin and limbs off too. I've also seen in other movies... i.e. Halfway House, Re-animator, Friday the 13th women are naked then getting killed. The only thing that bothers me about my own film is the actual attempt at ripping the girls clothes off, which seems close to simulated rape. I'm not trying to film any depictions of rape in this movie.

Thank you for your time in reading this and I hope you can get back to me,

REDACTED

Hey Alberto Gonzalez, stick it up your ass!

MODESTO, CA - Okay, maybe it isn't fair to blame Alberto Gonzalez. He's just Bush's butt-boy, and butt-boys do what they are told. I wonder if you fucking retards that voted for Bush are embarassed NOW! Fucking dipshits. I mean, I really think that terrorism is NOT something to be worried about. Although I am sure that many of you idiots out there are terrified that some turban-wearing psychopath actually cares if you live or die... but that is an argument for another day. What I am certain that we can all agree upon (well, if "all" encompasses everyone with two brain cells to rub together) is that there are certainly better uses of the Justice Department's resources than creating an "Obscenity Task Force."

Yes, your government is putting together a crack team of agents to make sure that your neighbors are not watching dirty movies in the privacy of their own homes. I would like to encourage everyone who reads this think of someone who voted Republican in a swing state in 2004 and smear dog-shit on their car-door handles. Yeah, you stupid cunt... I mean you.

But...In all fairness... lets remember that Joe Lieberman and Tipper Gore are Democrats...

Another good one - Fuck Hummers!

E.G. Note -- ok, so most of my blog has been lifted from other people's stuff lately. Whatever. There has been some good shit out there lately. Maybe the country is waking up to the fact that it elected a fucking fucktard AGAIN! Dissent is cool again. This little piece is pretty cool... and I guess I am not completely unable to see the irony in a guy who drives a Porsche shitting on people who drive Hummers... I had a lot more moral authority when I drove a Ford Focus. Of course, I still blast by H2s at 90 mph and 26 mpg.


HOW WE DEFINE OURSELVES
The Hummer or the Communist?

By Avery Walker | RAW STORY COLUMNIST

We’ve all, by now, noticed a Lincoln Navigator or Hummer adorned with about twenty American flags. That kind of irony has a tendency to jump out at you. But the other day, I noticed a 9 mpg monstrosity that took it to a new level: “Freedom isn’t Free” glared at me from the mammoth protrusion that would, on a standard size 1-ton truck, be known as a bumper.

Could you imagine an American during World War II driving a Hummer? Could you imagine, in 1944, any state in the Union electing a Governor who not only drove such an affront to the war effort, but was himself responsible for its commercial distribution? Of course not. I know it sounds trite, but during World War II, Americans all pitched in. They used rations, they participated in dim-outs, they planted victory gardens, they walked. Yes, they even resorted to public transportation. During that war, people seem to have had some concept of personal responsibility, of the fact that they would need to sacrifice if America were to survive. In order to preserve their freedom, they would have to give up some of their luxuries. Today, we think of luxuries as freedom.

The word freedom has two definitions. Don’t worry; I’m not going to quote Webster’s. I’ll make up my own (or just paraphrase). One (the “American” definition) is a right and responsibility to control your own actions without external restriction. This is the form of freedom granted by the United States constitution. The other is an exemption from an obligation, duty or rule (or the “Fuck you, I’m free,” definition). At some point between 1945 and the energy crisis of the late ‘70s, Americans ceased to define freedom the way the Bill of Rights did, and began to define it the way car commercials did — “Screw you, I can do whatever I want, and if I want to fund terrorism, take up two lanes, pollute, and make everyone wait two hours while I fill up in the morning, too bad, Pal! I’m free!” Freedom began to mean “fuck you.”

Something happened between the end of World War II in 1945 and the energy crisis in 1978 (during which a revolution would have broken out if Americans were asked to unplug their toaster ovens) that changed America’s idea of what freedom really means. But what was it? Baby boomers? Cars? Those awful Elvis Presley musicals? It’s always popular to blame Nixon… I, myself, tend to believe that it was the Cold War that most horribly warped America’s idea of what freedom means. We are still so hung up about Communism that we think it’s unpatriotic to even imply that one should stop consuming—even if it could cripple our enemies.

The Cold War was never made to be about Communism vs. Democracy (or at least by Reagan’s day it wasn’t). It was about Communism vs. Capitalism. Had we made it about Communism vs. Democracy, perhaps people would have learned to value their civil liberties more than the blue light special or a free Pontiac from the Oprah show. But we didn’t. So today we celebrate that the former Soviet Union is “Taking the lead in space advertising” without giving a second thought to their “on again, off again” relationship with Democracy. “Who cares if they can vote? Even the cosmonauts get to see Ford’s new rollout!”

Communism was presented to Americans very, very simplistically: Government ownership of business, and social engineering. The true evil of Communism — totalitarianism — was completely overlooked, perhaps because it so closely resembled fascism. The only freedom that was valued in the propaganda war against Communism was the freedom to consume. After all, it’s called the land of opportunity, not the land of political representation!

With this mindset, one gets the idea that an afternoon at Neiman Marcus is the best line of defense when it comes to our freedom. Truly, has there ever been a lower moment in the any Presidency than when, just days after the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush was asked what Americans could do to help? His answer: Shop til you drop! And don’t forget to “Get down to Disney World in Florida.” Even to the President, freedom cannot be won; it can only be bought. Either that, or he was just afraid that if he asked something from voters for this war, they wouldn’t be so passive when it came time to hit Iraq, and he figured he could plug his brother’s swing state while he was at it. But that would be unthinkably crass and horrific, so we’ll just pretend it was only stupid.

While the Cold War in general kept America unendingly to have all 31 flavors at their disposal, this still does not explain how it instilled in our collective psyche disdain for all what is most great about Democracy: the freedom to disagree with authority. To truly warp the American mind in the way that it has over the last sixty five years, we had to convince ourselves that exercising the most American of liberties was actually un-American. This idea that dissent is unpatriotic (if we define America by the civil liberties granted in the Constitution,) is the most un-American thought that one could harbor. We had to be frightened into thinking that, and there’s a reason that the Cold War’s nasty little brother was called the “Red Scare.”

One needs look no farther into the origins of this thought (or rather, cease-and-desist order on free thought) than the McCarthy era. The Red Scare taught us that anyone who ever favored a social program, questioned war, or thought that our government might have been wrong about anything could very well be a Communist. In short, it scared Americans into valuing the real evil of Communism—totalitarianism, while rejecting the very philosophy that defined America.

Many in this country still somehow buy into the fact that if you disagree with the United States government, one can (and should) be labeled a Communist. Just read through the comments on a week’s worth of Raw Story columns; you’ll see that there are people out there who, passé as the term may now be, label anyone who’s ever questioned this President a yoga-doin’ “Commie.” And these are people with a skill level at least great enough to muster use of a computer.

After 9/11, the Bush Administration sent out two messages loud and clear: 1) Don’t question us, or you’re a terrorist; and 2) Spend, spend, spend! These would have gotten a President impeached (or worse) in 1945. Thanks to the pioneering work of Joe McCarthy, however, these ludicrous and self-defeating war cries seemed down right patriotic. And patriotism is, remember, “The last refuge of scoundrels.”

The Cold War, of course, was not the only thing to drastically change our idea of what America was over the last half of the 20th century. There are other things to consider, too. I just don’t think that any are so significant in and of themselves to be considered the biggest reason we decided to give our country the finger while simultaneously putting our flag “under God.”

The rise of the car culture seems like an obvious answer, if we’re using the Hummer as our only example. After all, a Hummer doesn’t just say “Fuck you”. It also says, “Conspicuous consumption,” “My car could beat up your car,” “Don’t I look cool?” and “This may be a deathtrap, but I feel safer.”

Today, any mention of a switch to hybrid automobiles is met with contempt by the elected officials most actively portraying themselves as the ones who’ll keep you safe. If just one in six cars on the road were hybrids, we wouldn’t even need Middle East oil, anymore, but that doesn’t seem to matter to our President as much as getting everyone to agree that invading Iraq made us all safer.

Why should they make us feel bad by telling us that our gas-guzzlers are funding terror when it was so much easier for the government to lie about pre-demonized “Bad guys”—drug dealers (no connection to al Qaeda) and Saddam Hussein (also no connection)?

General laziness, and idyll in the glow of much bread and circuses, also deserve a lot of the blame. People don’t care, because it doesn’t affect their daily life. Why should they help the war in terror? It’s not like they’re targets, right? It explains the Hummers, but not the bumper stickers.

Fuel thirst is also only one sign of America’s unwillingness to help in the war effort. After racking up trillions in debt, we’ve actually cut taxes in a time of war. Do we really believe that this “tax cut” means we’ll never have to pay this debt off? Of course, this is just our “war President’s” way of exploiting America’s thirst for instant gratification. He can “cut” taxes and generate an enormous amount of debt that someone else will eventually have the unpopular duty of paying off. It’s rather like giving someone a credit card, in their name, and calling it a gift card with no limit. We’ll be sorry when the bill comes, but the bearer will be long gone.

The Baby Boom generation is also a popular target for those who feel America’s trip in the hand basket is just about over. But one can’t say, with certainty, that they were not simply a product of their times. In fact, it looks to me like they were a lot more active at one point, even if it was for selfish reasons (nothing really hit the fan, we young-ins are told, until the college deferments were lifted).

The younger generation gets much of the blame, as well, but their problem seems to be one of apathy. Also, they can’t afford a Hummer yet, so we really can’t tell.
In the mean time, we have plenty of other evidence that their parents were totally blown over by Communist paranoia. Even if we ignore the war (as most of us have), there is still plenty of other evidence that most older Americans value only the freedom to Supersize.

Otherwise good human beings have consistently supported morally reprehensible and fiscally unsound policies that Gore Vidal best summed up as, “Socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.” Since most Communist governments were the result of an uprising of the poor, it was determined by many that any government aid to the poor was Communist in nature. “Universal Healthcare? Betty, go get me one of them bumper stickers where Clinton is spelled with a Commie sickle!”

This country actively moves wealth from the poor to the rich through taxation. Ask not what your country can buy for you, but what you can buy for your country! And yet the poor somehow support this. It is Communist, you see, for the government to take from the rich and give to the poor (even in instances when that keeps the economy moving), but it is somehow Capitalist for the government to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.

Why? Because unlike a Communist country, in America, we naively believe that anyone who works hard can one day be filthy stinking rich. And then you can also profit from the pain and suffering of the poor!

Only through a long-lasting and at this point completely irrational fear of Communism could this possibly have been achieved. It’s a form of philosophical hypocrisy I like to call Communophobia! Most just call it stupidity.

David Mamet - one Left-Wing Guy who Gets IT!

Poker party

• In politics as in poker, the only way to win is to seize the initiative. The Democrats need to make bold wagers or risk being rolled over again.

By David Mamet

ONE NEEDS TO know but three words to play poker: call, raise or fold.

Fold means keep the money, I'm out of the hand; call means to match your opponents' bet. That leaves raise, which is the only way to win at poker. The raiser puts his opponent on the defensive, seizing the initiative. Initiative is only important if one wants to win.


The military axiom is "he who imposes the terms of the battle imposes the terms of the peace." The gambling equivalent is: "Don't call unless you could raise"; that is, to merely match one's opponent's bet is effective only if it makes the opponent question the caller's motives. And that can only occur if the caller has acted aggressively enough in the past to cause his opponents to wonder if the mere call is a ruse de guerre.

If you are branded as passive, the table will roll right over you — your opponents will steal antes without fear. Why? Because the addicted caller has never exhibited what, in the wider world, is known as courage.

In poker, one must have courage: the courage to bet, to back one's convictions, one's intuitions, one's understanding. There can be no victory without courage. The successful player must be willing to wager on likelihoods. Should he wait for absolutely risk-free certainty, he will win nothing, regardless of the cards he is dealt.

For example, take a player who has never acted with initiative — he has never raised, merely called. Now, at the end of the evening, he is dealt a royal flush. The hand, per se, is unbeatable, but the passive player has never acted aggressively; his current bet (on the sure thing) will signal to the other players that his hand is unbeatable, and they will fold.

His patient, passive quest for certainty has won nothing.

The Democrats, similarly, in their quest for a strategy that would alienate no voters, have given away the store, and they have given away the country.

Committed Democrats watched while Al Gore frittered away the sure-thing election of 2000. They watched, passively, while the Bush administration concocted a phony war; they, in the main, voted for the war knowing it was purposeless, out of fear of being thought weak. They then ran a candidate who refused to stand up to accusations of lack of patriotism.

The Republicans, like the perpetual raiser at the poker table, became increasingly bold as the Democrats signaled their absolute reluctance to seize the initiative.

John Kerry lost the 2004 election combating an indictment of his Vietnam War record. A decorated war hero muddled himself in merely "calling" the attacks of a man with, curiously, a vanishing record of military attendance. Even if the Democrats and Kerry had prevailed (that is, succeeded in nullifying the Republicans arguably absurd accusations), they would have been back only where they started before the accusations began.

Control of the initiative is control of the battle. In the alley, at the poker table or in politics. One must raise. The American public chose Bush over Kerry in 2004. How, the undecided electorate rightly wondered, could one believe that Kerry would stand up for America when he could not stand up to Bush? A possible response to the Swift boat veterans would have been: "I served. He didn't. I didn't bring up the subject, but, if all George Bush has to show for his time in the Guard is a scrap of paper with some doodling on it, I say the man was a deserter."

This would have been a raise. Here the initiative has been seized, and the opponent must now fume and bluster and scream unfair. In combat, in politics, in poker, there is no certainty; there is only likelihood, and the likelihood is that aggression will prevail.

The press, quiescent during five years of aggressive behavior by the White House, has, perhaps, begun to recover its pride. In speaking of Karl Rove, Scott McClellan and the White House's Valerie Plame disgrace, they have begun to use words such as "other than true," "fabricated." The word that they circle, still, is "lie." The word the Democratic constituency, heartsick over the behavior of its party leaders, has been forced to consider applying to them is "coward."

One may sit at the poker table all night and never bet and still go home broke, having anted away one's stake.

The Democrats are anteing away their time at the table. They may be bold and risk defeat, or be passive and ensure it.
________________________________________
DAVID MAMET is a screenwriter, novelist and the author of award-winning plays, including "Glengarry Glen Ross."

Rehnquist was a Pussy, I shit on his Tombstone

Alan Dershowitz: Telling the Truth About Chief Justice Rehnquist

Alan Dershowitz Mon Sep 5, 1:16 AM ET

My mother always told me that when a person dies, one should not say anything bad about him. My mother was wrong. History requires truth, not puffery or silence, especially about powerful governmental figures. And obituaries are a first draft of history. So here’s the truth about Chief Justice Rehnquist you won’t hear on Fox News or from politicians. Chief Justice William Rehnquist set back liberty, equality, and human rights perhaps more than any American judge of this generation. His rise to power speaks volumes about the current state of American values.

Let’s begin at the beginning. Rehnquist bragged about being first in his class at Stanford Law School. Today Stanford is a great law school with a diverse student body, but in the late 1940s and early 1950s, it discriminated against Jews and other minorities, both in the admission of students and in the selection of faculty. Justice Stephen Breyer recalled an earlier period of Stanford’s history: “When my father was at Stanford, he could not join any of the social organizations because he was Jewish, and those organizations, at that time, did not accept Jews.” Rehnquist not only benefited in his class ranking from this discrimination; he was also part of that bigotry. When he was nominated to be an associate justice in 1971, I learned from several sources who had known him as a student that he had outraged Jewish classmates by goose-stepping and heil-Hitlering with brown-shirted friends in front of a dormitory that housed the school’s few Jewish students. He also was infamous for telling racist and anti-Semitic jokes.

As a law clerk, Rehnquist wrote a memorandum for Justice Jackson while the court was considering several school desegregation cases, including Brown v. Board of Education. Rehnquist’s memo, entitled “A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases,” defended the separate-but-equal doctrine embodied in the 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson. Rehnquist concluded the Plessy “was right and should be reaffirmed.” When questioned about the memos by the Senate Judiciary Committee in both 1971 and 1986, Rehnquist blamed his defense of segregation on the dead Justice, stating – under oath – that his memo was meant to reflect the views of Justice Jackson. But Justice Jackson voted in Brown, along with a unanimous Court, to strike down school segregation. According to historian Mark Tushnet, Justice Jackson’s longtime legal secretary called Rehnquist’s Senate testimony an attempt to “smear[] the reputation of a great justice.” Rehnquist later admitted to defending Plessy in arguments with fellow law clerks. He did not acknowledge that he committed perjury in front of the Judiciary Committee to get his job.

The young Rehnquist began his legal career as a Republican functionary by obstructing African-American and Hispanic voting at Phoenix polling locations (“Operation Eagle Eye”). As Richard Cohen of The Washington Post wrote, “[H]e helped challenge the voting qualifications of Arizona blacks and Hispanics. He was entitled to do so. But even if he did not personally harass potential voters, as witnesses allege, he clearly was a brass-knuckle partisan, someone who would deny the ballot to fellow citizens for trivial political reasons -- and who made his selection on the basis of race or ethnicity.” In a word, he started out his political career as a Republican thug.

Rehnquist later bought a home in Vermont with a restrictive covenant that barred sale of the property to ''any member of the Hebrew race.”

Rehnquist’s judicial philosophy was result-oriented, activist, and authoritarian. He sometimes moderated his views for prudential or pragmatic reasons, but his vote could almost always be predicted based on who the parties were, not what the legal issues happened to be. He generally opposed the rights of gays, women, blacks, aliens, and religious minorities. He was a friend of corporations, polluters, right wing Republicans, religious fundamentalists, homophobes, and other bigots.

Rehnquist served on the Supreme Court for thirty-three years and as chief justice for nineteen. Yet no opinion comes to mind which will be remembered as brilliant, innovative, or memorable. He will be remembered not for the quality of his opinions but rather for the outcomes decided by his votes, especially Bush v. Gore, in which he accepted an Equal Protection claim that was totally inconsistent with his prior views on that clause. He will also be remembered as a Chief Justice who fought for the independence and authority of the judiciary. This is his only positive contribution to an otherwise regressive career.

Within moments of Rehnquist’s death, Fox News called and asked for my comments, presumably aware that I was a longtime critic of the late Chief Justice. After making several of these points to Alan Colmes (who was supposed to be interviewing me), Sean Hannity intruded, and when he didn’t like my answers, he cut me off and terminated the interview. Only after I was off the air and could not respond did the attack against me begin, which is typical of Hannity’s bullying ambush style. He is afraid to attack when there’s someone there to respond. Since the interview, I’ve received dozens of e-mail hate messages, some of which are overtly anti-Semitic. One writer called me “a jew prick that takes it in the a** from ruth ginzburg [sic].” Another said I am “an ignorant socialist left-wing political hack …. You’re like a little Heinrich Himmler! (even the resemblance is uncanny!).” Yet another informed me that I “personally make us all lament the defeat of the Nazis!” A more restrained viewer found me to be “a disgrace to the Law, to Harvard, and to humanity.”

All this, for refusing to put a deceptive gloss on a man who made his career undermining the rights and liberties of American citizens.

My mother would want me to remain silent, but I think my father would have wanted me to tell the truth. My father was right.

Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard. His latest book is The Case for Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can Be Resolved (Wiley, 2005).

A picture is worth a thousand words