Another E-mail from CMU President Cohon: She-Pope Matter Resolved

An astute reader emailed this to me:

To the Carnegie Mellon Community:

Last week, I wrote to you about the university’s process for dealing with the incidents of student nudity during the College of Fine Arts’ Anti-Gravity Downhill Derby on Carnival Weekend. I promised to write to you once the internal process had been completed. In this message I describe how the matter has been resolved and the rationale for the outcome. Let me begin by quoting the university’s freedom of expression policy which can be found in its entirety at http://www.cmu.edu/policies/documents/FreeSpeech.html:

“Carnegie Mellon University values the freedoms of speech, thought, expression and assembly - in themselves and as part of our core educational and intellectual mission. The university must be a place where all ideas may be expressed freely and where no alternative is withheld from consideration. The only limits on these freedoms are those dictated by law and those necessary to protect the rights of other members of the university community and to ensure the normal functioning of the university.” Our policy makes it clear that Carnegie Mellon is committed to the rights of its students to express controversial views, while recognizing some key restrictions on that expression--including those dictated by law. This policy was revised six years ago in a widely consultative process with input from all parts of campus including faculty, students, staff, the administrative leadership and the Board of Trustees.

We relied on this policy to frame our decision making in this matter. In this situation, the issue is public nudity by two students, one woman and one man, at an open event which members of the public historically have attended, without warning to or protection of anyone who might unwittingly be witness to that exposure. This is a violation of Pennsylvania law. Carnegie Mellon’s Campus Police, who are commissioned by the state to enforce the law, have filed misdemeanor charges for indecent exposure against the two students. Final disposition of these charges will occur through the Allegheny County justice system, not through university channels. There will be no separate disciplinary action pursued through the university’s internal process. [Emphases added.


The students took part in a campus art event and, in the case of the student who portrayed herself as the Pope, made an artistic statement which proved to be controversial. While I recognize that many found the students’ activities deeply offensive, the university upholds their right to create works of art and express their ideas. But, public nudity is a violation of the law and subject to appropriate action.[Emphasis added.]


I understand that this resolution may not be supported by those who believe that there can be no limits on the freedom of artistic expression. Others who were particularly offended by the incident may be distressed that more severe action is not being taken.

There are competing values at issue here: Carnegie Mellon aims to be a place where ideas can be expressed and debated openly, but also where people of all backgrounds, faiths, and beliefs feel welcomed and supported. Unavoidably, the expression of some views will offend some people; that is the price of this freedom. However, if in the expression of these views, people in our community come to feel that the campus is intolerant, then the other of our cherished values is challenged. In such a situation, the institution may find it necessary to reassure those offended of its commitment to tolerance and inclusion. In doing so, I do not believe that the institution is compromising freedom of expression. Similarly, it is reasonable to expect individuals to consider the impact on others in expressing their views and how they choose to express them. This is responsibility, not censorship, and something that our students, especially, shou! ld (sic) learn while they are members of our community.  [Emphasis added.]


It is our practice in controversial situations such as this one to provide opportunities for discussion, where all sides have a chance to express their views. This has already begun on the campus. Members of our community are asking themselves the difficult questions about what happened here, and embracing their responsibility to create a context in which events like these can continue to be held in a manner which is consistent with the full range of our values. These values include, certainly, freedom of expression, but also the cultivation of an inclusive, mutually respectful environment, and respect for the law. Being aware of and acting on those values is my responsibility as your President, and, in this circumstance, the School of Art, the College of Fine Arts, and the Office of Student Affairs.

Our students, and the faculty who advise them, must have a clear understanding of the complexity of these issues. Our investigation of this incident revealed that our freedom of expression policy is not as well understood today as it was when it was adopted six years ago—especially by students, faculty, and staff who have come to the university since then. We will do a better job of making all members of our community aware of their rights to free speech and their responsibilities to the community.

I hope that, in that spirit, this incident will inspire thoughtful discussions at Carnegie Mellon and beyond, and affirm our beliefs in the freedom and the responsibility that are essential to the life of the university.

Jared L. Cohon

President [ALL EMPHASES ADDED.]

As I wrote before:

So other than the naked from public nudity part, nothing she did violated CMU's stated policy on free expression.

And as President Cohon wrote: the issue was the public nudity.

Could Not Have Put It Better Myself

Jon Stewart:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

Highlights:

At 2:00 in, Jon Stewart says:

You may be wondering why for Benghazi, Congress has held nine full hearings - including one closed hearing.  Why Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen issued a full accountability report chastising the State Department for their systemic failures and why Benghazi has generally emerged as a rallying cry for the President's opponents when during the Bush Administration there were fifty-four attacks on diplomatic targets that killed thirteen Americans, yet garnered only three hearings on embassy security total and zero outrage on Fox.

At 3:26 in Representative Peter King describes how big a scandal Benghazi is says:

If you add Watergate and IranContra together and multiply it times maybe 10 or so, you're gonna get in the zone of what Benghazi is.

To which Jon Stewart replied:

Holy sh*t! [taking notes] Watergate plus IranContra times...[note taking ends]  So you're saying that the incident, whereby the order of the President of the United States, people broke into the Democratic headquarters to bug it to gain strategic advantage in a presidential election then cover that up by trying to use the power of the presidency to squash the Justice Department and then added that to the Reagan Administrations secret deal to illegally sell arms to Iran in exchange for hostages and money that could then be funneled to Central American right wing death squads, end parentheses, times ten.

Yeppers, that's what they're saying.

However, by the time we get to 1:10 in to the second section of this video:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

The wingnut media is balancing this on "If that indeed was the case..."

Following a long line of "If..." statements from Fox pundits, at 2:00 in, Stewart reacts with:

YES!  If dingleberries were diamonds, I could open a Kay Jewelers in my pants!"

Thus illustrating the emptiness of their whole argument.

He ends the segment with this at 3:50:

If what you're saying is true (and it's an important question). If what you're saying is true: if the President let Amercians die for political reasons then by god, bring us the evidence and we will grab the pitchforks and torches along with you.  But remember, that game goes both ways.  Let me try:  In 2011, the State Department requested funding for worldwide security protection and upgrade.  Money that could have perhaps gone to protect Benghazi.  The Republicans, like Darrell Issa who's heading up this committee, voted to cut that funding.  Maybe because of political reasons in an election year to make the President look weak.  Thus sacrificing Americans for political gains.  Did that happen?

One last quote taken out of context to prove this point:

If that's the case, John, then that's outrageous.

And it is.

LGBTQ In The News

My friend Sue over at Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents is running:

An occasional series where we pose some questions to local LGBTQ folks (and Allies) to learn more about their personal experiences with LGBTQ culture.

And she was nice enough to think that I'd make a good addition to the series.  I have to say that it's very nice to be included in such an illustrious list of people.  Others political type folks thusly profiled:

• Matt Merriman-Preston
• Natalia Rudniak
• Dan Gilman
• Doug Shields
• Tonya Payne
• Sherry Pasquarello
• Bill Peduto
• Bram Reichbaum
• Jeanne Clark

And that's just the names I recognize!

With the self-serving stuff out of the way, let's move on to this short-ish piece in the P-G:

A bipartisan group of state House and Senate lawmakers introduced measures Tuesday to ban discrimination statewide in employment, housing and public accommodations for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Pennsylvanians.

The P-G blurb doesn't say much about the legislation (bill numbers? sponsors? nuttin') but this piece from the Tribune-Democrat has a bit more info:

Forty percent of Pennsylvania’s state legislators, including two local senators, sponsored anti-discrimination bills introduced in Harrisburg on Tuesday.

Sens. John Wozniak, D-Westmont, and Richard Kasunic, D-Dunbar, co-sponsored Senate Bill 300, introduced by Sens. Pat Browne and Larry Farnese.

None of the area’s seven representatives co-sponsored House Bill 300, as put forth by Reps. Dan Frankel and Chris Ross.

Now, we're getting somewhere.  Although as of this writing - and this is probably due to the fact that these bills were only introduced yesterday - there was nothing at the Pennsylvania Legislature website for SB300 or HB300 for this legislative session (I'll update this blog post if/when they go "live.").

John Micek at Pennlive his more:

In the press conference, Rep. Dan Frankel, lead sponsor of HB 300, said, ”More and more people inside the Capitol – from both parties — agree with the vast majority of people outside the building on this. Being gay or transgender has nothing to do with your ability to do a good job or to be a good neighbor or tenant. This is just commonsense legislation. Many people think it’s the law already, and it should be.”

And at his legislative webpage, Rep. Frankel has this Sponsorship Memorandum where learn that it's a reintroduction of HB300 from the 2011-2012 legislative session

From Senator Pat Brown's legislative webpage, we find this Sponsorship Memorandum, where we learn that his bill is a reintroduction of SB1050 from the 2011-2012 legislative session.

Back to Micek for the inevitable:

In the House, the bill sponsored by Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Allegheny, is destined for the State Government Committee.

That matters because the panel is chaired by state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, an outspoken social conservative who once opposed a push by Philadelphia officials to market the city to gay tourists because he didn’t believe tax dollars should be used to “promote immoral behaviors.”

In a phone interview Tuesday, Metcalfe scoffed at Frankel’s bill, charging his House colleague was “out of touch with reality.” Metcalfe said some Republicans on his panel had advised him to bring the bill to a vote just so it could be defeated.

Only if "out of touch with reality" means that when asked this question:

The state legislature is considering several proposals related to gay marriage and civil unions. Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendmen t that would allow same sex couples to get legally married?

53% of Pennsylvanians polled in this recent Franklin and Marshall poll answered with either "Strongly favor" (37%) or "Somewhat favor" (16%).  Note to the possibly arithmatically challenged Daryl Metcalfe: 37 + 16 = 53 and 53% is a majority.

Remember, Metcalfe's the guy who declared that there's "significant voter fraud plaguing Pennsylvania's elections" even though there isn't any.

So facing facts probably isn't one of his strong points.

Oh, Yea...More On Benghazi Cover-up Truthers!!

From the Tribune-Review's editorial page today:

A much clearer picture of the Sept. 11, 2012, debacle at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, including our ambassador to Libya — and the Obama administration's dishonest, self-serving misrepresentation of that organized terrorist act — comes Wednesday.

I want to skip a paragraph and start with the braintrust's the first of three bullet points on what to expect from the hearings:

Details about watering down initial talking points to remove mentions of al-Qaida and terrorism in favor of the spurious “spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim U.S. video” line. The Weekly Standard's Stephen F. Hayes writes that emails sent during that process make it “clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public.”

Ah, the incredible Stephen F. Hayes.  He was the guy who argued in 2003 (against all evidence) that:

[T]here can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans.

Something that just wasn't true:

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.

So yea, let's continue to treat Stephen F. Hayes as a credible pundit.

The Braintrust does, anyway.

But let's take a look at how Hayes' article actually undermines what the Braintrust says Hayes says.  Remember he said that it was the administration that was "rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public" specifically removing mentions of al-Qaeda in favor of the "it was a protest against the video" story.

So if we compare the first and last draft, we might get some where.  This is what Hayes writes about where the first draft came from:

After a briefing on Capitol Hill by CIA director David Petraeus, Democrat Dutch Ruppersburger, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, asked the intelligence community for unclassified guidance on what members of Congress could say in their public comments on the attacks. The CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis prepared the first draft of a response to the congressman, which was distributed internally for comment at 11:15 a.m. on Friday, September 14.

And this is what Hayes says is the first draft:

We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.

And the last:

The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

The part that should pique your interest is the part (in both versions) about the "protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo."  What were those protests about?

Guess:

Ultraconservative Islamist protesters climbed the walls of the United States Embassy in Cairo on Tuesday and took down the American flag, replacing it with a black flag with an Islamic inscription to protest a movie attacking Islam’s prophet, Muhammad.

Um...so the idea that the Benghazi attacks were in response to the Cairo protests (which themselves were triggered by the anti-Islam film) were in the talking points from the beginning?  And those talking points came from the CIA?

So how could the administration be rewriting them?

Ten Commandments Update

I usually don't respond to letters to the editor found in newspapers.  I figure that everyone's entitled to their own opinion (even if I think it's wrong).

However if a public figure writes a letter to the editor about an issue, and especially if I've written about that public figure and/or that issue then I feel free to comment.

Where am I going with this?  Here.

The Rev. Ewing Marietta, Senior Pastor of the Liberty Baptist Church in Union, PA has written a letter to the editor regarding the Ten Commandments monument in Connellsville.  (Should even I bother with an Exodus16:1-36 reference?  Perhaps not.)

In it Pastor Marietta makes a few misrepresentations of the facts.  Most incorrect is this one:

The Constitution has not changed, but now we are not allowed to display the Ten Commandments outside a public building.

While I am not in favor of a such religious display (for example a stand-alone monument depicting the Ten Commandments) "outside of a public building" that's not exactly the issue here.

The issue is that the monument is on public school grounds - and that's unconstitutional.

As I've written before, there is some Supreme Court precedent regarding the Ten Commandments "outside of a public building" but as Justice Breyer points out in his discussion of Van Orden V Perry:

This case, moreover, is distinguishable from instances where the Court has found Ten Commandments displays impermissible. The display is not on the grounds of a public school, where, given the impressionability of the young, government must exercise particular care in separating church and state.

So when the good pastor writes that "The fight is still on to save Connellsville's 10 Commandments monument. We can and must win this case." He's wrong on all counts as the fight is already over.  Public displays of the Ten Commandments are impermissible.

But I want to look at what Pastor Marietta writes next:

Should this monument even be an argument right now? We need moral absolutes more than ever.

Really? Moral absolutism is what we need right now?

Take a look at this:


In the video, Richard Dawkins is asked this question:

My question is for professor Dawkins. Considering that atheism can not possibly have any sense of absolute morality, would it not then be an irrational leap of faith, which atheists themselves so harshly condemn, for an atheist to decide between right and wrong?

And he answers:

Absolute morality - the absolute morality that a religious person might profess would include what? Stoning people for adultery? Death for apostasy?  Punishment for breaking the Sabbath? These are all things which are religiously based absolute moralities. I don't think I want an absolute morality. I think I want a morality that is thought-out, reasoned, argued, discussed and based upon, I'd almost say intelligent design. Can we not design our society, which has the sort of morality, the sort of society that we want to live in?  If you actually look at the moralities that are accepted among modern people, among 21st century people, we don't believe in slavery anymore. We believe in equality of women. We believe in being gentle. We believe in being kind to animals. These are all things which are entirely recent. They have very little basis in Biblical or Quranic scripture. They are things that have developed over historical time through a consensus of reasoning, of sober discussion, argument, legal theory, political and moral philosophy. These do not come from religion. To the extent that you can find the good bits in religious scriptures, you have to cherry pick. You search your way though the Bible or the Quran and you find the occasional verse that is an acceptable profession of morality and you say, "Look at that! That's religion!" and you leave out all the horrible bits and you say, "Oh, we don't believe that anymore. We've grown out of that." Well, of course we've grown out it. We've grown out of it because of secular moral philosophy and rational discussion."

But are those punishments really the case?  Let's take them one by one

• Stoning people for adultery?  Deuteronomy 22:22 says:

  If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

• Death for apostasy? Deuteronomy 13:6-9 says:

  6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people.

• Punishment for breaking the Sabbath? Exodus 35:2 says:

  For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death.

Is this what the good pastor means when he talks about how "we need moral absolutes" now?  It must be - the texts are from The Bible and they are clear as can be.

God, I hope not.

The Trib Misleads On Climate. Again.

Scaife's braintrust on the Tribune-Review editorial board can usually be relied upon to repeat one or more climate denier myths.

Today, it's the "but it's cold outside now so how can it be warming globally?" myth.

Take a look:

Former Vice President Al Gore says today's generation “will be held accountable” for not doing enough to address global warming. “Our children and grandchildren ... if they exist in a world that has been devastated by these consequences that have been predicted and are beginning to unfold — they would be well justified in asking of us: ‘What in the hell were you thinking?'” Gee, isn't that the question all of us should be asking the climate cluckers, considering scientists have just announced that we are in the midst of our coldest spring in 38 years?[Bolding in original]

I have to admit I am not at all sure where the braintrust gets the "coldest spring in 38 years" meme.

Perhaps it's this blog post from climate denier Steven Goddard.  It's titled:

Second Coldest Start To Spring In US History

There's a chart and everything:


Take a look as I want you to notice a few things.  First the dot in the lower right hand corner is, I take it, some sort of number representing the April/March temp.  Goddard (and by extension Scaife's braintrust) use that to show how the Earth isn't warming because it's the second lowest on the chart.

But look waay up in the upper right hand corner.  Looks to me like that was last year's Apri/March number.  Looks to me like it's the second (or maybe third) highest on the chart.

How much you wanna bet that last year Goddard et al were completely silent about that dot?

Next, let's take a look at the data presented.  According to the title of the chart, it's US data and not Global data - so right there Goddard's selected data from only about 7% of the planet's total land mass (and that's only about 2% of the planet's total surface area - it's including all the water).

Compare that to the global data publicly available at NOAA:

• The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for March 2013 tied with 2006 as the 10th warmest on record, at 0.58°C (1.04°F) above the 20th century average of 12.3°C (54.1°F). 
• The global land surface temperature was 1.06°C (1.91°F) above the 20th century average of 5.0°C (40.8°F), the 11th warmest March on record. For the ocean, the March global sea surface temperature was 0.41°C (0.74°F) above the 20th century average of 15.9°C (60.7°F), making it the ninth warmest March on record. 
• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–March period (year-to-date) was 0.58°C (1.04°F) above the 20th century average of 12.3°C (54.1°F), the eighth warmest such period on record.

Using a localized weather event (even if the "locality" is the US) as counter evidence for the whole is willfully confusing weather and climate. From NASA:

Weather is basically the way the atmosphere is behaving, mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities. The difference between weather and climate is that weather consists of the short-term (minutes to months) changes in the atmosphere. Most people think of weather in terms of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, brightness, visibility, wind, and atmospheric pressure, as in high and low pressure.

In most places, weather can change from minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day, and season-to-season. Climate, however, is the average of weather over time and space. An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.

Not matter how many times they do it, Scaife's braintrust will always be wrong when they argue this point in this manner.

Shorter Post-Gazette Mayoral Endorsement

Ravenstahl's a putz and Peduto rightfully opposed him, but that proves he can't work well with Ravenstahl's minions on Council so you shouldn't vote for him. Wagner contemplated maybe running against Ravenstahl in the fall but wouldn't jump into the primary until Ravenstahl dropped out which proves how brave Wagner is and how unconnected to the Ravenstahl crowd he is so you should vote for him. Also, Wagner works well with Republicans so he will work well with Council which is all Democrats. Policies? We don't need no stinkin' polices. The End.