pageok
pageok
pageok
Dujack Dropped:

This morning's Washington Times reports that the Democrats have dropped Stephen Dujack as a witness for the Alito hearings.

Bottomfish (mail):
Although the Nazis certainly killed Jews and cooked them, they did not as far as I know eat them. From the Dujackian point of view, this must mean that meat-eaters are even worse than Nazis.
1.7.2006 1:22pm
Andrew J. Lazarus (mail):
Just because Dujack is a crank doesn't excuse Alito from joining the bigots of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton. Just to put things in perspective, CAP was a great believer in quotas (gasp!). As long as they were floors for alumni children and white males.
1.7.2006 2:28pm
Roger Schlafly (www):
CAP was a great believer in quotas
I went to Princeton in the 1970s, and the university was using admission quotas at that time. I thought that CAP was protesting against the quotas.

Dujack is not a crank, but he only has hearsay knowledge of Alito. Dujack worked for a magazine that competed with the CAP magazine, and has bad things to say about CAP.

All Dujack was going to do was to pull old quotes from CAP members to make CAP look bad. They probably weren't even going to be quotes that Alito even knew about. If he wants to play that game, then he should realize that the game could be used against him.

Alito is in good shape if CAP is the worst that the Democrats have on him. Princeton was wrong to kick ROTC off campus, and Alito was right to complain about it.
1.7.2006 3:35pm
frankcross (mail):
CAP pushed for quotas to increase the numbers of legacy admissions.

It is not a highly defensible bunch, but I hardly think that membership in the organization is a big negative.
1.7.2006 3:40pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
From the article:
"If this is the type of witness they plan to have at this hearing, it shows there's an utter dearth of serious objections to Judge Alito's record."
This, I think, is right.

Twenty one years ago, Alito wrote on an application that he belonged to an organization. And Democrats are going to call someone to testify that other people -- but not Alito -- in this organization (which disbanded twenty years ago) said some stupid things? That's the best they have? He has been a federal judge, he has worked in the DoJ, he has an extensive track record -- and yet they're going to call someone to say that he was associated with politically incorrect people a few decades ago?
1.7.2006 4:10pm
unknown stranger:
Democratic McCarthyism at it's best!!!!!!!HAHA. So what if that person was a card carrying memeber of the Communist party??????? Do they not have any shame. Apparently not.
1.7.2006 5:16pm
nk (mail) (www):
If I could just get wingnuts like this Dujack clown from the left and Pat Robertson (the guy who said Sharon's stroke was a punishment from God) from the right to leave the Democrats and Republicans, respectively, and form a third political party, I would feel far more confident in the results of the next election for the future of our country.
1.7.2006 8:24pm
minnie:
Since some posters have chosen to mock him, I answer them that Steven Dujack is neither a crank nor a wingnut. He is a hero to those who are familiar with the work that he does. He is the grandson of Isaac Bashevis Singer, a Noble Laureate and widely admired writer whose family was killed in the Holocaust. Here is a quote from Mr. Dujack:

"The Holocaust happened because ordinary people chose to ignore the extraordinary oppression and abuse being inflicted on innocents. My grandfather often said that this mindset, whether it manifested itself as the oppression of animals or of people, exemplifies the most hideous and dangerous of all racist principles. The Jewish philosopher and Holocaust survivor Theodor Adorno said, "The Holocaust begins wherever one looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks, 'They're only animals.'"

The fact that an intelligent, dedicated person with a heightened compassion for animals is dismissed so readily as a "wingnut" by callous people on the Right and the Left is nothing short of tragic. I guess those same people think Gandhi and Albert Schweitzer, who had those same views, were also wingnuts.

Here's a quote from Albert Schweitzer:

"Out of such heart-breaking experiences that often shamed me there slowly arose in me the unshakeable conviction that we had the right to bring pain and death to another being only in case of inescapable necessity, and that all of us must feel the horror that lies in thoughtless torturing and killing. This conviction has become increasingly dominant within me. I have become more and more certain that at the bottom of our hearts we all think so, and simply do not dare to admit it and practice it, because we are afraid that others will laugh at us for being sentimental, and because we have allowed our better feelings to be blunted. But I vowed that I would never let my feelings get blunted, and I would never again fear the reproach of sentimentalism."
1.7.2006 11:36pm
unknown stranger:
Yes, I think the animals rights movement is wingnut. I find nothing of a compassionate or intellectual thought in the movement. It is cultist and bizarre thinking.
1.8.2006 1:14am
Jason Fliegel (mail):
Out of curiosity, does dropping Dujack from the witness list change anything? Instead of Dujack testifying about CAP, Senator Schumer or Kennedy or whoever can read one of the articles from their newsletter into the record and ask Judge Alito if he agrees with it. Judge Alito will, of course, say no, and that he's never had anything but the deepest respect for people of other races and women. Senator Schumer can then ask why he joined CAP, and Judge Alito can do a tap dance about his deep respect for tradition (but not, of course, at the expense of privileging white males above all others). Republicans can be self-satisfied, Democrats can be smuggly disgusted, and everyone can vote exactly as they would have had CAP never existed.
1.8.2006 3:19am
rrrina (mail) (www):
There is nothing wrong or inappropriate about comparing human and (other) animal suffering. Animals feel pain (physical, emotional, and psychological) just like people do.
I have been a nurse for over 25 years and have devoted my life to helping people. When I see someone in pain or discomfort it's my instinct to try to alleviate that pain. That is the reason I became a nurse and it is also the reason I became vegetarian. I had always loved animals and rescued many cats, dogs, and birds. In the 80's I saw the Animals Film by Victor Schonfeld and Myriam Alaux. In it the horrors of factory farming, stockyard and slaughterhouse abuse and animal experimentation were exposed. I became a vegetarian overnight and have remained one since.

Many members of my mother's extended family (who weren't lucky enough to escape from Europe in time) were killed in the Holocaust. When I read Stephen Dujack's comparison, I was not offended. In my opinion, there are parallels we cannot deny. Suffering is suffering. Compassion is compassion. It doesn't matter what particular species of sentient being one is discussing. People need to evolve and to start to look outside their little cubicles and begin to develop compassion and respect for all forms of life. Gandhi, Albert Einstein, Albert Schweitzer, civil rights activist Dick Gregory, George Bernard Shaw, Isaac Bashevis Singer, and Alice Walker are just a few of the people who also promoted this concept.

Philosopher Jeremy Bentham put it best: "The question is not: 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?' but 'Can they suffer?'"
All animals can suffer and therefore deserve to be treated humanely.

Recommended reading: Eternal Treblinka by Charles Patterson and The Dreaded Comparison by Marjorie Spiegel

Rina Deych
http://www.rrrina.com/
1.8.2006 10:16am
Craig Oren (mail):
for the record, when I read Dujack's comparison, I *am* offended. I have a general aversion to comparisons between the Holocaust and other events, and it is heightened when Jews are compared to animals as the Nazis did.
1.8.2006 4:14pm
Andrew J. Lazarus (mail):
Roger and I overlapped at Princeton, and I'll take this opportunity to remind him that CAP was very upset at the idea Princeton would admit fewer than 800 males, the pre-coeducation number. (The class size was increased, with the admission of women, to 1100.)

At the time, hard as it may be for younger readers to imagine it, the feminist revolution was extremely incomplete (and had not entered the stage of eating its young). The idea that women simply didn't belong at elite private institutions of higher education was not off the wall, as it may seem now. [Link]

CAP supported a quota system to ensure that the vast majority of students would continue to be men. Asa Bushnell, then chairman of CAP, told the New York Times in 1974 that 'Many Princeton graduates are unhappy over the fact that the administration has seen fit to abrogate the virtual guarantee that 800 [out of roughly 1,100] would continue to be the number of males in each freshman class.'

Clear?
1.8.2006 6:51pm
Proconsul:
The Democrats are not playing for the nomination here (that's settled), they are playing for political points leading into the next election. Establishing a tighter connection between the Republicans and indulgence for elitism in our institutions is an enormously potent political message.
1.11.2006 5:51pm