Distraction studies can only flourish, however, when reporters covering the campus beat also fail to examine the hard questions. Instead of investigative journalism, their main sources seem to be press releases from campus public relations offices and/or friendly interviews with administrators. Such reporters appear to be more interested in"feel good" articles rather than exploring the possible underside of campus administration including grade inflation, allegations of administrative mismanagement and waste, and officially sanctioned censorship of dissenting points of view. When given possible leads on such stories, they respond with silence.

Unfortunately, Gilbert Cruz, the campus beat reporter of the Tuscaloosa News, is almost a textbook example of such a journalist. One of Cruz's earliest articles for the Tuscaloosa News foreshadowed what was to follow. It was a front-page story describing the upcoming sale of"Bear" Bryant bobblehead dolls.

In a hilarious series of pieces, Nuckolls has examined the subsequent history of Mr. Cruz's not so peculiar brand of"bobblehead journalism." Look forward to more installments in the next few weeks.

How is it possible to review the updated Limits to Growth book and Paul Ehrlich’s latest tome without showing even a trace of recognition that these authors’ predictions are infamous for being consistently and dazzlingly wrong? In The Population Bomb (1968), for example, Ehrlich predicted that “the battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines—hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” Erhlich later lost his bet with Julian Simon that resource scarcity would intensify during the 1980s.

Suppose that a glib and frantic free-market ideologue had written a book thirty years ago predicting that continued regulation and taxation would wreak catastrophic destruction on society by 1985. Further suppose that when that specific prediction proved false, the same ideologue wrote another book advancing the same thesis, with only the year of reckoning changed. That prediction, too, failed. Now the ideologue offers yet another book with the same thesis. Would this"scholar's" book be reviewed in the New York Times? Would Mr. Klinkenborg, or anyone with half a brain, take it seriously? If not, what’s with the respect accorded to a Limits to Growth update and yet another prediction from Paul Ehrlich?

Norrell's book Reaping the Whirlwind: The Civil Rights Movement in Tuskegee also has many new things to say about the Wizard of Tuskegee. Norrell persuasively argues that Washington's self-help strategy helped to set the stage for later civil rights protests in Tuskegee.

More specifically, Norrell asserts that Washington's careful nurturing of a black middle class served to create the necessary leadership base for civil rights activism to flourish in the post World War II period. I often assign this book in my courses. It is not only well-written but offers one of the best challenge to the conventional wisdom in the field.

On closer examination, a good case can be made that Washington has a better claim than DuBois to be considered as the father of the modern civil rights movement.

The General who is head of US Intelligence in Iraq remains untouched, as yet, by the growing prisoner abuse scandal -- but, she's a woman and has been one of the"Stars" of the"new" Army. To read the story, click here.

I summarize.

Bill O'Reilly:

If the United States is going to defeat the terrorists, we need to have a total commitment to crushing the bastards. My study of history indicates that the role model we ought to adopt is that provided by one of the most noted liberators of the oppressed and a noble exemplar of freedom and individual rights. I speak, of course, of Genghis Khan.

And in defeating the terrorists, we must rid ourselves of this badly misplaced aversion to torture. Of course, we are better than the terrorists, so we should only use"harsh" interrogation techniques when the danger is"imminent." The government will define what"imminent" means after consulting with me.

We want history to note the crucial lesson of this period: the United States gloriously carried on the traditions left to us by Genghis Khan, and thus made the world a better place.

P.S. A divided America cannot win this conflict. I guess that means we'll have to do something about eradicating any form of dissent. I'll deal with that some other time.

Don't believe anything you've been reading over the last month or so. This administration is filled with individuals who are decent, intelligent and patriotic Americans, doing their honest best for the country. Anyone who says otherwise is a Bush-hater, and the only kind of criticism they have ever offered is that the Bushies are stupid, venal or crazy. These detestable Lefties and Paleo-Righties are obviously stupid and crazy themselves (and probably venal, too), so you can safely ignore them.

I am serenely optimistic about the war and its eventual outcome. And, no, I don't give a damn what the Arabs think about us, not any of them. We're only liberating them and giving them the gift of freedom, so who the hell cares what they think? Many people do not have my refined sensibilities.

And even if this war was not required for our national defense, it has had some wonderful benefits. A military is meant to be used, and soldiers want to fight. They're doing that now, so they're a lot better at killing and blowing things up than they would have been just carrying out those namby-pamby"peace-keeping" missions. One other thing: this war has shown how incredibly stupid it is to have men and women serving in the same unit, especially in combat zones. Pfc. England conclusively demonstrates that.

Abuse and torture? What abuse and torture? Of Arabs? I told you, I don't care about them. If only everyone had my broad, philosophical outlook. Then you wouldn't get bogged down in these ridiculous details.

Most people have reptilian brains. They just want to win. How pathetically superficial. They're not idealists and profound thinkers like me. I and a very few other special people understand how crucial it is to have a"strong particular ideology" that keeps you resolute, no matter what the hell the facts might show about how completely wrong your policies are. You shouldn't listen to any of the critics of our noble, valiant war plans, especially people like that loudmouth critic Michael Moore, or ex-generals. Ex-generals, I ask you. What the hell do they know compared to people like me and my friends?

History will realize how sound and wise our policies today were. By history, and since I am a deep thinker and a historian with the long view, I mean a decade from now. To be certain that our nobility is appreciated, though, we have to be much more serious about killing a lot of people and leveling places like Fallujah. We have to show them we mean it. This does not constitute approval of"mere force." It's simply the recognition that empty words or good intentions don't count for anything. The only thing that matters is action and the will to win. That means killing lots of people and blowing a bunch of things up.

We must stay true to our values. But since most people"think reptilian" and will only join us if they see us winning (how superficial can you be?), we have to beat the crap out of the bastards, any bastards. Then people will see how noble and wise we are. And since I am a profound thinker and a noted historian, I will close with these words from that unusually enlightened and noble political philosopher, Al Davis:"Just win, baby."

If the DFL is looking for a new theme song for this year's election I might suggest a BTO classic. They're taking what they're given, 'cause they're Drinking For a Livin'.

[State Rep. Steve] Wasiluk issued a statement to the station saying:"I sincerely apologize for my recent behavior. If the public feels additional laws should be passed to improve public confidence in the work of legislators, I would vote for it."

Please pass a state law, prevent me from drinking on the job again!

Actually it might not be such a bad idea to outlaw legislating while drunk. It seems only fair since the government has already outlawed the citizens from voting while drunk. Seems to me if we can't ease the pain of Minnesota government by drinking ourselves numb, they shouldn't be able to either.

Now the DFL wants Governor Tim Pawlenty to call a special session in order to pass a bonding bill, which would allow them to add pork to the booze. Pawlenty should instead close down Animal House/Senate and consider some way to put Otter, Bluto, and the rest of the Senate boozehounds on double-secret probation. While he's at it, he should check into a special prosecutor to look into all that free booze -- and anything else -- supplied by the lobbyists to the DFL.

It's not at all uncommon to find bottles of vodka in government offices in the former Soviet Union, and I can tell you of a wild International Woman's Day passing out champagne and chocolates at the National Bank of Ukraine. (It ended with a broken wrist; long story.) But the all-night party-till-you-puke bash at the Senate ended with a Borking, a far worse way to spend good booze than we did handing out flowers to all the women in the Monetary Control department.

Perhaps we should not be too critical however. The Legislature did nothing but drink and bork. Not nearly as much damage as they might have done.

(Crossposted from SCSU Scholars.)