Why Bill Frist Ought to Be Thrown in Jail and Skinned
Democrats better take Bill Frist seriously. When he wants to accomplish something, he's not above doing something completely
illegal and psychopathic. (Hat tip,
Irina T.)
I'll adopt a special style for this post to explain what Frist (hereinafter "Defendant") did.
While a student at Harvard Medical School, Defendant, Bill Frist, did go to local animal shelters, and tell local shelter personnel that Defendant was interested in adopting a cat. Defendant would take said cats home, conduct surgery upon them, and kill them. Defendant has said that defendant conducted these "experiments" to better his surgery techniques.
If Defendant were a New York resident, Defendant would likely be charged with Aggravated Animal Cruelty, an E-class felony (up to 2 years in jail), both because of the unusual cruelty of defendant's actions and because of apparent volume of cats defendant killed.
Charges:
Am 353-a(1)(ii) - A person is guilty of aggravated cruelty to animals when, with no justifiable purpose, he or she intentionally kills or intentionally causes serious physical injury to a companion animal with aggravated cruelty. For purposes of this section, "aggravated cruelty" shall mean conduct which: (ii) is done or carried out in an especially depraved or sadistic manner.The number of counts Defendant is to be charged with will be equal to the number of animals he kills.
I would recommend that the sentences run consecutively.
Defendant is apparently a poor surgeon, since he no longer practices.
Defendant is our current Senate Majority Leader. G-d help Defendant if he runs for President in 2008.
Unfortunately, Defendant escapes felony charges on aggravating statute of limitations issues. New York's 353-a was passed in 1999. Defendant would probably fall under 353, the misdemeanor animal cruelty statute.
Massachusetts, the real site of the crime, passed their felony animal cruelty statute just last year, and it went into effect on November 17, 2004. It is Massachusetts General Law,
Chapter 272, Section 77. It's also tougher than New York's law. Defendant could go to jail for up to 5 years if Defendant were to do what he did then today.
I'd still recommend that the sentences run consecutively.
I would also give Harvard University a call and have Defendant expelled, or at least, in the Thane Rosenbaum tradition of creative punishment, have the Defendant sent on naked jungle safari.
The AUT Boycott
On Friday, the Association of University Teachers, which represents English university professors, voted to boycott Haifa and Bar Ilan Universities in Israel. For background on what led to the boycott, see
Stephen Howe's article at Opendemocracy. I won't make all of the anti-boycott arguments here; they've been made in many other places.
The AUT made no statement about incidents of antisemitism Jewish students have faced on British college campuses. The leader of the boycott is one
Sue Blackwell, a Christian fundamentalist turned socialist revolutionary. (To me, this suggests that she is at best unbalanced, but then again, one could say that she went from one kind of irrational hatred to another.) Few seem to have picked up that Ms. Blackwell has called Israel an "illegitimate state", which makes clear that her aim has nothing to do with the occupation, and everything to do with using the academy to further an political interest which favors the negation of Jewish self-determination.
It is bad news when any body votes for anything like this. The good news is that in reality, it will mean nothing because it is most likely against
British law. The other good news is that most of the opinionmakers in Britain appear to oppose a boycott, including
The Times and even
The Guardian. There are also the beginnings of a huge backlash within the AUT itself;
several lecturers have resigned in protest. The motion did not pass with an overwhelming majority; the vote was barely over half in favor, and the decision-making process, which allowed for no debate on the issue has been noted by many.
What should the strategy be from here on out?
1. This motion did not pass by much. It failed by almost two-to-one in 2003 when it last brought up. The reason given at that time by the Union's Assistant Secretary General was:
“We do not support and will actively oppose any attempt to deny students the right [of equal access to higher education] purely on the basis of their opinions or beliefs.” Therefore, the first matter of business should be to explore reversing the motion. The AUT, resignations or no resignations, is not going to go away.
2. The Jewish defense organizations and any others opposed to the boycott should ensure that any academic who tries to implement this boycott faces academic sanctions, and if necessary, criminal and/or civil penalty. When Oxford professor Andrew Wilkie refused to work with an Israeli graduate student,
the university suspended him for two months without pay. These punishments may very well be meted out to academics who do similar things; the organization representing British university administrators has come out against the AUT resolution and such boycotts are almost certainly against the rules of most British universities. It is likely for this reason that the AUT has instructed its members not to act on this resolution until given further instruction. Therefore, our defense organizations in Britain should write to the AUT and inform them of their intention to pursue whatever sanctions are available against any professor who refuses to work with an Israeli colleague on the basis of that colleague's nationality.
What other strategies should be explored?
