Stating that gas chambers were not used and that only 200,000-300,000 Jewish men women and children were intentionally exterminated by the Nazis and their collaborators, is in fact Holocaust denial. It is one of the key aspects of Holocaust denial. Few if any people claim that no Jews died, instead they make arguments like the ones of Bishop Williamson, that far fewer people died and that there were no gas chambers, implying that there was no systematic murder. Denying this not only attacks history, but minimizes the suffering of millions of innocent people. There is no excuse for these actions. Simply because Bishop Williamson chooses to believe the lies of so called historians does not excuse his actions, nor does it mean that he is not spreading falsehoods. In addition, the “historian” whom Williamson cites, is Fred Leuchter whose “findings” have been thoroughly debunked for 20 years, and who is only cited by Holocaust deniers. The report which Williamson cites was funded by Ernst Zündel, who was at the time on trial for, and later convicted of, Holocaust denial, and who has published Nazi and Neo-Nazi propaganda. As such, Williamson’s statement that he will change his opinion when his sources change theirs is absurd, insofar as his sources are known anti-Semites.

It is an established fact that six million Jewish men women and children were systematically killed by the Nazis and their collaborators. There is no real debate regarding this. There are those who promote the truth, and there are anti-Semites who deny the truth in order to further their own ends. And yes, it is anti-Semitic to deny the Holocaust, as it creates a situation in which the Nazis and their collaborators did not kill as many people as history has recorded, meaning that they were not as evil as has been believed. In addition it means that someone has been intentionally spreading information that six million Jews died, which in turn implicates Jewish people, meaning that within the framework of Holocaust denial, Jews are responsible for spreading lies about Nazis and their collaborators. Denying “aspects” of the Holocaust is Holocaust denial.

The excuse that Bishop Williamson is just a conspiracy theorist further shows the lack of ground on which the bishop stands, in that the best label for him, albeit one which is severely whitewashed, is that of someone who believes in conspiracies. Sadly this is not the case, but rather Bishop Williamson supports the ideas of anti-Semites, and in doing so is acting as an anti-Semite. This stance is unconscionable, and cannot be the stance of a Roman Catholic bishop. Unfortunately the time for action against the Holocaust has long passed, yet we can still act in the memory of those who died. Not just the six million Jews, but also the five million others who were killed. The Roman Catholic Church stands, as it should, for truth, and the truth of the matter is that six million Jews died. As such, it is imperative that Pope Benedict XVI reaffirm the Church’s stance for truth and punish Bishop Williamson for his anti-Semitic attitude.

Popularity: 8% [?]

When Barack Obama signed into law the largest spending bill in United States history, and by default the history of the world, many heralded it a great political achievement for his fledgling administration.  Scarcely months into his presidency, Democrats, with Obama at the wheel, were able to drive through both the House and Senate, and ultimately back through the House again, the $789 billion stimulus with relative ease. However, those that applauded the President also failed to see what is painfully obvious: that this bill will go down in history as one of the most partisan pieces of legislation ever.

With large democratic majorities in both the House and Senate, Republicans never posed any real threat to the passage of the stimulus and thus the survival of the bill never depended on more than a few Republican senators for survival. Nevertheless, the fact that not one of the 178 Republican representatives was wooed over to the bandwagon could prove to be a big missed opportunity for the President.

Without a doubt, President Obama possesses an unprecedented amount of support and approval from the public and can seemingly do no wrong in the eyes of many.  If anyone could have reached out in the spirit of bipartisanship, it would have been the President. Unfortunately, rather than live up to his campaign promises, Mr. Obama chose idealism over pragmatism and caved to every ideological whim of the far left in congress.

What is even more unfortunate for the President is that even a few small concessions, such as more money devoted to infrastructure (which the President himself seemed to prioritize during his campaign) could have convinced a few Republican representatives to vote for the bill.

With all his hopeless rhetoric in the past few weeks, the President seemed to have made it his goal to convince the public that the economy is deeply entrenched in a horrible recession.  If this is the case, and I don’t doubt that it isn’t after listening to the President, it would not matter if the stimulus was passed this past week or next month, and more time could have been taken to modify the bill and make it more palatable to those on the other side of the isle (and more importantly, to more than 51 percent of Americans).  The President seemed to have put quantity over quality when he said “not to make the perfect the enemy of the good,” while possessing the time, power and support, to make this bill more perfect instead of just good.

This is a hard time for many Americans and no one doubts the need to do something about the economy.  Republicans are not just being obstructionists or sore losers, they don’t want to see this bill fail as recessions are apolitical and affect Republicans and Democrats alike. With so much at stake, it is in everyone’s interest that the stimulus works, and simply slowing down and hearing what others have to say can only ensure that the best measures are taken to restore the American economy. The fact is that should this bill fail absolutely, or even partially, Democrats will have no one to share the blame with or the “I told you so’s” from Republicans.

Popularity: 7% [?]

Last week Marquette once again hosted its Mission Week entitled; iAct: Consequences of Faith. Throughout the course of the week the University hosted a variety of different events and speeches designed to promote St. Ignatius of Loyola’s philosophy that, “Love is found more in deeds than in words.”

This is an idea that certainly needs to be taught; particularly at a Jesuit institution, and over the past four years I believe each Mission Week has done an excellent job educating us on how we must act to correct the injustices throughout the world. I particularly enjoyed the panel last year on “War, Peace, and People of Faith.” The different perspectives helped the audience better understand the concept of “just war” as well as the relationship between faith and justice. Unfortunately I did not believe this year’s keynote speaker, Dr. Shirin Ebadi, provided the same insight into this year’s theme or the importance of faith.

The beginning of her speech was extremely interesting, especially when she discussed how winning elections does not guarantee democracy, and emphasized how the elected majority must maintain a framework of human rights laws in order for democracy to flourish. But following these insights Dr. Ebadi quickly decided to delve into politics, congratulating the audience on the election of President Obama and his closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. She then proceeded to state how the United States government violated civil rights following September 11, and explained how the War in Iraq was only about oil.

Even if you agreed with her statements you should be disappointed, just as I would have been if another speaker had decided to digress from his or her speech topic to defend the actions of former President Georgea W. Bush. A university should be a free marketplace for ideas but there is a time and a place for certain ideas to be shared. If Dr. Ebadi had been asked to come and speak at Marquette by a student organization or for a lecture series hosted by one of the colleges her comments would have been appropriate. Mission Week simply was not the forum for these political comments.

Rather the Mission Week keynote speaker should devote his or her speech to the theme of the week. His or her goal should be to show the audience how their faith can be a catalyst for action; how each individual can and should be a champion for justice. Dr. Ebadi had experienced a life full of injustice that she could have shared with the audience; truly demonstrating the “consequences of faith.” It is unfortunate she decided not to take advantage of this opportunity.

Popularity: 10% [?]

Today, we are all under a relentless and unwavering attack by society as it tries to force feed us tolerance of just about everything. Tolerance, as viewed by society, is the pinnacle of cultural progress in our modern world. To see this, simply turn on MTV and watch shows like “The Real World.” The show is filled with drama, fighting and back-stabbing as people from many different backgrounds and sexual orientations all try to ‘tolerate’ each other. Society tries to tell us that, just like on “The Real World,” tolerance of each other is the best way for us to get along and progress as a society.

This is where society is dead wrong. Tolerance never got anybody anywhere. It is basically a sugar-coated way of saying “I’m right, but I don’t have the guts to prove you wrong.” Moreover, it is an admission of a lack of faith in yourself, as you tell yourself that there is a chance that you are wrong. If you are certain that you possess the truth, then you actually owe it to others to show them so. You have an ethical obligation to do everything reasonably possible to ensure that the truth becomes known to all.

If society wants true progress, or “change,” then what it should really be preaching is INtolerance.Not intolerance in the sense that you disrespect, hate or hurt others, but in the sense that you refuse to settle for anything less than the truth. Intolerance strives for a universal truth agreed upon by both parties; a much more pragmatic situation then just agreeing to disagree. Consider this: if tolerance was the root of Dr. Martin Luther King’s message, then we all would still hold prejudices towards each other, but would be in agreement not to say so to each other’s face. If Nelson Mandela was not intolerant, he would have been fine with the system of governance in which blacks and whites “tolerate” each other but were just kept separated. No, these gentlemen were extremely intolerant of racial injustice. As a result, the problem of racism is not just being painted over, but is being attacked at its roots so that everyone sees THE truth instead of just their own version of the truth.
Here at Marquette, we can emulate the power houses of intolerance that I mentioned above and refuse to tolerate the many injustices that are present in our society. We may not experience the same injustices that our forefathers did, but the Milwaukee community certainly has its share of injustice. For example, there is a division of Planned Parenthood just past Mashuda on Wisconsin Avenue, and we have all witnessed people asking for a bite to eat as we walk to class.

While we cannot all be Dr. Martin Luther Kings or Nelson Mandelas, we can all strive to embody their healthy intolerance. We can open our eyes to what is going on around us and through our democratic system we can refuse to support those who wish to tolerate or even further these injustices. Yes, there is hope for a better future, one which has truly progressed beyond primitive tolerance, but this will only be possible if we start today by living and breathing intolerance for the wrongs of this world.

Popularity: 10% [?]

The CIA does not often consider criminal enterprise a grave threat to the National Security of the United States. In fact, the average criminal organization only poses a threat confined to the neighborhoods in which it operates and projects influence. In the southern United States however, and particularly in Mexico, organized crime poses what the CIA calls the second most serious threat to National Security, trailing only behind Al Qaida.

The drug trafficking cartels have established themselves as some of the most violent organizations on earth, using scare tactics more commonly associated with the Middle East war zones then North America. In one Mexican border village, the police chief’s head was found in a bucket of ice outside the police department, and many local and federal cops have been assassinated or paid off. The simple fact is that Mexico does not have the cash to pay and equip its law enforcement personnel as well as the drug cartels can. Estimates vary, but the average guess is that $25 billion found its way from the U.S. to Mexican cartels in the past year, allowing the cartels to offer ‘wages’ unmatchable by legitimate authorities. Recent arrests have shown that the cartels are using former military members, including ex Special Forces types with formal paramilitary training, to combat Mexican authorities. The allure of higher wages caused some 17,000 Mexican soldiers to desert in the past year, according to a recent news article from Fox News. The Wall Street Journal reports that police are attacked with an array of weaponry including M-4 assault rifles, fragmentation grenades, anti-personnel mines, rocket propelled grenades and .50 caliber sniper rifles, all wielded by military trained cartel members with body armor and night vision goggles. The situation on our southern border is perilous, and has caused both the CIA and the State Department to question the stability of the Mexican government.
Those members of the Mexican military and law enforcement establishments who have maintained their loyalty to the state of Mexico deserve respect and admiration for the risks they take to fulfill their duties. However, the U.S. would do well to offer more than kind words of praise for their efforts. There are four steps that should be taken to combat this problem.

First, the U.S. should use the National Guard to augment the Border Patrol and seal more of the gaps along the border. Unmanned drones and infrared technology can also be employed in much greater frequency to detect illegal activity and to allow precision responses to border violations. This would help contain the problem of both drugs and illegal immigration.

Second, the U.S. must show more concern for the smuggling of contraband into Mexico. It is absurdly easy to smuggle things out of the U.S. – according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), 7,700 weapons, not to mention billions in cash were smuggled over the border last year. The border is a two way street, and it is time that this fact was reflected at border crossings. Doing so will help to curb the flow of guns and cash to the cartel and it is America’s responsibility as an ally and good neighbor to do so.

Third, the U.S. should use offer more fiscal assistance directly to certain factions of the Mexican government. The money can be used to fund the recruitment of loyal troops and police officers inside the Mexican government and can also improve training and conditions for troops already in service. It could also be used to better equip the police and soldiers in the region. Obviously ex-Special Forces members armed with American military quality equipment can overwhelm cops armed with a sidearm and a shotgun. It would hardly be a drain on U.S. resources as every battle won in Mexico is one that does not have to be fought on the U.S. side of the border.
Fourth, the U.S. has to get serious about using the Justice system to punish drug users as well as drug dealers. As long as there is a demand for drugs, someone will supply them. The drug cartels are responding to the demand created here at home. If drug use carried mandatory sentences recreational use would decline. As a general rule of thumb, first time drug use offenders should be subject to 200 hours of community service wearing distinctive clothing. Repeat offenders would be subject to jail terms and mandatory attendance in rehabilitation. Building prisons would also fold nicely into President Obama’s infrastructure construction based stimulus plan. Combatting drug use could ultimately be the most effective means to reducing the violence in Mexico in the long run, and the most cost effective for the U.S. as it is the government that ends up footing the bill for enforcement and much of the rehabilitation costs.

The bottom line is that Mexico is doing its best to fight an evil and ruthless organization within its borders, and like the insurgency in Iraq, it is a largely faceless enemy that hides among the people. The cartels have committed outrage after outrage against the population and the police in particular deserve the support of the United States, because ultimately it is American citizens and their demand for drugs that is financing and extenuating the problems south of our border. It is the duty of this country to help a struggling ally clean up the mess that some disreputable American citizens are generating.

Popularity: 10% [?]

Some Wisconsinites may have noticed Jim Doyle’s support of an idea to increase spending and financial support in the healthcare industry by taxing hospitals. The basic idea reflects a backward idea that increasing hospital costs will allow the underprivileged to spend more in hospitals by giving them the hospital’s profits. While the next step in the logical process involving the loss to hospitals being made up somewhere else may seem obvious to most, Jim Doyle sees this as a way to stimulate Wisconsin’s economy because Medicaid recipients will have more money to spend on consumer products. I mean all that expendable income is why America created means-tested social welfare programs… right?

In retrospect of previous actions by current political leaders, many expect this ridiculous political action to be somehow connected to the unbelievable deficit that coincidentally is the fault of generally the same people. Wisconsin, previously known as one of the great laboratories of democracy in the United States, has lately become one of the great laboratories of Democratic mistakes as our citizens fall into debt that anyone who demonstrates knowledge about the second tallest capitol building in the country would be ashamed to hear. However, this strange apparent attempt to raise government revenues by regressively taxing the sick has no link to our current deficit. The ploy is above Doyle’s usual partisan pandering, like his refusal to recognize Ronald Reagan Day. Doyle actually is supporting a much more sinister objective along with Wisconsin’s entire Democratic Party.

In an effort to undermine the religious right, Wisconsin Democrats are assaulting the moral and religious base that many associate with modern Republicans. The increase on hospital taxes is being fiendishly coupled with a bill pushed by Democrats to allow breast-feeding to occur publicly all over Wisconsin. Then, when women begin their public displays of nudity while feeding their children, everyone will go crazy at the barrage of visual inappropriateness assaulting them in shopping malls, parks, perhaps even their bi-weekly political science class. Both ideas alone may only seem stupid, but in conjunction they are an evil ploy to destroy the Republican Party and create a totalitarian regime in the Badger state.

Popularity: 9% [?]

Pope Benedict XVI has recently declared the four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) to not be excommunicated. However, around the same time Pope Benedict made his declaration, one of the bishops, Richard Williamson, was seen on an interview on Swedish television discussing his views on what happened during the Holocaust.

Without a moment’s delay, the Jewish leaders, cognizant of Williamson’s interview, were greatly offended that the Pope would declare that the bishop was once again inside of the Church, even though the Pope did not know about Williamson’s interview.

Bishop Williamson has been accused of saying a lot of things. Many of those accusations are probably well-founded. Nonetheless, there are certain things which you cannot accuse him of, namely that he denies the Holocaust and that he is anti-Semitic. Unfortunately, now the traditionalist bishop is facing possible imprisonment in Germany for his comments during the Swedish interview.

Although Williamson’s comments were historically inaccurate, you cannot claim he is anti-Semitic or that he fully denied the Holocaust. On the other hand, he denied aspects of the Holocaust. For example, he believed that there were only 200-300,000 Jews killed, not six million, and that gas chambers were never used. He says that he bases his conclusions on “historical evidence”, and he denies “emotion” playing a factor in his decisions.

He also claims that he made his decisions based off of opinions of those whom he thinks judge by historical evidence. In fact, he states that if they changed their opinions, he would also. He trusts those authors whom he believes are good historians.

These are not the comments of an anti-Semite. After all, the murder of 200-300,000 Jews is not exactly a petty matter. Furthermore, he nowhere claims in the interview that he hates Jews. He is by no means another Adolph Hitler.

As mentioned earlier, Williamson says he based his decisions on those of certain historians and states that he would change his opinion if they changed theirs. In other words, if they decided that there were gas chambers and that six million Jews died in the Holocaust, he would believe them! Does that sound anti-Semitic?

He is not an anti-Semite because he does not hate Jews. He is not a heretic because the Holocaust is not part of Catholic doctrine. He is not a liar, as Monsignor Robert Wister called him, because liars say things which they do not believe, and he clearly seems to believe what he says.

However, he is a conspiracy theorist. Not to mention, many of his facts are wrong. Six million Jews most certainly died in the Holocaust, and many of them died in gas chambers.

Nonetheless, everyone regardless of his decisions or beliefs deserves a fair trial.

Popularity: 15% [?]

You’re all probably wondering how someone can say such a rash thing, how anybody short of the devil himself could come to the defense of such a great evil as Big Oil. So let me start out by saying that by and large I am not a fan of oil companies. Their money too often finds its way into the pockets of too many politicians who are only too gracious to return the favor at seemingly any cost. Moreover, this country is entirely too dependant upon oil as a source of energy. Oil is one great big basket into which we have placed all our energetic eggs.

Having said that, looking back at the events of the past year, I feel inclined to come to the aid of big oil. 2008 saw oil at its highest price ever of $147.30 a barrel, with the average American shelling $4.11 for a gallon of gas this past July. Many accused oil companies of price gouging and demanded that greedy oil execs testify in congress to explain the soaring prices. Certainly people had a right to be angry (I have to admit that I was one of them), but the end of 2008 proved that we should have directed our anger not at oil, but instead on global speculation.

Prices dropped at the end of 2008 because the global economy tanked and demand for oil dropped. The fact that oil plunged to less than $40.00 a barrel provides vindication for oil companies, and proves that global demand and speculation rather than greedy oil tycoons drove oil prices to their record heights.

Even more importantly, oil companies are doing well what most other companies are not in the present economic climate: still employing Americans and paying taxes. Exxon Mobil, for instance, directly employs 30,000 Americans while employing thousands more through its subsidiaries and at its retail sites. With almost daily news of companies laying off thousands of employees, 30,000 secure American jobs is nothing at which to scoff. As far as taxes go, Exxon Mobil paid almost $30 Billion dollars in net income taxes to the U.S. government in 2007 alone. This number does not include the billions more the corporation shelled out for sales based taxes and other duties.

Exxon Mobil, along with other American owned oil and gas companies such as BP, Royal Dutch/Shell, Chevron and others employ thousands of Americans and continue to pay billions of dollars in taxes in the current tough economic climate. Yes, these companies garnered huge profits as gas prices skyrocketed, but profit is taxable and is ultimately used to create more jobs through capital investment and business expansion. There is a bad side to big oil, but there is certainly a good side as well in what it does provide for the U.S. economy. For this, at least, it should not be faulted.

Popularity: 6% [?]

At the end of November MTV launched their documentary on Britney Spears entitled “Britney: For the Record.” Aired a few weeks before the release of her newest CD “Circus” the documentary was an attempt by Britney Spears to set the record straight, as well as clean up her image. While many of you may ask why I would watch such a show, (a question I asked myself many times throughout the course of the hour), but I was actually glad I did. Not only was I entertained by her many ridiculous quotes, including her explanation of why she shaved her head when she stated; “people shave their heads every day.” But I also got a better understanding of Britney herself. I honestly feel bad for her.

Britney Spears began her performance career when she was eight years old and received a spot on the New Mickey Mouse Club when she was 11 years old. For many people this would be a dream come true, but they also fail to see the consequences of becoming so rich and famous at such a young age. Britney has not had the opportunity to attend a university like you and I, she is uneducated and is surrounded by many people who are trying to get rich from her fame. While I am certainly not a psychologist, it doesn’t take a genius to see the effect this has had on her. More is expected of her than you and I, while she has had double the pressure put on her.

Unfortunately, Britney’s story is not unique, particularly in Hollywood. Over break I picked up a book entitled The Hollywood Book of Death by Robert Parish. This incredibly interesting book gave short synopses of the lives and deaths of over 100 different Hollywood stars; one of the most notable being that of Judy Garland.
Judy Garland was a phenomenal actress whose amazing vocals were heard in movies such as “The Wizard of Oz” and “Meet me in St. Louis.” While being incredibly talented she battled with self-doubt throughout her entire life. These doubts were compounded by film executives who told her she was both overweight and unattractive. Taking drugs to control her weight and increase her productivity, Judy endured a decades-long struggle with addiction. She was also plagued by financial instability, often owing hundreds of thousands of dollars in back taxes, and her first four of five marriages ended in divorce. After many suicide attempts she eventually died of an accidental drug overdose. At her funeral “Wizard of Oz” co-star Ray Bolger commented, “She just plain wore out.”

Too often we are enthralled by the lives of celebrities similar to Britney Spears such as Marilyn Monroe, Judy Garland or even former Marquette student Chris Farley who party hard and die young. We remember their self-destruction and on some level are even impressed by it, but we fail to see their incredible unhappiness and their cries for help.

Popularity: 5% [?]

About 75 years ago, Franklin Delano Roosevelt promised the American people a New Deal. He took advantage of the nation’s disgust for the Hoover administration and its handling of the Great Depression to bring about the most radical reform this nation has ever seen. The landslide which took place in the 1932 election was an authorization from the American people for Roosevelt to do whatever needed to be done to rescue our country from the Depression. President Barack Obama enters office under many of the same conditions: an unpopular president, a failing economy and a mandate for change.

Barack Obama will have the ability to get all of his legislation passed without any reasonable resistance from Congress, the same way Roosevelt was able to do whatever he wanted during his first hundred days. Obama can be as radical or as moderate as he chooses.

The Obama administration seems as if it will continue Bush’s policy of bailing out our nation’s major corporations. However, the amount of money given to the corporations and the number of corporations being bailed out will greatly increase. We also know that Obama plans to immediately implement an economic stimulus plan. During the next four years, Obama will be sending plenty of stimulus checks to American households.

Moreover, if the time was ever ripe for our country to finally give into socialized medicine, it is now. Just as Medicare and Medicaid were an expansion of Social Security, so will Medicare and Medicaid be expanded into a universal health care system, where all Americans can be confident that the government which destroyed our currency and funded the Taliban during the Carter and Reagan administrations can now monitor brain surgeries.

What’s worse is that Obama is poised to stick a dagger in the heart of the pro-life movement. With legislation such as the Freedom of Choice Act, abortion will have the stamp of approval by the federal government. Abortion will be made as accessible as humanly possible, demonstrated by the fact that Obama has shown support for infanticide.

President Obama is more than capable of being the most radical president ever. He will expand socialism so far that voters in Venezuela will think Chavez is ripping them off. More importantly, his unequivocal support for abortion will destroy any hope which pro-life conservatives have of restoring our nation’s respect for human life.

Popularity: 9% [?]