As indicated in several other diaries, the Washington Post printed a front page article by Perry Bacon Jr. on Obama's rumored linkage to Muslims. It was clearly a horrible piece of journalism, as has been pointed out by the Columbia Journalism Review, Media Matters, and numerous blogs. I did a little checking into Perry Bacon's past. He was a Yale student through 2002 and staff member and editor of the Yale Daily News. He wrote some good articles then.
Before I give some examples of his writing as a Yale student, let me point out something humorous. Someone edited Wikipedia to reflect the controversy, but it has since been changed back (see here) (as noted by one of the comments below).
Bacon joined TIME Magazine in September 2002. He also contributes articles on diplomacy and education. While covering politics for TIME he wrote about the presidential runs of John Kerry and Howard Dean.
Bacon grew up in Louisville, Kentucky. Bacon graduated Yale with a major in Political Science. Bacon has also worked for and contributed to the Louisville Courier-Journal, National Journal and the Washington Post. [1]
Despite his denials, rumors and e-mails circulating on the Internet continue to allege that Perry Bacon is a child molester. [2]
- ^ Perry Bacon Biography, TIME.com
- ^ Pssst. Pass It On., Hullabaloo
Here is one of his articles from his time at Yale - he could have written this for DailyKos and it would have fit right in:
I don't feel the same as I did Sept. 10. From attending football games to reserving airline tickets to opening my mail, I and many other Americans feel threatened in a way we never have before.
Yet, I don't feel differently on one subject -- civil liberties.
America was founded on a tradition of protecting fundamental rights, such as freedom of religion and speech and due process through the courts.
These rights have been zealously protected in America. Interestingly, the few notable exceptions, such as Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, have often happened in times of war. Under the guise of keeping Americans safer, other Americans' freedom has been taken away.
History is repeating itself under the Bush administration -- national security has taken precedence over civil liberties. Already, immigrants from a host of countries, mainly the Middle East, will have to wait much longer to receive visas than immigrants from other countries.
Many Arab-Americans have been detained in jail while the Justice Department makes certain that they were not involved in the attacks of Sept. 11. Even worse, the Justice Department recently announced a new policy in which communications between lawyers and detainees will now be monitored by the department without judicial approval.
These measures will keep us safer, according to the administration.
I don't feel any safer when the administration decides that those seeking visas from selected countries must wait many days longer to immigrate.
I don't feel any safer when the Justice Department overrides the lawyer-client code of confidentiality, one of the basic tenets of our legal system.
I don't feel any safer when courts racially profile Arab-Americans, detaining people who have no connection to the terrorist attacks.
What is even more disconcerting is the silence of many groups that previously faced similar treatment. A few years ago, after New Jersey and New York police were accused of pulling over black drivers and searching people for drug crimes based on race, the NAACP and other groups loudly condemned such actions.
Now, aside from a few congressmen, senators and civil liberties groups, most groups have remained silent. Racial profiling has become government policy.
I would feel much safer and more secure in a country that protected civil liberties, even in times of peril. And if we've decided that civil liberties need to be restricted, let's do it universally rather than making arbitrary distinctions on whose rights should be taken away.
If Americans really feel unsafe, let's check everyone's visa, whether you're from Australia, England or Saudi Arabia. John Ashcroft would say that this makes little sense. None of the terrorists has been from England and many from Saudi Arabia.
But imagine that you're that person from Saudi Arabia who simply wants to study in the United States. You're just as likely to commit a crime as a student coming from France, since the overwhelming odds are that neither of you will. But you'll now be waiting much longer for your visa.
The Bush administration seems to be ignoring the recent history of World War II and other examples that demonstrate how abridging fundamental rights is a turn for the worst. Bush and Ashcroft seem to see an amendment in the Constitution that says that Congress, or the president, can make any law that in its view protects the citizens of the United States in times of war, national calamity or any other concern.
That's not in my copy of the Constitution, and you shouldn't feel any safer if John Ashcroft is rewriting yours by erasing the rights of some Americans.
After graduating from Yale, he wrote a letter to the editor to the Yale Daily News - and again sounds like a reasonable guy:
To the Editor:
As a former staff member and editor of the Yale Daily News, I was very disappointed at Monday's News' View ("A closer look at Yale's first MLK Day off," 1/21) regarding Yale's decision to have Martin Luther King Day off. Rather than devoting space to honor the civil rights leader's legacy, the editors chose to repeat their argument from last year about how having this day off devalues other holidays.
The argument makes little sense. This is not a matter of whether one thinks that presidents or veterans are less or more important to America than Martin Luther King. Having this day off represents the dramatic and continuing struggle to achieve equality for a variety of groups that have been oppressed in America.
It recognizes the importance of continuing America's and Yale's progress toward racial equality.
Presidents Day has no similar noble goal; there is not a group of oppressed former presidents who need a holiday, nor a struggle to ensure presidents have equality. In the future, the Yale Daily News should look to honor Dr. King's legacy rather than complaining about the lack of recognition of Presidents Day or other federal holidays.
The News should look to honor Dr. King's legacy rather than complaining about the lack of recognition of Presidents Day or other federal holidays. Yale, led by its students and faculty, made a positive decision last year to recognize an important day for America. Many students spent the weeks up to yesterday organizing an impressive array of speakers and events for the holiday.
The News, in its capacity as being an important representative of the students, should embrace the hard work of these students, rather than continuing its criticism of the holiday.
Perry Bacon '02
January 22, 2002
The writer is a former features editor of the Yale Daily News.
Even his articles since Yale, and before Yesterday, for Time and Washington Post, are OK by and large. So what happened to him, to get him to write such an awful article yesterday? Was he wanting to be in the limelight? He got that wish. Did his bosses at WaPo pressure him into writing about this?