Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Posted 10:30 AM Post Link
Links to this post
Commentary on l'affaire Tancredo at UNC @ http://thefixedpie.blogspot.com/2009/04/just-plain-unuseful-idiots.html
> Campus Leftists Don't Believe in Free SpeechNOT NEWS. So VERY not news...
."A clash of civilization versus barbarism"A Very Apt description...
I heard elsewhere that a dog bit a man.
Again, semantics can cloud a situation and leave an inaccurate impression - sometimes intentionally. How does Horowitz define a "leftist"? He seemed to imply that "leftists" and "conservatives" were equivalent counterparts on opposite ends of the political continuum. The handful he described in his article were obviously wild-eyed extremists at the far end of the political continuum. Those who are out on the farthest, extreme perimeters of both the left and right ends of the continuum can be expected to behave obnoxiously and inappropriately. But it is wrong to associate those radicals with the larger group of reasonable and civilized people who are either conservative or liberal, but nowhere near the radical fringe in either their thinking or their behavior. In the public forum, impulsive audience reaction to what a speaker has just said is also an accepted expression of free speech, as long as it is not excessively rude and does not impair the ability of the speaker to deliver his message.
I attend Princeton University, where David Horowitz came to speak last year. While the campus is clearly not primarily conservative (few campuses are) it is much more friendly to conservatives than many other schools. Nonetheless, when Mr. Horowitz came to speak to us he had several body guards, and insisted on an extensive police presence. Not only was the idea that somebody might hurt him laughable, it was beyond reasonable for him to expect that anybody would even shout at him. Despite the fact that he gave a speech which was very unpopular (and riddled with factual inaccuracies - including the old canard that Saddam Hussein was a large and important supporter of Al - Qaeda) the follow up questions were all civil, polite, and of a factual nature.My point is simply that David Horowitz insists on body gaurds and a police presence not consummate with reality or risks. The reason he does this as far as I can tell is simply so that he can use them as props to support his assertion that there is no free speech, and that he must protect himself - even as universities pick up the body guard fees and students, some of whom are undoubtedly avowed Communists or whatever else gets them into the category of "leftist" (Veganism? Feminism? Political Activism?), sit there quietly and allow him to express his views.Of course, there are occasional instances of student unrest, but I don't see how anyone could claim that it is organized, systematic, or particularly widespread. It is realistically a haphazard, small scale thing. I cannot think of any person on the left who goes around making speeches as inflammatory as those made by David Horowitz (Islamofascism? Seriously? Does he even know the definition of Fascism? Or does he just conveniently use it as a synonym for states without regard for human rights because it is inflammatory?) at so many big universities, who receives such a wide following. When was the last time Jeremiah Wright spoke a an Ivy league school, or UNC, or a conservative school for that matter (BYU perhaps)?
But it is wrong to associate those radicals with the larger group of reasonable and civilized people who are either conservative or liberal, but nowhere near the radical fringe in either their thinking or their behavior.Yeah, yeah, it's just too bad that none of these "reasonable and civilized" people have tenure at institutions of higher learning. Instead what we have is a cackle of leftists passing their pathologies off as wisdom.
Consider, for instance, the “writing-intensive two-year course sequence” called “Intellectual Heritage” that [Temple University] requires all students to take. On the program’s web page professors post some thirty different sample exam and study questions under the title “Faculty Perspectives on Marx.” Every one, without exception, prompts students to explain what Marx said in the way one might explain the theories of Copernicus, whose theories have been confirmed by real world experiments. In contrast, all Marxist experiments in the real world have failed – in fact, they have caused the economic impoverishment of whole continents, man-made famines, and human suffering on an unprecedented scale – and yet not one of the professors contributing to the Intellectual Heritage guides bothers to note this historical fact.- David Horowitz, One-Party Classroom
“A survey of incoming [Princeton] freshmen in 1938 produced a result that is now astonishing, and should have been back then as well; Adolf Hitler polled highest as the “greatest living person.” Albert Einstein was second.”--“Hitler Is ‘Greatest’ in Princton Poll: Freshmen Put Einstein Second and Chamberlain Third,” New York Times, Nov 28, 1939. The story reports that this was for the second year in a row.”Our "best and brightest" sure can pick 'em.
"The handful he described in his article were obviously wild-eyed extremists at the far end of the political continuum"...You mean like leftists?"Those who are out on the farthest, extreme perimeters of both the left and right ends of the continuum can be expected to behave obnoxiously and inappropriately"...Sort of like these people who want to aid and abet crime, right?Are they leftists or from the right?-----------------------"I attend Princeton University, where David Horowitz came to speak last year. While the campus is clearly not primarily conservative (few campuses are) it is much more friendly to conservatives than many other schools"...Hmmm, is this just another fine example of that friendly to conservatives atmosphere you are talking about?December 15, 2007 Princeton, NJ After receiving multiple death threats, a Princeton student was beat unconscious last Friday in what appears to be a politically-motivated assault. The attack came after emails saying, "WE WILL KILL YOU," were sent to the officers of a student group that promotes traditional views of marriage and sexual ethics..."Nonetheless, when Mr. Horowitz came to speak to us he had several body guards, and insisted on an extensive police presence. Not only was the idea that somebody might hurt him laughable, it was beyond reasonable for him to expect that anybody would even shout at him"...Laughable, eh?Apparently you don't know very much about Princeton and its alledged atmosphere of friendliness...
Here's a VIDEO of campus leftists disrupting a speech at UMass. They truly are the new "brown shirts". Anyone they disagree with is denied the right to speak. After this, they marched down to the campus library, scoured the shelves for books they found offensive and held a bonfire.What employer, in his right mind, would want to hire this trash?
@ 1, student from Princeton - Francisco Nava was NOT beaten unconscious at all. In fact he made it up, the beating was a hoax. He hit himself, pretended he had been assaulted, and was subsequently forced to admit under police questioning that he had lied. http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2007/12/14/19743/Next time, I suggest you read all the way to the end of the link you post, as you would have noted the updates which point out this very fact. Next time you decide to condescend to somebody make sure you know what you are talking about.
Friends of Reed and Mitchell raised money to get the women out of jail, Mitchell said. She said they are not part of an official group, but rather "activists around Indiana with similar political and moral convictions." She declined to say how the group meets. How convenient. Occam's Razor screams "Horse-sh**!!"...(snip)... In 2005, Horowitz was also hit with a pie at Butler University, and later at Purdue University a streaker interrupted his speech.So not less than three incidents. Yeah, that's par for the course.No, really. He's a par 3 Horowitz...> How does Horowitz define a "leftist"?How do you define "apologist"?> Next time, I suggest you read all the way to the end of the link you post, And it'd be nice if you actually DEALT with the whole context of a response rather than attempting to ignore every aspect of it you can't refute at all.Of course, then you'd lose your qualifications as a complete and total jackass, wouldn't you?For example, you COULD read to the bottom of your linked Princetonian entry and find this (emphasis mine):Nava's confession comes amid several instances of falsified hate crimes on college campuses nationwide over the past several years, including one at the nearby College of New Jersey in 2001, when a gay student faked death threats to himself and other members of a pro-gay-rights student group.More recently, a freshman at George Washington University confessed last month to drawing swastikas on the door of her own dorm room. Additionally, in 2004, a visiting psychology professor at Claremont-McKenna College faked a hate crime by vandalizing her own car and spray-painting it with racist and sexist epithets, for which she was sentenced to a year in prison.So, not less than three identified instances of faked allegations from some asshole on the left, vs. one identified as from an asshole on the right. So, is The Left just stupider so they get caught more or bigger lying sacks of sh** such that they do it that much more often?..or both?
@ OBloodyHell, by the student from Princeton - I believe you have completely mistaken the point of my post. In fact you do not seem to have followed the logic at all. 1 said that Horowitz should have had bodyguards in light of the danger of anti-conservative reaction at Princeton. The only example he could find to support this notion was a hoax he did not even research. The facts are that Horowitz has certainly been threatened in the past, but that he had no reasonable expectation of being threatened at Princeton. I mean, Jesus, Robert George teaches here unmolested, and he founded the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) - which is headquartered across the street from campus - and nobody has ever threatened him (or their offices).I will put my own point, which you have not responded to, more clearly: Horowitz is a divisive figure and he is happy to play up the threats to his free speech posed by organized academia with props like bodyguards - even where they are not necessary. The idea that leftists are a pervasive force across college campuses and in academia intent on systematically repressing all they are opposed to is just not realistic. The fact that universities continue to PAY Horowitz to come speak surely makes mincemeat of this idea. Are there small groups of radicals, sure. On the left, many of them are young and attend university. On the right they tend to do other things. If you deny the existence of an embarrassing wing of your own party you are delusional. I responded to his point, something you seem to have missed entirely despite your allegation to the contrary. Moreover, you seem to think that my point about Francisco Nava - somebody who is clearly mentally ill - is an attack on the right. Somehow, in your convoluted logic, it seemed like the best way to rebut what would have been an irrelevant point was to make your own irrelevant point - "So, not less than three identified instances of faked allegations from some asshole on the left, vs. one identified as from an asshole on the right." Seriously, who the fuck cares? This is an argument about David Horowitz, not a flawed attempt to count the number of idiots on different sides of the aisle. Keep your arguments about ideas, don't simply insult people, accuse them of ignoring your ideas, and then make irrelevant points. If you can't admit that 1 was incorrect about Francisco Nava, then you have ceased to see reason. If you think that the best way to counter my point about David Horowitz's lecturing style is to assert that the left is "stupider [sic]" because an article in a newspaper cited three other geographically close instances of similar behavior on the other side of the aisle then you have lost the plot.Your complaints about leftists who throw pies are merited, but somewhat hypocritical when you yourself are so quick to move into ad hominem attacks, dishonesty, and meaningless misdirection.
"student from Princeton - Francisco Nava was NOT beaten unconscious at all. In fact he made it up, the beating was a hoax"...You're right and my apologies...
"The idea that leftists are a pervasive force across college campuses and in academia intent on systematically repressing all they are opposed to is just not realistic"...Hmmm, maybe these people at On The Fence films are lying...You can check out their film in three parts and give us your take on it...
@ 1 - My apologies for being a bit meaner than I had to be. I have not seen that video, and I will watch it later tonight.
I just watched a bunch of spoiled brats and some demented seniors stop former representative tom Tancredo from speaking at Duke. These chanting imbeciles stopped a person from telling others why he was opposed to illegals getting in state rates. To me it is a totally rational proposition.Duke use to be a good school but to allow this assault on a person and a principle is without merit. As are every single one of the senior and junior thugs that prevented him from speaking.Every single one of them were leftists. We use to call them either marxists, anarchists or losers. It does not matter actually, the three terms are synonyms.
Like Winston Churchill once said, if you are not a liberal at age twenty, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at age forty, you have no brain.Leftists who control our universities, most of the mainstream press, and other cultural institutions for the past forty plus years do not have a tolerance for ideas different then their own. Conservatives, who believe in the the Constitutional principles of our Founding Fathers believe in individual liberty. Pure and simple, conservatives will debate on issues, but leftists want to stifle free expression because it is a threat to their utopian ideals of state. I was a card carrying member of PETA in my college years, but my wisdom came with my experiences AFTER college when I entered the real world, thus I have become a conservative and am proud of it.
Have you ever considered that people you call leftists just don't have a tolerance for unfounded arguments?
"Leftists have no tolerance for unfounded arguments"? If anything, liberalism has a long record of failures, starting from New Deal policies to education to economic theory. Everything they propose sounds good but in reality it fails for a number of reasons, the biggest one being that it ignores the realities of human nature. Conservatives believe in proven, time-honored principles that work in the real world.
Post a Comment
Create a Link
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan.
Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
View my complete profile