May 15, 2004

Getting Cranky...

There is a certain kind of Berkeley professor who I am losing my tolerance for...

You know (or maybe you don't): the kind who believes that your first duty is to sympathetically understand where people are coming from. Unless they're Republicans. You have a duty to enter into the thought processes and sympathetically entertain the understanding of the world of a guy in Nigeria who as a picture of Osama bin Laden in his car, or a bureaucratic functionary working for Fidel Castro, or somebody who thinks that Bangladeshis should not be allowed to work in the textile industry. But Republicans? They are Blue Meanies. They are one dimensional. They are baaaaad.

And, of course, they appear to have no ironic consciousness of the huge disconnect in their intellectual stance at all. To say in one breath that we must not succumb to the temptation to turn those who express sympathy for Osama bin Laden into alien, hated, one-dimensional OTHERS; and then say in the next that those who express sympathy for Paul Wolfowitz are alien, hated, one-dimensional OTHERS...

Posted by DeLong at May 15, 2004 08:44 AM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this post
Comments

Brad writes: the understanding of the world of a guy in Nigeria who as a picture of Osama bin Laden in his car

Sounds more like confused

Posted by: bubba on May 15, 2004 08:50 AM

____

I think you found a typo. Try it with the word "has" replacing the "as" in that sentence.

Posted by: wcw on May 15, 2004 08:59 AM

____

The phenomenom that you describe Brad, is of course, part of the Bush effect and given the regressive nature of the Bush administration, its assault on American values and the fact that its base of operations is on American soil, this response is understandable. We can only look forward to a time when he is gone (sooner hopefully rather than later) and Republicans don't seem so strange.

Posted by: Dubblblind on May 15, 2004 09:07 AM

____

Oh come on Brad.

The point is, we are surrounded by all kinds of interpretations of western government actions that are based on, at the least, a generous interpretation of their underlying motives:

- The USA is in Iraq to spread democracy (evidence please?).

- The lack of WMD shows a lack of information, not a deliberate and calculated decision to manipulate facts.

- In short, western governments have values that are basically decent, and their actions (in Iraq and elsewhere) reflect this. Evidence to the contrary is an abberration, not the norm.

In such an environment, the fact that a minority goes out the other way is hardly surprising, and is certainly not the Big Issue.

The big issue is whether underlying US policy (and other states too) reflects some noble goal and moral purpose or not (and it doesn't).

Posted by: Tom Slee on May 15, 2004 09:14 AM

____


I think the reason for the difference is that the racist cab driver is no threat to the Berkeley professor, but president Bush is doing direct damage to him.

It's different when it's personal.

Posted by: Josh Yelon on May 15, 2004 09:33 AM

____

Thank goodness this is only a problem with Berkeley professors.

Posted by: Charles Kinbote on May 15, 2004 09:34 AM

____

This phenomena long preceded Bush, I ran into it all the time in the late 1960s and 1970s, but much more so in Berkeley than New York. It’s adversarial culture with religious fervor. My daughter worked in a small business (very near) Berkeley. One day the boss invited everyone to leave work and attend a demonstration against the impending war in Iraq. My daughter quietly and politely (she’s always polite) declined. After that, the boss became abusive to her. He would call her a “Republican,” and yell and scream over minor items throughout the day (he never did that before). Actually she was a Gore voter, she just didn’t want to demonstrate. One day the boss told her “George Bush is worse than Saddam Hussein.” Here was someone over 60 who had the emotions of a teenager. BTW he was a retired Berkeley schoolteacher. In my experience this kind of thing is typical of Berkeley. After all David Horowitz needs to bring bodyguards when he speaks at UCB. If Chomsky went to speak at Bob Jones University would he need to bring bodyguards? Or would he simply get a polite cool reception?

Posted by: A. zarkov on May 15, 2004 09:39 AM

____

"After all David Horowitz needs to bring bodyguards when he speaks at UCB."

Does he really need to? Or is that just a bit of self-dramatization? Not that Horowitz ever exaggerates of course.

"If Chomsky went to speak at Bob Jones University would he need to bring bodyguards?"

Well, Jesse Helms claimed, I believe, that Clinton would need extraordinary protection if he even came to North Carolina.

Posted by: Bernard Yomtov on May 15, 2004 09:45 AM

____

I used to try to understand the Republicans. But once you know the facts, you can't help but notice that they are meanies and bad.

If they are not, please explain how Tom Friedman is wrong. And Brad seemed to indicate that Friedman's right.

The last 4 years should have taught them a lesson (I'd actually say the last 7 years). But they don't want to learn.

Please give me a reason to not think they are meanies and bad. I really want to believe otherwise.

Posted by: Wolf on May 15, 2004 09:58 AM

____

“Does he really need to? Or is that just a bit of self-dramatization? Not that Horowitz ever exaggerates of course.”

I think he really needs to. I have many examples of the culture of political violence in Berkeley. A friend of mine got his arm broken at the Jewish Community Center in Berkeley. What did he do to provoke this attack? He made pro-Israel statements. Yes even in the Jewish Community Center you can’t be pro-Israel. Another friend (a very mild person) a physics grad student had his arm broken in an unprovoked attack on Telegraph Avenue right near Cody’s. In Berkeley it’s common to go around town and rip down posters of the political opposition. If the posters are on a fence, glued on tightly, the fence gets burned down. The current mayor of Berkeley was caught rounding up copies of the Daily Cal because it wrote a less than favorable editorial about him. In 1968 when a Tower record store open up, there was a riot outside because it would be in competition with a local store. Need I mention the SLA?

“Well, Jesse Helms claimed, I believe, that Clinton would need extraordinary protection if he even came to North Carolina.”

That’s possible, but I suspect it just political hyperbole. But how about Bob Jones University? Would there be demonstrations, and threats against Chomsky. Perhaps, but surely if that kind of thing went on there we would have heard about it.

Posted by: A. Zarkov on May 15, 2004 10:20 AM

____

whoa. Who cracked Brad's password?

Posted by: am on May 15, 2004 10:21 AM

____

two kinds of people in this world, nice ones and mean ones.

people like amy goodman vs people like donald rumsfeld.

bush accentuates these differences. it's all he has. your either for us, or your against us.

personally, i call this POOR LEADERSHIP!

Posted by: charley on May 15, 2004 10:27 AM

____

Wolf:

I think you’re missing Brad’s point. Let’s suppose Republicans really are the Blue Meanies. Are they so much worse than Bin Laden that one should not even attempt to understand their worldview? Why doesn’t the Liberal thought process extend to Republicans and Christians as it extends to Communists, radical Muslims, PLO terrorists, the IRA, Fidel Castro, Hoxia, Stalin, Charles Manson, the SLA, and the Black Panthers, to name but a few. Do you see the disconnect?

Posted by: A. Zarkov on May 15, 2004 10:32 AM

____

As a former cal student I understand where Brad is coming from. It's just that hyperexposure to the radical left produces an allergic sensitivity to their excesses and stupidity. When I was at Berkeley the whole city council were members of the "Berkeley Communist Party", and the city was paralyzed for months over the polemic issue of whether Berkeley should recognize a Palestinian refugee camp as a "sister city".

However, a quick cure for this disease is a trip to a nice republican county anywhere in the country where one can see that the excesses and stupidity of the right far outmatch their leftist colleagues (at least in this country).

Posted by: non economist on May 15, 2004 10:40 AM

____

I agree completely with Brad's comments.

On the other hand (I'll try to say this as sweetly as I can...), his blog isn't exactly characterized by an effort to understand sympathetically Republicans. I know it's hard, but try to understand them (before voting against them!).

Posted by: Andrew Boucher on May 15, 2004 11:03 AM

____

Leftwingers and rightwingers--or liberals and conservatives--are each a species of half-wit. Maybe if you put them together you’d get a full brain, but I doubt it.

Perhaps the phenomenon is endemic to human nature. Rational thought BEGINS by splitting things into pairwise opposites, upon which Aristotle is nearly explicit (in the Physics and Metaphysics). Of course, thinking is supposed to proceed much further than that. But if emotion enters the debate at this point, before thought has much further progressed, then you get your run-of-the-muck Nuts on either side. Then, among other things, arguments proceed FROM the premises, instead of investigating the premises. And the discussants dig themselves further into foolish opposition.

Why this should be no less true among college professors, than among the less educated, is a matter of confusion to each new generation, but I believe the answer is simple enough: People of all walks are rarely well-educated with regard to the emotions.

On the simplest level, many people cannot identify their own emotions. At a complicated level, most people do not understand the pervasive power of emotions over intellectual view. They suppose that by adverting to reason, emotion has been banished from influence over their conclusions. But even in the sciences, people stick to paradigms for less than clear reasons. And look at how many nutty ideas have come out of the universities, over the years, supposedly cast by clear-eyed intellect.

How emotional education is to proceed at the SOCIAL level--if the family was inept--to clear up this unfortunate condition, is anybody’s guess, and beyond the feeble ministrations of this humble correspondent. God knows I'm trying! Indeed, at another level, it seems to be what we’re ALL doing, all of the time.

Then there’s the case of the emotionally hobbled, who predominate among the calling of the politician, and end up in charge of our foreign policy! And supported by others who are also so hobbled! A bad idea to be sure, especially when the globe has come to need a more subtle application.

Posted by: Lee A. on May 15, 2004 11:08 AM

____

Lee A.

Good insight. I think you nailed it.

Posted by: A. zarkov on May 15, 2004 11:21 AM

____

I rather dislike "there's a broad swath of people who annoy me but I'm not going to name or quote one" posts. I'd like to be able to read a few statements from an offender and get a sense of him or her for myself.

Posted by: rilkefan on May 15, 2004 11:32 AM

____

So, I went to Berkeley (10+ years ago), and, depending on what classes you took, you could get a very conservative professor. I found this to be true in the poly sci department, since all the true radicals went to Santa Cruz when it opened.

I found that most of the time, the more liberal amongst them were just trying to wake people up to the senseless onslaught of commoditized media. Of course, I was there in Bush 1, and there was no Internet. It was much more about, hey kids wake up don't you see you're being programmed by The Man, well before trying to be sympathetic to The Man.

And to the extent that The Man tries to keep you from thinking critically AND constructively, The Man doesn't deserve any empathy. Doesn't mean that you shouldn't learn everything you can about his tactics though.

Posted by: kt on May 15, 2004 11:52 AM

____

Well, nobody's immune to doing a little bit of demonizing. The BFMWSNBNs (Berlekely Faculty Members Who Shall Not Be Named) are simply making the same mistake that the Bushies (and a frighteningly large portion of the US electorate) are making.

If you don't try to understand the targets for your messaging (be they your allies or your opponents) you can't possibly begin to reach them. It's the same way that effective marketing communication works. If we can get consumers to form an emotional attachment to dryer sheets by understanding them (the consumers, not the laundry product) it seems that we could use the same skills to reach our political opponents. But, I'd lay good odds that the BFMWSBNs also hold marketing techniques in pretty low esteem. And they may even derive a good chunk of their personal identity by decrying the alien, hated, one-dimensional OTHERS.

It's probably also the reason that US propaganda in the middle east is falling flat. The producers just don't understand their audience.

Posted by: Larry B on May 15, 2004 11:55 AM

____

1968? SLA? Come on, Zarkov. What about the Tong Wars?

A series of Chomsky-Bob Jones Googles makes it seem extremely unlikely that Chomsky has ever been there. (Only 250 ghits at most, usually tables-of-contents). BJU is more of a controlled environment than Berkeley (either the U. or the town) so I suspect that if he showed up uninvited he'd quickly (but probably politely) be escorted off campus by the relevant authorities. (I strongly doubt that it would even be possible for him to be invited.)

Mild-mannered liberals are more likely to have direct experience of the ultra-left than of the ultra-right. Horowitz feeds on that. My understanding is that the ultra-right is larger and more violent than the untra-left. I'm willing to design an experimental test for someone who is willing to volunteer to be a subject. Goddamn if I'm going to risk my own life for science, though.

Posted by: Zizka on May 15, 2004 12:09 PM

____

I think non economist has a good point. To see extreme-leftist stupidity & viciousness, you have to go to Berkeley, or perhaps Madison, Wisconsin. It's bad, but it's not very widespread. Right-wing extremism, however, has become commonplace in political discourse. Moreover, on the left there are at least moderate liberals who attempt to correct the far-left excesses (ex.: Brad DeLong). Where are the moderate conservatives who police the far right?

Also: there's a time and place for everything. I agree with Brad that it's absurd the way that sociologists (of which I am one, BTW) counsel sympathy & understanding as regards gang bangers, terrorists, Islamic fundamentalists, etc., but regard Red State Americans as Blue Meanies. However, as things now stand the Red Staters _are_ acting like Blue Meanies, and the important thing is to stop them.

This doesn't mean that Red Staters are inherently "defective" or "sick." The Germans were Blue Meanies in the 1930s, but they reformed. There's no reason not to hope Red State Americans can do the same. But first they have to be stopped. After President Kerry is sworn in, and the Republicans have seen they can't get their way just through nonstop temper tantrums, McCarthyism, propaganda campaigns, etc., would be the time to start sympathetically understanding what makes conservatives tick. But first, just make sure they can't do any more damage.

Posted by: ChristianPinko on May 15, 2004 12:10 PM

____

Republicans are greedy, or they're dupes, or they simply prefer authoritarian rule to 'the state of nature.' Pick one, another or all of the above, but don't pretend that the only critique of western exceptionalism comes in the language of... western exceptionalism:
the self indulgent croaking of the rich vs the self indulgent whining of their children

Who helped put Saddam in power? Who paid the bills? If I hire a killer who's responsible for the crime? Who's worse, the mugger or the kingpin? Am I supposed to defend the latter on principle? Most Republicans are fools. The rest are hard core realists who think that power is good if it's in your own hands, but that victory should last. That's a good argument , but not a particularly moral one

I wish DeLong would make up his mind whether he's a market loving technocrat or a searcher for the just and true. He spends most of his time defending Creative Destruction. What the market destroys is everything of the natural order that Socrates loved. The man and his boy toy would be aghast at what democracy has given us.

Posted by: seth edenbaum on May 15, 2004 12:45 PM

____

I've been thinking about this lately, because I've been reading Mill's On Liberty. On one hand, Mill claims that freedom includes protection not just from state coercion, but from societal pressures against self-regarding action as well. At the same time, he claims that freedom of speech, for instance, is absolute. This is contradictory, but I sorta agree anyway. Powerful and vocal majorities (or, sometimes, minorities) have the power to censor and oppress without the use of force. Less powerful groups do not.

Some people claim that it's a very strange system of political correctness we have, in which it is okay if:
1) Latinos march in the streets in a pride parade
2) Irish-descended, Italian-descended, or German-descended people march in the streets in a pride parade.

and it is NOT okay if:

3) White people, as a group, not as constituent bits, march in the streets in a White pride parade.

I think, though, that it makes more sense than it appears to, at first. Whites, as an aggregate, are already an overwhelming majority of the U.S. A white pride parade being regarded as oppressive isn't hyperventilating anti-whiteness, but rather a demographic reality (not that it should be prevented from occuring, if people get the right licenses and such, but it shouldn't be regarded as as okay as a minority pride parade).

The nameless Berkeley type you talk about may be overdoing it, but I think that s/he isn't automatically wrong. People in power don't NEED to be defended and understood as much. No one is oppressing Bush or Rumsfeld. They control most of the government of the most powerful government in the world!

Posted by: Julian Elson on May 15, 2004 12:51 PM

____

Umm, Seth, the market doesn't destroy anything per se. Societies that try to deny the market tend not to do too well. The best market regulations are the ones that prevent the market from being gamed, as the CA energy market was in 2000.

There are, of course, goods for which there are defective markets, for instance roads, defense, parkland, public health, etc. A real economist (like our host) could explain this better than I can. In my opinion, providing these goods is one of the best roles the government can play.

I'm not going to demonize Republicans. I know too many who are fine people, involved in their community and don't want to build a totalitarian state. In my opinion, they've just been consumers in the marketplace of ideas, and the right has done a better job of marketing in the last 20 years. FWIW, several of the Repblicans I count as friends detest Bush, and of that group, at least a few will vote for Kerry. Others are just too bought into their identity as Republicans to really think too hard about their guy. Which is a sign of a strong brand and good marketing.

Posted by: Larry B on May 15, 2004 01:02 PM

____

Should you require more examples of Berkeley professors you would rather not associate with, allow me to recommend one John Yoo from Boalt Hall, sort of Froggy in reverse, he likes to look at pictures of others tearing legs off Iraqis. You can read this specimen in action at http://tinyurl.com/2b8y7. Here is a specimen

****************************
JOHN YOO: Well, if you look at the list of things approved approaches, it's hard to see how they violate the Geneva Convention. Many of these things are things that the police do in station houses in the United States.

MARGARET WARNER: Then there's another list of things that are allowed if General Sanchez approves.

JOHN YOO: You have to realize, it's an extraordinary thing to get the direct, individualized approval of the commanding general in the theater to do any of these things shows that the people who developed these rules tried to create as strict process as so that people would not engage in this activity.

MARGARET WARNER: But I mean, does having it even allowed, sleep adjustment, the presence of military working dogs, sensory deprivation, which is being hooded, does the Geneva Convention say, well, if you get the commanding general to approve it it's okay?

JOHN YOO: The Geneva Conventions do not contain a definition of torture or a definition of inhumane treatment. And so countries have tried to interpret that by practice. It depends on the context. For example, sleep adjustment. Now, I would agree, and I'm sure Mr. Horton would agree, that if someone were not allowed to sleep for days and days on end, that would amount to a violation of the Geneva Convention. But what if someone is allowed to sleep five or six hours a day every day -- is that a violation of the Geneva Convention?

The Geneva Convention doesn't actually tell us. There is no definition of what is torture, what is inhumane treatment in the Convention.
***********************

BTW, the sleep adjustment being talked about turned out to be 72 hours without sleep. One wonders at which red herring pools Professor Yoo fishes. For the math deficient, that is three days.

Which brings me to my questions: What role did this eminent professor play in drafting the rules of torture for Guantanimo and Iraq. Rumsfeld, et al, keep saying that the "lawyers cleared everything".

Posted by: Eli Rabett on May 15, 2004 01:39 PM

____

"Well, nobody's immune to doing a little bit of demonizing."
I didn't demonize GWB. The fact that he's a demon has nothing to do with me.

Posted by: exorcist on May 15, 2004 02:20 PM

____

Note: yes, this means that if liberals ever gain power in the U.S. government, and widespread society, by my paradigm, they should be subject to more vehement criticism than (now out of power) conservatives. Not that I expect that I'll actually stick to that: I'll probably still demonize Republicans and such and, since my group would have the actual power to oppress, be oppressive, but I'll be a bad person for doing so.

Posted by: Julian Elson on May 15, 2004 02:22 PM

____

It was enscribed above:

However, a quick cure for this disease is a trip to a nice republican county anywhere in the country where one can see that the excesses and stupidity of the right far outmatch their leftist colleagues (at least in this country).

Or turn on the radio. The man who compared Abu Ghraib to a fraternity prank has how many million listeners?

Posted by: Jonathan Goldberg on May 15, 2004 02:24 PM

____

I'm not really worried about being oppressed by Bush or Rumsfeld. I do, however, fear the ignorant masses who elected Al Gore and believe that angels really exist. I'll take a Straussian over a union member any day.

Posted by: m on May 15, 2004 02:25 PM

____

"I do, however, fear the ignorant masses who elected Al Gore and believe that angels really exist. I'll take a Straussian over a union member any day."

Not to sound too much like one of the obnoxious lefty profs Delong is chastising, but that's a rather classist thing to say, isn't it? Unless you're being sarcastic in which case it's pretty funny ;-)

But seriously, lots of lefties (myself included at times) tend to look down on Bush's working-class supporters in much the same way. It's something we should stop.

I will say this, though: DeLong is an equal opportunity offender. If he finds someone he disagrees with (be they loony Berkley lefties, Bush admin. officials, Edward Said-type cultural relativists) he lets 'em have it. Might not be the best way to have civilized discourse, but it's consistent.

Posted by: Brad Reed on May 15, 2004 02:35 PM

____

I think "m" was trying to be funny.

Posted by: Zizka on May 15, 2004 02:43 PM

____

To see extreme-leftist stupidity & viciousness, you have to go to Berkeley, or perhaps Madison, Wisconsin.

Any college where most students live on-campus will do. Rutgers University was a very good hard-left echo chamber during my years there.

Posted by: digamma on May 15, 2004 02:45 PM

____

"To see extreme-leftist stupidity & viciousness, you have to go to Berkeley, or perhaps Madison, Wisconsin."

Writing in from Madison... boy howdy, you betcha.

Posted by: Anarch on May 15, 2004 02:50 PM

____

Now that I think about it, I think there's also something to be said for accepting that certain people in life are going to be your enemies. A lot of liberals (especially the DLC variety, methinks) go a little too far in trying to "reach across the aisle" to their conservative bretheren and end up needlessly compromising their core principles.

It is useful to remember that, at the end of the day, some people out there have competing agendas that do not mesh with your view of the world. My views on separation of church and state, for instance, are totally irreconcilible with someone like Roy Moore. It's healthy to understand that Moore feels he is standing up for the "Judeo-Christian values" that he believes shaped our country's culture and that at heart he's not a bad guy. But at the same time, you've got to be able to put your foot down and say "no" without worrying about how it makes him feel. Fine line to walk.

Posted by: Brad Reed on May 15, 2004 02:52 PM

____

Zero tolerance for Manichaeanism!

(Someday, people will be able to remove their tongues from their cheeks. I cannot say how it will happen, but it must be so.)

Posted by: Frank Wilhoit on May 15, 2004 02:54 PM

____

Zizka-
I figured he was, but I've met a select few people in the world who really think like that. They're normally carrying around a copy of Atlas Shrugged.

Posted by: Brad Reed on May 15, 2004 02:55 PM

____

Q: Why doesn't the Liberal thought process extend to Republicans and Christians as it extends to Communists, radical Muslims, PLO terrorists, the IRA, Fidel Castro, Hoxia, Stalin, Charles Manson, the SLA, and the Black Panthers, to name but a few. Do you see the disconnect?

Being a true Liberal (as opposed to the weeds that pass for such on college campuses), I be happy to answer such.

I have no use for any of the above, for they are all in some form fundamentalist, opponents of the modern world.

Posted by: Moe Levine on May 15, 2004 03:29 PM

____

It took me a while to figure out what was really wrong with this.

1) The Republicans deserve it.

2) So, no less, do a TREMENDOUS number of other people;

3) but the Republicans are right here in our faces, and most of the other people are not.

Posted by: Frank Wilhoit on May 15, 2004 03:31 PM

____

Odd how no one yet commented on Brad's deliberate irony with

"There is a certain Berkeley professor who I am losing my tolerance for...

You know (or maybe you don't): the guy who believes that your first duty is to sympathetically understand where people are coming from. Unless they're a certain kind of Berkeley professor who he is losing his tolerance for. "

Too obvious ?

Dear Julian I sorta agree with you and with Mill and I don't see the contradiction. We have a right to free speech. We should not use this right to create societal pressures against other's self-regarding action. We are free to do so but we shouldn't feel free to do so. Rather the temptation should be restrained by our concience and only by our concience.

On the other hand, I also think, some societal pressure against self regarding actions is OK and freedom of speech is not absolute. Now that's contradictory.

Posted by: Robert Waldmann on May 15, 2004 03:43 PM

____

Zizka:

Here’s an experiment. Park your car in Berkeley at let’s say Vine and Walnut (good ground zero point) with a conspicuous Bush sticker pasted on the back window. Count the number of days until the window is smashed. Perform the identical experiment, (expect replace the Bush sticker with Kerry sticker) in a nearby suburban community that should have a lot of Republicans, say Danville CA or better yet Blackhawk (full of rich Republican types). Park your car right in the shopping center, off Blackhawk Road. Compare counts.

Name me any other city in the US with the approximate population of Berkeley that has had more political violence in the last 30 years. Perhaps a close second would be Madison Wisconsin. A liberal college town with about twice the population of Berkeley, it was the site of a deadly bombing on campus at the Army Mathematics Research Center (Sterling Hall).

Posted by: A. Zarkov on May 15, 2004 03:59 PM

____

To say in one breath that we must not succumb to the temptation to turn those who express sympathy for Osama bin Laden into alien, hated, one-dimensional OTHERS; and then say in the next that those who express sympathy for Paul Wolfowitz are alien, hated, one-dimensional OTHERS...

The standard of living of a typical UBL admirer is rather lower than that of a typical admirer of George W. Bush. Surely this is a relevant distinction.

To be sure, many of Bush's followers are so against their own economic self-interest. We should indeed try to "understand" why such people forsake tangible benefits for whatever emotional charge they get out of being on the John Wayne side. But that's all the nutty professor was asking in the case of the Nigerian cabbie, now, wasn't it?

Posted by: son volt on May 15, 2004 04:22 PM

____

My example wouldn't be some nice nearby suburban town, but some small town / medium city (non-college) in the Rocky Mountains, the Great Plains, or the South. And my sticker wouldn't be a Kerry sticker, but a "US out of Iraq Now" or some similiar sticker. Or maybe a Yasser Arafat / PLO sticker. Or (even worse) a Hillary for President sticker. But I'm thinking mostly of wackos I read on the internet who make it clear that they're biding their time. Neuwert talks about a lot of this stuff and I run into it myself from time to time.

Yes, it is true that during the Vietnam war Madison and Berkeley were pretty intense, but let's talk about now. If you go 30 years I'll go back 50 and include Goodman, Schwerner, Chaney, James Meredith, Mrs. Liuzzo, et. al.

There were many extreme, violent political groups in the sixties, but the SLA was in a class by itself like the Manson gang, with almost no support, few or no links with other groups, not much ideological or strategic thinking, a membership of unstable, druggy people with scarcely any political experience or knowledge, and nothing much to show but the tactic of violence. Count them up to sixties craziness but their political connection was weak even though they did talk that way.

Posted by: Zizka on May 15, 2004 04:29 PM

____

You folks who are saying Republicans are in fact meanies - do you really know any? Have conversations with them? I can understand believing them to be misguided, but mean?

I'm agnostic, and believe people who think they know the nature of God are misguided. Do I think they're out to brainwash us? No. Do I think they will ruin, or have ruined, the world? No.

I grew up amongst a lot of conservative/religious people in North Carolina. There were things about them I didn't like, and when I went to college, I quickly went over more to the liberal side - getting interested Chomsky, Faludi,etc, and hanging out with "cooler" more liberal types. I realized not long after that they had just as many flaws - cliquish, narrow-minded, and prejudiced - as some of the conservative people I disliked in high school. I also remembered some of the good things about those people I grew up with. A few of the religious ones did missionary work. As much as I dislike the idea of trying to convert people, these folks believed it was right and in the process did a lot of feeding, clothing, and educating. Many liberals, of course, do the same thing in different way.

My biggest gripe is liberal contempt for pro-lifers. If a person believes a fetus is alive, they certainly must believe abortion to be murder. Given that, I've never understood the venom some have for anti-abortion folks. Conversely, pro-lifers of the Christian variety should certainly be "forgiving" of the pro-choice, but I can certainly understand the stridency of pro-lifers.

Posted by: Chris K on May 15, 2004 04:46 PM

____

The pro-lifers are an interesting case. I'm deeply pro-choice, so much so that I'd be willing to go to jail for civil disobedience, and/or perform thousands of abortions without a pang of conscience (if and only if I were medically qualified to do the later, of course!).

On the other hand, IF I believed that abortion was murder, I'd be right out there with Operation Rescue. I can respect the courage of their convictions, even if I think they are deeply wrong and support the state in arresting and jailing them for criminal acts.

Posted by: Lindsay Beyerstein on May 15, 2004 05:07 PM

____

Whew, thank you for being civil. I don't mean that as a backhanded compliment, it's just that I hesitated to even use the example. Introducing abortion always degenerates a thread, no matter the inclination of those participating.

I want to clarify and say that I don't understand the stridency of Eric Rudolph and others.

Posted by: Chris K on May 15, 2004 05:14 PM

____

Brad's point seems simpler than all this... I read him to suggest that it's hypocritical that people work to be open-minded, tolerant, understanding, and even supportive of every conceivable world view, except one - the conservative republican.

However, this doesn't seem hypocritical at all. To use a baseball analogy, it seems perfectly reasonable to root for every team, with the exception of the New York Yankees. That team has managed to amass a staggeringly disproportionate share of resources, and it begins each season with significant advantage. Rooting for any team against the Yankees is the best I can do to even the playing field.

Posted by: matt s on May 15, 2004 05:19 PM

____

Brad's point seems simpler than all this... I read him to suggest that it's hypocritical that people work to be open-minded, tolerant, understanding, and even supportive of every conceivable world view, except one - the conservative republican.

However, this doesn't seem hypocritical at all. To use a baseball analogy, it seems perfectly reasonable to root for every team, with the exception of the New York Yankees. That team has managed to amass a staggeringly disproportionate share of resources, and it begins each season with significant advantage. Rooting for any team against the Yankees is the best I can do to even the playing field.

Posted by: matt s on May 15, 2004 05:20 PM

____

ziska:

You’re trying to stack the deck. Let’s follow the principles of good experimental design (as best we can). You seem to accept the notion that your car window would get smashed in Berkeley. Even for something so benign a non-inflammatory campaign sticker. Isn’t that sad? The neighborhood I picked is fairly middle class place. Moreover it’s a college town, and an elite college at that. So we would expect a high level of educational attainment. We would probably get the same result in San Francisco, which according to Forbes magazine has rank 1 (meaning the highest) in educational attainment. Now we should pick a place that would most resemble Berkeley except for the factor of interest. That would not be a small town in the South with low income and low educational attainment. And we should not use a purposely-inflammatory sticker. No we should use something like Bush versus Kerry because the country breaks down approximately 50-50. Using an inflammatory sticker would tend to trigger the fringe element. If the window gets broken quickly with the benign sticker then we know that place really has a lot of wackos. Of course we would need to repeat the experiment.

Posted by: A. Zarkov on May 15, 2004 05:31 PM

____

Chris K: Minor gripe: the criterion for believing abortion is murder isn't believing that the fetus is *alive*. It most certainly is, as are, say, carrots before we so callously dig them out of the ground and consume them. The question is whether it is a *person*. That's all :^).

Posted by: Julian Elson on May 15, 2004 05:59 PM

____

True.

Posted by: Chris K on May 15, 2004 06:11 PM

____

Reality: http://www.brushstroke.tv/week04_1.html

Posted by: Eli Rabett on May 15, 2004 06:11 PM

____

Matt S-

On a certain level I understand what you're trying to get at, although I think the analogy works on a domestic and not an international front. Let's say Howard Dean is the Red Sox (my team), and John Kerry is Anaheim. Bush is obviously the Yankees. I will assuredly root for Anaheim to beat New York in the ALCS even though they are not my team, simply because seeing the Derek Jeter being paraded around with another World Series ring is too much to stomach.

Now, let's say the players go on strike right before the ALCS. This means that the Yankees do not win (a good thing!), but irreparable harm has been done to the sport. I think this is part of the point DeLong was trying to make: don't let your distaste for the other team go so far as to threaten the whole game. And when certain members of the anti-war crowd (far from all, but enough that I take notice) draw cartoons calling Pat Tillman an "idiot" or claim that al-Sadr is a legitimate "resistance fighter" and "an ally," they're essentially threatening to call a strike right before the World Series.

And with that cheesy baseball analogy, I'm off to the bar. GO SOX!!!! NOOOOOOO-MAAAAAAAAH!!!!

Posted by: Brad Reed on May 15, 2004 06:29 PM

____

Or lets say that Republicans are the New York Yankees, and Osama bin Laden is the guy who comes into the stadium and starts shooting people.

Why do people see the need to understand bin Laden, and avoid demonizing him, while they still want to demonize Republicans?

Of course if you do a poll in Europe it is because Bush is considered a greater menace by like 30% of the people polled. But maybe they were polling very understanding people.

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw on May 15, 2004 07:55 PM

____

No, Zarkov, you are the one stacking the deck.

I accepted your Berkeley example for sake of argument. I have no idea whether it's true or not.

What I'm saying is that if you go through the US looking for actual and potential political violence, the places to look are rightwing places.

Berkeley isn't just a Democratic center the way your chosen suburb is a Republican center. It is a national and world center of those furthest to the left -- people who are usually far to the left of the Democrats. To get a comparison you'd have to go to one of the American Meccas of the hard right -- Idaho, Colorado Springs, Texas, Mississippi, etc. Not to a nearby Republican suburb.

You are right that Bush is a hot-button issue more than Kerry is. I suppose your point is that leftists (NOT Democrats, though, or liberals; Berkeley is not at all representative of them) get violent more quickly and more impulsively. (Vandalism, BTW, is a very low-grade form of violence).

Leave off Arafat: go to a major right wing center with a Hillary bumper sticker and a gun control bumper sticker. Or an anti-logging bumper sticker. Or a Jesse Jackson bumber sticker. Or a pro-choice bumper sticker.

Posted by: Zizka on May 15, 2004 09:00 PM

____

um , would it be O.K. if I hate both al Qaeda and the Republican Party?

Posted by: John Thullen on May 15, 2004 09:37 PM

____

It happens that I live in a country where one can easily buy an Osama Bin Laden tee-shirt and where many mini-buses bear posters of OBL on the rear windows. I sometimes ask people "Who is that man and why are you sellng his tee-shirt ?" Most people have no idea. Some say he is a famous marabout (Islamic sage, if you will). Many of the mini-buses also bear posters of Madonna (the one where she is blowing a kiss to the crowd). After looking intently at hundreds of such buses (there are a lot of traffic jams here) I finally found one that had both posters, but I did not have time to ask the driver what message he was trying to convey. I would also like to ask Paul Wolfowitz why he could not tell a Congressional panel the other day how many of our soldiers had been killed to date in Iraq.

Posted by: John M on May 16, 2004 12:13 AM

____

“I suppose your point is that leftists (NOT Democrats, though, or liberals; Berkeley is not at all representative of them) get violent more quickly and more impulsively.”

Exactly. Berkeley is a special case, and as you point out not representative of centrist liberals and Democrats. It has a culture of political violence that goes back to the late 1960s. Fortunately the more extreme manifestations (like the SLA) seemed to have gone away; although there were riots, looting, and arson circa 1993 (triggered by the Rodney King incident in LA) on Telegraph Avenue.

”go to a major right wing center with a Hillary bumper sticker and a gun control bumper sticker.”

I have no experience with a major “right wing center.” Do you know this from direct personal experience or are you making inferences from general reading?

Posted by: A. Zarkov on May 16, 2004 12:21 AM

____

Dumbest. Thread. Ever.

Posted by: ogmb on May 16, 2004 01:41 AM

____


Josh Yelon: "I think the reason for the difference is that the racist cab driver is no threat to the Berkeley professor, but president Bush is doing direct damage to him."

matt S: "To use a baseball analogy, it seems perfectly reasonable to root for every team, with the exception of the New York Yankees. That team has managed to amass a staggeringly disproportionate share of resources, and it begins each season with significant advantage."

Julian Elson: "People in power don't NEED to be defended and understood as much."

Post after post in these comments seems to be written as if BDL's point was about powerful Republicans, i.e. Republican leaders. But I think if you read it carefully it's about Republicans as in Joe Republican Next Door. Who is not doing direct damage to the Berkeley prof, who is not the Yankees, who is not in power.

I personally believe you're not really living in America, or at least you're not really paying attention, if you don't know both a few Republicans and Democrats (perhaps more likely R-leaners and D-leaners) who defy all stereotypes, and have interesting, thoughtful and idiosyncratic viewpoints - possibly informed by life and educational experiences that vary somewhat from your own. (And sometimes slightly scary viewpoints, but let's ignore that just now).

son volt: "We should indeed try to "understand" why such people forsake tangible benefits for whatever emotional charge they get out of being on the John Wayne side."

Take sv's example here. He could have used "Rambo" but substituted the kindler, gentler "John Wayne." (Who doesn't like The Duke?). Great journeys begin with small steps....

Posted by: Joe Mealyus on May 16, 2004 01:52 AM

____

Right wing centers include Colorado Springs, parts of Idaho, and various places in Texas and the South. Orcinus by David Neuwert, as well as the Southern Poverty Law Center, document this kind of thing. I haven't been personally attacked but I've had personal contact with the type of person -- usually ex-military, white and more or less racist, hates liberals, sometimes Christian, sometimes alcoholic. Here in Portland, which is very liberal overall, there are occasional flareups of neo-Nazi violence and threats, including one murder.

It is possible to frame your original statement so it is true on the face of it, but I think that the overall effect was to misrepresent the pattern of political violence in this country.

A Bush sticker is provocative in Berkeley, whereas to provoke people elsewhere you might need an anti-war, gay rights or environmentalist sticker. But violence is violence, regardless of the threshold; your statement seems to accept that it is worse to vandalize a Bush car than some provocative ultra-liberal car. Part of the reason for what you're saying might be that Bush, while a major party candidate, represents the far right, whereas Kerry is centrist.

Posted by: Zizka on May 16, 2004 06:43 AM

____

As I wrote at my blog, the asymmetry probably reflects something like PF Strawson's distinction between two reactive social attitudes--the "interpersonal" and the "objective." Toward persons who strike us as psychologically normal we adopt an "interpersonal" attitude--that is, we view them as equipped with free will and therefore as bearing ultimate moral responsibility for their actions.

On the other hand, toward persons who strike as psychologically abnormal we adopt an "objective" attitude--that is, we view them as "objects of social policy" to be managed, treated, avoided, or eliminated.

Now, whatever you think about Bush, you will probably agree that he is psychologically more normal than Osama bin Laden, and you'd therefore expect "Berkleyan" types to be less sympathetic toward a "root cause" analysis of Bush's actions than they would toward those of bin Laden. Hence, Bush is a "meanie," while bin Laden "needs to be understood."

But if the behavior of normal actors supervenes on the same global set of natural facts as the behavior of abnormal actors, why not apply the objective attitude to the behavior of both? Because imputing moral responsibility to psychologically normal people has practical effect. (Psychologically abnormal persons are not subject to the "moral" mode of social influence.) Thus, to demand equal treatment in this instance might be to demand a foolish consistency.

Posted by: Strange Doctrines on May 16, 2004 08:26 AM

____

"However, a quick cure for this disease is a trip to a nice republican county anywhere in the country where one can see that the excesses and stupidity of the right far outmatch their leftist colleagues (at least in this country)."

I'm not sure one can get at the truth of this issue through anecdote, though it is tempting to, because of the difficulty of finding polls that reflect the truth of the situation. The truth of the situation, which doesn't show up in polls but which we personally experience, is a very large market of niche viewpoints, some similar to our own, others shocking in their bizzareness.

There is an element in the Republican party that I find immoral but which is perfectly rational: the wealthy person who wants freedom from most (or even all) taxes. I think this is immoral, but you can believe this and be rational and intellectually consistent.

I hold that view of the Republicans (one of the many niche viewpoints, or factions, that make up the Republican party) in contrast to the Berkeley leftist who feels that America has done more evil in the world than any other nation. This latter world view is simply an error of fact.

But then, when I stop and think about it, I can think of many other factions in the Republican party, or on the right-wing, who are not rich, not immoral, not intellectually consistent, and who commit errors of fact. I recall a gas station attendent who told me he was voting for Perot because Perot had promised to pay off America's budget deficit with his own money. I recall the home builder in North Carolina who felt strongly that Clinton was a Socialist.

Conclusion? One finds error everywhere, occassionally in oneself but more often in others, and one finds intellectual consistency in every part of the political spectrum, but one doesn't necessarily find such consistency consistent with one's own morality.

Posted by: Lawrence Krubner on May 16, 2004 09:52 AM

____

L Krubner: "There is an element in the Republican party that I find immoral but which is perfectly rational: the wealthy person who wants freedom from most (or even all) taxes."

Actually, I think many anti-tax zealots are committing your "errors of fact." They often simply don't understand the ways in which subtle governmental (or quasi-governmental) intrusions into the market have contributed to their high incomes. And they don't really understand how much they benefit from government spending.

And of course they are matched on the D side by wealthy liberals who don't realize how the costs of their cherished policies often fall disproportionately on lower-income people....

Posted by: Joe Mealyus on May 16, 2004 11:42 AM

____

“But violence is violence, regardless of the threshold; your statement seems to accept that it is worse to vandalize a Bush car than some provocative ultra-liberal car.”

If you got that meaning from what I said than either you read it wrong, or I didn’t express myself clearly enough. An act of vandalism against anyone’s car is wrong. My experiment is designed to investigate as to whether there is a low threshold of provocation in Berkeley as opposed to a typical (even Republican) community, but otherwise demographically similar. Therefore to conduct this experiment we wouldn’t want to put (say) an anti-black cartoon on the window. You might say a picture of Bush is really inflammatory in place like Berkeley, and that’s my whole point. A poster for either Bush or Kerry should not be so inflammatory as to induce a normal person to commit an act of vandalism. This low threshold is what gives Berkeley its historical culture of political violence.

Are you saying that if I put a Kerry poster on the back window of my car in Colorado Springs (in a middle class section), the window would get smashed just as quickly as the Bush poster in Berkeley? I suspect you don’t really know the answer, and can’t hazard a guess because you have no direct personal experience with that place. You seem to be making a judgment based what someone wrote, or on the belief that people in Colorado Springs will strongly resemble certain types of people you meet where you live. That type of inference has some validity, but nothing like direct personal experience, such as living in a place for a long time.

BTW I have never had my window smashed in Berkeley. I would not be so foolish as to put a Bush poster on it (even if I was a supporter). Moreover Bush does not represent the far right. Perhaps to some people he does, but I think if you actually polled people on the far right, he would not be their choice of candidate. I’m sure they would prefer someone like David Duke; you do see a difference between David Duke and George Bush, don’t you?

Posted by: A. Zarkov on May 16, 2004 11:59 AM

____

I hate George Bush too. Why start with that statement? Because here I can. But most places I go that kind of statement is a non starter in a political discussion. You find out pretty quickly you're preaching to the choir or you've just been tuned out by people who don't want to hear it. If you want to make undecided independents think you'll never do it by haranging them. Most of them don't spend much time studying politics. A "duh" comment if there ever was one but if they did you'd think they would have decided by now. They have no idea if Bush lied or guessed wrong about WMD but making the middle east democratic sounds pretty good to them. They don't know squat about economics but know that gas prices are higher than they've ever been and they're worried about their jobs. There are so many obvious signals that things are going wrong it doesn't take vitriol to point them out. Most people on the fence are never going to be convinced Bush is evil. But they can be convinced that he's not up to the job and neither is his war cabinet. I say stick to the truth that he's incompetent and leave the other truth that he's an emotionally adolescent goofball convinced of the rightness of his decisions because the voice of God has never literally answered his prayers by saying, "George that's f*cked up."

Posted by: Mark Garrity on May 16, 2004 12:20 PM

____

Zarkov:

My ex-roommate had the tires of his truck slashed when we lived in Berkeley (Cedar/Milvia) in 2001. He suspects that it was because he had some "Free Palestine"-type bumper stickers on the truck.

Now he's moved to a nearby suburb, he's had "get out of the country" notes placed on his windshield.

Posted by: Mike on May 16, 2004 12:39 PM

____

I believe it; almost anything can set off violence or vandalism there. Since he still experiences problems in a nearby suburb, he might have personal enemies. Which nearby suburb? Stuff like that rarely happens in (say) Pleasanton. Berkeley is so volatile that the fire trucks can’t go out with American flags displayed without someone causing a fuss, even attacking the fire truck. A wise person will not display anything on his car any place in the world. Why invite trouble?

Posted by: A. Zarkov on May 16, 2004 04:33 PM

____

You are correct that I haven't been to those places. I've hardly been to Berkeley either. I have had direct and mediated personal contact with violent ultra-right-wingers. I am not willing to do an experiment by going to Colorado Springs.

If your point is simply that people in Berkeley hate Bush more than people anywhere hate Kerry, you may be right. Or maybe not.

If you're saying that Berkeley is farther left than anywhere in the US, you're right.

Chomsky would never be allowed to set foot in Bob Jones. The question is moot, in a way not terribly favorable to Bob Jones.

To the extent that you've been making a general statement about political violence in the US, and going back and rereading I'm not completely sure that you were, I think that you misunderstand the degree of right-wing violence. You had to go back 30 years for your left-wing murders. Since then there's been a scattering of right-wing murders, and death threats are frequent and plausible.

Posted by: Zizka on May 16, 2004 06:54 PM

____

“Chomsky would never be allowed to set foot in Bob Jones.”

I don’t think you really know that. It’s sheer speculation. The point is speakers like David Horowitz feel they need bodyguards to speak at colleges like Berkeley. And I don’t think Horowitz is being overly paranoid, having seen first hand what the climate there is like. Don’t you expect better from a place that is supposed to be liberal? And encourages diversity? When I was an undergraduate (not at Berkeley), I was part of an organization that sponsored guest speakers. We had Norman Thomas, we had William F, Buckley, and we had speakers with even more extreme viewpoints. Never, ever, did anyone exhibit any disruptive behavior. Moreover the organization had liberals, conservatives (Barry Goldwater types), socialists, centrists, and anarchists. We all worked together to raise funds to hire the speakers. Never, ever did anyone act in a threatening manner to anyone he disagreed with. In fact we were all friends.

I can see that if one lived down the street from something like a local Hell’s Angels chapter, you might be extremely sensitive to right-wing violence. And it’s true that the days of groups like the Weather Underground, the SLA and the Black Panthers seem past. I don’t know, overall, who’s ahead, the left or the right in the murder department. But I do know we should be able to feel safe on a college campus, particularly a state school, even if we hold an unpopular viewpoint. Moreover we should not have professors who put in the course description: “conservatives are unwelcome in this course.” As you know, exactly that happened at Berkeley. I expect better. Don’t you?

Posted by: A. Zarkov on May 16, 2004 11:51 PM

____

I googled Chomsky and Bob Jones in various combinations. Only a maximum of 250 responses, mostly on tables of contents with articles about both. I read a report by a Jewish liberal reporter who tried to interview students on campus. She was very quickly intercepted and escorted off campus.

Frankly, I don't support the kind of thing you talk about in Berkeley, but I don't think you have to defend Bob Jones to oppose that. From what I've seen, it's a completely controlled environment. There are people out there who think that Texas A&M and Baylor are dangerously leftist (Tom Delay is one of them, IIRC) and they send their kids to Bob Jones.

Horowitz makes his living entirely by dramatizing threats of the Berkeley type. His "need for bodyguards" requires the grain of salt.

I think that you're responding most strongly to what's closest to you. Even here in Portland (almost as liberal as Berkeley) there are individuals, times. and places where my antenna tell me not to talk about politics. 50 miles from here (logging or ex-logging towns) the whole place is like that. I have a distant, ex-military relative (inlaw of inlaws) who no one is supposed to talk to about anything if he shows up, since he's almost a Nazi. Ann Coulter says explicitly that liberals are traitors, and millions of people apparently believe her.

Posted by: Zizka on May 17, 2004 10:20 AM

____

postmodernism taken to extreme tends to be more destructive.

i think it's best to examine the developmental path of individuals (especially ourselves) and the collective in order to paint a bigger picture.

Spiral Dynamics attempts to paint this bigger picture, with colors and life conditions:
http://www.spiraldynamics.org/Graves/colors.htm
http://www.spiraldynamics.com/
http://www.wie.org/_flash/sd.asp?hp=1

just a thought.

Posted by: coolmel on May 17, 2004 10:40 AM

____

"Who helped put Saddam in power? Who paid the bills? ............. Most Republicans are fools."

Getting history out of a Michael Moore movie. Priceless.

Posted by: Matthew Ryan on May 17, 2004 11:57 AM

____

Weve gotten a long way from Brad's post about a type of leftie PROFESSOR, to discussing car vandalism.

Unlikely that any party to this arguement is suggesting that its professors who are smashing windshields. So what was the point, again?

College kids are dumbasses, this is beyond dispute. Intense concentrations of college aged kids, in a larger permanent social environment of people who keep telling those kids that their adolescent black-and-white view is *right*.. are going produce a percentage who will behave very badly. I believe thats being played out a bit at Abu Gharib right now.

Where is the contrast? Large heartland state-university towns have pandemic date rape rates. All kids act out their violence according to what they have been taught is OK: whether its 'man'handling women / terrorizing gay kids, or vandalizing cars / wasting time and money / espousing patently indefensible and impractical ideas.

Id go out on a limb and say that there is a qualitative difference. Crazed liberal kids are impossible to live with; that being said, their damage has been historically largely self-limiting. Berkeley is no Mormon Church; theres no sign of their colonizing Idaho anytime soon.

But in any case, even if you concede for sake of arguement that its worse because "liberals are supposed to know better", it still in no way follows that liberal college kids are going to have better judgement than anyone else at that age. That way lies disappointment.

Posted by: ZW on May 17, 2004 12:54 PM

____

Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mea they are *not* out to get you.

Posted by: Stirling Newberry on May 17, 2004 02:28 PM

____

As someone with close family among Bob Jones' alumni, believe me--Chomsky would NOT be invited to speak there, and WOULD be escorted off campus were he to show up. If you're insistent on the analogy between Chomsky/BJU and Horowitz/Berkeley... well, I don't know anything about Horowitz, but I assume he wasn't attacked, just that he felt he needed bodyguards (for whatever reason).

What is more important: freedom from all possibility of harm, or freedom from all possibility of opposing thought? Security or liberty? Ben Franklin is attributed a quote about that... "They that would give up essential liberty to attain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Posted by: alsafi on May 17, 2004 02:57 PM

____

This focus on Chomsky and BJU is obscuring my original point. Many of our elite universities such as Berkeley have a hostile atmosphere towards some speakers. So hostile, it can and does become physically intimidating. I remember when Edward Teller came to speak at Columbia; a mob prevented him from even entering the room. I choose Chomsky/BJU and Horowitz/Berkeley as the most polar opposites I could think of. If you think BJU is too extreme an example, then pick another conservative religious college. I submit that the students at these places are more likely to behave in civilized manner than the students at Berkeley. Yes Berkeley is an extreme case, but it’s not all that different from (say) Columbia or Cornell.

Posted by: A. Zarkov on May 17, 2004 08:31 PM

____

Online Casino Directory

Posted by: Online Casinos on June 23, 2004 03:13 AM

____

Online Casino Directory

Posted by: Online Casinos on June 23, 2004 03:15 AM

____

Nil agit exemplum, litem quod lite resolvit - Not much worth is an example that solves one quarrel with another. (Horace)

Posted by: bondage anime on July 9, 2004 01:19 AM

____

Romani quidem artem amatoriam invenerunt - You know, the Romans invented the art of love

Posted by: gay bath house on July 9, 2004 08:40 AM

____

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum - Garbage in, garbage out

Posted by: gays on July 9, 2004 02:07 PM

____

Facilius per partes in cognitionem totius adducimur - We are more easily led part by part to an understanding of the whole. (Seneca)

Posted by: free sex with animals on July 10, 2004 12:47 AM

____

Summam scrutemur - Let's look at the bottom line

Posted by: pee desperation on July 13, 2004 03:35 PM

____

Esse quam videri - To be rather than to seem

Posted by: oral sex on July 18, 2004 07:44 PM

____

Non est ei similis - There is no one like him

Posted by: gay teen boy free pics on July 23, 2004 03:09 PM

____

Si tacuisses, philosophus manisses - If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher. (Boethius)

Posted by: teen modle nude art on August 10, 2004 10:47 PM

____

Labra lege - Read my lips

Posted by: black dick on August 11, 2004 03:05 AM

____

Post a comment
















__