But Kim, the left welcomes "diversity of thought", just as long as it agrees with them. I think they call it "nuance". As for the 'professor', same liberal tripe as always and she will NEVER see the left as oppressive.

Conservatives need bodyguards to keep lefties from yelling at them? How exactly does that work?

Now, if the lefties were more like these guys, it might make more sense.

David Horowitz's "Academic Bill of Rights" seeks to improve the ratio of conservative to liberal/Marxist professors in university faculties. This enterprise has as much merit as an attempt at improving the ratio of, say, Latino speedskaters to non-Latino speedskaters. (That is to say, none whatsoever.) Conservatives can get jobs in university faculties, but it's just a lot harder to defend a conservative viewpoint to hiring committees consisting of over-educated thoughtful people. (Libertarians fare much better, but that's because they actually have a rational basis for their beliefs.)

Kim, you forgot to include a link to the super-funny video of students trying to smash a pie into Ann Coulter's stupid face.

Obsequious to the left's technique of bait and switch, as well as ignoring salient portions of an argument, Brian strikes again.

Ditto for hyperbs.

Conservatives can get jobs in university faculties, but it's just a lot harder to defend a conservative viewpoint to hiring committees consisting of doctrinaire leftists of a totalitarian bent.

Fixed it for ya.

Hey, hyperbolist, why is it necessary to defend a "conservative viewpoint" in academic job interviews?

Oops, you accidently gave the game away, proving Horowitz's point. Universities are about politics, not scholarship.

One of the epithets David Horowitz hears A LOT is that of "warmonger."

Next thing You know Castro And Obama will reopen Gitmo for the real terrorists otherwise known as conservatives.

David Horowitz and his mill of self-pity
Keeps chug-chug-chuggin' along_ (mmmm...)
Keeps chug-chug-chuggin' along_ (oh, yeah!)
Keeps chug-chug-chuggin' along_ (one mo' time!)
Keeps chug-chug-chuggin' along_ (wad I say?)
_etc. etc. etc._

Really? You are linking to David Horowitz?

"Universities are about politics, not scholarship."

Universities, as with just about any other human endeavor, are full of politics. That's really no surprise. So they are about BOTH scholarship and politics, and sometimes the latter gets the better of the former. It happens, but should not really be a huge surprise. Still, that doesn't mean that universities can't be a positive social force. They can, IMO.

Social farce, you mean (ryan a)

"Still, that doesn't mean that universities can't be a positive social force. They can, IMO."

Yes, they can. That would be change I could believe in.

Now who's the messiah that will make them so?

"Social farce, you mean (ryan a)"

Ha. Very witty.

So you really think that nothing good comes from our university system? I wonder what old Milt Friedman would have said about that...

The only protection Horowitz needs is from the voices in his head.

as well as ignoring salient portions of an argument

The "salient" portion of the argument, if you can call it that, was that conservatives need bodyguards to protect them from "anti-free speech" liberals who are provided a microphone by said conservatives that they are hesitant to relinquish. I asked how bodyguards prevent that.

If that's "ignoring" the argument, then you didn't bother reading the argument.

Really, e... if you have nothing but ad hominems to post, you're just wasting everyone's time.

So hyper which conservative view points are hard to defend?
Is it the belief in liberty and self determination?
is it property rights?
Is it desire to look at historical context?
Is it love of country?
Respect for laws?
The desire to freely debate issues?

The universitys in this country are cesspools of leftist indoctrination. The trolls on here are prime examples of the product they void.

914,

"The universitys in this country are cesspools of leftist indoctrination. The trolls on here are prime examples of the product they void."

Now, what makes you say this? Is this from your actual experience, or is this a talking point that you have borrowed from someone else???

Seriously, I would like to hear your opinion about this, since it's an important issue. How do you reconcile your opinion with the fact that the majority of conservative leaders are ALSO university educated? Michael Steele went to Georgetown, for example.

In my opinion the situation is a little more complicated, and a little less dramatic, than your statement suggests.

I agree that universities definitely have their share of politics and problems, however. No doubt about that.

I have to work ryan a.. will get back to you later.

Thanx

JB, there are a disproportionate number of leftists who seek a career in academia. Why would a university try and balance (with affirmative action) the number of conservatives in its faculties?

Speaking in terms of the disciplines where politics are relevant--e.g. political/moral/legal philosophy, law, certain types of economics, sociology, gender/race/postmodern theory--liberal/Marxist ideas have triumphed intellectually. As in, better arguments prevailed. Kantians have won the day against Lockeans in the eyes of almost every moral philosopher. So why humour Horowitz by scraping the bottom of the barrel to find academics who have staked their careers on the losing side of arguments?

epador: you strike me as someone who is smart enough not to denigrate the role of universities in society simply because they're bastions of left-leaning discourse. It's not like you couldn't find a kooky sessional instructor to give you your fix of Austrian economics or Lockean rights if that's a deal breaker for you.

hcddbz: pick any one of those items and conservatives either a) make a worse case for its inherent importance; or b) radically overstate its importance, e.g. with property rights as the fundamental human right a la Locke. Love of country is only instrumentally good, not an intrinsic one; laws ought only be respected insofar as they serve some overall purpose and the system as a whole is just and fair; etc. etc. etc. The problem with the conservative angle on all of the things you list is oversimplification, basically.

"The "salient" portion of the argument, if you can call it that, was that conservatives need bodyguards to protect them from "anti-free speech" liberals who are provided a microphone by said conservatives that they are hesitant to relinquish."

Tell me, Brian. Does it hurt to twist yourself up like that?

All boils down to "freedom of speech for me, but not for thee".

Simple to spot after you strip the camoflage away.

Hyper
Debates are always valid and fundamental to life liberty, freedom and education. ( unless Socratic method is nologer used)

The only ones who tend to oversimplfy the arguments are liberals, who do not want to have real debates.
Many times, invalid straw men are presented and then liberals claim victory at others one most agree on premise and then argue form that point of view.

Example why is Hitler considered Right Wing when he was Socialist and 10 of the planks of the Nazi party were the same as Marx?

Capricious adherence to law is anarchy. If a law is unjust then one must fight to change that law. The debate still rages between Locke and Keynes, while historically one has been more popular (Keynesian) it has not had any resounding success when one looks at self sustained economies.

On race, Social Darwinism as expressed in the Descent of Man by Darwin has been used for some the most atrocious racist crimes. The Eugenics movement operated along racial lines and many of the so called liberal progressives based their actions on that belief system. It was how Windrow Wilson justified his racist policies. Darwinism is why Plain Parenthood wanted to limit the ability of blacks to procreate. Hitler used that reasoning and applied it to Jews.

The natural state of Marxism is tyranny and just like all Utopians Ideas when applied leads to pain and suffering of the people. The communal property did not work before Marx, examples are:
Jamestown and Pilgrims each showed how communal property practiced on small scaled lead to issues and both groups once they started to allow for private property ownership the colonies were able to be more self sufficient system.
Nations that tried to implement Marxist philosophies never progressed beyond the first stages of tyrannical forms of government NAZI Germany, USSR, Cultural Revolution in China, Kama Rouge, etc.

Few aurgments about Goverment are ever over:

Though bitter, good medicine cures illness. Though it may hurt, loyal criticism will have beneficial effects

Where there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income." -- Plato

... Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions -- everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses Juvenal, Satire 10.77-81

Right/Left balance on campus will come about the same time as Right/Left balance on corporate boards, in the military, or on the police force.

Could it be that there are fewer conservatives on faculties because there are fewer conservatives in PhD programs? Could it be that there are fewer conservatives in PhD programs because graduates may be more likely to go to B school, or law school, or med school, that they are to get a degree in math, sociology, art history, or one of those other squishy disciplines?

Any first year psych major can tell you that different personality types have different motivations and different goals.

brian - "Now, if the lefties were more like these guys, it might make more sense."

Cute diversion brian, as if pointing to a couple nutcases makes a case for anything other than demonstrating nutcases come in all stripes and colors of the political and social spectrum.

But we know that's your stock in trade, so carry on we understand your game.

And laugh at it.

Careful Rance. Lawrence Summers dared to ask the same question about women on faculties, and subsequently had his ass handed to him by raging feminists at Harvard.

Come to think of it, that episode kinda proves Horowitz' point, doesn't it?

Cute diversion brian, as if pointing to a couple nutcases ...

Well, it was "a couple nutcases" more than Kim was able to point to, but that didn't stop her from making ridiculous claims anyway.

...makes a case for anything other than demonstrating nutcases come in all stripes and colors of the political and social spectrum.

Oh, was that Kim's point? I guess I missed that.

Oh, and thanks for linking to that thread where I handed you your ass for being such a nitwit. It deserved a bump.

Oh how the left comes out when the proof is laid out before them. Every well know conservative speaker and write that graces the stage of a "liberal" college is not allowed to make a point. They are not allowed to speak. They are forbidden from going on with their lecture. HMM! What does that remind you of? All the campuses need is brown shirts and jack boots as they denigrate an opposing view. ww

Tell me, Brian. Does it hurt to twist yourself up like that?

Let's see:

Brian: "conservatives need bodyguards"
Kim: "Conservative Speakers Need Body Guards"

Brian: "to protect them"
Horowitz: "taking protection to a college campus"

Brian: "from 'anti-free speech' liberals"
Kim: "Leftists ... are so ... anti-free speech"

Brian: "who are provided a microphone by said conservatives"
Horowitz: "Prof. Cloud stepped up to the microphone ... I did her the courtesy ... by letting her talk."

Brian: "that they are hesitant to relinquish."
Horowitz: "the protocol for such occasions restricts audience participants from making their own speeches"

So my comment followed exactly the claims from Kim and Horowitz, yet you call it a "twist". Could you be any more transparent that you are not interested in the topic, but only in making snide, insulting, and factless comments?

brian - "Oh, was that Kim's point? I guess I missed that. Oh, and thanks for linking to that thread where I handed you your ass for being such a nitwit. It deserved a bump."

No that was my point, and you miss a lot unfortunately.

Thanks for handing me my ass, I think, even though I didn't realize I had "dropped" it.

That said, as much of your unmitigated trash you post here shows you select much edited videos to show the exact opposite of what they truly are.

But hey, I'm perfectly willing to hear your explanation of the difference, or lack thereof, between what you linked to and the unedited one I linked to.

You won't mind if I maintain my normal respiration rate while waiting do you?

LOL.

I make a comment about the actions, not the person, and its called ad hominem.

A play on words to express my amusement in the comment " that doesn't mean that universities can't be a positive social force." and appropriately named hyper BS stretches that as well in hyperbole. Well, that's not arguing a point, or trying to instill a little thought, that's just coffee-house bohemian bull doody. If I wanted to get into a contest tossing that stuff around, I'd be here:

http://www.wiscowchip.com/

shows you select much edited videos to show the exact opposite of what they truly are.

Except I didn't, moron.

I make a comment about the actions, not the person, and its called ad hominem.

No, you made a comment about "the left's technique", which is "attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument".

Maybe you should look things up before you claim that they don't apply.

I rest my case.

brian - "Except I didn't, moron."

So, it's your claim that you didn't link to this this page (in comment #66) that includes the following lie (or misrepresentation, take your pick):

Fox Business Network anchor Cody Willard didn't appear to be very "fair and balanced" as he let out his opinion of Democrats' economic policy during a tea party protest in Boston. "When are we going to wake up and start fighting the fascism that seems to be permeating the country?" asked an excited Willard. "The fascism -- the definition of it is big business and government getting in bed together. That is what these people are fighting. We have about 700 people here. They are starting to rally," he said.

Not to mention the DKos link that also had the misleading headline.

You're full of more shit than a Christmas fruitcake.

"...liberal/Marxist ideas have triumphed intellectually...."

Too bad they haven't worked out that well 'in the real world'. Stupid people seem to have a 'self interest' component to their DNA. Who'd have thought the Borg mentality would be so unappealing.

So, it's your claim that you didn't link to this this page (in comment #66)

I linked there as identification of the anchor, in response to your request, "Do you have evidence he's being paid by either Fox entity brain?"

But my original link was to the full video here in comment #63. (Hint: 63

Man, your antics would be so much more entertaining if you weren't so time-consuming.

I rest my case.

Of course you do. It's so much less work than making a point.

brian - "Man, your antics would be so much more entertaining if you weren't so time-consuming."

Apparently not, you've spent an inordinate amount of time trying to not look like the buffoon you are.

(Hint: 63

That should be:

(Hint: 63 < 66.)

But I see that you got the point.

Apparently not, you've spent an inordinate amount of time

Yeah, that's why I called revealing your idiocy "time consumimg" for me. Did you not understand that simple English?

Oh, look... maybe Republicans need to bring bodyguards to Republican rallies, as well. Righties at tea parties are so intolerant, politically bigoted, and anti-free speech, aren't they?

So after wading through all of Brian's Bullshit. Is he saying the left DOES ALLOW conservatives to speak without being hassled?.. Examples?

brian - "Oh, look... maybe Republicans need to bring bodyguards to Republican rallies, as well. Righties at tea parties are so intolerant, politically bigoted, and anti-free speech, aren't they?"

Other than the fact that rep wasn't hit with a pie, or otherwise assaulted as many have been, no he didn't need a bodyguard.

Not to mention it proves the larger point, the tea parties weren't "anti-obama" or anti-dems" as so many have portrayed them to be.

They were anti-all the assholes in DC.

Conservative Speakers Need Body Guards when Speaking at College Campuses

Good.

Brian, you're taking this too far. You see, this was a speech - not a debate. There are forums for debates and this wasn't it. You portrayed this as Mr Horowitz' "reluctance" to "relinquish" the microphone. This wasn't a debate, Brian. This wasn't a forum whereby one person states their case and another is scheduled with them to rebut.

You start off with, "Conservatives need bodyguards to keep lefties from yelling at them?"

No. it's to keep people from throwing things at them. So far it's been mostly food; pies, salad dressing, etc. And when things get even more out of hand windows are broken and people are attacked. And it's not only the speaker who is in danger of being hurt. It's everyone.

Think about it. Ahmedinejad was afforded more respect than Congressman Tancredo.

Mr. Horowitz' engagement was a speech. When speeches are given, one or more people are scheduled to speak and in order to give an audience the opportunity to get clarification or to ask of something not covered during the speech time is set aside to allow them to ask questions and to allow the speaker to respond to their questions. One doesn't have to respect the speaker, but they are expected to act civilly.

You've seized on this opportunity to attempt to paint this as something it isn't. Horowitz spoke about free speech and clearly pointed out his own example of support for Ward Churchill's right to say unpopular things without fear of being fired. Yet you want to disparage him for "reluctantly" handing over a microphone to someone who didn't want to ask a question but wanted to give a little speech of her own and call him names. How self-centered and childish.

And then you want to bring up a couple of lone kooks in comparison to whole mobs.

When Ward Churchill speaks is the stage rushed by intolerant conservatives? When Chris Matthews speaks, do conservative students throw pies and salad dressing at him? When Paul Krugman speaks is he shouted down and heckled by college Republicans?

It's intolerance, Brian. Clear and simple. It's rampant in our colleges. I'm surprised you're so careful to avoid admitting it, preferring to make light of it and engage in sophomoric ridicule. You, the arbiter of hypocrisy here. You're very quick to point out that which you see as missing in another's argument - and in doing that, you conveniently omit much on your own.

I had the pleasure of hearing David Horowitz speak while I was a college Republican at UCLA a few years ago. He told us about how one time he was on campus at UC Berkeley and had a contingent of officers with him. When he had to use the restroom they went in ahead of him kicking open all the doors of the stalls to make sure no one was hiding inside. We laughed at the anecdote, but it really wasn't that funny since the president of our chapter had recently been mugged on campus (for his video camera - he had been taping a mob that was crowding around the CR table when we were protesting MECha) and spit on. So much for those loving, non-violent liberals eh?

What is there to debate here?

Be it a Liberal or Conservative when invited to present whatever opinion at an organized event has the RIGHT to speak.

If some douchbag tries to interrupt they are REMOVED, and the speaking goes on.

If a douchbag gets PHYSICAL towards the speaker, they should be LAID OUT HARD, then REMOVED.

Learning lessons by losing teeth will go a long way to less PHYSICAL incidents.

Verbal disruptions?
That's just life, there is always going to be tinfoil whine bag in ANY audience on ANY topic.
REMOVE and continue....

Yet you want to disparage him for "reluctantly" handing over a microphone to someone who didn't want to ask a question but wanted to give a little speech of her own

Try reading more slowly, Oyster. Although you put "reluctantly" in quotes, I didn't say that. I said "that they are hesitant to relinquish". And the "they" I was referring to was the liberals provided the microphone (i.e., "who didn't want to ask a question but wanted to give a little speech of her own"), not to Horowitz.

oyster - "How self-centered and childish."

Caption on brian's portrait I'm sure.

brian - "I said "that they are hesitant to relinquish". And the "they" I was referring to was the liberals provided the microphone (i.e., "who didn't want to ask a question but wanted to give a little speech of her own"), not to Horowitz."

And you claim others can't read.

That is the point douchnozzle, he gave a speech and this lib asshole decided not to ask a question - the permissable action - but attempted to hog the mic for his/her own self-aggrandizement.

Very much like your appearance in every thread here.

And you claim others can't read.

Just you and Oyster. And apparently you agree with me about Oyster.

That is the point douchnozzle, he gave a speech and this lib asshole decided not to ask a question

Yes, that is the point. The ridiculous point that due to liberal bloviating, "conservative speakers need body guards".

I put it in quotes there so you can't weasel out of Kim's headline, as your cohorts have been trying.

One thing that's unique about you, marc. When others run out of arguments, they usually stop arguing. You, on the other hand, shift to adopting your opponents' arguments, but you continue acting like an ass so as to appear that you're actually disagreeing, even when you have long past conceded the point.

"One thing that's unique about you, marc. When others run out of arguments, they usually stop arguing."

Looking in a mirror are you?

marc,

No, that would assume he had an argument to begin with.

He's just here to suck all the wind out of as many comment treads as possible.

Brian's right. I misread his comment about the hesitation to relinquish the microphone. I apologize for that. It took a couple readings because I've become so accustomed to wading through Brian's "you're stupid" arguments to find out what his real point is that it's difficult not to get mired in his steady attacks on everyone's intelligence.

I get the distinct impression that he has no argument about the "salient point" of student intolerance though, due to his not responding to the rest. And that this intolerance, cloaked in "free speech" rhetoric and "question authority" pretense, is carefully cultivated by many of their educators. And still he insists:

"Yes, that is the point. The ridiculous point that due to liberal bloviating, "conservative speakers need body guards"."

Before I'm told I've misread any more of your comments, Brian, are you admitting (by misrepresentation of the argument) that conservative speakers need bodyguards due to far more than just bloviating liberals? Or are you ignoring Horowitz' statement:

"In the past, I felt uncomfortable about taking protection to a college campus until a series of physical attacks at universities persuaded me that such precautions were necessary."
----------------------
And Hyper is a hoot as usual:

"Conservatives can get jobs in university faculties, but it's just a lot harder to defend a conservative viewpoint to hiring committees consisting of over-educated thoughtful people."

When it comes to a point where one has to defend one's political beliefs to the satisfaction of "over-educated thoughtful people" (read: liberal) in order to get a job as an educator, we're in bad shape. Why, for some reason, I thought one's depth of knowledge and ability to do the job would be the premier requisites. Hyper thinks that's okay though because there's no merit to having a plurality of opinion in an educational atmosphere. Who'da thunk?

Brian,
That's enough. This thread is not about the
tea parties.
If you don't like the fact that conservative
speakers do need protection from the likes of
you, go else where.

Ok, Ok. I want to hear more about what Oyster and some others think about this.

Here's what I think. I think that the issue of politics in the classroom is definitely an important topic, and that we should all be able to hear different sides of the issue. I think that we should all be really vigilant when it comes to protecting the right to expressing political opinions on our campuses--and this includes all sides of the spectrum.

At the same time, in my OPINION Mr Horowitz is not the best spokesperson for this subject, since he seems to be a highly interested and politicized participant. His claim to being unbiased seems a little silly to me, considering some of the books he has published. Horowitz is fanning the flames, not trying to alleviate them, IMO. His characterization of the whole situation is pretty over-simplified and polemic. That's my take.

That said, I am interested to know how you guys think the issue should be addressed or solved. Seriously. I am also interested in hearing more about the actual experiences you guys had in college.

The mainstream media wouldn't do it. So we are trying to get your important messages to the American people. 8 This post is a suggested read at, http://aresay.blogspot.com/

Leftists on college campuses are so intolerant, politically bigoted, and anti-free speech that conservative speakers like Horowitz are required to have body guards with them:

That's a little...well, general. If I found 10 college campuses where that same situation wasn't volatile at all, would you recant that extremely broad brush stroke - or just continue with this kind of propaganda since your audience is unlikely to do their own research?

If you don't like the fact that conservative speakers do need protection from the likes of you, go else where.

Maggie, why don't you stick to your job - comment editing - instead of adding your own commentary and opinion to this thread. It makes you look unprofessional. You're a hired hand. Know your place.
depp=true

That's enough. This thread is not about the tea parties.

...nor was that what Brian was making it. In fact, he wasn't off subject at all. Marc decide to refer to another post of Brian's. He should have every right to respond, and did so simply and without changing the subject.

I suspect you already know this, however - which is nothing if not manipulative.
depp=true
notiz=Doing my job, professionally

Hmmph. It's been dead air around here for months while Congress went about approving the Obamajugend, Obomber and Congress approved a single year's debt exceeding 8 years of Bush, and Obomber continued war through sending troops to Afghanistan.

All of a sudden, when a major publication like the WSJ starts highlighting the intellectual fraud of the left - free speech, but only if it's THEIR speech - lefty simpletons crawl from under their rocks and rant.

Rance - "Any first year psych major can tell you that different personality types have different motivations and different goals."

The interesting thing here is that from the microcosm of the lack of free speech on college campuses through the socialist spending of Congress, the goals of the left are consistent - control of others.

Happened in '36; happening now.

Hey Brian, why do you hate America so much?

Just post your list and be done with it.

You can start with your contempt for the Bill of Rights.

Here's a great find from the 1934...'Fitting' is beyond description.

http://professorbainbridge.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=3058

ryan a "At the same time, in my OPINION Mr Horowitz is not the best spokesperson for this subject, since he seems to be a highly interested and politicized participant."

Isn't that the point? Regardless how one feels about him as a speaker he does have the right to speak at an event he was invited to attend.

I might concede your point if Horowitz had never been shouted down or prevented to speak in some other way, but he has so his remarks on the subject are valid.

It would be no different if the speaker was Michael Moore or Bill Mahar. The audience should, and must, abide by the rules set for each individual speaking engagement.

If part of the rule set includes the opportunity for questions, with no speechifying by the questioners, so be it.

The left is self loathing. They carry guilt for everything under the sun and think just because they cannot put things in perspective, we as conservatives are bad. The behavior shown to conservative speaker on campuses and from the comments here proves my point. ww

What do you expect....They're liberals. They always act this way.

Oyster, you're full of shit and you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that there shouldn't be a plurality of opinions within university faculties; only that there is no rational basis for conservative politics and philosophy apart from Locke, and so hiring one professor who can at least give Locke's ideas a fair shake would constitute balance enough. The rest of the important modern political thinkers--Mill, Kant, Smith, Marx--all require representation as well, and they're all liberal or leftist of some sort. As for Marx, I don't think I've ever met a professor who explained communism as though it's what we should be striving towards, but probably every single one of them value certain aspects of his work, like his critique of unfettered market capitalism.

It's historically tone deaf to demand that universities hire a roughly number of liberals and conservatives. That would be placing far too great of a weight on conservative ideas, which throughout Western history have been less influential and less popular than liberal ideas. (It is, after all, liberal arguments--not conservative--that have produced democracy, and made obvious the importance of gender and racial equality, to give a few examples.) It should have no relevance whatsoever that about half of the population of your country holds conservative ideas in higher regard, though you're obviously more likely to find disproportionately high numbers of conservative professors in red states, and that's hardly problematic.

ww - "The left is self loathing. They carry guilt for everything under the sun and think just because they cannot put things in perspective, we as conservatives are bad. The behavior shown to conservative speaker on campuses and from the comments here proves my point. ww"

The only point you prove by broad brushing every liberal as "self loathing" is how much you dislike, dare I say hateful, towards anyone and anything with opposite views.

You're nothing but "lee ward lite."

Willie, your "Liberals are self loathing and hateful haters full of hatred" schtick is tired and stupid. Even people who share your political perspective (marc) are embarrassed for you.

If you don't like the fact that conservative
speakers do need protection from the likes of
you, go else where.

So in a thread about the "anti-free speech leftists", maggie tells me that if I don't take Kim's post as an indisputable "fact", I should no longer post. Oh, the irony.

hyper - "It's historically tone deaf to demand that universities hire a roughly number of liberals and conservatives. That would be placing far too great of a weight on conservative ideas, which throughout Western history have been less influential and less popular than liberal ideas"

Can you point to someone that has advocated hiring equal numbers of liberals and conservatives in a university setting?

If not you can stop stuffing that strawman, it's vomiting up hay at an alarming rate.

BTW, and far off topic. Can you explain why the HMCS Winnipeg along with other NATO ships, including a US ship, chased pirates for seven hours, disarmed them and then LET THEM GO?

And before you go off the deep end in reading the portion of the article that claims no jurisdiction, I'd suggest you read Article 105, "Seizure of a pirate ship or aircraft" of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea that reads as:

On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action to be taken with regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of third parties acting in good faith.

hyper - "Even people who share your political perspective (marc) are embarrassed for you."

If you believe that you assume too much.'

verbl - "Very professional."

Why thank you.

Although you having been disenvoweled a couple times recently I doubt very much whether that obtuse comment was worthy of thanks.

Funny. I cross-posted that with you, marc. We're like... simpatico. Y'know? We're riding the same rainbow, buddy.

marc: read Horowitz' "Academic Bill of Rights" and tell me that he isn't advocating for a more equal--if not exactly equal--amount of conservative professors, presumably through affirmative action.

As for releasing the pirates, read your own block quote. The State responsible for their arrest--Canada--does not prosecute people in that situation. You might not like that but that's what our rules are. And it's fine. I don't want to pay for them to be incarcerated in a Canadian prison, and execution is obviously something that only a barbaric psychopath would consider in these circumstances, so they were allowed to return to Somalia--as though that's not punishment in and of itself.

They're not terrorists, they're bandits. Ship owners and captains should take responsibility when going through the Gulf of Aden, but I'm not sure what you would expect a NATO country to do with captured teenaged pirates.

"They're not terrorists, they're bandits. Ship owners and captains should take responsibility when going through the Gulf of Aden, but I'm not sure what you would expect a NATO country to do with captured teenaged pirates."

A simple solution in this case, the U.S. does have laws they can prosecute under. And there was a U.S. warship as part of the pursuit. Anytime this type of scenario plays out it should be handled by the U.S. of any other NATO member that has applicable laws to handle it.

Letting them go is not the answer, they'll be back raiding another ship as soon as they are able. This is just another ham-handed and half-assed effort by the UN who should have specifically made the arrests as part of the resolution authorizing the naval force in the Gulf of Aden.

As for Horowitz' "Academic Bill of Rights", screw him and his so-called bill of rights, he's a nutcase if that's what he advocates.

Show me another example, or is he the lone outlier and you have nothing else?

That said, he still his the right to speak without being attacked either verbally or physically.

"Oyster, you're full of shit and you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that there shouldn't be a plurality of opinions within university faculties;..."

I see. So the idea of "improving the ratio" (or as most of us say; improving a balance) has as much merit as some kind of hogwash about speed skaters was just your way of talking nonsense?

Then you tell me I'm full of shit while you continue to expound on why conservative philosophy should be kept to a minimum?

"It should have no relevance whatsoever that about half of the population of your country holds conservative ideas in higher regard, though you're obviously more likely to find disproportionately high numbers of conservative professors in red states, and that's hardly problematic."

Obviously? Really? And what, pray tell, do you have to back that up with?

I don't have a problem with classical liberalism, Hyper. It's the leftist ideology I take issue with and THAT is what is there is "far too great of a weight on" in our universities.

Wow. Talk about tone deaf....

Oyster - "Obviously? Really? And what, pray tell, do you have to back that up with?"

Um, opinion and what keeps these in the air.

You can't expect too much from Jean-Pierre Lafitte.

It shouldn't be kept to a minimum, Oyster. It should be given its fair shake, which is to say a minimal one. Conservative ideas in academia have not fared well, and thus do we find very conservative institutions--Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, etc.--employing far more liberal-minded thinkers than conservative. That's not some post-Vietnam conspiracy; it's centuries of discourse, of Foucaultian power struggles.

As for the proportion of conservative professors in more conservative parts of the country, don't pretend to be thick. Obviously someone like Glenn Reynolds would be more likely to take a job in Tennessee than, say, Kwame Anthony Appiah. And obviously Glenn Reynolds would be more comfortable in Tennessee than in, say, Berkeley or New York City. The other part of that paragraph which you quoted is also so obviously true that it pains me to explain it: millions of people can be wrong about something. Obvious examples would be Stalinists, Maoists, etc.. So 50% (give or take) of the American population preferring Lockean ideals to Kantian ones actually has no bearing on the actual veracity of these ideas, which of course is independent of consensus, though often reflected in it.

Anyway, even if you could support Horowitz' notion that universities are leftist breeding pits--and maybe you can, but he surely can't--then what would the alternative be? Affirmative action?

And since when do conservatives care what goes on in the Ivory Tower? I thought academia was too far detached from "the real world" to matter to ruggedly individualistic Randians?

.
The Left gave the Right a load of room to criticize Obama before they could ever get anywhere near as insane as the Left did with Bush.
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe thinks
the Right is always wrong

and the Left is always right
and facts don't matter at all

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
throw good money after bad

feed failing social programs
keep the poor people poor

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
Obama's worse than Stalin

and Chavez and Carter
and the Devil combined
.
All real freedom starts with freedom of speech. Without freedom of speech there can be no real freedom.
.
Philosophy of Liberty Cartoon
.
Visit: HaltTerrorism.com
.

:)
.

Hyper, marc and I are not enemies of each other. We just disagree on the type of "blogger commenter" we are. Silly argument at best. Labels serve no purpose. ww

It should be given its fair shake, which is to say a minimal one. Conservative ideas in academia have not fared well,

I've been around Wizbangblog many years, including when real total idiots like freedom fries lee were posting regularly here. Did everyone here believe that hyper was REALLY this deluded -- I'm serious -- let me give you the correct definition of a delusion -- it is "impaired reality testing". We've known that he makes stupid statements and makes some bad assumptions, but did we really know he was ACTUALLY delusional like this?? I've known him a long time, but this is new.

You take issue with this assertion:

Conservative ideas in academia have not fared well,

If it's not true, then what's Horowitz' f*cking problem, Nehemiah? If it's not true, why are the best legal, literary, economic, and philosophical minds in the modern academy so disproportionately liberal?