Campus Fascism
The anti-Israel forces physically assaulted the would-be audience. A female professor of religion at Concordia recounted how some of them "aimed their punches at my breasts."...They smashed a plate-glass window and threw objects at the police inside. They hurled furniture at police from a mezzanine. As Toronto's Globe & Mail put it, "By lunchtime, the vestibule of Concordia's main downtown building was littered with paper, upturned chairs, broken furniture and the choking aftereffects of pepper spray."
This and more from Dr. Pipes' latest column, "The War On Campus."
People on the political Left--and it is almost solely the Left who are anti-Israel anymore--seem to feel that any form of protest is justified. Hey, if you're a "liberal," it makes you axiomatically tolerant and open-minded, and thus allowed to do anything to crush the "intolerant bigots" who disagree with you, right?
Note: I defy anyone to find me an example in the United States over the last year of anyone on the so-called "Right" behaving in this deplorable fashion.
The Left needs to clean house. Badly. My only question: are they even capable of it?
(Thanks to Kevin Brehmer for the link.)
On the whole, I agree with you. You know I do. Those people were real Nazis.
But I can't believe you said this:
I defy anyone to find me an example in the United States over the last year of anyone on the so-called "Right" behaving in this deplorable fashion.
ROTFALOL!
First off, why cut it off at one year? Is there a statute of limitations on being an Nazi asshole?
~8^\
So let's go back 2 years, just for grins.
Here goes....It's all coming back to me now....
I remember that there was a real ruckus at the City Clerk's office in Miami (and elsewhere) in the aftermath of Election 2000. Remember?
:^)
Dean,
You bring up an interesting point. I put the leftist conundrum this way. The left seems to think they have a higher moral calling. Therefore, since they have what they see as a higher moral calling they are justified in doing increasingly ANYTHING to win.
I guess success begets success; and getting away with another one only encourages these cretins to try getting away with another one.
I wonder just when average Americans will tire of this crapola and see this for the shallowness that it is. Democrat run counties are the only ones allowed to run incompetent or corrupt elections. Just look at Dade County AGAIN this year after their debacle in 2000.
And can you believe it? Janet Reno has the balls to accuse Jeb Bush for THEIR OWN problems running elections in DADE County!
I must admit Republicans have sometimes given Democrats what they needed to get away with some of their nonsense. Their overuse of the moral superiority argument only allowed the Clintonistas to get away with everything the last eight years of the 20th century.
But this does not excuse the incescusable behaviior and constant blaming they engaged in for the past ten years. They accept no responsibility for anything that goes wrong. They are there however, to take credit for anything that goes right. You can not have it both ways unless you are a Democrat.
If the Democrats win this election cycle and retain contol of the senate and gain seats in the house I don't know what I'm going to do.
Respectfully,
Kevin Brehmer
When people on the Left compare chanting, clapping, and laughing (which is all that ever happened in that Miami-Dade City Clerk's office in 2000) with thugs who throw chairs, break glass, and punch women, they validate my criticism better than anything I could say myself.
I must also add my voice to the chorus of assent with your basic premise; there is no excuse in a free and open society for this kind of behavior.
To answer Kevin's above question, I think that Middle America--at least the tiny portion I belong to--has already seen through this BS. That's why you find such little real support (don't believe the hype on this one!)for the actions of contemporary protestors whether they are opposing Israel, “globalization” or committing some act of environmental terrorism like spiking trees or interfering with potentially life saving experiments on animals. I believe if you examine the membership rosters of these organizations you will find a great deal of overlap.
However, rising above partisanship (left/right, lib/cons,dem/gop et al.)I believe there is evidence to suggest a larger psycho/social aspect to this issue, which transcends culture.
In a lengthy article in The New Yorker Bernard Lewis makes a point regarding Arab terrorists, which are too often mislabeled as fundamentalist.
"For Osama bin Laden, 2001 marks the resumption of the war for the religious dominance of the world that began in the seventh century. For him and his followers, this is a moment of opportunity. Today, America exemplifies the civilization and embodies the leadership of the House of War, and, like Rome and Byzantium, it has become degenerate and demoralized, ready to be overthrown." (Click Here to read the aforementioned New Yorker article.)
This war has been going on since the rise of Islam and despite the obvious prohibitions against such actions in the Koran, continues today. While the actions of the protestors in Montreal cannot be directly linked to bin Laden, there is a distinct parallel between their sense of self-righteousness and those of the criminals who believe they are doing the work of Allah. This mix of self-righteousness and direct action has infected debate since the 1960's. While it was not solely a phenomenon of that era (John Brown proves that) it migrated from the extreme to the mainstream at that time. The sad truth is that these misguided youths (did I just use that phrase?) have been indoctrinated by holdovers from a generation who base their teachings on the fallacy: A) Vietnam was morally wrong. B) During the Vietnam era there were violent youth protests, therefore C) the end of the war was morally right and brought about by direct action and protest. Obviously there is much wrong with that kind of logic, but it is the type of critical thinking prevalent in academia today.
Likewise, this sense of self-righteousness in the West is not consigned to one group on one side of a debate. Regardless of one's opinion on the subject, I do no think any reasonable person can justify the assignation of abortion providers or the bombing of clinics. These are acts of terrorism. Reasonable debate cannot and should not degenerate to this level. As long as one side or the other maintains a franchise on the truth, they will only succeed in reinforcing the self righteousness of their enemies creating a perfect example of the kind of circular logic inherent in tribal conflict: We treat them badly because they treated us badly...etc, etc, etc.
When people on the Left compare chanting, clapping, and laughing (which is all that ever happened in that Miami-Dade City Clerk's office in 2000) with thugs who throw chairs, break glass, and punch women, they validate my criticism better than anything I could say myself.
Oh puh-leeze. At least try not to airbrush history into oblivion.
"Chanting, clapping, and laughing?"
Paul Gigot thought differently, praising the rioters, saying that they were finally "fighting like Democrats."
Do you really think he was being ironic?
It was a pretty nasty episode.
I'm not whitewashing history.
This was the most lousy, slanted reporting of 2000. It was despicable.
No one was hurt. There was no violence. Period. The two incidents are not comparable in the least.
More later.
I'll shut up now.
I know when the audience has, er, tuned me out...
:^)
Okay. But your audience is listening. You're just horribly misinformed, and your audience wants you to know that.
I re-read Chait's piece. I remember reading it when it came out. It is a perfect example of proof-by-repeated-assertion: you simply repeat something over and over again as if doing so will make it true.
Read Chait all the way through. Notice that you will find not a single fact in it--not a single thing he can be pinned down on. Nor will you find anything in it that will refute any of the following things we learned in the aftermath of that so-called "violent riot" in the City Clerk's office:
1) Not one single person was hurt.
2) Nothing was thrown at anyone.
3) No property was vandalized.
4) No threats were uttered at anyone.
5) No one was punched or kicked or even shoved.
6) Legally, the election officials were in the wrong--they attempted to pull the count into private when, in fact, the law did require the counting to be done in public, which is what the protest was about.
7) In the days after the so-called "riot," not one person came forward to say that these rumored threats and these rumored injuries had actually occurred. There is not one recorded incident of anyone showing up in an ER, not one person who talked to any reporter and said they were hurt, period.
8) The election officials, while initially upset, in the days after the so-called "riot" said they never felt threatened and that, as good Democrats all, they admitted that the protestors were in the right, and had nothing to do with any of the final decisions they made.
Why won't you find anything in Chait's article to refute any of that? Because it's all true. Anything that implies otherwise would simply be a lie.
Comparing what happened in that office to thugs who throw chairs, break glass, and punch women (and men) is the kind of cheap moral equivalency you claim to deplore.
It's also just further evidence of the Left's screaming need to get its house in order. If the Left is even capable of it--I really begin to wonder about that.
Note: I spoke too soon!
Kev said:
And can you believe it? Janet Reno has the balls to accuse Jeb Bush for THEIR OWN problems running elections in DADE County!
Dude! The first rule of politics says -- "When you're in charge, everything is your fault."
And remember...Jeb Bush wanted Reno to be his opponent.
LOL! So he actually screwed up twice! I can't stand it!
Also, you said:
If the Democrats win this election cycle and retain contol of the senate and gain seats in the house I don't know what I'm going to do.
You'll do what we all do -- "wait'll next year."
Dean:
I re-read Chait. I also re-read Padgett in Time.
Padgett's report was posted two weeks earlier (and closer to the action) than Chait's report. So perhaps he can be faulted for not having the benefit of hindsight or perspective.
You can also suggest that he is a member of the liberal media or some such.
All I know is that his account is pretty wild.
Here are the phrases I recall:
Fed up indeed.
It really is water under the bridge; can't change things.
And I am certainly not absolving the Nazis on campus by remembering the hooligans in Miami.
Just please don't suggest that one "side" or the other is "above" this kind of crap.
bolding turned off?
"If the Democrats win this election cycle and retain contol of the senate and gain seats in the house I don't know what I'm going to do."
Well, whatever you do DON'T SAY you'll move to France...You'll guarantee a win for the Dems and I've got a bet going with Dean. Don't blow it for me!!!!
Dean nailed it, Ara. "proof by repeated assertion".
All you've done is quote the article. I would appreciate it if you could offer any significant supporting evidence besides "well, he said so!"
I also followed some articles about that snafu from Reason Online. The reporter made it quite clear (as has Dean, by specifying all the things that didn't happen) that reports of a riot were blown way out of proportion.
I find this source to be fairly reliable, as they have no axe to grind; they make no distinction between liberal/conservative nor Democrat/Republican, and can be trust to skewer any group or politician that seems out of line.
To Mr. Rubyan: I don't think Time magazine is the best source for objective reporting either. You went from TNR (who, even if they are biased, are usually quite fair), and descended to the likes of Time, which is the People magazine of the newsrags. Please.
And ooh, some middle-aged Republican campaign workers raised their voices. Yes, that is so like violent pro-Palestinian college rioters smashing windows and punching women in the boobs. Listen, I'm from Miami, and believe me, if there had been "rioting" during the 2000 election there on the scale you claim, it would have been the biggest headline in Florida that year. You may not be old enough to remember the Miami riots of 1980 (look them up). My high school graduation was put off because the schools were closed down. Ever since then, even the slightest resemblence of any event in Miami to a riot gets plenty of airplay, analysis, and discussion. This time your talking about a non-issue. There's no there there, despite the best efforts of Chait and Padgett to blow it all out of proportion.
Guh, I meant "you're." I hate that misteak.
Ara,
You should remmember who actually runs elections in the United States. All presidential and statewide elections are run by COUNTY Election boards.
State governments have no jurisdiction over them. All Jeb Bush can do is prosecute people manning the election office in Dade County or the people manning the voting precincts on election day.
You can bet the Democrats will howl at the moon if Jeb Bush intervened in Dade County and actually hired non-Dade countians to run elections competently. This is probably the only solution.
If anybody is responsible for the way elections are run it is those who have actual jurisdiction administering them. This is Dade County where Miami is the county seat.
This entire county government is run by Democrats as are ALL counties in the U.S.A. who have trouble running competent elections.
Why do you think each and every county in the nation having trouble running elections competently is run by Democrats? I can think of only two: incompetence and corruption.
# of people shoved: 0
# of people punched: 0
# of people kicked: 0
# of people smacked with a pie: 0
# of people who claimed to be injured: 0
# of calls to the police to disperse the "riot": 0
# of persons arrested: 0
# of people who said they "felt threatened": 1
# of laws broken: 0
Total amount of property damages: $0.00
Then again, people in penny loafers and Chinos can be pretty scary, ya know?
It was definitely an ugly incident. The ugliness didn't come from the protestors, however, who were harmlessly chanting, clapping, and laughing as they demanded that the law be obeyed.
Yes, it was a very ugly incident indeed.
No harm,no foul, eh?
Or maybe we can say all the accounts were zero'd out on that one.
No one owes anything to anyone.
Next!
The creepy moral relativism remains the only foul in my book. But, whatever. [shrug]
The New Yorker article Paul mentioned by Bernard Lewis contains the same theme as his latest book "What Went Wrong?" Both state the Arabs are a mess and need to sort out their own mess. And it is all their own mess.
He is most correct believing we cannot sort out their mess for them. All we can reasonably do is look out for our own safety first. We can help them modernize. However, they must first choose to do so themselves.
I attended undergraduate school in Kalamazoo with many foreign students. Many were Iranians, Arabs and Polynesians. The Iranians enjoyed the United States and generally regretted the Iranian revolution. They also decidedly did NOT want to go back to Iran to fight Iraq. They lamented how things back home were better than presently (in 1981). Fariborz Golshani often told me how things in Iran used to be. " Everything in my home country used to be better. We used to have one of the best acrojet teams in the world. We used to have one of the most modern countries in the world, etc."
There is a movement, at least in Iran, for the expulsion of the unelected mullahs running Iran. Bernard Lewis increasingly mentions this in public appearances and in his writings. The Arabs however, are a different matter. Arab nations trend toward constant power challenging and strongman rule. This is the environment where Saddam Hussein holds power. The only way to deal with him is to kill him since he kills all rivals and anybody who challenges his authority.
In What Went Wrong? Lewis points out repeatedly how Arabs have missed opportunity after opportunity to modernize since the 1600s. They are less oblivious now to this issue than then. The Arabs obviously suffer from the same ethnocentrism the Chinese did. The Arabs rejected any innovations from the west believing themselves superior to all outside cultures. I personally believe this is also one manifestation of racism. This also points out some real problems it causes.
Now the Chinese as well the Arabs are playing catch-up with the more dominant west. Unfortunately, some Arabs do not see things this way. They visualize their solution in the return to an earlier form of Islam. This purer form of Islam never actually existed. Bin Laden and his fellow Wahabbis reject us as evil as the Ayatollah Khomeini did.
Perhaps invading Iraq will cool the heels of the governments sponsoring them. Bernard Lewis wrote a column for the WSJ Friday 9/27/02 stating that the time to rid ourselves of Saddam Hussein is now before he is a larger menace in the very near future. Remember Adolf Hitler.
Islam=tribal fascism