Stan de SD
2006-10-16 16:39:04 UTC
Minutemen or the Mullahman
On America's Campuses, the Shiite's Hit the Fan
------------------------------------------------------
I hate to lecture. I really do. But these kids today. Man, they're askin'
for it.
I'm t-t-t-talkin' 'bout my generation. And, a lot of them s-s-s-s-suck.
They don't take criticism well from their elders and they're, like, totally
not down with authority figures, so I thought I'd try telling them what
idiots they're making of themselves. Call it peer pressure.
Last week, the Columbia University College Republicans invited Minuteman
Project founder Jim Gilchrist to speak on campus. He made it as far as the
podium, and about six words into his speech before the school's Leftists
Gone Wild-a cast composed of the Chicano Caucus and, predictably, the school
's Socialist contingent-stormed the stage, chanting over the speech, and
inciting a melee, which made speech fairly impossible.
Gilchrist and his fellow Minuteman Marvin Stewart, who had been able to get
a few words in edgewise before the riot began, were escorted offstage. The
question-and-answer session planned for after the speeches, of course, did
not occur. There was no debate. There was no reasoned argument. There was
only a thuggish, petulant, childish shout-down of opposing viewpoints by the
alleged intellectual lights, the eminently tolerant, the vaunted
Ivy-Leaguers, of my generation.
If Columbia University were acting in loco parentis, it'd have the rioters
run out in the backyard and pick a switch to get whooped with. Instead, the
administration is writing letters to the rioters, and dis-inviting guests
for other conservative lectures for fear of the audience reaction.
The Minutemen are controversial. I get that. They raise temperatures. The
Minutemen's efforts to patrol the border and fill in the miles of gaps left
by shoddy federal enforcement are regarded as "racist," "oppressive" and
"violent" by many college students.
About a month earlier, another controversial speaker took the podium at
another Ivy League school and garnered a much different reaction. Mohammed
Khatami, the former president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, spoke to a
Harvard audience in September.
I imagine his inability to condemn Holocaust denial could be seen as
"racist." His administration's closing of 20 reformist newspapers could be
interpreted as "oppressive," and the jailing and executions of student
protestors and dissidents has just a whiff of "violence."
And yet, he evoked something less than the reaction the Minutemen got at
Columbia. Let's compare and contrast-just like we used to do in college!
Student Reaction
Minutemen: We've already been over a bit of this, but watch the video. It's
informative. Minuteman Marvin Stewart is also charging that the students who
rushed the stage referred to him using the n-word. If true, a classy way to
start a solid debate.
Khatami: Let's check the Harvard Crimson's account of the speech.
"In response to another question, Khatami also justified his country's use
of capital punishment for acts of homosexuality, but said that the
conditions for execution are so strict that they are "virtually impossible
to meet."
"Homosexuality is a crime in Islam and crimes are punishable," Khatami
said. "And the fact that a crime could be punished by execution is
debatable."
The audience responded with silence to his remark."
Silence, eh? "Execution is debatable" for homosexuality, and the audience
declines to even rustle up a "boo?" And here I thought college campuses were
the vanguard of the gay rights movement. But let's give them another chance.
What about terrorist sympathizing?
"In his 30-minute address under heavy security, the Muslim cleric also
defended the militant Lebanese group Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance
movement fighting for the "territorial integrity" of Lebanon.
Khatami, who was president of Iran from 1997 to 2004, was met by angry
protestors who called on him to apologize for human rights abuses committed
by the government under his watch. Police estimated that 200 protestors
gathered outside the Kennedy School of Government.
But inside the forum, Khatami faced a relatively polite audience, a marked
contrast to previous controversial visitors."
Hezbollah's A-okay, but the audience managed to keep its composure.
Protestors gathered outside the hall, as is the tradition in appropriate
protesting.
Campus Papers:
Minutemen: The Columbia Daily Spectator printed two editorials on the
debacle.
"When Protest Fails" condemns the conduct of Columbia students while kinda,
sorta excusing their actions:
"The protesters did, of course, have cause for concern. The Minutemen have
at best a highly controversial opinion regarding immigration. The speakers
themselves practically encouraged the unruly behavior, directly insulting
the crowd numerous times. Jim Gilchrist, the featured speaker, walked up to
the podium smiling and berating the protesters. Aside from some token
requests for respect, also couched in antagonistic words toward the
audience, the College Republicans and their guests did little if anything to
promote a truly productive discussion environment."
A follow-up editorial called "The No-Spin Zone" bemoans the fact that
conservative commentators and Fox News are using the brawl as a big ol'
brush to paint Columbia's student body.
"The primary culprit in this unbalanced coverage has been the Fox News
Network, specifically, its numerous commentators. Prominent figures such as
Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity have leapt on the incident as an opportunity
to criticize Columbia for perceived left-leaning tendencies. O'Reilly, for
example, claimed that "everyone thinks the same" at Columbia, ignoring the
obvious fact that Columbia students invited the speakers in the first place
and fought the protesters on stage. Furthermore, many controversial
speakers-most notably Norman Finkelstein and John Ashcroft-have come to the
University before, only to meet with peaceful protest."
Guys? Fox News is not the problem; the violent Socialists on campus, and the
culture that makes them think their conduct is virtuous, are the problem.
The Daily Spectator refers to the Minutemen's views and speeches as
"repugnant," "disrespectful," and "race-baiting."
Khatami:
The Crimson refers to Khatami in somewhat more gentle terms than the Daily
Spectator used for the Minutemen. The editorial page editors concede that he
has a "twisted" world view, but refer to him in the headline as only
"objectionable." They called the event "remarkable" in that it sparked
debate on an important issue.
The headline is extremely polite to the Iranian guest: "Khatami Deserved a
Forum."
Would that we could see such an unequivocal headline from a campus paper
when referring to fellow American citizens who wish to patrol the Southern
border and have immigration laws enforced. Of course, those views are
"repugnant."
Administration Response:
Minutemen: In the wake of the Minutemen riot, the Columbia administration
responded to "security concerns" by barring the public from another
College-Republican-sponsored lecture, by Whalid Shoebat, a former PLO
terrorist:
"It is the decision of the advising office to Student Governing Board
groups that at tonight's event sponsored by the Columbia College
Republicans, hosts to the Walid Shoebat Foundation, attendance will be
limited to the invited speakers and their staff, CUID holders, and 20
invited guests. You are receiving this email to inform you that
unfortunately, your RSVP to tonight's event cannot be accepted. Sincerely,
Jewelnel Davis
University Chaplain
Associate Provost
Director of the Earl Hall Center"
Khatami: When Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney declined to offer
state-funded security to Khatami, Harvard's Kennedy School of Government
insisted that the event go forward as planned.
To review: An Iranian president who can't unequivocally condemn either
Holocaust denial or the death penalty for homosexuality, who lauds
Hezbollah, and whose administration jailed hundreds of students for doing
the same protesting American college students so treasure? He gets a polite
hearing for his "objectionable" views, few challenging questions, and the
assurance of security on campus.
Americans who are serious about border-control and reasonably and lawfully
take matters into their own hands when the government fails to? They receive
physical attack and no fair hearing. Their beliefs are "repugnant," and
future conservative speakers are deprived of an audience because the
administration cannot guarantee safety.
I think that's what lefty American professors and college students like to
refer to as "disproportionate response."
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/Column.aspx?ContentGuid=c1e42cd6-f619-4843-a449-c9b8b7d48584
===============================================
(following courtesy of Jim Alder:)
In 2003 a sociologist from Rutgers University named Ted Goertzel
wrote a paper in which he offered some insight into the psyche
of the left. Interesting reading:
In the 1970s, Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter
administered Thematic Apperception Tests to a large sample of
"new left" radicals (Roots of Radicalism, 1982). They found that
activists were characterized by weakened self-esteem, injured
narcissism and paranoid tendencies. They were preoccupied with
power and attracted to radical ideologies that offered clear and
unambiguous answers to their questions. . . .
The unwillingness to offer alternatives reveals a lack of
self-confidence and self-esteem. If they offered their own
policy ideas they would be vulnerable to criticism. They would
run the risk that their ideas would fail, or would not seem
persuasive to others. This is especially difficult for anti-
capitalists after the fall of the Soviet Union. It has also been
difficult in the war against terrorism because Saddam Hussein
and Osama bin Laden are such unsympathetic figures.
Psychologically, it is easier to blame America for not finding a
solution than it is to put one's own ideas on the line.
===============================================
On America's Campuses, the Shiite's Hit the Fan
------------------------------------------------------
I hate to lecture. I really do. But these kids today. Man, they're askin'
for it.
I'm t-t-t-talkin' 'bout my generation. And, a lot of them s-s-s-s-suck.
They don't take criticism well from their elders and they're, like, totally
not down with authority figures, so I thought I'd try telling them what
idiots they're making of themselves. Call it peer pressure.
Last week, the Columbia University College Republicans invited Minuteman
Project founder Jim Gilchrist to speak on campus. He made it as far as the
podium, and about six words into his speech before the school's Leftists
Gone Wild-a cast composed of the Chicano Caucus and, predictably, the school
's Socialist contingent-stormed the stage, chanting over the speech, and
inciting a melee, which made speech fairly impossible.
Gilchrist and his fellow Minuteman Marvin Stewart, who had been able to get
a few words in edgewise before the riot began, were escorted offstage. The
question-and-answer session planned for after the speeches, of course, did
not occur. There was no debate. There was no reasoned argument. There was
only a thuggish, petulant, childish shout-down of opposing viewpoints by the
alleged intellectual lights, the eminently tolerant, the vaunted
Ivy-Leaguers, of my generation.
If Columbia University were acting in loco parentis, it'd have the rioters
run out in the backyard and pick a switch to get whooped with. Instead, the
administration is writing letters to the rioters, and dis-inviting guests
for other conservative lectures for fear of the audience reaction.
The Minutemen are controversial. I get that. They raise temperatures. The
Minutemen's efforts to patrol the border and fill in the miles of gaps left
by shoddy federal enforcement are regarded as "racist," "oppressive" and
"violent" by many college students.
About a month earlier, another controversial speaker took the podium at
another Ivy League school and garnered a much different reaction. Mohammed
Khatami, the former president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, spoke to a
Harvard audience in September.
I imagine his inability to condemn Holocaust denial could be seen as
"racist." His administration's closing of 20 reformist newspapers could be
interpreted as "oppressive," and the jailing and executions of student
protestors and dissidents has just a whiff of "violence."
And yet, he evoked something less than the reaction the Minutemen got at
Columbia. Let's compare and contrast-just like we used to do in college!
Student Reaction
Minutemen: We've already been over a bit of this, but watch the video. It's
informative. Minuteman Marvin Stewart is also charging that the students who
rushed the stage referred to him using the n-word. If true, a classy way to
start a solid debate.
Khatami: Let's check the Harvard Crimson's account of the speech.
"In response to another question, Khatami also justified his country's use
of capital punishment for acts of homosexuality, but said that the
conditions for execution are so strict that they are "virtually impossible
to meet."
"Homosexuality is a crime in Islam and crimes are punishable," Khatami
said. "And the fact that a crime could be punished by execution is
debatable."
The audience responded with silence to his remark."
Silence, eh? "Execution is debatable" for homosexuality, and the audience
declines to even rustle up a "boo?" And here I thought college campuses were
the vanguard of the gay rights movement. But let's give them another chance.
What about terrorist sympathizing?
"In his 30-minute address under heavy security, the Muslim cleric also
defended the militant Lebanese group Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance
movement fighting for the "territorial integrity" of Lebanon.
Khatami, who was president of Iran from 1997 to 2004, was met by angry
protestors who called on him to apologize for human rights abuses committed
by the government under his watch. Police estimated that 200 protestors
gathered outside the Kennedy School of Government.
But inside the forum, Khatami faced a relatively polite audience, a marked
contrast to previous controversial visitors."
Hezbollah's A-okay, but the audience managed to keep its composure.
Protestors gathered outside the hall, as is the tradition in appropriate
protesting.
Campus Papers:
Minutemen: The Columbia Daily Spectator printed two editorials on the
debacle.
"When Protest Fails" condemns the conduct of Columbia students while kinda,
sorta excusing their actions:
"The protesters did, of course, have cause for concern. The Minutemen have
at best a highly controversial opinion regarding immigration. The speakers
themselves practically encouraged the unruly behavior, directly insulting
the crowd numerous times. Jim Gilchrist, the featured speaker, walked up to
the podium smiling and berating the protesters. Aside from some token
requests for respect, also couched in antagonistic words toward the
audience, the College Republicans and their guests did little if anything to
promote a truly productive discussion environment."
A follow-up editorial called "The No-Spin Zone" bemoans the fact that
conservative commentators and Fox News are using the brawl as a big ol'
brush to paint Columbia's student body.
"The primary culprit in this unbalanced coverage has been the Fox News
Network, specifically, its numerous commentators. Prominent figures such as
Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity have leapt on the incident as an opportunity
to criticize Columbia for perceived left-leaning tendencies. O'Reilly, for
example, claimed that "everyone thinks the same" at Columbia, ignoring the
obvious fact that Columbia students invited the speakers in the first place
and fought the protesters on stage. Furthermore, many controversial
speakers-most notably Norman Finkelstein and John Ashcroft-have come to the
University before, only to meet with peaceful protest."
Guys? Fox News is not the problem; the violent Socialists on campus, and the
culture that makes them think their conduct is virtuous, are the problem.
The Daily Spectator refers to the Minutemen's views and speeches as
"repugnant," "disrespectful," and "race-baiting."
Khatami:
The Crimson refers to Khatami in somewhat more gentle terms than the Daily
Spectator used for the Minutemen. The editorial page editors concede that he
has a "twisted" world view, but refer to him in the headline as only
"objectionable." They called the event "remarkable" in that it sparked
debate on an important issue.
The headline is extremely polite to the Iranian guest: "Khatami Deserved a
Forum."
Would that we could see such an unequivocal headline from a campus paper
when referring to fellow American citizens who wish to patrol the Southern
border and have immigration laws enforced. Of course, those views are
"repugnant."
Administration Response:
Minutemen: In the wake of the Minutemen riot, the Columbia administration
responded to "security concerns" by barring the public from another
College-Republican-sponsored lecture, by Whalid Shoebat, a former PLO
terrorist:
"It is the decision of the advising office to Student Governing Board
groups that at tonight's event sponsored by the Columbia College
Republicans, hosts to the Walid Shoebat Foundation, attendance will be
limited to the invited speakers and their staff, CUID holders, and 20
invited guests. You are receiving this email to inform you that
unfortunately, your RSVP to tonight's event cannot be accepted. Sincerely,
Jewelnel Davis
University Chaplain
Associate Provost
Director of the Earl Hall Center"
Khatami: When Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney declined to offer
state-funded security to Khatami, Harvard's Kennedy School of Government
insisted that the event go forward as planned.
To review: An Iranian president who can't unequivocally condemn either
Holocaust denial or the death penalty for homosexuality, who lauds
Hezbollah, and whose administration jailed hundreds of students for doing
the same protesting American college students so treasure? He gets a polite
hearing for his "objectionable" views, few challenging questions, and the
assurance of security on campus.
Americans who are serious about border-control and reasonably and lawfully
take matters into their own hands when the government fails to? They receive
physical attack and no fair hearing. Their beliefs are "repugnant," and
future conservative speakers are deprived of an audience because the
administration cannot guarantee safety.
I think that's what lefty American professors and college students like to
refer to as "disproportionate response."
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/Column.aspx?ContentGuid=c1e42cd6-f619-4843-a449-c9b8b7d48584
===============================================
(following courtesy of Jim Alder:)
In 2003 a sociologist from Rutgers University named Ted Goertzel
wrote a paper in which he offered some insight into the psyche
of the left. Interesting reading:
In the 1970s, Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter
administered Thematic Apperception Tests to a large sample of
"new left" radicals (Roots of Radicalism, 1982). They found that
activists were characterized by weakened self-esteem, injured
narcissism and paranoid tendencies. They were preoccupied with
power and attracted to radical ideologies that offered clear and
unambiguous answers to their questions. . . .
The unwillingness to offer alternatives reveals a lack of
self-confidence and self-esteem. If they offered their own
policy ideas they would be vulnerable to criticism. They would
run the risk that their ideas would fail, or would not seem
persuasive to others. This is especially difficult for anti-
capitalists after the fall of the Soviet Union. It has also been
difficult in the war against terrorism because Saddam Hussein
and Osama bin Laden are such unsympathetic figures.
Psychologically, it is easier to blame America for not finding a
solution than it is to put one's own ideas on the line.
===============================================