Some of our misguided progressive friends are planning to give Karl Rove a "welcome party" when he comes to Claremont McKenna on Monday.
The contrast between conservative and progressive students could not be more clear. Whereas we write in newspapers or on this blog, our progressive friends launch into a campaign of intimidation and thuggery to shut down respectful dialog in the Athenaeum.
Here's their invitation to the other far left nuts on Los Angeles's IndyMedia, a far left social networking site that doubles as a "news" place.
A GREAT EVIL WALKS AMONG US!Yes, they really do believe that they are "fight[ing] evil."
Karl Rove, a man almost uniquely dedicated to the exploitation of others and seizure of power through deception, is coming to the Claremont Colleges on Monday, September 15, to speak at the Claremont McKenna College Athenaeum.
Karl Rove is well known for his implicitly racist campaign tactics, his key involvement in selling the criminal war in Iraq, and his defense of atrocities ranging from torture to domestic spying. He is currently refusing to answer questions from Congress and the public about his many alleged crimes.
Students and community members are hastily organizing resistance to Rove\'s visit. Attempts are being made to satisfy as many levels of political and activist commitment as possible through the planning of many fun activities. Join!
FIGHT EVIL! BE SUPERHEROES!
Protests from the other colleges on Claremont McKenna's campus aren't without their precedents, as a cursory reading of Ward Elliott's notes on the history of Claremont McKenna's ROTC program makes clear.
By 1968 CMC, the most conservative of the campuses, with the least militant students and the least permissive faculty and administration, had the most inviting targets for "liberation," ROTC and the military and corporate recruiters. The other colleges had most of the militants and the most pro-militant student bodies, faculties, and campus judiciaries, often called by some milder name, such as "community council" to underscore their repudiation of the scorned punitive, adversary traditions of their predecessors. Militants from CGS, Pitzer, and Pomona would march to CMC, liberate ROTC, and go home to get either a slap on the wrist or a high five on their home campus for doing their bit to shut down the Department of Mass Murder.I have a suggestion for those at the Ath manning security. Turn on the sprinklers and wash away the detritus. Many of them could use a shower.
Subscribe in a reader
17 comments:
Yeah! Teach those stupid protesters a lesson for expressing their opinions about Karl Rove. They definitely don't have a right to free speech, and it definitely isn't like there is a law called Leonard's Law that protects the right to free speech of students on college campuses. I mean, it's not like a certain blogger continually refers to Leonard's Law whenever a bias related incident is reported by one of the 5C's or anything like that.
And seriously, turn the hose on them. It's not like that has any cultural or historical significance that alludes to times when free speech was suppressed in order to prevent African Americans from protesting for their civil rights.
Fuck protesters, seriously.
Oh god, you sure are witty.
Who said anything about hoses? It's called sprinklers. They have every right to express their opinion and be ignored, but it is CMC's property and some of us would actually like our education to be about listening to different view points. If they had any courage they would actually challenge Rove, but instead they want to have their silly protest.
Oh and yes, I do support the Leonard law, but I also recognize that colleges can also turn on their sprinklers.
You are such a hypocrite. You decry bias related incident reports, which hardly do anything to curtail free speech, yet at the same time you advocate turning on the sprinklers to prevent students from engaging in a peaceful protest. I honestly don't see how you can reconcile the two viewpoints.
And are you really going to argue over the semantics of a hose versus a sprinkler system? Ultimately they both share the same goal of ending protests which are constitutionally protected.
"...some of us would actually like our education to be about listening to different view points."
I'm not sure if you realized how much of a hypocrite you just made yourself, Chuck. This IS about listening to different viewpoints; Rove is expressing his views inside the Ath, the protesters expressing their views outside. No one is, in any way, trying to stop Rove from speaking. We not protesting Rove's right to speak, or even his existence in general. We are protesting CMC using student money to bring a war criminal to speak. We are protesting Rove's acts of deception and power-grabbing.
"our progressive friends launch into a campaign of intimidation and thuggery..."
Chuck, you are putting words into people's mouths. None of the protesters has said anything with any hint of an attempt to intimidate. And thuggery, Chuck? Let me quote what seems to me to be the only part of the IndyMedia letter you quoted that talks about the protest, and not about Rove's actions: "Attempts are being made to satisfy as many levels of political and activist commitment as possible through the planning of many fun activities."
Now, let me quote to you something that seems to me more like thuggery and intimidation: "Turn on the sprinklers and wash away the detritus. Many of them could use a shower."
You are giving a bad rep to the few clear-thinking conservatives left. Go run in the sprinklers, you could use a cold shower.
Whereas we write in newspapers or on this blog, our progressive friends launch into a campaign of intimidation and thuggery
Translated: Whereas we regurgitate extreme right-wing rhetoric behind the anonymity of the internet...
If you honestly equate the constitutional right of peaceful assembly with thuggery then someone has severely misguided your thinking. Do yourself a favor and spend a day driving around South Central and then tell us if some people standing around with signs is equivalent to the behaviors you've observed. I can't decide if labeling protesters as "thugs" is more disrespectful to the protesters or to the thugs.
As an independent voter and someone with at least a moderate interest in the state of our country and how it is run, I feel a personal responsibility to educate myself about politicians, policies, and the issues that we face in the most objective way I can. This includes consuming media that is undoubtedly identifiable as biased toward one side or the other. As well, I depend on outlets like NPR and RealClearPolitics that I can feel reasonably sure include a mostly equal distribution of opinions from both sides. I can say with pride that I've voted for candidates from both major parties and even some from the minor parties. This is all meaningless of course other than as a purely anecdotal illustration that I'm not some liberal shill before I attack your praise for the man Rove.
I must admit that I may never understand party allegiance - and most especially the kind of blind allegiance typified by many members of both parties where rational discussion and willingness to find a compromise on ideology are frowned upon in favor of mechanical repetition of meaningless phrases and shallow gestures. Unfortunately Mr. Johnson, based on your writings on this site you seem - at least publicly - to have pitched your tent in one of these camps.
I'll give Karl Rove credit where credit is due. He is a brilliant and ruthless campaign architect. He has a knack for social engineering when it comes to captivating an audience with a message (or propoganda as semantics might have it). Then again, so did Adolf Hitler.
Now, before you get your "how dare you's" all fired up, I'm not saying that Karl Rove is the same as Hitler. But in this age of accessible information and instant communication being able to pull off a stunt such as invading a country, destroying its infrastructure and then exploiting your own military to provide security while your contractor buddies fatten their wallets with American taxpayer dollars is quite a feat indeed.
Frankly, people like Rove and all of the other cronies are what make people like myself very, very leery of putting trust into the Republican party. The most noteworthy moment of the RNC for me was McCain backing that up by saying publicly that his party lost their way amidst scandals and corruption. While I won't be giving my vote to McCain in this election for many various reasons, I appreciate that he took the first of what will need to be many steps to restore credibility in the eyes of the rest of us.
Seriously, questioning the tactics and conduct of Rove has very little to do with attacking "conservatism" or Republican ideals and very much to do with calling someone out for what they are: a despicable crook. You would be doing your party of choice a far greater favor by doing the same rather than standing behind him just because it's "the party thing to do".
Certainly there are more important things going on in our society then the perceived hygiene of your fellow concerned citizens. If you want to be a stand-up Republican then give the "progressives" some credit for doing the work you should be doing by holding the few bad seeds who wormed their way to the top accountable for their actions.
Anonymous,
There is a time and a place for speech. Real courage is to stand up in an audience in which your adversaries out number you one hundred or two hundred to one and making your voice heard. When you sloganize a debate, you ignore its subtlety and become part of the unthinking herd that so often characterizes the Left.
Brian Luft,
Who is being anonymous? I freely and often attach my name to this blog and I find little to be ashamed of in its many posts. As you can see, I even put up my photograph.
I am not some ideologue, but an ex-liberal who has examined the logical fallacies and contradiction inherent within its dogma. I am not, as you are, a weak-willed "moderate" who straddles a fence. Rather, I am willing to stand alone, when it is unpopular when I am convinced of the premises upon which it stands. The sloppiness of your logic manifests itself in false moral equivalencies that confuse tactics with ends.
As for Rove, who says he has "wormed" his way to the top? Rather, he has played a game and been the winner. Sully his name as you will and are wont to do, but recognize that it is the game you hate, not the players.
Which game are you referring to there? Oh, the one where people in power make decisions that can have devastating effects for the lives of millions people in our own country and indirectly to hundreds of millions worldwide? Yeah, that's a fun one!!
"Hey honey, guess what I did today? I convinced a few politicians to pass a bill that will almost certainly guarantee tens of thousands of people who are barely scraping by lose their jobs! CEOs should be expecting a nice 8% windfall this year (smiles smugly) Can you imagine how embarrassed these poor, dirty, exhausted saps are going to be when they go home and look their miserable families in the eye and tell them the news? Schmucks!
Now I just need to figure out a way to bilk that remaining 5% of wealth from that pesky 99% of the population... Wheeee!"
Good times, Mr. Johnson. I'm glad that you're able to compartmentalize the continuing trend of the separation between the richest elite and the rest of us into something that calls for confetti and fruit punch. It's always such a blast to remind oneself that America is the only economy in the civilized world that does not guarantee its citizens vacation time. If you don't work, work, work for less, less pay then you'll have to sit out a turn!
You're right though - trivializing the suffering of your fellow citizens and celebrating the erosion of equality as a mere game is an act of astounding courage; courage I'll probably never muster.
an ex-liberal who has examined the logical fallacies and contradiction inherent within its dogma. I am not, as you are, a weak-willed "moderate" who straddles a fence.
By the way, congratulations on your enlightenment. You can take pride in your newfound strength unlike myself flailing through life.
You helped me learn something today:
1) Identify with a "dogma".
2) Decide said dogma has fallacies.
3) Cast off dogma, adopt competing dogma.
4) Rest easy now that dogma inspection and adoption is eternally complete.
Conclusion: The life story of a courageous, confident, and complete individual.
1) Identify with a "dogma".
2) Decide said dogma has fallacies.
3) Cast off dogma, adopt competing dogma.
4) Decide new dogma also has fallacies.
5) Realize that both dogmas have both promising and terrifying aspects.
6) Adopt a (third/non/anti?)-dogma that recognizes the strengths and fallacies of both dogmas.
7) Never stop the process of balancing the axioms of both dogmas based on self awareness, education, and a desire to be open to new ways of thinking.
Conclusion: The life story of a confused, cowardly, lost, weak individual.
Thank you for that Mr. Johnson. Best of luck.
For one, Brian, the party you are referring to that leads to people losing money is the Democrat party which tends to be anti-trade and lead to eliminating jobs while making America weaker.
You might want to re-check your facts (or get some in the first place).
As pointed out by "Unequal Democracy", written by Princeton academic Larry Bartels (a self-described non-partisan who has not voted in an election since '84 when he voted for Reagan):
After an exhaustive study of Democratic and Republican presidents he found that the Democrats built a better economy and a more just society.
Since 1900, Democratic presidents have not only "won" but dominated on every economic front: GDP growth, employment, deficit and income equality. Need more? How about a better performing stock market and more fiscally-responsible spending.
What rings through all the research and analysis, loud and clear, is how very, very much better the fortunes of the working and middle classes fare under Democratic presidents (and Congresses as well, but mostly Democratic presidents). Bartels looks closely at the periods in various administrations when presidents are most likely to have their agenda adopted--the first year after election.
The dramatic differences in output and income growth associated with Democratic and Republican "honeymoon" periods are a testament to the ability of presidents in the post-Keynesian era to shape the economy to their partisan ends. Democratic presidents have routinely used these periods to produce vibrant economic growth for families in every part of the income distribution; in contrast, Republicans have routinely presided over economic contractions and declining incomes for middle-class and poor families. Partisan differences in macroeconomic priorities and performance have clearly had a very significant impact on the economic fortunes of American families over the past half century, and that impact has been especially marked at the point in the electoral cycle when presidents are most politically influential.
Nice try though :)
Some other things Mr. Bartel discovered:
1. Americans hate the estate tax, and they did long before the right wing changed it to the "death tax."
2. Politics matters. A lot. There is a huge difference between Republican and Democratic policies that affect the pocketbooks of middle-class and working-class Americans.
3. Contrary to popular belief, working-class whites (outside of the South) have not deserted the Democratic Party--affluent whites have.
4. Economic issues still vastly outweigh cultural/social issues when it comes time to cast a vote.
5. To the extent that social issues have increased in importance, it is only so for the affluent white voter, not the working class.
6. Gaps between the classes are at least equal to--and often exceeding--those found in Europe.
7. The more informed the voter, the more pessimistic he or she is.
8. Low-information conservatives and low-information liberals are virtually indistinguishable in their beliefs; high-information ideologues of both stripes differ greatly.
9. Self-identified Democrats and Republicans differ more in perception about America's economic opportunity than the actual rich and actual poor do.
Leaving party politics absolutely aside, Charles, I think one of the concerns (as frequently happens when big names come to the Ath) is that only CMC students will actually be allowed inside to ask questions. The off-campus community and students from the other 5-Cs will be watching via feed at McKenna Auditorium. I understand and agree with the reason behind this (namely, CMC is paying for it, CMC's students should have the best opportunity) but it does cause problems with actually being able to go inside, stand up in the audience, and challenge the speaker.
I'm not surprised Karl Rove was the choice of Pam Gann (and CMC Trustees) to help kick off the 2008-2009 Athenaeum series. For a college that went on the record defending a professor implicated in Nazi war profiteering, Rove seems a perfectly appropriate choice. "Civilization prospers through commerce," you say. There's nothing in the CMC motto about ethics or morals, and there's probably a reason for that.
Are you sure CMC students are free to ask honest and open questions? From what I hear, academic freedom and open inquiry stop at the door of an administrator's office.
Brian,
Personally, I think a major mark of willful ignorance is the assumption that the opposition party is actually evil. I truly hope that you don't actually believe that anyone in government goes home and is pleased about having done evil.
Personally, I believe that the Democratic party offers policies that will do great damage to freedoms that I hold dear. However, I do not believe that Nancy Pelosi goes home every night and tells her husband "YES! I just passed an increase in the minimum wage that will increase unemployment and blocked a trade bill with Colombia that would have improved countless lives both in Colombia and the US! Now if only I could figure out a way to prematurely abandon Iraqis to genocide and chaos."
Now, of course, equivalence in intentions does not equal moral equivalence. Even the worst leaders of the 20th century believed that they were acting on the side of "good." We can and should condemn evil when we see it, regardless of the "good" intentions of those who commit evil.
But the idea that the opposition knowingly and purposely advances the cause of evil is an intellectual shortcut. It enables one to avoid examining the platforms and arguments of political figures. After all, it's much easier to hate Karl Rove if you believe that he wants to "guarantee [that] tens of thousands of people who are barely scraping by lose their jobs." Why research the disincentive effects of income redistribution when it's so much easier to simply say that the opponents of redistribution hate the poor? Why look at the arguments against affirmative action if Republicans just hate minorities? Why look at the arguments in favor of free trade when it's so much easier to assume that evil Republicans must support free trade in order to benefit rich CEOs (and, of course, to screw over the poor in developing nations)?
In regards to Bartels' book:
a) since when does correlation equal causation?
b) since when do 16 data points prove anything?
c) since when do the shifts in ideological orientation of the Republican and Democratic parties over the last 60 years not matter when measuring the economic effects of the parties?
d) by what precise mechanism does the President so powerfully control economic growth?
Lastly, if you're going to copy/paste something, you should mention that you didn't write it yourself. James Carville and Daily Kos probably wouldn't appreciate being quoted with no attribution...
As for the original post, I personally think it's a bit ridiculous whenever the lefties on the 5Cs protest right-wing speakers--as if there's already too much conservative thought on campus, and any more is unacceptable. I wouldn't support turning on the sprinklers (though I interpreted that suggestion as a joke?) and support the right of anyone to protest anything they want, but protesting the fact that a lone opposition voice is being allowed on campus seems a little offensive to me.
I'm not surprised Maureen Dowd was the choice of Pam Gann (and CMC Trustees) to help close the fall season of the 2008-2009 Athenaeum series. For a college that went on the record defending academic freedom, Dowd seems a perfectly appropriate choice. Creating an "intellectual environment that promotes responsible citizenship" you say. There's nothing in the CMC mission about curtailing free speech, and there's probably a reason for that.
Are you sure CMC students are free to ask honest and open questions? From what I hear, academic freedom and open inquiry stop when protestors try to shout down a speaker.
You're a piece of work, Charles. You ramble about how much you love free speech and then you aggressively attack not only the character, but the hygiene of a group of people who intend on practicing it peacefully, and you then suggest ways to try and silence them.
Free speech only applies to the insane right; isn't that correct, Chucky? People like Rove and seemingly yourself.
How marvelously hypocritical and pathetic of you. Is there any reason you should be taken seriously by anyone?
A time and a place, my misguided left wing friends, a time and a place. You can always restrict speech at certain places and at certain times. No one doubts that, but lots of people doubt silencing people for writing on their own white boards, hanging their own political paraphernalia, etc.
If you're unable to understand why a servant of our President is deserving of respect, then you are ill-equipped to be a part of the world the rest of us inhabit.
As for turning on the sprinklers, that was intended in jest, though observations compel me to point out the hygience of the trustfarians who usually participate in the Claremont campus protests. Surely the campus has a right to make sure its students are properly bathed, no?
I want to orally pleasure Rove. My boyfriend hated it when I told him how much I admire him. I told him he could watch. I hope someone can introduce us. Charles is cute too. I like a big brave man.
Post a Comment