<< NEWS BRIEFLETS ~ MAIN ~ VISIONS OF HELL >>
EDUCATED FOLK
Shock! Academics trend left:
College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.
By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.
The same imbalance is in evident in Australia; all the more reason to keep our children out of universities. Here’s unstable Australian academic Professor John Quiggin:
As far as terrorism is concerned, there can be few instances more horrible and terrifying than the kidnappings and televised beheadings we’ve seen in Iraq. There are, however, equally awful things going on that are not televised, and that are carried out by the United States government.
The US government is engaged in activities as awful as the kidnapping and beheading of civilians? Quiggin is out of his mind. Tim Dunlop is another Australian academic prone to occasional lapses of reason:
Funny how many of those in Australia who are so purportedly concerned about the fate of the (put simply) brain-dead Terri Schiavo couldn’t give a shit about the fully functioning kids locked in our own detention centres.
Terri Schiavo is being starved to death. Children in Australian detention centres are fed, clothed, and educated; educated outside of the centres, in most cases. Were they to be denied food and water, Tim’s comparison might make sense. He continues:
No mystery really when you remember a simple fact: for such people, issues are decided on the basis of political affiliation rather than the facts of the matter. Terri Schiavo matters, therefore, because rightwing politicians say she does. Kids in detention don’t because locking them up indefinitely is part of Howard government policy.
Jesse Jackson is a right-wing politician? Ralph Nader? And kids aren’t locked up indefinitely because of Howard government policy; they’re locked up only as long as their parents wish them to be: “Parents and their children are free to leave immigration detention at any time by leaving Australia.”
More on this from J.F. Beck. Also from Iowahawk: Profs Gone Wild: Extreme Ultimate Spring Break Volume 6 – It’s Hot, Tenured, and Out of Control!
UPDATE. US-based Melbourne Age correspondent Michael Gawenda appears to be channelling US-based Dunlop. Here’s Tim on March 22:
Surely, in any given circumstance, we should err on the side of life, but as even George W. Bush--chief citer of said “doctrine"--will tell you, the subject is fraught. How else to explain that then-Governor Bush was the nation’s most execution-happy State leader? Where was the culture of life as he signed each execution warrant? It seems to me that there is a reasonable case that every one of those subjects of Governor Bush’s death warrants had a better claim to the “culture of life” (that is, life)--on a purely physical human level--than a poor woman whose cerebral cortex has liquified.
And here’s Gawenda in today’s Age:
When George Bush talks about “erring on the side of life” if there is any doubt about whether Terri Schiavo is really in a persistent vegetative state, what does it mean then that during his two terms as governor of Texas, 152 people were executed? When George Bush refused to commute all but one of the death sentences of the executed to life in prison, was this evidence of “erring on the side of life”? Forget for a moment the issue of whether supporting capital punishment is consistent with believing that God gives life and only God can decide when a life should end. Improved DNA testing procedures have revealed that innocent people have been convicted and sentenced to death in recent years; some may even have been executed. It is not immediately obvious how this squares with “erring on the side of life”.
What’s Bush’s term as governor of Texas got to do with Terri Schiavo? Oh, right. Politics.
UPDATE II. Quiggin, with whose “equally awful” notion Dunlop disagreed, has amended his remarks: “I shouldn’t have said ‘equally awful.’”
After being made to perform a Marxist/Feminist critique of an hour of Weather Channel programming at the University of Texas in ‘96 i knew something was up.
/true story
Posted by tachyonshuggy on 2005 03 30 at 02:14 PM • permalinkOf course academic types trend left; the college campus has become a sort of WPA for cranks and malcontents who would otherwise be living in boxes under highway overpasses, or curling up over heating grates in the subway system. It’s Swift’s Academy of Lagado come to life, with parlor marxists trying to turn poop into porkchops and cucumbers into sunshine. So, naturally they settle down to well-paying, comfortable jobs in universities; I mean, COME ON, if they worked in the private sector they’d actually have to produce something that somebody wanted to buy.
Lokks like the Lowy Institute is a haven for odd views these days, with their dodgy “survey” of Australian Attitudes to foreign policy. Greg Sheridan hacks it in The Australian, and deservedly so.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12685125%255E25377,00.html
Meanwhile the ABC is having a love-in with the senior Lowy Lineup figure, Martin Indyk. He has a past:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14474Terri Schiavo matters, therefore, because rightwing politicians say she does
Terry matters because:
1] She’s a human being…
2] I don’t want some judicial twerp doing the same thing to me should the circumstance arise.Posted by Wallace-Midland Texas on 2005 03 30 at 06:04 PM • permalinkQuiggin is payed in the order of A$ 250,000 per year to spout this crap.
"I wonder how many of these people went to the universities in the 60’s as students and just never left."
Quiggin falls into this category.
Posted by niobium2000 on 2005 03 30 at 07:42 PM • permalinkBack in my college days I had a buddy tell me he was taking a Women’s Studies class.
Me: “What, are you nuts?”
Him: “No, the straight females get tired of all the lesbian anti-man ranting and feel a need to prove their heterosexuality out on me, the only guy in the class.”The guy got more ass than a public toilet seat. Who says Women’s Studies programs suck?
Posted by Tommy Shanks on 2005 03 30 at 08:04 PM • permalinkMany educators fall into that category - no real contact with the outside world except through the press.
Uhh, isn’t that a redundancy?
Posted by Tommy Shanks on 2005 03 30 at 08:11 PM • permalink’The US government is engaged in activities as awful as the kidnapping and beheading of civilians?’ Quiggan ‘out of his mind’. Hmm. Perhaps we could request a unit at one of those treacherous liberal universities, title: ‘Comparing Evil, The Bad, The Worse and the United States Government’.
How does one evaluate the ‘awfulness’ of one act against another? Kidnapping a ‘civilian’ and beheading them (on camera) must be pretty high up in the ranks of awful things to do (as Quiggan admits), but is there any guide that we can follow to compare actions that fall above a certain line?
Is beheading someone worse than, say, torturing someone and beating them to death in prison? Perhaps a government torturing people at arms length is less awful than resistance fighters doing it in person? Can actions be ‘sort of’ evil? Can they be more evil than other evil actions?
Just in case you don’t know what we’re referring to, look at Extraordinary Rendition.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/18/opinion/courtwatch/main674973.shtml
And where do we (you) draw that line anyway?
Clearly, Tim, you draw that line just above everything the United States has done in its pursuit of its goals, and just below the actions of the kidnappers because, in many instances, a rational person would be struggling to see much daylight between them.
The US army has calmly dealt with proven cases of torture by its forces in Iraq by suggesting it was just a few bad apples. This from the most powerful, supposedly most well resourced and presumably best organised fighting force the world has ever seen.
Yet when a bunch of rag-tag towel heads captures a western citizen and kills them, the entire Islamic world is tarred with the same, crazy, fundamentalist brush. That’s not a double standard. That’s ‘doublethink’.
Loadedog
Loaded dog: Like many of your species, you’re too fond of eating others’ shit. I could explain the difference between hacking the heads of innocent people and jailing abusive prison guards who are tried and prosecuted by their own government, but what point would there be? You’re only interested in licking your bone. Unfortunately you do it in public.
loadedog:
A couple of things, when those soldiers broke the law they were punished but when the terrorists killed somebody they were treated like heroes.
Here in the US we will allow the people at Gitmo access to representation. The US Supreme Court will hear some of their cases. Perhaps even the ones by men claiming they were tortured by women touching them. And then of course there is Abu Ghraib, a drunken brawl out of control that will end up sending the participants to jail for years. And if there were other cases in Afghanistan of a few men breaking the law, they should be punished and they will be punished.
However, the willingness of certain detractors of the US to overlook systematic slaughter such as is happening in the Darfur region of the Sudan so that they can make an issue of panties on someone’s head [or whatever] is just banal, absurd and ridiculous.
Funny how many of those in Australia who are so purportedly concerned about the fate of the (put simply) brain-dead Terri Schiavo couldn’t give a shit about the fully functioning kids locked in our own detention centres.
Did I miss the memo telling me to be concerned about the Terri Shiavo case? It’s a business concerning foreign laws in a foreign country affecting a foreign woman, and contains no point of relevance to most Australians. There are a small number of Aussies so besotted with America that they treat all of that country’s talking points as if they were our own, but they’re a tiny minority. Obviously Tim Dunlop is one of them.
Posted by blandwagon on 2005 03 30 at 09:15 PM • permalinkDoes anyone else find the tone getting a little shrill?
The jailing of individual American guards is indeed a sign that the US government pays at least lip service to the conventions of modern warfare. Similarly, the belated conferral of the right to representation and other ‘normal’ human rights on terror suspects is a sign of the gears of democracy slowly winding back previous excesses.
But are we to believe that the exposure and subsequent arrest of a couple of torture perpertrators has put an end to such actions. We think it would be more likely that it has brought about the banning of camera phones in ‘sensitive areas’.
But please. Let’s take a deep breath and chill a little. Pointing out perceived flaws in an otherwise great country like the US is not to be a detractor. It is not treachery. The United State’s democratic traditions demand an involved citizenry engaging in (hopefully) constructive debate about the course it should be taking.
Most of us here, we’re sure, share the goal of a peaceful world, led, not by force but by example, by an America that we can admire as much for it’s means as its ends.
Peace Liberty and Justice for ALL.
Loadedog
Back on the original subject, note that the actual survey which found leftists dominate universities was done back in 1999. Since then we have had George W elected, and Gramsci’s “long march through the institutions” has continued apace.
So it is probably worse in the universities now.
Are there any more recent figures? If not, why not? Why are academics, known for obsessive “studies” of the most arcane subjects imaginable, so loath to study this “elephant in the room” subject?
Could it be that they don’t want it publicised that the only real independent thinkers in the universities are conservatives?
Hey Tim, I was hoping someone from Texas who reads this blog might know the Record of Anne Richards, The Democrat who was Gov. of Texas before Mr.Bush.
Did Ms. Richards have the same amount of Death penalty cases cross her desk? It never seems to be stated here in Australia.
What’s her record of pardons?
Cheers,Kevin.stealth scare quotes!
supposedly most well resourced and presumably best organised fighting force the world has ever seengross mischaracterizations!!
resistance fightersincoherent ranting!!!
Clearly, Tim, you draw that line [between the two]... because, in many instances, a rational person would be struggling to see much daylight between them.HAT TRICK!!!!
On the original topic (ignoring the rantings of loadeddog, whose own website admits that they have no pretence at decency and, thus, is performing true to form) I thought I might stick up for the academics. Well, at least the one I have most contact with.
I am writing my thesis in international relations and my supervisor is the complete opposite of the closeted, lefty, never-left-campus type seemingly infecting Aussie and US universities.
He has previously been employed as a senior analyst in the ONA (think CIA\NSA), was employed as Ministerial Advisor to the Minister for Defence and has had input into more than one Defence White Paper. He came to lecture at my uni only ten years ago - a short time for an academic - and does not display any outright bias right or left, at least in his teaching.
Of course, he probably votes ALP but the point is he never lets it influence what he teaches or how he supervises my work. If only the same could be said for everyone in the division....
Posted by Villeurbanne on 2005 03 30 at 10:33 PM • permalinkMay I remind Mr Dunlop just in case he’s forgotten. Executions are reserved for the most heinous of killers. Guilty are executed to protect the innocent.
Perhaps Mr Dunlop can enlighten us on what crime Terri Schiavo committed.
Douche Bag
Posted by swassociates on 2005 03 30 at 10:54 PM • permalinkDoes anyone else find the tone getting a little shrill?
Only yours, my little schnauzer.
Perhaps Mr Dunlop can enlighten us on what crime Terri Schiavo committed.
Far be it from me to try to read Mr Dunlop’s mindette, but from what I have been reading and hearing the present Mrs. Schiavo’s crime seems to be one of being gross and icky. Hey, I didn’t experience any sort of spiritual thrill when I dumped a can of chocolate Ensure down my dying mother’s feeding tube (which was nasal, not through a kindly incision) but it never occurred to me to cease to do so.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 03 30 at 10:59 PM • permalinkGerber — Actually, I think Indiana has executed more felons than Texas, but that sort of ruins the analogy…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 03 30 at 11:55 PM • permalinkloadedog: “Yet when a bunch of rag-tag towel heads captures a western citizen and kills them, the entire Islamic world is tarred with the same, crazy, fundamentalist brush. That’s not a double standard. That’s ‘doublethink’.”
It also isn’t true. The entire Islamic world is NOT “tarred” by this. Bush has gone far out of his way to point out that the terrorists are not representitive of Islam. He has done this from the very day of 9/11, and has never blamed “Islam” in general for anything. Neither has any other American that I’m aware of, outside a few of the “bad apples” that you don’t want to acknowledge at all.
It isn’t in the US where mosques are being burned. It isn’t in the US where Muslim people are being held at arm’s length. However, this IS happening in Europe, one of the US’s greatest critics.
Posted by mamapajamas on 2005 03 30 at 11:58 PM • permalinkAddendum: In fact, as I recall it, now that it’s been brought up, it was in the US where, after 9/11, people went home and got their various hunting rifles and other guns and STOOD GUARD outside of mosques to be sure that their Muslim neighbors were NOT harmed. This happened spontaneously all over the US. People gathered outside mosques and literally guarded them just on the hunch that some radicals might do the mosques harm. This was kept up for several weeks until the initial fury died down a bit.
It’s the REST of the world where I’ve never seen anything like this happen.
Posted by mamapajamas on 2005 03 31 at 12:04 AM • permalinkI sit corrected. Texas does lead. Here is a breakdown of executions by year . ,
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 03 31 at 12:07 AM • permalinkmamapajamas: Didn’t see anything in th US but I was in Lyon, France in 2002 and the Grand Mosque there had to be protected by concrete blocks to stop crazies from driving cars into the building in a fit of religous rage. Can’t imagine the average Catholic Frenchman guarding a mosque....
Posted by Villeurbanne on 2005 03 31 at 12:09 AM • permalinkWe have yet to resort to personal abuse in this forum, unlike some others. Andrea, as the administrator, we think you should be leading by example.
To mamapyjamas
Thanks for your civil comment. We would be very happy to believe what you say is true. It is, of course, a difficult statement to either prove or disprove. There are, of course, good and decent people everywhere who can see the humanity in everyone and not jump to conclusions about a person based on religious or racial grounds.
Your story about ordinary citizens defending mosques against attack after 9/11 is inspiring, it’s the sort of story that makes you believe there is some hope for America, but who were they defending the mosques from?
Loadedog
weird website you got there lowdeaddog. i was going ok with it until you started citing fat mike moore. it’s ok to think for yourself y’know! groupthink sucks. BTW are you some kind of “musician”?
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 03 31 at 01:00 AM • permalinkHow does one evaluate the ‘awfulness’ of one act against another? Kidnapping a ‘civilian’ and beheading them (on camera) must be pretty high up in the ranks of awful things to do (as Quiggan admits), but is there any guide that we can follow to compare actions that fall above a certain line?
loadedog, it’s pretty clear that you lean towards the left. That’s fine, and your problem, really. But putting soldiers into prison for committing crimes is not “lip service”.
But apologizing for terrorists while proclaiming “Peace Liberty and Justice for ALL”, now that’s lip service.
Back on topic.....
I’m not really ecstatic to see Jesse Jackson jump into the foray. He’s a classic opprotunist, and a scam artist to boot. But I’ll say this about The Reverend—he does have a solid track record in freeing hostages. So, if he shakes the judges loose from their death grip on idiocy, I’ll grant Jackson an “attaboy”.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 31 at 01:19 AM • permalinkGerber --
Here are the Texas numbers for the last four governors prior to the current one, Rick Perry
Mark White (Democrat - 1983-86)
19 (4.75 per year average)Bill Clemmens (Republican 1987-90)
17 (4.25 per year average)Ann Richards (Democrat 1991-94)
48 (12 per year average)George W. Bush (Republican 1995-2000)
154 (25.67 per year average)So the execution rate doubled under Bush from what it had been under Richards. But the execution rate tripled under Richards from what it had been under her two predacessors. So both sides have numbers they can use in the debate.
It should be noted that there’s usually about a 10-15 year time period between the death sentence being handed down by a jury and the execution being carried out after final appeals are exhausted, so that many of those executed under both Richards and Bush had been on death row since the late 1970s or 1980s.
John57 — Another factor. The number of executions is going to “spike” as earlier condemned felons lose the last of their appeals, a process that can take decades even in Texas.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 03 31 at 02:08 AM • permalinkBut, but, but, Sortelli!!!! The UN would be raping children and stealing food for the victims own good! You know—protecting them!
The Evil Americans are only interested in oil and such, even if we do pump billions back into Iraq so that the people can stand up on their own, and we can buy more oil from them.
C’mon, man! It’s all about nuance!!! Loadedog seems to be as full of it as John Kerry.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 31 at 03:18 AM • permalinkMy wife and I “don’t get around much anymore” as the lovely Gershwin melody goes, but we made an exception for the graduation of our Grand daughter at Brisbane’s Qpac building under the auspices of the Queensland University of Technology.
As an entree we listened to some obsure fugal works on the majestic pipe organ set “on high’ above the audience. this set the mood for the entrance of the “Alumni’ who entered in full regalia (copied from the dress of Oxford or italian university attire)and to a fanfare of brass.
A great apolitical speech by the dean followed and the hundred or so graduates passed accross the stage to receive their degrees to the applause of parents, partners and supporters. Who could ask for anythimg more?Not one iota of left wing auntism !
but there was a more - as a finale, we were informed that a guest speaker would enlighten us for what turned out to be a painful half hour. The speaker was a Ms Karen Struthers , a labor MP who began her diatribe of leftism in what should have been a celebration of academic achievement of these fine youg people.
We were informed of how she had “educated” the police and medical doctors to new levels of sensitivity regarding violence against women.
I am always amazed that people with social sciences degrees must place themselves above doctors who have far more solid and serious educational qualifications .
When she began knocking John Howard , i walked out and to my amazement was followed by several more angry parents.
My wife stayed on and told me that she followed with an idictment of Australian racism which was still present in our society and began eulogising the wonders of the Islamic religion.
Sure hope there were no relatives of the Bali massacre in the Audience.
Altogether an evening spoiled by an arrogant, egoistic woman who should NOT have been allowed to speak at a celebration of the academic excellence!Could it be that they don’t want it publicised that the only real independent thinkers in the universities are conservatives?
Good point zscore. I get the feeling today that the Left are now the reactionary conservatives (and behaving like it), while the Right are now the progressives.
Posted by DropDeadUgly on 2005 03 31 at 04:19 AM • permalinkDavo I hope the speaker wasnt guilty of villification
If any defamatory villifying statement was made by herself should the injured seek recourse they would be immediately found guilty of conspicuous indignation
Loadedog. Your Orwellian reference is well made.
However, it is worth noting that both sides are equally capable of towing their own lines - to the exception of reason.
In this case, Mr. Blair’s polemic is as predictable as the ranting from those he appears to hold in contempt.
Posted by mushtaq_omar on 2005 03 31 at 05:43 AM • permalinkDavo - I think graduation speakers are hit and miss, at mine at Monash a couple of years ago, we Jannie Tey, managing director of the Hour Glass, and her speech was very inspirational. My husband (who is doing a PhD in linguistics and surrounded by rabid lefties on campus) was pleasantly shocked that they such a good, non-political speaker.
and you mushtalk homar can suck my big ‘sun ripened’ polemic shlembunghie.
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 03 31 at 06:41 AM • permalinkTo all. Lets not pussyfoot around here. Tell us what you really think.
To The Real Jeff S
We’ve looked back at what we have written, trying to find the bit where we apologised for terrorists. We can’t find it? Could you quote it back to us?
To Rog2. Sorry the porn isn’t working for you. Maybe downloading Quicktime 6 would help?
To Sortelli. ‘Even if (the UN) were raping children and stuff.’
Hmmm. How about we put some words in your mouth? From where do you deduce our opinions about the United Nations and so on? You and others in this forum make the mistake of thinking that if a person has one opinion that fits a certain political leaning, they must have them all.
To Rosceo. ‘it’s ok to think for yourself y’know!’
We agree and we always try to, but we also think it’s OK to illustrate a point with the words of others, even if you don’t agree with everything those others say and do.
To Gibbo (and Mamapyjamas). ‘How about the fury of some idiots flying planes into buildings in order to kill many thousands of innocent civilians?’
If said, understandable, fury was dissipated without any attacks on Muslims in America, then all credit to the people of the US. Here in Australia we have had instances of Mosque attacks, even attacks against orthodox churches that look a bit like Mosques?
That being said, such attacks are perpetrated by a minority. At least on the surface, generally there is tolerance if not acceptance of Muslims in Australia.
To tell you the truth, it wasn’t reactions to Muslim citizens living in the West that we were thinking of (though we admit ‘the entire Islamic world’ was misleading). We were thinking about things like how most Americans still apparently believe that Iraq was colluding with al Qaeda on 9/11 (amongst other spurious justifications for the invasion).
And about how Iran’s efforts to obtain nuclear arms are not seen in the context of them having the same weapons capability and ability to deter attack as nearby Israel, but rather as a threat to the safety of the Western world because…?
Loadedog:
How does one evaluate the ‘awfulness’ of one act against another? Kidnapping a ‘civilian’ and beheading them (on camera) must be pretty high up in the ranks of awful things to do (as Quiggan admits), but is there any guide that we can follow to compare actions that fall above a certain line?
Here, you equivocate on who is “awful”. I find it hard to believe that you fully dissassociate yourself from the terrorists while you heap bile upon those who fight said terrorists.
Eh? Remember the “lip service” comment? I don’t see any attempt at self-regulation within the ranks of Al Quaeda. Indeed, they slap each other on the back when they blast another crowd of people into bits. No? Osama proclaimed Zarqwai a “Prince of Al Quaeda in Iraq” for his work thus far. Sounds like a reward to me.
While the US military has its share of bad apples, at least we have standards of conduct.
Are you upset about what AQ does on a daily basis? Cutting off heads, shooting people in the back of the head, blowing people by the score? No, instead you complain about “lip service”. You hold the US to one set of standards, and the terrorists to another.
Even your comment “...Kidnapping a ‘civilian’ and beheading them (on camera) must be pretty high up in the ranks of awful things to do...” is obvious. Not to mention your bias is pretty plain to see.
Camouflaged, but still an apologist for terrorism.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 31 at 07:31 AM • permalinkThanks, The Real Jeff S, for addressing the issues. Equivocate? OK. We think the US has done things that are in the same immoral ballpark as those they are supposedly fighting to save us from. They have allowed their enemies to reduce themselves to the level where individual human rights are trampled for the greater good. Is that unequivocal enough?
And yet, just for the record, no we don’t support terrorism as a means of achieving political ends. The standards that we apply to both terrorists and the United States and its allies are those that the United States were built on, Habeas Corpus, The Rule of Law, respect for personal liberty, the right to free speech, all of which we see being eroded by the country that has done the most to champion them till now. We don’t hate America, we fear for it.
Loadedog
Yet when a bunch of rag-tag towel heads captures a western citizen and kills them, the entire Islamic world is tarred with the same, crazy, fundamentalist brush. That’s not a double standard. That’s ‘doublethink’
It was not an isolated incident, and you don’t have to be much of a trend spotter to know when you have problems emanating from a certain cultural segment.Ask anyone who shares a border.
Patronising self promoters doing a few tricks are a waste of space here - but you are probably just playing the game of how much can I get away with before I get banned.Loadeddog, you and your fan mushtaq-omar would do well to remember you are the guests here. KIndly don’t lecture us, especially with tired old moldy leftisms; this has a tendency to irritate people here, which can get you banned. I would especially advise you, Mr Dog, to not tell ME how to comment to this forum. Notice the “administrator” after my name? I’m the one that will be banning you if you irritate me sufficiently—and I’m the one who decides what is sufficient.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 03 31 at 08:07 AM • permalinkThe_Real_Jeffs
Your attempt to excuse the conduct of the United States on the basis that the crimes of Al Quaeda are worse, is a disgrace.
The lesser of two evils argument is a moral vacuum.
Al Quaeda’s actions are an appalling affront to civilized persons around the world.
However, trying to align Al Quaeda’s actions with people who question the United States and her motivations, discredit themselves, and are revealed as victims of the “with us or against us” propaganda, that has sadly polluted much of popular opinion.
Posted by mushtaq_omar on 2005 03 31 at 08:10 AM • permalinkThe standards that we apply to both terrorists and the United States and its allies are those that the United States were built on, Habeas Corpus, The Rule of Law, respect for personal liberty, the right to free speech, all of which we see being eroded by the country that has done the most to champion them till now.
TYPICAL!!!
Those things are eroded on a daily basis by the people you seek to defend or equate to the USA. You are a low form of life to even try it. Don’t bother with your fake condemnations of violence, or your fake concern about rights. You care nothing for any of this.We are here because, despite some of the vitriol bandied about, we feel like it may be a place where the vast chasm that separates thinkers from the ‘right’ and the ‘left’ could be explored, if for no other benefit than to increase our own understanding.
We do hail from a ‘left’ background, but consider ourselves open to hearing any rational argument and have no wish to antagonise readers (or administrators). We just hoped we could talk about issues here without a barrage of abuse and personal comments.
Loadedog
loadeddog asks, “And about how Iran’s efforts to obtain nuclear arms are not seen in the context of them having the same weapons capability and ability to deter attack as nearby Israel, but rather as a threat to the safety of the Western world because…?”
Former Iranian Rafsanjani, in a speech given in honor of al-Quds day and delivered on December 14, 2001, at Tehran University, spoke of using nuclear weapons against Israel. MEMRI’s translation of accounts that appeared in Farsi newspapers follows:
“If one day, he [Rafsanjani] said, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel’s possession [meaning nuclear weapons] - on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.”
Here’s the link:
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP32502
This isn’t some street-corner ranter, but a former president who spoke openly of using nuclear weapons to wipe out Israel. Scary enough for you?
Posted by Urbs in Horto on 2005 03 31 at 08:30 AM • permalinkUrbs in Horto.
Please do not insult us by providing a link to memri.
For those who don’t know, memri is an organisation that claims to break down the language barrier between English and middle eastern languages.
It is however run by a group of former Israeli intelligence officers, whose motivations are clear.
Read about this divisive organisation here
Posted by mushtaq_omar on 2005 03 31 at 08:49 AM • permalinkAn ad hominem claim about MEMRI, followed by a link to a Wikipedia article that openly states at the top: “The neutrality of this article is disputed.”
Cute.
Have we had Muslim trolls here before? (Or perhaps a regular troll pretending to be Muslim, who knows...)
And what’s the deal with both loadedog and mushtaq_omar speaking of themselves in the plural?
Re, #56:
Nuts!
I don’t excuse the conduct of the United States. What arrogance that you try to misdirect the conversation! I said we have bad apples, and we try to handle those problems. The system isn’t perfect, but it’s a lot better than making someone a “Prince” for being good at blowing people up at a mosque. Putting soldiers on trial is anything but an excuse, or lip service. Unless you assume that everything the US says about Iraq is a lie. Hmmmm?
However, trying to align Al Quaeda’s actions with people who question the United States and her motivations, discredit themselves, and are revealed as victims of the “with us or against us� propaganda, that has sadly polluted much of popular opinion.
I used the term “apologist for terrorism”, I never said “with us or against us”.
Granted, there’s a fine line there, but I view do nothing yappers howling about the injustices heaped upon head chopping terrorists as ignorant fools exercising their First Amendment rights to prove to the world that they are indeed fools.
We need opposition in this system for balance. Reasoned debate that points out the flaws in our syste (e.g., the flaws in planning for the occupation of post-war Iraq) are one thing. Churning out old, moldy, one liners attributed to losers who were proved wrong time and time again is another thing.
But when someone actively supports terrorism (financially, materially, or other direct actions), well, they stepped across the line, and get the “with us or against us” adage.
And “Moral vacuum” is an interesting term to apply here, mushie, considering that you display more outrage about the United States, than Al Quaeda (whose “...actions are an appalling affront to civilized persons around the world...").
Balance, remember? I’d rather have an imperfect military with a judicial system than a group of zealots who feel perfectly justified cutting people’s heads off. And that’s not the “lesser of two evils”. More like Ying and Yang. Because I don’t assume the United States as evil.....as you clearly do.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 31 at 08:59 AM • permalinkRe #61:
It is however run by a group of former Israeli intelligence officers, whose motivations are clear.
Hey, folks, we have another “IT’S THE JOOOOOOSSSSSS FAULT!!!” post. Haven’t seen one of these for a while.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 31 at 09:02 AM • permalinkLoaded Dog how is free speech being eroded in America? Oh, that is right Feingold the democrat and his campaign finance reform.
You see the left confuses criticism with censorship. When they are criticized they whine about how their freedom to speak is being squelched. What a load. Seems to me with Michael Moore’s pack of lies being the hit it was, Air America (failing as it is) and all sorts of people speaking out against the President the freedom of speech is not being endangered by the right.
Posted by Marcus Aurelius on 2005 03 31 at 09:15 AM • permalinkHey army guy. I said nothing of the Jews.
Instead, I pointed out that this particular organisation is made up of former Israeli army officers.Balance, remember? I’d rather have an imperfect military with a judicial system than a group of zealots who feel perfectly justified cutting people’s heads off. And that’s not the “lesser of two evils�. More like Ying and Yang. Because I don’t assume the United States as evil.....as you clearly do.
Judicial system? for who? Oh you mean the Americans.. Phew, for a minute I thought you meant those poor towel heads rotting away in Cuba. Well thank god for the American Judicial system! I feel so much safer now.
Posted by mushtaq_omar on 2005 03 31 at 09:18 AM • permalinkNo, mushie, you said:
It is however run by a group of former Israeli intelligence officers, whose motivations are clear.
Now, with a straight face, please tell me that “Isreali” does not mean “Jewish” in the Arab world. Please. I want to watch.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 31 at 09:26 AM • permalinkPS: Well, yes, the judicial system is for Americans. How else? Oh, you are referring to Gitmo....which is now being questioned by the.....American judicial system! Wow, isn’t that amazing? Balance, like I said. The Founding Fathers designed better than they knew.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 31 at 09:29 AM • permalinkRE #70: Well, yes, blogstrop, that’s true enough. But would you prefer Sharia Law instead? Or perhaps the old Soviet court system? Just asking.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 31 at 09:31 AM • permalinkNo Mr Jeffs. Israeli Means American in the Arab world. You just don’t get it do you?
Posted by mushtaq_omar on 2005 03 31 at 09:33 AM • permalinkSigh. No, mushtaq, YOU don’t get it. And never will.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 31 at 09:43 AM • permalinkWTF!
I find it incredible the people in Gitmo have any access to the courts. What is next the Germans are going to sue? After all how many Germans did we hold during WWII.
The only ones that had access to the courts (that I know of) did the air dance.
The people in Gitmo are not there becuase they were selling bad pizza, they are there because they were warring on the USA.
See For a little story about a Gitmo Graduate
Cheers
Posted by Marcus Aurelius on 2005 03 31 at 10:19 AM • permalinkIsraelis, Americans, Jooos, whatever. Mushie ought to point out that the MEMRI translations are just plain incorrect, otherwise his ad hominem attacks are merely subject changing tactics.
So Mushie, put up, or shut up. Prove by citation that MEMRI’s translations are always and everytime (or even one example) a fraud.
Thanks.
Hmmm.
Mushtalk sounds a lot like the former poster known as “Iranian” from Toronto.
The sole reason for Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is to assuage it’s collective shame in not being the technological equal of their sworn enemy the Israelis. It is a way in their minds to restore their Muslim “manhood”.
Here’s a quick primer for you. Estimates for the number of nuclear devices that Israel may possess range as high as 100. Metophorically, their “dicks” are 100 times the size of Muslims.
Posted by joe bagadonuts on 2005 03 31 at 03:26 PM • permalinkJeff S
I was referring to the inability of the judicial system to get to grips with terrorism, due to the onerous burden of proof requirements. These are weighted to FAVOUR THE ACCUSED and hence render the task of preventing terrorism more difficult.
You will have noticed that a lot of countries had to beef up their laws recenlty, to try and help with this.
It remains a difficult area because unless a country admits it is in a war situation, emergency powers are not available.
I am in favour of tough treatment of suspects. Being a suspect should be enough to make your life hell.
Our overdeveloped sense of fair play, as enshrined in our legal system, will not help us win this one.
It will be the survival of the meanest bastards.
Civil rights agitators, in league with media bleeding hearts, will weaken our position. Sorry to say it, but until there is no threat, the rules are acting against us more than against them.To Blogstrop ‘Those things are eroded on a daily basis by the people you seek to defend or equate to the USA.’
Those things can only be eroded from within.
To Urbs in Horto
This is not meant to be narky, we have no idea who runs Memri, but when I clicked the link, there was no article on the page?
Anyhow, for the moment we’re prepared to accept Rafsanjani said what you’ve quoted.
When the USSR wanted to install nuclear missiles on Cuba, the US, rightly or wrongly, felt so threatened that the world was on the brink of nuclear conflict. The countries of the Middle East have had to live with a hostile power in possession of nuclear capabilities in their midst for decades now.
The United States, with an arsenal of ICBM’s of global reach, baldly refuses to rule out their use if required. The current US administration has shown itself willing to wage war on ideological grounds. Does not the threat that the US felt then pale in comparison to that felt by the Iranians now?
Any government, faced with the above circumstances, would be mad not to want to seek a greater share of the balance of power in the region. Some may question the Iranian’s right to do so. We ask, on what basis? And if they cannot, why can’t Israel dismantle its nuclear program?
Rather than threatening Israel, Rafsanjani could be interpreted as saying nothing more than that the acquisition on nuclear capability by Iran will change the balance of power in Iran’s favour. Looking at it closely, it is his logic, rather than his ability to restrain his pathological desire to unleash nuclear devastation, that is in doubt.
To the Real Jeff S. ‘Granted, there’s a fine line there, but I view do nothing yappers howling about the injustices heaped upon head chopping terrorists as ignorant fools exercising their First Amendment rights to prove to the world that they are indeed fools.’
Were you referring to us? Unless we’re mistaken, we haven’t said a single thing in defence of terrorists as yet. Perhaps you are exhibiting a little of that ‘with us or against us’ thing in reverse. It is not right to assume that if we’re against some US policies, we are for all US enemies. And how do you know what we do Jeff? We can assure you it’s not ‘nothing’. If you weren’t referring to us, just ignore all the above.
And what’s the deal with both loadedog and mushtaq_omar speaking of themselves in the plural?
I don’t get it either PW. Either they’re channelling the queen, writing by committee, or taking group-think to a whole new level...perhaps this is the new Rovian genetically engineered leftie hive mind in action?
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 03 31 at 08:58 PM • permalinkEven I, your Administrator and Queen, refer to My Royal Self in the singular. Then again, why should I share the stage? Perhaps doggie and mushie are simply trying to indicate their unity with the proletarian masses.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 03 31 at 09:00 PM • permalinkGood point Andrea, lefties often appoint themselves as spokespeople for the ‘oppressed’ - although the ungrateful, greedy masses don’t often get the memo.
oh, and long live the Administrator Queen!
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 03 31 at 09:13 PM • permalinkloadedog, when you consider the acts of the Coalition forces (who aided in the liberation of Iraq, and supporting it’s reconstruction) more horrific (or at least more worthy of your invective) than head chopping terrorists, your priorities are pretty clear.
This also demonstrates your double standards (i.e., Coalition forces up here, head chopping terrorists down there).
And please, don’t come back with “But I never said I supported terrorists!” again. I suppose you aren’t sending them money, but you certainly provide them with moral support by not giving them equal time in your feces flinging act.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 04 01 at 01:49 AM • permalinkloadedog sid:
The United States, with an arsenal of ICBM’s of global reach, baldly refuses to rule out their use if required. The current US administration has shown itself willing to wage war on ideological grounds. Does not the threat that the US felt then pale in comparison to that felt by the Iranians now?
No, it does not. The last time I looked, Isreal does not threaten Iran with destruction (well, aside from being a democracy in the Middle East, and with a Jewish population, I mean). The US nuclear arsenal was originally built as a deterrant to the Soviet nuclear arsenal. Iran is not under the threat of destruction.
Iran is under the threat of changing governments, though (them theocrats sure like their job security, don’t they?). Or under threat from it’s Arab neighbors (the Syrian-Iranian agreement is the devil being in bed with himself). DO you consider nuclear weapons the appropriate response under those conditions? As a “balance” of power? A return to the old “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD) doctrine?
If so, then YOU are MAD.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 04 01 at 01:59 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Before the 1940’s American colleges and universities were, more or less, conservative or to use the word used often during those times “traditional”. During the protest times of the 50’s and 60’s, much complaint was made about the lack of diversity of gender, race, and thought. As a result, much time and effort was made to correct this perceived problem.
Now we’ve have gone to the other extreme and yet, most academics and administrators see no problem.
I say let’s rid the campuses of the “women’s studies”, the “minority studies”, and any other study groups including “caucasian studies” or “men’s studies” if they exist. The only studies should be those conducted by the students. Let’s also make sure that academia mirrors the make up of the nation where 51% voted Republican.