Saturday, October 07, 2006

Excellent Commentary on the Recent Events at Columbia University

If you haven't heard, or have been living under a rock (relative to the blogosphere), the leader of the Minuteman Project was to speak at Columbia University--when leftie students created such pandemonium and violence that...well, you get the idea.

RightWingProf (see blogroll at left) says it all. He points out, as we conservatives (and centrists!) often do, that the left has no tolerance for views it doesn't like.

It should surprise nobody that these idiots felt entitled to shut up Gilchrist; it's hardly a secret that "progressives" have no respect for the Constitution or the right of conservatives to speak. It also should surprise nobody that Columbia is reacting as if they disapprove, when they and their left-wing policies are solely to blame for creating this situation. Nor should anyone be surprised that Columbia is trying to white-wash this by calling it a violation of free speech, when it was a physical asssault.


If that is what it means to be progressive, I'm even more proud to be a just-right-of-center moderate.

3 comments:

MikeAT said...

Darren,

I use the term regressive for our left wing friends. What they advocate (collectivism, control of the economy by the government, control of speech, etc) has been tried before. It hasn’t worked in Russia, China, Europe, where ever it’s tried. It won’t work here.

Remember what Einstein said. Insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

EllenK said...

Hmmm. I thought that by definition a UNIVERSITY was supposed to offer UNIVERSAL views and allow students to draw their own original conclusions. Instead we see that the faculty has fomented a type of political brainwashing that not only is unaccepting of different beliefs but unwilling to listen to different ideas. With open mindedness like that we would still be operating on the notion that the world is flat. How can they claim to be a truly education institution if they only want part of the story. The old computer motto GIGO-garbage in/garbage out, comes to mind. It's almost as if someone on the facult wants to fix the results by limiting the input. Seems like faulty research to me.

allen said...

Regressives. I like that although it's more of a direction then an explanation. But the reference to history certainly is suggestive of a good response. Namely, this stuff has all been tried before. Are there any successful implementations? If not, then why pursue the policy?

The last question wasn't meant as a way to confront/resist the policies of the left but as a direct question. It's obviously not insanity that drives the left's pursuit of these ideas. Nancy Pelosi may be a lot of things but she's not crazy. Besides, that's one of the explanations lefties have for conservatives and if it isn't true for us then why would mental illness be an explanation for them?

My own explanation is that lefties explicitly and implicitly reject the idea that "all men are created equal". In fact, when you look at their rhetoric it practically shouts the opposite: some men are created superior, endowed by something with an inalienable claim to the rule of lesser men. i.e. royalty.

That's how they can stand four-square for freedom of speech and prevent its exercise by those with whom they disagree. If you were intellectually and morally superior you'd come to the same conclusions as those who prevented speakers with whom they disagree from speaking. If you don't come to the same conclusions you're obviously stupid, crazy or evil and why should your opinions be valued above, or even equal to, those of people who are intelligent, sane and moral? What claim justifies those opinions even being heard?

The answer, according to "progressives" is that there is no justification for those opinions being heard so there's no conflict with the ideal of freedom of speech.