2006-10-10

Free Speech, Nadir-style

Free speech for everyone! Not.

At Columbia, Students Attack Minuteman Founder:


Students stormed the stage at Columbia University’s Roone auditorium yesterday, knocking over chairs and tables and attacking Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the minutemen, a group that patrols the border between America and
Mexico.

Mr. Gilchrist and Marvin Stewart, another member of his group, were in the process of giving a speech at the invitation of the Columbia College Republicans. They were escorted off the stage unharmed and exited the auditorium by a back door.

Having wreaked havoc onstage, the students unrolled a banner that read, in both Arabic and English, “No one is ever illegal.” As security guards closed the curtains and began escorting people from the auditorium, the students jumped from the stage, pumping their fists, chanting victoriously, “Si se pudo, si se pudo,” Spanish for “Yes we could!”

15 comments:

Paul Hue said...

Six: I believe that Nadir opposes shouting-down his rhetorical opponents. However, we must fault him vehemently for his words of sympathy & tacit support for the muslim retards who demand DEATH! for those who create and publish mohammad cartoons, etc. Though of course he doesn't outright support executions of people who violate various mideaval religious superstitions, he claims that we should all "understand the consequences" of "offending" people.

In any case, here we will see the same right wingers deploring this anti-speach action who call for the firing of that anti-US Colorado prof who blames the 911 victims for instigating the attack. True free speach advocacy must recognize and recognize no other opinion: if Nadir disdains the prospect of Bush arresting him for "speaking out against US forieng policy" he must have (at least) equal disdain for mobs demanding executions of mohamad cartoonists and their publishers.

The other night on Hannity and Colmes on Fox, the rightist Hannity was correctly excoriating some truly vacuous Columbia student "activists", I believe the same ones who ruined this speach. They could not have been more stupid; they accused Hannity of "verbally assaulting them". But Hannity leads the charge for firing the Colorado professor. Who besides me actually advocates free speach around here? I think you do, Six.

Paul Hue said...

Oh, I remember now the Columbia nitwits on Hannity/Colmes. They justified disrupting the speach because it constituted a "verbal assault." I remember when I was an idiot 20-year-old know-it-all with Howard Zinn under my arm. I was shouting down people who disagreed with me also.

Nadir said...

Why are you having a hissy, Six? How is this free speech "Nadir-style"?

Please explain this personal attack.

Paul Hue said...

http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/15726943.htm

Six: Here's some right-wingers trying to suppress a UW-Madison prof for teaching a course in which he asserts that Bush orchestrated 911. I say: bring it on. If you, me, or Sean Hannity believe that the guy is nuts, prove it. The same for those who claim that the Holocaust either didn't happen or is exaggerated, that black folks have lower average IQs, that hoes have lower average technical capabilities, that "the south" fought for "regional pride" rather than white supremacy, that evolution can -- or cannot -- explain the origin of species, etc. Let the ideas, conclusions, data, and rationale come out into the open.

Can't we be grown up and tolerate other people expressing thoughts that upset us?

I find the right and the left equally guilty here, and I charge Nadir not for supporting those who shout-down speakers, but for failing to enthusiastically condemn (ie, with the same certitude as he condemns Bush's warrentless international phone monitoring) muslim KKKers for advocating violence against mohammad cartoonists. "Free Speach" means radical intollerance of intollerance!

sixstringslinger said...

"I believe that Nadir opposes shouting-down his rhetorical opponents."

That very well may be, but the fact of the matter is that for all of his and his compadres blathering about "free speech infringement", the main culprits of speech infringement come from the left, be it shouting down people you disagree with, or the Democrats threatening ABC over a made-for-TV docu-drama that paints theit golden boy in a less than favorable light.

I'm not sure I agree with the tactics of these "Minutemen" characters either, but they were invited to speak at Columbia and they deserved the right to be heard and the behavior of those brainwashed students was typical, and I'm sure it was fully sanctioned and supported by many of the faculty there.

Disgraceful.

Paul Hue said...

Six: I don't believe that the lefties are actually worse than the righties here. They certainly are on college campuses, and when it comes to disrupting public assemblies. But when it comes to boycotting television shows and firing people, are you sure that the righties are any better? The righties got that Ronald Reagan movie shunted over to Cinemax. And they have been feverious about firing that Colorado professor. I pay a lot of attention to this issue, and I haven't found any reason to feel any better about righties in this area. But I'm open to you convincing me.

Nadir said...

The difference is that the right-wing controls much of the media, so left-wing voices are often left out of the mainstream consciousness.

And this isn't just true of the left-wing. Consider that there are five gubernatorial candidates in Michigan, but only the Dems and GOP get to be on the debates. The Green, Libertarian and US Taxpayers Party candidates are left out in the cold. The elite voices control the debate because they have the money.

Here is the other thing: right-wingers are generally socially conservative. Meaning they are slightly less likely to be emotional in public. Of course, this isn't always true, but generally it is. They have no qualms bombing someone, but they have trouble expressing their true feelings.

Left-wingers tend to be more emotional, so they may get up and shout down the lies that they are tired of hearing over and over again.

Nadir said...

The Minute Men are racist, classist thugs. They are vigilantes and should be run off the border.

Paul Hue said...

I think the the internet is going to help circumvent the big two political parties, and their very stupid political debate shows, which most of us thinking people view as a worthless. I would rather investigate each party & candidate via their websites. The last big election I was very impressed to see the official state ballot website, which presented the official ballot, and linked each candidate and party to their respective websites. This helped me learn about the candidates and parties, and heavily influenced my choices.

It was the only time I ever entered a poll booth prepared to vote. I strongly believe in voting only if you have a sound opinion, and voting only in races that you have investigated. I heavily oppose the "just vote" mantra, and think that since most people know nothing about the issues and candidates, they should not vote. I advocate a slogan: "learn, think, decide, then vote".

The internet helps with this.

Paul Hue said...

I strongly disagree that "the right" contols the news. I support the view that Big Stupid Average Safe Watered-Down views dominate, but after that, -- aside from Fox -- liberal sensibilities dominate, and do so in a biased fashion. Fox and internet blogging have circumvented this, and now consumers of the Big Stupid Corporate news outlets get more info than they used to in support of non-liberal views.

I heavily oppose Fox News for encorporating the American flag as part of its logo; they should advocate facts and opinions, not the interests of any country.

Paul Hue said...

The Minute Men are not racist, they are not classist, and they are not thugs. They qualify for none of these words that Nadir has slapped them with, and I challange him to justify any of these charactorizations.

sixstringslinger said...

"The Minute Men are racist, classist thugs. They are vigilantes and should be run off the border."

There you go, proving Peggy Noonan's point for her;

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110009078

Everyone you disagree with is either a racist, a homophobe, a bigot, an Islamophobe, or a Nazi, a fascist, or a warmonger.

sixstringslinger said...

Nadir said...

"The difference is that the right-wing controls much of the media, so left-wing voices are often left out of the mainstream consciousness."

What a laughable crock of sh*t! What kind of parallel universe are you living in anyway?

Read this interview Hugh Hewitt did with Thomas Edsall of TNR, and formerly of the WaPo, and tell me you still think the media is conservative controlled.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=2a63c078-2e33-46d8-b85a-a91a5257fca2

You can hear the interview here:

http://www.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=5&ContentGuid=e61865c7-47d8-49ed-8d68-2bf781409c15

sixstringslinger said...

HH: I know, but national politics. Local politics is different. I think it’s in the selection of stories, stories not pursued. I mean, right now, the canard is oh, I covered the impeachment of Bill Clinton, liberal Democrats who are newsroom types tell me. I say, well, you have to. That’s a story you can’t…it’s like not seeing the iceberg, and taking the Titanic down. But in the agenda setting stuff…let me approach it this way. Is there any big name political reporter, and you know them all, Thomas Edsall. That’s why your book, Building Red America, is getting read left and right. Are there any of them who are conservative?

TE: Big name political reporter?

HH: Right.

TE: Jim Vandehei of the Washington Post.

HH: Think he’s voted for Republicans for president?

TE: Yes, I think he has. I don’t know, because he’s never told me. But I would think he has.

HH: And so, of those sorts…and he’s a very fine reporter.

TE: He is.

HH: He probably is a Republican. But given that number of reporters out there, is it ten to one Democrat to Republican? Twenty to one Democrat to Republican?

TE: It’s probably in the range of 15-25:1 Democrat.



Wow, that's some conservative controlled media alright.

Paul Hue said...

Six: Survey after survey shows that something like 90% of working journalists vote democratic. This is also true, of course, of professors outside of the sciences and business (ie, the fields where politics and social issues don't get discussed).

Talk radio and TV hosts, now we're getting a majority of conservatives, but not 90%. But the people picking and writing the news, about 90% liberals.