March 10, 2005

Repression of Free Speech on Campus

Our campuses, which pose as guardians of free speech, are in fact the reverse, ruthlessly oppressing Conservative and pro-American views. From author and Ph. D Phyllis Chesler:

In my opinion, American campuses have bred a new and diabolical McCarthyism. Academics now have the right to teach brazen lies, and they expect to be protected in the name of “free speech.” Worse, when an academic tries to teach the truth—the truth—about Israel, or about America, or about Jews, they will be ostracized, bullied, demonized, and accused (by the new McCarthyites) of leading a McCarthyite witch-hunt against left wing freedom of expression. This, in my view, is really the censorship of any view that does not conform to a left-wing and anti-American view.

The first amendment and free speech is very important. But, professors especially have a responsibility to teach the difference between a truth and a lie. Too many have abdicated this responsibility. This is a point I tried to make to the President of Duke University, a university that houses my archives and whose welfare I fear I may have endangered by my strong pro-Israel stand. Not a single faculty member at Duke challenged Duke’s decision to allow the Palestine Solidarity Movement, which is the equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazi Party, a distinguished place to meet, giving it academic credibility. [See this post for more on Duke University and the Palestine Solidarity Movement—ed.]

...This is my third speech at Barnard and Columbia on this subject in the last fourteen months. On November 8th, 2003, I spoke at Barnard on what was the eve of kristallnact. What happened was far from pleasant and I have written about it widely. In short: The assembled feminists, mainly women of color, loved my speech, sighed and clapped and laughed and groaned. But they went crazy and became menacing when, in response to a completely out-of-context question about “where I stool on the question of the women of Palestine,” which I took to be a question about where I stood on the question of Apartheid, I said that Islam was the largest practioner of gender and religious Apartheid on the face of the earth.  The place went crazy. “What about the humiliation at the checkpoints?” “Not as serious as being murdered by your brother or your father because you want to go to college, or choose your own husband.”

...WHAT MUST BE DONE?

Academics must tell the truth. We must start teaching that Jews and Americans do not cause anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, and that both Jews and Israel have been the targets of massive hate campaigns against them. Academics must monitor this campaign and get it to stop.

Academics and intellectuals must stand up proudly and loudly, and say that Zionism is not racism or colonialism or Apartheid; that it is the liberation movement of the oppressed and genocidally persecuted Jewish people.

We must fight back, not appease or justify the terrorist who would like to bomb us all back into the Arabian 7th Century.

Academics must take back the campuses. We must civilize and de-politicize them. 

I am especially interested in restoring campus civility and freedom of truth speech in America. 

Twenty first-century western intellectuals must become a force for democracy. We must oppose dictatorships and totalitarian movements that crush liberty and the rights of people.

Rather’s Bias, Shown in His Own Words

The Media Research Council has researched a number of quotes from Dan Rather that expose his blatant Liberal bias:

Unable to defend Rather’s use of forged documents in an attempt to smear President Bush, Rather’s supporters claim that his career cannot be judged by one episode of blatant political bias.

In response to this canard, the Media Research Council (MRC) says that “last September’s politically motivated fraud wasn’t a departure for Rather; it was just an extreme example of the obnoxious bias that’s tarnished his whole career.”

[...]

Rather declared early in 1995: “The new Republican majority in Congress took a big step today on its legislative agenda to demolish or damage government aid programs, many of them designed to help children and the poor.”

Six years later, he attacked President Bush’s “big tax cut plan, partly bankrolled, critics say, through cuts in many federal aid programs for children and education,” despite the truth that there no “cuts” (in 2004, the Cato Institute calculated the Department of Education’s budget had soared 75 percent during Bush’s first three years, from $36 billion to $63 billion).

When CBS paired Rather with Connie Chung in 1993, he sought inspiration from Bill CLinton. “If we could be one-hundredth as great as you and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been in the White House, we’d take it right now and walk away winners.”

When Hillary decided she wanted to win a New York Senate seat, Rather enthused: “Once a political lightning rod, today she is political lightning. A crowd pleaser and first-class fundraiser, a person under enormous pressure to step into the arena, this time on her own.”

Carrying water for John Kerry during his campaign for the presidency, Rather sought to smear Bush’s economic record when reporting on the brutal murder of four civilians in Iraq last March. He asked: “What drives American civilians to risk death in Iraq? In this economy, it may be, for some, the only job they can find.”

It was a different story when Kerry was on the receiving end. Then Rather played defense. MRC writes, “In a July interview, he presented the Democratic nominee as a hero victimized by a nasty GOP: “Have you ever had any anger about President Bush who spent his time during the Vietnam War in the National Guard running, in effect, a campaign that does its best to diminish your service in Vietnam?”

And he was news anchor for one of the big three broadcast networks, for over 20 years.

To Readers from Countries that are Not Yet Free: Benefits of Living in a Democracy

In the past thirty days this site has had about 500 visits from countries that don’t currently have Democracy or Capitalism. Perhaps particularly of interest to readers from those countries, this post is presenting an example of the power these things can bring to people.

My friend Matt and his wife Teresa are hard-working, dedicated, talented people, raising a family. With their third child, they realized that there was no way to buy baby food like the kind Teresa makes fresh at home. They were inspired to see if they could make a business that prepares this kind of food.

Matt worked for two years, researching, reading about, and thinking about how to make this inspiration a reality. Should he hire an existing food manufacturer, or have his own kitchen? What was the best way to make food like this? What would his costs be? There were a number of times when it looked like it couldn’t be done.

But this month, Matt moved into his kitchen. He’s leased a space, and the equipment is just starting to arrive. Here’s a picture of him.

On the left of the photo is Troy, the Chef. Troy is a former Marine who at one point was cooking for 3,000 men, and distinguished himself so as to then become personal Chef to generals and ambassadors. He has a degree from the Culinary Institute of Pasadena. He signed on to this company because he believes that what they are doing is exciting and will be successful.

On the right is Ann, a sales rep who met with Matt about a new kind of packaging that keeps foods cold during shipment. That’s Matt in the middle. He’s standing beside a cupping machine that recently arrived and will put the food into cups with the proper sealing.

It’s fun, it’s exciting, and it’s one of the things that makes America great. Matt has a chance to do this as a result of Democracy-powered freedom, and Capitalism.

So if you’re from a country that doesn’t have these things yet, the message is: the dream is real. Your country would thrive too from having Democracy, freedom and Capitalism. And we want you to have it.

The name of Matt’s business is Homemade Baby. The web site is here.