Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (133468)	8/20/2005 11:57:49 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793765

Pipes has identified, by quotes, Profs who issue what I would consider "hating America" articles. We have a Muslim Prof in Florida right now who is on trial for terrorism and who is backed up by ME Profs around the country. The Chomsky "America is the root of all evil" attitude is very prevalent in academia, and I have posted quote after quote here over the years that show that to be true. You link to this op-ed by Pipes called, "Profs Who Hate America." This op-ed gives quotes that are examples of this attitude. Yet you earlier say that " he labels them. And considers that an argument." It's a very clear indictment of academia, IMO. From the Halls of Academia Campuses must reclaim lost ideological ground by Daniel Pipes Los Angeles Times December 27, 2002 Introduction from Daniel Pipes: My article "Profs Who Hate America" appeared in the New York Post, 12 November 2002 and prompted a joint response from two of the six professors I named there, which the Los Angeles Times agreed to publish. To make the debate between them and me intelligible to its readers, the Los Angeles Times asked me to reprise my article, which I did – shorter and making a somewhat different point. My article leads, followed by the Foner-Gilmore response. American universities have turned into hotbeds of opposition, and it's time to take them back. Take the issue of Iraq. Americans generally focus on the regime's brutal behavior toward its own population and the threat it poses to the outside, while disagreeing over how to respond. Yet ask professors what the problem is, and they are most likely to reply that the United States, not Iraq, is the main menace and that oil, not nukes, is the Bush administration's central concern. Two professors of history typify this outlook. Eric Foner of Columbia University asserts that a preemptive war against Iraq would take us back "to the notion of the rule of the jungle." He preposterously finds Washington's argument today "exactly the same" as that used by the Japanese to justify their assault on Pearl Harbor. Glenda Gilmore of Yale University sees U.S. imperialism in Washington's confrontation with Iraq. It's "the first step in Bush's plan to transform our country into an aggressor nation that cannot tolerate opposition." She has also stated: "We have met the enemy, and it is us." Views like these echo through the campuses, confirming that universities remain, as they have been since the mid-1960s, the most radical, adversarial and alienated major institution in American life. That's not to suggest censorship; professors have full privileges to freedom of expression. But it does point to the need to raise some difficult questions: * Why do American academics so readily see their own country as the problem? * Why do universities hire people who relentlessly apologize for U.S. enemies? * Why do professors consistently misunderstand the most important challenges facing the country, such as the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Persian Gulf War and now the war on terror? * What long-term impact does a radicalized and repressive university atmosphere have on students? The country needs its universities to become more mature, responsible and patriotic. To achieve this change means taking the wayward academy back from the faculty and administrators who now run it. It's important to remember that universities, built over decades and even centuries, do not belong -- legally, financially or morally -- to the employees who happen to staff them. The latter do not have a right to hijack these vital institutions out of the mainstream of American life. Outside stakeholders -- board members, alumni, parents of students and, in the case of state institutions, state legislators -- need to start worrying more about politics than about football. They must take steps to re-create a politically balanced environment, as it was before the 1960s, in which sound scholarship and sound teaching can again take place. meforum.org

To: JohnM who wrote (133468)	8/20/2005 12:10:26 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793765

http://hnn.us/articles/986.html. Some information from The History News Network on Pipes and his campaign, particularly its effect on Juan Cole. From HNN: Mr. Cole reports to HNN that since the website was established he and the other professors listed on the site have been targeted by a relentless conspiracy of email hackers. In short, Cole got hostile email. You're really going to have to do better than that to show how Cole's academic freedom has been "suppressed". He doesn't sound suppressed at all to me. Nowadays he gets to spout his condescending piffle on major media outlets, not just his well-read internet blog. I notice the Nation is long on name-calling - Pipes is an "anti-Arab propagandist" - a charge they do not back up with any quotes - and short on argument. I have noticed before that the Nation is very free with dishing out the name calling, but any criticism that heads in their direction is "suppression of academic freedom". Like a judge in any suit for damages, I'm still waiting to see the supposed damage. You would really think from the wailing and name-calling that Pipes held a government censor's position, and was throwing those who offended him in jail. If instead he criticizes people by quoting their actual published work, that is fair game. However, I will compliment you on actually going out to gather some links, something you don't usually do.

To: JohnM who wrote (133468)	8/20/2005 1:26:01 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793765

I join with you in condemning the characterization of dissent as lack of patriotism. Patriotism is love of country. The time will never come when true American patriots require others who love their country to agree with the policy of any administration. This is completely antithetical to the ideals of America. No, more than that, to the very essence of America. Thank you for making the effort to bring those articles to our attention. I see now why you are so troubled by Pipes.

To: JohnM who wrote (133468)	8/20/2005 1:33:14 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 793765

Well JohnM, I recall you spoke of suppression of free speech. I guess quoting Pipe's directly using a link you provided has me asking you. How is your fact absent analysis not exactly the same an attempt by you for the suppression of free speech. This is what Pipes said. I see the statement below, the perfect example of a Patriotic American. Let all have free speech, but let us evaluate what they say and ask questions. In addition let us look at the theme of the preponderance of what they say. That's not to suggest censorship; professors have full privileges to freedom of expression. But it does point to the need to raise some difficult questions: * Why do American academics so readily see their own country as the problem? * Why do universities hire people who relentlessly apologize for U.S. enemies? * Why do professors consistently misunderstand the most important challenges facing the country, such as the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Persian Gulf War and now the war on terror? * What long-term impact does a radicalized and repressive university atmosphere have on students? meforum.org It seems in this 988 article Pipes uses the example of criticism of comparing the Iraq War to Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. You think expressing such a comparison is rational and reasonable. You think questioning that logic is somehow indicative of something un-American. The preponderance of what you say suggests Pipes has sinister and evil and dishonest intentions. The preponderance of what I have read from Pipes makes me confident that those intimidated by his faithful expression of American ideals are little danger at all.