John Gibson’s My Word

Good stuff from Mr. Gibson:

200 or so students at Boston College, along with some professors, will be protesting her presence at Boston College, protesting especially the school conferring upon her an honorary doctorate.

Why? The students say they object to her presence because she doesn’t represent their values.

An adjunct professor and part-time novelist named Steve Almond actually quit over her appearance saying in his resignation letter that he and others object to her because she is a liar.

As far as the professor goes, I spoke to him on my radio show — until he hung up on me — and the college should consider his resignation good riddance. …

Condi Rice doesn’t represent their values. I should say not, since their values seem to be intolerance, closed-mindedness and the cocksureness of youth that allows a college student to pass judgment on a secretary of state.

(Read the rest here.)

Timotheos

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “John Gibson’s My Word

  1. I think the argument is against “honoring” Condi Rice rather than simply allowing her to speak. Being invited to speak at a graduation is a place of honor –it’s not merely a forum. Protesting such an honor is in keeping with American freedom of expression.

    It is not intolerance to disagree with honoring someone based on one’s decisions in a job or office.

  2. A bit of a tangent here:

    I think George Will has a good explanation today for our countries “Neo-Liberalism” problems, or what he calls “Progressives”.

    http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will052206.asp

    I highly recommend this article. Everyone please at least scan through it.

    Point is that there are any number of good liberal ideologies, as long as we are talking about classic liberalism. But the Progressive Liberalism prevalent on the Left and within the Democratic party is not the same thing as the classic liberal ideologies that many people embrace.

    David,
    I think that you are a Classic Liberal rather than a Neo-Liberal Progressive. And in this case you might find that I agree with you more than disagreed.

    Point is that the liberals I battle against are neo-liberal secular progressives.

  3. Lawrence,

    That was an interesting column by Will. I do tend to agree with Beinart on most things, although in the run up to the war, the lack of appreciation for the reality of how hard it would be to establish peace was where I got off and stopped supporting it –Beinart never did, unfortunately.

    That said, I’m more hawkish than many liberals. I grew up during Reagan’s presidency and believed that he wanted peace. I believed it in contrast to most people around me here in the Bay Area. I also thought that negotiating from a position of strength was wise. While Gorbachev shares credit, ultimately, Reagan was credited with reducing nuclear weapons more than any other president. Nifty trick for a supposed warmonger, eh?

    But I think the “progressives” that Will is speaking of are really the Nader voters of 2000 and not really Democrats. Most Democrats don’t flinch at fighting Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11. In fact, those 90% approval ratings largely show that it was a small minority that didn’t support that action. That small minority is only a tiny part of the Democratic Party. So that’s where I think George Will, and Joe Klein have made mountains out of molehills. Remember, Michael Moore supported Nader in 2000, only to recoil at the meglomaniac he helped create later.

    But the idealistic, self-righteous really, strain in American politics cuts both ways with probably about 10-15% at both ends of the spectrum and the remainder pragmatists with either a liberal or conservative bent. The pragmatists will support war, even the Irag war, which 75% of the public supported when the first shots were fired.

    But the self-righteous strain on both sides gets me worried, because it’s always their brand of self-righteousness that they want to carry the day. I can support Truman dropping the A-bomb to beat Japan, but prayer in school makes me nervous because I think it will open the door to force students to “make personal decisions for Jesus”. The self-righteous you see, aren’t always right, no matter which side they are on. Pragmatists say, I don’t want the crazies on either side telling me what to do. Let the government maintain order, look out for basic welfare, provide defense, teach math, reading and respect for the law and other people. Leave me and my church to deal with religion and morals.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s