(Page 3 of 10)
I attended a talk given by David Horowitz at the U of Texas last night [Wednesday]. He was as brilliant as ever and, as expected, there were the usual group of agitators trying to shut him down. They yelled over him, rang their cell phones and set off air horns. He is on to them and asked that they be removed early. As a young man came at him down the aisles spouting some rhetoric, I and some friends in the front row stood to confront him, yelling back to “shut up and let him speak.” It got very noisy. He was removed, as a tepid campus police called for backups. The rabble-rousers continued but were met with our anger and words to let him speak. They finally left as they were either removed or their ADD kicked in once they had to listen.
I don’t think they expected our response. These speakers need our help and protection. Supporters in the audience need to get angry as their right to hear speech is denied. These whiners have nothing to contribute to the dialogue and just want to make noise (or throw food) to intimidate and shut down others, and I resent it.p>One final note: I wonder if these students realize they are pawns for tenured teachers to keep their cushy jobs and are just being manipulated. Tools. It’s sad. br> — Kim La Cava br> Austin, Texas /p>
Mr. Neumayr has articulated, better than I ever could, the hedonism, illogic, and selfishness inherent in '60s liberalism. Of course, it is present once again in this early 21st century liberalism. I have, for years, made the point to my students that the major difference I am able to identify between the '50s and the '90s is the reversal of the order of consideration of rights and responsibilities among individuals. I repeatedly tell them that those same urges that guide their choice-making machinery today existed just as vitally in the '50s as they do now.p>The difference between the two times was: (a) Society placed a great deal of pressure on the individual to live up to his community responsibilities, and (b) Individuals were taught early on that those responsibilities were the cornerstone of his or her adulthood. This is why we young men didn’t all go out and sire children out of wedlock. This is why we didn’t indulge in every vice, legal and illegal, that was available to us. It wasn’t that we didn’t have those “urges.” We did. We just, for the most part, controlled them. It wasn’t that we didn’t crave the mental vacation that a good buzz would bring. We just fought against giving some chemical compound that kind of control over our thought processes. When rights became more important than responsibilities, and people became more concerned with what they could do than with what they couldn’t, the fraying fabric of Society split apart at the seams. “If it feels good, do it” became the watchword of the '60s. The idea that individual behavior had an affect on the social fabric as a whole became anathema and “do your own thing” replaced the Ten Commandments. Of course modern liberals want God out of the government, the schools, and virtually all of the public arena. These areas are the residue of the belief in responsibility toward society. They are the finger shaken in our faces, reminding us of what we are supposed to be. Just as there is a special place in the afterlife for children who deny their parents, there may very well be one for countries that deny their founding precepts. br> — Joseph Baum br> Newton Falls, Ohio /p>
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?