Archive for the ‘internet/free speech’ Category

…first of all I must link to Roxeanne De Luca’s excellent piece that not only linked to mine, but puts the lie to his anti-intellectual point that the professor tried to make:

While Bielat is the only one of those guys (and gals) who pulled off the double-Ivy education, one can hardly call the small army of JDs, CPAs, MBAs, and professors “anti-intellectual”. One then has to wonder at Bainbridge’s assertions: who, among this growing conservative movement, is really “anti-intellectual”? Are we stupid? uneducated? have the audacity to think that our BC, Georgetown, and Tufts educations are not so dismal as to disqualify us from public debate and office? or just not relentlessly focused on degrees obtained two decades ago? is what is happening in Massachusetts not representative?

As they say, read the whole thing as the young lady with TWO DEGREES of her own defends the tea party she is so much a part of.

Secondly and more importantly as I re-read his piece I noticed something that I hadn’t caught in his 10th point, lets review:

Whatever happened to smart, well-read, articulate leaders like Buckley, Neuhaus, Kirk, Jack Kent, Goldwater, and, yes, even Ronald Reagan? emphasis mine

Even Ronald Reagan? EVEN RONALD REAGAN?! That sentence, the idea that: Today’s conservatives are so dumb they even make Ronald Reagan look smart, well-read and articulate, brings me back to my college days.

Starting college 8 months into Reagan’s first term I recall the way that liberals treated Reagan with disdain and/or fear. My favorite professor the spectacular Ed Thomas, (the best history teacher I ever had) used to talk about how Reagan “Scared him”. Liberals reacted with glee when he got the nomination. They couldn’t believe he won.

But I also remember how elite conservatives absolutely HATED him. They hated his small town background, they hated that he was a Hollywood actor, they hated his abandonment of realpolitik saying bluntly what the Soviet Union actually was, they hated him because he was so comfortable in his own skin and beliefs they he didn’t feel the need to seek their approval.

Most of all they hated that due to his success and popularity among the idiot people that they had to pay homage to someone so obviously beneath them to get elected or to be supported.

Remind you of anyone today?

We have seen this last point often in the last few years among the leftist media and pols (who can’t believe and won’t forgive Reagan for drawing more sympathy in death than Ted Kennedy) who now avoid criticizing him, acting as if they had been with him all the time.

I had almost totally forgotten the absolutely visceral hatred some Republicans had for Ronald Reagan. Thank you Professor Bainbridge for reminding me of an important lesson from the days of a full hairline.

Update: An Instalanche in my sleep. Very odd to wake up and find my first post of yesterday to be linked by Glenn at the very end of the day. Nice to have you all. You may want to check out the article I put up at Examiner.com on the subject called:
Conservatives in Massachusetts should be grateful not embarrassed by the Tea Party that answers the point concerning Tea Parties.

One of the great embarrassments of this year on the Republican side was the fact that after her humiliating defeat by Scott Brown in January no republican got on the ballot to oppose her in the fall.

Jim McKenna however is trying to reverse this mistake, he is launching a sticker campaign for the Republican primaries. If he can get 10,000 sticker votes during the primary he will be on the November ballot and we will have the chance to retire Martha Coakley permanently.

I talked to Mr. McKenna last week concerning his campaign:

He also made a presentation at the Twin City Tea Party last week. Here is his presentation in three parts:

Part 2

Part 3

Not getting on the ballot initially was a mistake but there is no reason why we can’t make up for that mistake on primary day.

Red Mass Group has more here.

Update: Looks like he would be a square peg in the statehouse. from his BIO:

Jim has taught courses on law and ethics as an Adjunct Assistant Professor in the part-time MBA program at Worcester Polytechnic Institute’s Department of Management.

Ethics in Massachusetts? Boy talk about not fitting in.

Following up on his first rate post on Howard Zinn this weekend Stacy puts up a new article at the American Spectator:

Revelation of Zinn’s support for Stalinism is unlikely to affect his standing with liberals, whose main response to the FBI disclosures was to express shock that an official of Boston University tried to get Zinn fired in 1970. Zinn’s liberal admirers obviously share his anti-American perspective, in which the FBI poses a greater danger than any foreign enemy. It was that view Zinn meant to express when, in 1986, he condemned the U.S. bombing of Libya in response to a Libyan-sponsored terrorist attack in West Berlin. “There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people for a purpose which is unattainable,” Zinn wrote.

That such a condemnation could be applied more truthfully to Zinn’s communist heroes, who slaughtered millions of innocents in pursuit of an unattainable socialist paradise, is an irony the professor apparently never contemplated.

This is uncharitable of me but I suspect he did contemplate it and brushed it aside as all fans of totalitarianism do. What are mere lives when compared to the cause? The irony that he did this from the safety of America where he was free to make a living off of his support for our foes is not lost on me.

Those who promote his views have much to answer for.

…Islam has issues.

But I’ve never been one for burning books.

Analysis for me is pretty easy for me on this one. The so-called “International Burn the Quran Day” is geared to the sheer shock factor. It’s beyond incediary, ludicrous and a waste of time. And worse, this kind of behavior (burn the Quran/Koran day) distracts from the clear downsides to Islam. It sells books too, apparently. But in the end it is this group’s right to do as they please on their property – free speech (including liberal pet projects like flag burning) is sometimes ugly.

I’m with Left coast rebel here. Burning books seems kinda anti-American to me.

They get 10 out of 10 for not being afraid of the inevitable fatwa but they also get 0 out of ten for giving Islamists an actual cause for grievance. Going nuts over a cartoon? Nonsense! Burning their holy book, yeah I can see getting angry over that.

This of course doesn’t change the fact that it is protected first amendment speech and violent retaliation is the act of barbarians.

Oh and the Anchoress makes a great point:

But I have to wonder about Rick Sanchez, here. His points are not badly made, but I wonder why he showcased this fellow at all? As one of the deacon’s readers points out:

While I don’t support the burning of the Quran, I can’t help but wonder where CNN and Rick Sanchez were when we had the atheist college Professor Paul Z. Myers desecrating the Eucharist on posting pictures of the act? Maybe I missed it, but I don’t recall Sanchez grilling Myers in a CNN interview. It gives credibility to the statement that anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice.

Just so; I have to wonder whether Sanchez highlighted this story because a) it feeds into the public perception of Christians as intolerant and stupid and b) it is fodder for a potentially huge story: the inevitable fatwa against this man and the tensions his ideas will foment. Is Sanchez stoking this little twig in hopes of reporting on an eventual conflagration down the road?

Either way its bad form and will have a bad end.

Memeorandum thread here.