# What's Wrong with University Campuses Today?



## Infanteer (14 Dec 2004)

Indeed, I think there is an obvious problem when places intended for the broadening of horizons become recruiting grounds for ideologues.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15855

Read the article...if it doesn't disturb you, the fact that things like this seem to be more and more common on campuses should - I remember crap like this during my stay at UBC, especially with former-NAC President Sunera Thobani hanging around.

Crap like this has become such a visible issue that Evan Coyne Maloney, the budding ante-Michael Moore, did a hour-long documentary about it (ideology, not Palestinians)

http://brain-terminal.com/video/brainwashing-101.html

As well, _The Economist_ had an article a few weeks ago that pointed to the fact that most universities tend to be biased on the political spectrum, which leads to bias in department focus, hiring, etc, etc (which is the antithesis of university, is it not?).

Three big exclamation points in a couple weeks compelled me to bring this up.   The news article about the attack on a Student Republican group really pissed me off - is this the kind of thing we want to have happening on our campuses?


----------



## 48Highlander (14 Dec 2004)

This is nothing new.  Those of us who view the world from the right side have grown so accustumed to accepting responsibility for the racism and opression which we're constantly being accused of that we've allowed ourselves to be silenced at the mere mention of discrimination.  Whereas those on the left, having rallied behind the causes of equality and freedom for so long, are now running rampant using those very ideals to justify violence, hatred, and discrimination perpetuated by their own.  One thing which has pleased me immensly is that since 9/11 people are finally saying ENOUGH.  We've tried to attone for our past mistakes...we've done everything humanly possible to eliminate racism and opression...we've changed the way we conduct warfare in order to spare as many innocents as possible....and yet we are still being hounded for those very thing by hypocrites who have no problem using those tactics to further their own ideals.  If the ONLY thing that comes out of this war on terrorism is a shift away from the self-flagellation being conducted in the name of "political correctness", it will have been worthwhile.


----------



## mo-litia (14 Dec 2004)

. . . why can the Left do WHATEVER they want for their causes and whenever a Conservative makes a stand he is painted as a bigot by the popular media?   

Oh well, I better keep quiet . . . wouldn't want to be accused of being a racist just for refusing to swallow that excrement that is known as political correctness.

 vote Liberal . . . yeah right . . .


----------



## Stefan Moxness (14 Dec 2004)

Hi hate people like that.  These people are being fools.  Do they not realize that they are committing the actions that they are condemning? They tell the CR students to get off the campus, that they are going to physically attack, and drive them away.  Political racism, just plain racism, isn't that the same thing, it's alienating a certain group of people for whatever reason.  These nuts are doing exactly that then they say to condemn the CR for their racism. I hate hypocrites, leave people to their beliefs unless they are really harming someone through them, people should educate themselves more before they fly off into a mob, insult and threaten other people.


----------



## vangemeren (14 Dec 2004)

Peace activists using violence to get their point across......okeedoekee. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I'll admit it, My views are left of centre *but*, I can't think of any reasonable rationale to condone violent protest in these situations. I mean, we don't live in a police state, we live in a democracy. If you don't like where things are going, then use your organising abilities to run a political campaign. As with university campuses, if there are no dissenting views, then all there are, are yes men. Everything would sound like a good idea, even if it was a load of crap. The group here at my University almost got disbanded because they were acting like complete idiots. (especially after being confronting with animal rights protesters. When I got home I had the largest steak mmmm, steak)


----------



## a_majoor (14 Dec 2004)

Conservative magazines like NRO have also commented on this, it is a problem with western academies in general. The socialist "group think" mentality of the professors must be frustrating for the students, who are able to see the real world outside the campus does not work according to the principles they espouse. For the poorly grounded, frustration and anger can lead to "brownshirt" activities, and taking the step from Socialist to National Socialist.

Changing this will take a generation at least. Universities need to replace tenure with term contracts to break the ossification and herd mentality which cripple them. University Senates and administrations also have a lot to answer for, particularly ones like Concordia, which routinely cave when confronted by "brownshirts". Use the law to clear the courtyard of these yobs, and challenge their spokesmen to engage in serious debate. They will either pull a "Disillusioned" and simply repeat the same thing over and over, or they may look at the facts and engage in real debate. Either way, the listener and viewer will have something to work with and decide who is right.

We in the Army have few avenues of recourse, in fact with the requirement for all officers to have degrees, there is a danger of these ideas becoming entrenched in our own leadership. In the age of the Internet, sites like Army.ca and various Blogs are one means of advancing our message. Deep cover agents like Infanteer in our universities can provide information to target internet missives, and guide people to our sites. In the longer term, senior NCO's might consider taking up teaching as a post military career, or opening up "leadership academies" and "outward bound" schools to teach Canadians how to assess, decide and act.


----------



## Big Foot (14 Dec 2004)

I love RMC, I love RMC, I love RMC... I am so glad I don't have to put up with crap like that.


----------



## nULL (14 Dec 2004)

I've never understood why realists and liberalists can't just shut up. Everyone in university seems to feel the need to characterize themselves as being at the polar end of some idiotic political spectrum, and think that they are right for doing so. The Campus Conservative Club at my university looks just as stupid and pointless as the global studies club where they all sit in a circle and bash Nike. Like religion, deep rooted political beliefs have no place in learning. I go through university with a who-gives-a-fu*k attitude, why can't you all be more like me? I'm not there to broaden my horizons, I'm there to fulfill some idiotic social requirement that the air force has bought in to. 

That said, if you are in math class and your teacher is preaching marxist economic policy, then it may have gone too far. If you are in political science and your professor is left/right/whatever....isn't it up to you to educate yourself to find out where you stand, and be able to identify with it? 

Politics has been the cause of violence for generations. If you join a university political club, irregardless of orientation, consider the punches and the abuse an introduction to real-world politics where it isn't like C-SPAN. I mean, in the Ukraine the opposition leader was poisoned. This isn't a game. University is supposed to be an introduction to real life - or something like that. 

I don't feel sorry for either the group of righties who were attacked by commie-hippies or the lefty who was hit in the face with a tear gas canister by a corrupt, evil soldier of the multinational machine. (?!?)


----------



## a_majoor (14 Dec 2004)

nULL said:
			
		

> I've never understood why realists and liberalists can't just shut up.



Politics, as conventionally defined, is about talking and debating various points of view in order to make decisions about the allocation of limited resources. I'd rather have a lot of "talk talk talk", rather than the situation today, where the "lefties" have control over much of the channels of communication and attempt to silence the "righties" by vicious ad homeneim attacks, refusing to print/publish/broadcast the right wing point of view, or simply by threatening and using violence. Concordia University is the most notorious in Canada, but the repressive PC regimes at other universities must drive free thinkers mad, if they are silent they give tacit approval to the regime, if they speak they will be branded as "racists" or "homophobes", or subjected to the thought police as they are "investigated" for "harassment", usually a very slippery concept which can mean anything and almost impossible for the accused to defend themselves against.

For the "lefties" in the academy, they have perques and power, access to Government grants and free reign to say whatever they want with little accountability or opposition. Naturally they will fight hard to preserve this. For students, the appeal of joining the all persuasive culture within the academy as a means of insulation against a bewildering outside world (particularly one which simply refuses to operate according to the very principles they are being taught) must be simply overwhelming.

Like I said earlier, we have to operate outside the academy, joining the legions of the "pyjamahadeen" bloggers (who helped bring down Dan Rather and the Kerry campaign) who openly question the "revealed truths" of the Left and shine a bright light into the dark truths people would rather not see.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Dec 2004)

I'm not sure how you're equating the two nULL?  The Campus Republican's are a group much like the Campus Liberals or Young Conservatives that you see on Canadian University campuses.  I think it is good that people are willing to engage in the public sphere - if they want to take part in politics like this, then good for them.  I think that any campus group, whether it be NDP, Campus PRIDE, Bhangara, Chinese Student Society,The Judo Club, Sierra Club, The Jewish Society, or the Campus Crusade for Christ should all be able to meet, debate, and share their point of view with those who are willing.  They should also be able to do so without fear of being beaten, threatened, or screamed at by rabid morons.  These horizontal ties and sub-state groups are the grease of the wheels of civil society.

The Campus Republican's were targeted with the intent of disrupting their activities and intimidating members and levelling serious accusations towards them is bad enough - the fact that it seems to be regarded as a "outburst of positive energy" by Palestinian students is a travesty.  What do you think would happen if the roles were reversed and a "Campus for America" group shouted down a peaceful campus Islamic group as "Terrorists" and "Ragheads"?

PS: You ever find it odd that you never see any Jewish Campus groups trying to intimidate or muffle others who constantly deride Israel as "imperialists" and "murderers"?  Why should we accept it when Palestinians do it?


----------



## Torlyn (15 Dec 2004)

My favourite was the quote "I'd rather die a suicide bomber's death than to call myself an American!".  !!  Really?  Last I checked, this (in the US) constituted a federal offence, and was punishable by some big-time rock-breaking...  How is the university allowing this to happen?  There is no real difference between this and allowing several hundred KKK members (hypothetical) who belong to the school from marching around screaming for the heads of all of the palestinians.  How can they preach for tolerance and advocate bigotry themselves?

As for the university, this is despicable behaviour to allow to occur on campus.  When you have pictures, eye witness reports of assault (the spitting girl, fluid assault is worse than a punch) why are there no expulsions?  Why is this GUPS organisation allowed to demonstrate?  OH right...  they'd then be branded as a racist university.  I LOVE higher education.  I'm so thankful I didn't have to put up with this bullsh*t at either of the campuses I attended.  (Wow...  2 swears, I must feel stongly about this... )

Lastly, if you'd "...rather die a suicide bomber's death than to call myself an American!" renounce your citizenship, your freedom of speech, and leave the f*cking country.  If you don't want to be in America, I'm sure the Americans don't want you there either.  And while you're at it, try and have the same demonstration against the standing government anywhere else but the western world...  If you hate it so much, LEAVE.

T

P.S.  Grrr...


----------



## Tpr.Orange (15 Dec 2004)

I dont know how those people managed to keep their cool...

I mean im a soldier in the army, american/canadian citizen and im jewish. The one time someone made racists comments towards me at york university, I gave him 2 foot head start and let him know what i thought about his comments and why he shouldn't have attempted to raise a hand to me...


Its disgusting that things like this can go out without any concequences or reprocussions.


----------



## McG (15 Dec 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What's Wrong with University Campuses Today?


I would like to think it is just a loud, aggressive, and overbearing minority and not a general reflection of university populations as a whole.


----------



## Dogboy (15 Dec 2004)

I have some sympathy with some of those group ideas. BUT 
they are just in it for the flash and TV. 
people love to march and protest and sit in and such
but when the real work needs to be done their all  gone.

I also find it funny that in contreys with totally opposite sistoms. university their have people fighting to make their world more like ours. 

the University's have always bin a hot bed of extremist against the status quo 
always have always will no mater how the world changes


----------



## Gunnerlove (15 Dec 2004)

It is always interesting to sit on the fence. I look to the right and shake my head at the bunch of crazies in that pasture. Then I look to the left and have to shake my head at the bunch of crazies in that pasture. If you choose a camp and never leave you will become trapped by the ideology.


----------



## Glorified Ape (15 Dec 2004)

Alright, enough with the Concordia bashing. It had a riot, yes, and those involved (that could be identified as students) were punished by the school. Concordia doesn't "cave in to brown shirts". Concorida doesn't host speakers, ON CAMPUS, that will precipitate the kind of opposition that happened at the riot. This goes for both sides. It's not an unknown around Concordia that the invitation of Netanyahu by Hillel was as much a petty political swipe at the SPHR as it was an attempt to further an understanding of Israeli policy. Is Concordia's approach the most open policy? No, but it's pragmatic. The university has a responsibility to ensure the safety of ALL its students and to avoid causing the surrounding businesses and residents unnecessary costs and disturbance. 

Inviting Netanyahu to speak at a university like Concordia, which has an extremely large Arab and Palestinian population, is like inviting the Grand Wizard of the KKK to speak at Clark-Atlanta University - it's just a very bad idea, no matter what lofty ideals people may like to tout as support thereof.


----------



## couchcommander (15 Dec 2004)

Hey All,

You are all absolutely right in saying that this kind of violence is completely unnacceptable, especially so when it takes place in a place of learning. As well, you are further correct (in my opinion  at least), in stating that everyone should be given an equal chance to voice their opinions. Stifling crticism and promoting blind faith in a cause is something for fundamentalists, not open minded groups. However, at the same time, I am no so sure if your labelling of these people as "leftist" or "socialists" is entirely correct. For that matter, labelling anyone left or right or anything of that sort is rather like trying to group together an elephant and a mouse. Viewpoints, even amongst "leftists" are incredibly diverse. Furthermore, what is left in one instance or country, is right in another time or place. I think, what you seem to be searching for, is a codemnation of a group of fanatical adolences who have yet to learn to express their opinions in an open and respectful manner. There are many cases of both "leftists" and "rightists" becoming militant, ignorant, and fanatical. Pointing fingers does not really help to solve anything.

Re: the traditionally left leaning campuses.

From my experience, in Canada (SFU being a notable exception), political science departments tend to be what would be called right. As well, the economics department, law and business faculties (at least at my university) tend to follow along the same lines. If one takes a look at departments like, for example, philosophy and sociology (there are exceptions, this should not be taken as a blanket statement), yes, I would agree there is a left leaning trend. My point; it's fairly balanced. 

Finally, (my turn to send a shot across, sorry) I would distinctly refrain from saying that the neocons shed "light" on lies spouted by the Kerry campaign and other "lefists" (especially with a dark truth reference.....I would just like to remind us all of Iraq's massive weapons of mass destruction which posed such a threat that the US needed to invade...). Go look up a guy called Strauss, he is the man who thought up the doctrine behind neo-conservatism, and, putting it midly, he did not exactly promote honesty (as well as, I am told, he misunderstood Plato...). But, yes, you are right that the Kerry campaign, like any political campaign, did not ride entirely on factual evidence. However, my point in this section is just to point out that this isn't something that he alone was guilty of (ie don't point fingers).


----------



## MissMolsonIndy (16 Dec 2004)

MCG said:
			
		

> I would like to think it is just a loud, aggressive, and overbearing minority and not a general reflection of university populations as a whole.



The early bird gets the worm...

In response to the problem with universities these days:

University settings only represent (while fair) a piece of the pie as far as grounds for these sorts, and others sorts of demonstrations, and for good reason: universities, colleges and other social institutions/organizations harbour thousands of bodies. It's a known fact that protests are more effective (at least to some extent, mostly in terms of turning heads, and not necessarily achieving political, economic, social ends) with more bodies behind them. So with good reason, many of these (but not all) take place on grounds heavily populated, including universities and the downtown sectors (just recently with the November 30th protests in Vancouver, Ottawa and several other locations). If I were protesting for what I thought to be a good cause, one of the first places that I would seek out would be a university campus, a public organization, or the heavily populated sectors of the city. You cannot pin the phenomenon of protesting onto universities, particularly when evidence tells us that protests are not specific to university settings: you'll realize that this isn't "the problem" (if you can even label it as such) with universities these days, but in fact is an issue emerging from all quarters of society.

Also, although I'm not entirely aware of the specific events that sparked the protests, perhaps they had good reason (maybe not through the public's eyes, but through their own)? I'm mildly convinced that one of the main reasons this forum exists, is because you disagree with the grounds on which the students were protesting, as well as the conduct of the protest. If it were an issue that the many of you deemed worth fighting for, would you be as quick to comment?


----------



## Infanteer (16 Dec 2004)

MissMolsonIndy said:
			
		

> Also, although I'm not entirely aware of the specific events that sparked the protests, perhaps they had good reason (maybe not through the public's eyes, but through their own)? I'm mildly convinced that one of the main reasons this forum exists, is because you disagree with the grounds on which the students were protesting, as well as the conduct of the protest. If it were an issue that the many of you deemed worth fighting for, would you be as quick to comment?



The reason for this thread is that I have big problem with this kind of behaviour (from the article):

     _"The previous Monday, the day before the election, the CR's were physically attacked while handing out Bush/Cheney materials in the University's Malcolm X Plaza. On that day,   Victor Traycey, one of the members of the conservative club,   was slapped by Nala Gardizi, an Arab woman student who was part of an entourage led by four Palestinian women who accused the conservative students of being responsible for the â Å“murder of Palestinian babiesâ ? due to their support for President Bush. In addition, food was thrown at the Republican college students and drinks poured over the campaign materials on their table. Gardizi harangued Victor Traycey that day and even called him â Å“a Nazi,â ? according to eye-witness reports.

     Lee Wolf, another College Republicans member, described one of the women on Monday as shouting, â Å“The only way we can defeat you is to kill as many as possible! I'd rather die a suicide bomber's death than to call myself an American!â ? He continued, â Å“In my opinion, these were terrorist threats.â ?

     On Wednesday, Gardizi was back. â Å“She was ranting that 9/11 was the fault of the United States,â ? according to Finarelli.

     The General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS) at S.F. State was staging this noisy demonstration on Wednesday as a follow-up to their Monday afternoon attack on the conservative students by calling for the complete removal of the Republican Club from the SFSU campus. Flyers were even distributed all over campus that bore inscriptions such as â Å“Don't Let the College Republicans Commit Racism and Bigotry Against Arab Women."_

Not only are the statements of the students laden with hypocrisy and rhetoric (It's easy to slam the West while living under the aegis of a liberal democratic order, isn't it), but there behaviour is simply deplorable, regardless of:

A) Who they are

B) Who they're reacting against

Civil society exists for a reason - it is to present the kind of political interaction that made Wiemar Germany famous.   If Universities are going to accept this sort of behaviour as a norm on campus (or openly support it), again I ask - what is wrong with our universities?


----------



## MissMolsonIndy (16 Dec 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The reason for this thread is that I have big problem with this kind of behaviour (from the article):
> 
> Not only are the statements of the students laden with hypocrisy and rhetoric (It's easy to slam the West while living under the aegis of a liberal democratic order, isn't it), but there behaviour is simply deplorable, regardless of:
> 
> ...



Fair enough. I agree that the behaviour of those protesting was out of line.

However, you are using a case in point to make a sweeping generalization, while overlooking off campus cases that have incurred the same levels of violence. I am certain that had the protest been resituated elsewhere, the conduct of the protest would have changed very little, if at all. Universities do not openly invite and/or support radically violent protests, I cannot think of any widely accepted social institution that would; they merely provide grounds upon which students can voice their opinions.

On a further note, (and I apologize for my poor "netiquette" here, as this was added later...) All academic institutions have specific policies that counter the discrimination and harassment of students/groups of students on, and outside university grounds. See the university's website for confirmation.   

A philosopher once said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...

On what grounds did the university actively foster the violence that was a result of these protests? 
Perhaps it is necessary to look at the dynamics of the group in order to understand their behaviour...

I think that your question should be extended to all sectors of society, as this is not a phenomenon specific to the university setting.


----------



## MissMolsonIndy (16 Dec 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It's easy to slam the West while living under the aegis of a liberal democratic order, isn't it.



About as easy as it is to slam protestors struggling to uphold values that others cannot personally identify with. I agree with you that their conduct was unruly, but ask yourself this:

If that same group of protestors used forms of violence and unprecedented behaviour in an effort to defend values that you both identified with and upheld, would you still ground the same position on the issue?

If the violence facilitated by these protests has been common in the past, then perhaps we're moreover debating the nature of the values protested, rather than the conduct...


----------



## Bograt (16 Dec 2004)

Oh, to be in university again. The lobby parties, late night pizza orders, girls away from home for the first time... ahhh those were the days. Funny though, I don't remember slapping anyone in the face because they held a different point of view than me, and I don't recall mentioning that my classmates were responsible for killing Palestinian babies. I don't recall anyone ever saying to me that they would rather die as a suicide bomber than live under my tyranny... but if was often loud at the parties I went to and on many occasions I only pretended to hear what the other person was saying.  :

MissMolsonIndy, your defence of the right to say these things is academically admirable. Unfortunately, the Ivory towers of academia is far removed from reality- and this is why campuses these days are petri dishes of angst and moral self righteousness. These two characteristics don't do so well in the real world. I fear that these "activist" will wake up one day and wonder where did their university days go. Instead of wearing gas masks and chanting "Death to Bush" they will be regretting that they didn't "drag off" that "granola chick" from first year sociology. 

When I was going to university, environmentalism was all the rage. Saving rainforest, wearing hemp, sexual experimentation... I loved those girls. They all smelled like the body shop. I feel sorry for all the "regular guys" going to school now. I don't imagine they are saying this at the campus bar.. 
"Hey Jim, take a look at that hottie"
"Where"
"Next to the guy defecating on the Israeli flag"


----------



## Torlyn (16 Dec 2004)

Bograt said:
			
		

> "Hey Jim, take a look at that hottie"
> "Where"
> "Next to the guy defecating on the Israeli flag"



Dear lord, Bograt...  I *LOVE* that...    hehe...  ;D

T


----------



## 48Highlander (16 Dec 2004)

MissMolsonIndy said:
			
		

> About as easy as it is to slam protestors struggling to uphold values that others cannot personally identify with. I agree with you that their conduct was unruly, but ask yourself this:
> If that same group of protestors used forms of violence and unprecedented behaviour in an effort to defend values that you both identified with and upheld, would you still ground the same position on the issue?



I don't know about Infanteer, but I can tell you that I sure as hell would.  I'm pretty sure he would as well.  This type of behavior is utterly unacceptable regaurdless of what the cause or political leaning of the individuals may be.  What's really infuriating though is that this sort of behavior is almost always ignored by the faculty/administration as long as it occurs against people whom they can classify as either conservative or holding views which clash with whatever the causes of the moment may be.  A group protesting against Israel and screaming for the extermination of the Zionist Invaders will rarely receive much in the way of a reprimand from the faculty, whereas a similar group advocating the destruction of Palestine would very likely receive threats from both the faculty and other students.  It seems that threats and violence are acceptable as long as they're directed at those who disagree with campus politics.  Check out infanteers link for a video which very clearly illustrates that point.


----------



## canadianblue (16 Dec 2004)

I'm glad that I'm not applying to any universities any time soon. Right now I'm just trying to get into police studies programs, and the University of Regina Police Studies program, I hope that their are'nt many radical left wing nuts were I'm going. 

If those people have such a problem with the states, move the f%$# back to were ever they came from before saying bulls^%$ about the country that took them in.


----------



## MissMolsonIndy (16 Dec 2004)

Bograt said:
			
		

> MissMolsonIndy, your defence of the right to say these things is academically admirable. Unfortunately, the Ivory towers of academia is far removed from reality- and this is why campuses these days are petri dishes of angst and moral self righteousness. These two characteristics don't do so well in the real world. I fear that these "activist" will wake up one day and wonder where did their university days go. Instead of wearing gas masks and chanting "Death to Bush" they will be regretting that they didn't "drag off" that "granola chick" from first year sociology.



No, the Ivory Towers of academia are one of many vehicles to the real world, a vehicle that you and many others in fact took, and a vehicle that millions, myself included, are taking at present. Otherwise your statement implies that professionals cannot construe the idea of reality until they have stepped foot into a non-academic setting (which is untrue). And furthermore, your statement implies that many of those who have never dipped a toe into the academic waters are predispositionally "in touch" with reality (which is also untrue). If every individual makes and creates his and her own truths, using evidence, fact and sometimes the appeal to the metaphysical to back his/her principles and claims, and ultimately create reality for his/her self, in what position are you to comment on the validity of another's reality and moreover the legitimacy of one's pathway to reality?

It is my understanding that the university should have taken more appropriate measures in terms of dealing with the violent group, and perhaps should have outruled the protest at the slightest indication of violent and in some cases counterproductive behaviour, however the many of you have successfully turned a blind eye to the numerous off campus institutions, which harbour groups of people who have and continue to resort to forms of violence to make themselves heard. The bottom line is, while it appears that these students were protesting on university grounds, I fail to see the connection specific to the phenomenon of protesting/violent behaviour and the university setting, when for the most part these incidences have occurred and continue to occur off campus. Accounting for the rest of society would not weaken your argument, instead, it would force others to look at the array of underlying factors involved.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Dec 2004)

> No, the Ivory Towers of academia are one of many vehicles to the real world, a vehicle that you and many others in fact took, and a vehicle that millions, myself included, are taking at present. Otherwise your statement implies that professionals cannot construe the idea of reality until they have stepped foot into a non-academic setting (which is untrue). And furthermore, your statement implies that many of those who have never dipped a toe into the academic waters are predispositionally "in touch" with reality (which is also untrue). If every individual makes and creates his and her own truths, using evidence, fact and sometimes the appeal to the metaphysical to back his/her principles and claims, and ultimately create reality for his/her self, in what position are you to comment on the validity of another's reality and moreover the legitimacy of one's pathway to reality?



Very brave statement to make for one who has only known the wonderful real world of Academia.  Why do you not accept what is said contrary to that by people who have been through that world and then went on to be employed outside of the walls of Academia and found that there are in fact a fantasy world and a real world?

GW


----------



## MissMolsonIndy (16 Dec 2004)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> I'm glad that I'm not applying to any universities any time soon. Right now I'm just trying to get into police studies programs, and the University of Regina Police Studies program, I hope that their are'nt many radical left wing nuts were I'm going.
> 
> If those people have such a problem with the states, move the f%$# back to were ever they came from before saying bulls^%$ about the country that took them in.



Please. Radical left, right, and all that is inbetween wing nuts are not specific to the university setting. In fact, you will be surprised to know that this "breed of the population" is found in all walks of life, including the Police Studies program in which you hope to enroll. It is not arguable that certain professions have a tendency to draw in a greater number of the loud, aggressive sectors of the population (law; politics; government; military; municipal, national and international policing etc...), but for good reason: most of these fields grant a certain burst of authority, power and prestige, and that appeals to select individuals. I do however refuse to overlook the professions that don't make such guarantees, and yet still manage to collect wing nuts.

Lastly, the students are protesting political ends, and not targeting "free and prosperous" America. That is a common fallacy. Many of those, although I won't try to speak for all, who oppose the war in Iraq oppose the war due to American foreign policy. By outlining these individuals as pinpointing the American populace at large, you are undercutting their cause by emphasizing their "hate" for individuals who have little to do, if anything with foreign policy. Also, it is wrongly assumed that opposition to the war situates an individual on the "left" somewhere, when a portion of those who oppose the war share many rightist customs and values.


----------



## MissMolsonIndy (16 Dec 2004)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Very brave statement to make for one who has only known the wonderful real world of Academia.   Why do you not accept what is said contrary to that by people who have been through that world and then went on to be employed outside of the walls of Academia and found that there are in fact a fantasy world and a real world?



True, but that statement can only hold ground in so forth that you assume that the world of Academia is the only way in which one can gain and sustain real world experience (which is clearly not the case). Furthermore you have undercut any real world experience that I may have acquired in other walks of life (such as travel, work experience, living abroad, interaction with individuals). So, really, you have made the brave statement.

It is not that I do not accept what has been said by those who have been through the process and are currently employed outside of the academic setting, but rather I challenge the belief that the academic world falls so outside the realms of reality, when, depending on how you define reality, the same could be argued for any other institution, including the military. I accept that all paths converge into reality and or a world that is far beyond reality, but as far as I'm concerned, the path one takes to reality holds no less ground than another's: one's reality is another's fantasy.

On that note, I am going to go sell my surreal books back to candyland.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Dec 2004)

I have a few things to say about MMI's recent posts, and I hope she won't take these the wrong way:

1: No matter what setting you are in, resorting to violence is always unacceptable. I cannot jump over the lunchroom table and "drift" you because I disagree with what you are saying or doing, either at the University, the local Macdonald's or in your house or mine. Even in uniform, outside of an actual war, my ability to resort to force is limited to "proportional" response to prevent crime or injury to self or others. Only when I am fairly certain that my life or other's lives are in danger may I resort to deadly force!

2: Reality is , well, real. You might have different interpretations of what you are seeing based on education, life experience etc., but for the most part, the things you see are just as they are, and very little nuance is required to interpret these events. This may be demonstrated by the following conversation: "Gravity is only a theory" "O.K. step off this balcony..." The story which started this post clearly describes a group of people using violence and the threat of violence to stop the free exchange of ideas and information. I have bashed Concordia for allowing the same thing to happen, because no amount of "nuance" takes away from the facts. Historical analogies between the actions of these people and 1930 era "brownshirts" are as close and exact as you can get, the only difference is these attacks are the outward manifestation of a different "ethnic" group, in this case Palestinians.

Finally, I have met a great many University educated people in my time, and trained a lot of them too. University education, in my experience, has about zero correlation with their abilities and effectiveness as leaders in a military environment. Some are fantastic people, and some cannot organize a breakfast line (and I am not speaking metaphorically either). The one correlation I do find is that people with rigid mind sets are not well equipped to deal with the real world. University students that I have encountered in the recent past seem "pre programmed" with certain ideas, so unless that person is flexible enough to compare the real world to what they have been taught, and discard ideas which do not match what is being seen out there, they are in for a very rough ride. I thought the ideal of University was to give people the ability to look at the evidence and form their own conclusions. I guess I am an idealist at heart.


----------



## Bograt (16 Dec 2004)

MissMolsonIndy said:
			
		

> No, the Ivory Towers of academia are one of many vehicles to the real world, a vehicle that you and many others in fact took, and a vehicle that millions, .......


LOL. Oh to be young again. Anyone see where I put my toga?


----------



## CivU (16 Dec 2004)

" I love RMC, I love RMC, I love RMC... I am so glad I don't have to put up with crap like that."

Bigfoot,

I hope you were refferring to not having to put up with rioting...because if you mean that you don't have to put up with radical viewpoints, from either end of the spectrum, protest in a variety of peacefully effective functions and any diversity of political/social opinion, and are suggesting that makes RMC a good place to broaden your knowledge and grow as a person and student, then you are definetly missing a major part of what attending university is all about...

While violent rioting is unacceptable, so too is trying to quiet persons from either spectrum and remove a persons freedom of speech...to attend a ideologically homogenized university would hardly be an education...

As far as, "I hope that their are'nt many radical left wing nuts were I'm going"

Futuretrooper, is this not the kind of attitude that plays a fundamental role in taking a person protesting or voicing their opinion and escalates it into violence? It's fine to have your viewpoint, but its not acceptable to condemn another person as being radical because they are not consistent with yours...

"That is a common fallacy. Many of those, although I won't try to speak for all, who oppose the war in Iraq oppose the war due to American foreign policy. By outlining these individuals as pinpointing the American populace at large, you are undercutting their cause by emphasizing their "hate" for individuals who have little to do, if anything with foreign policy. Also, it is wrongly assumed that opposition to the war situates an individual on the "left" somewhere, when a portion of those who oppose the war share many rightist customs and values."

I must agree with this statement...I know many people who are conservative, liberal, marxist, anarchist...the list goes on, who dispute the War in Iraq not as an insult to the American 'everyman' but instead to the foreign policy of the present administration...


----------



## Bert (16 Dec 2004)

After reading Infanteer's initial post and the posts that follow, I'm struck by the idea that its
not a question of issue, opinion or point of view, but the method or act of disagreement that
is startling.  

I've had the opportunity to visit many parts of the world and have listened to points of view
on geo-political issues and observed local customs very different from that of typical Canada.  Even
in Canada, I've visited demonstrations and street debates and observed how easily communication 
breaks down to lower levels like violence.  This is a human condition that is tempered by the rule
of law and by accepted practices of society.

MMI mentioned violent protest or the reaction to it is not increasing just on campuses but can
be observed in mainstream society.  As seen on TV, many protests devolve into brawls, breaking
of windows, vandalism, looting, the burning of vehicles, back to the stone ages, all in the name of 
freedom of speech and protest, and the rule of law is tossed aside.  If a method of protest 
happens once and gets a reaction, it is observed again in another protest.

To me, increasing violent protest in Canada suggests a greater problem within society.  It wonder
if everyone had to take a conflict resolution or negotiating course would it alter anything.


----------



## CivU (17 Dec 2004)

"If those people have such a problem with the states, move the f%$# back to were ever they came from before saying bulls^%$ about the country that took them in. "

Futuretrooper, this statement is so racially loaded I'm not sure whether to address it or hope that you had a momentary lapse (and not that your hood fell over your eyes while typing...).  Who are "those people" and where do you suggest they move back to?


----------



## a_majoor (17 Dec 2004)

This is what's wrong with University today: (Linked from Instapundit)

http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2004_12_12.PHP#003239

What Could Be More Funny Than Going On A Republican Killing Spree?

You ready for a little humor folks? Well, prepare yourself for the comedy stylings of Pat Rothfuss, a teacher at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. Make sure you're not sitting down so you can keel over with laughter as you read this...

*"Pat Rothfuss, a University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point faculty member, has been writing his sarcastic, satirical column in UWSP's student newspaper for years.

He started "Your College Survival Guide" while still a UWSP student, continued writing while away at graduate school and has kept up the column since becoming an associate lecturer of English.

The column, which Rothfuss pens under his own name and describes as "about 80 percent stupid humor," is an outlet for an almost fictionalized, crazed version of himself as the perpetual student, he said. Irreverent advice from past columns, which are published in The Pointer, UWSP's student newspaper, has included everything from corporate America to voodoo and prostitution.

But a group of students from the UWSP College Republicans organization wasn't laughing Nov. 4 when a post-election Rothfuss column included phrases like "punching smug-looking Republicans in the mouth" and "key every car you see with a Bush bumper sticker." The column's premise was that Rothfuss was drunk while writing to himself, and it suggested, "why don't you go on a killing spree? I pet you can take out fixteen for sisteen republicans beofre they gun you down. Duke, youd' be like a heroe."

Ha, ha, ha, going on a "a killing spree," "punching smug-looking Republicans," and keying cars with "Bush bumper sticker(s)," oh the HILARITY! If you look at his actual column, you'll also see that he also calls the people who voted for Bush "retarded" & refers to America as a "pitiufl deluded sh*thol of a country". Is this guy funnier than Carrot Top or what (wait, don't answer that). Someone call Showtime at the Apollo, I think they have a headliner for next week.

Of course, the mirthless College Republicans at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point didn't understand the comedic genius of Pat Rothfuss and complained, but they got nowhere....

"The issue isn't Rothfuss' right to free speech, some College Republicans have said, but rather the appropriateness of a faculty member making such statements. Conservative or Republican students might feel uncomfortable or intimidated expressing their opinions in Rothfuss' classes, said College Republican Josh Schroeder.

"I understood that he wasn't being serious," Schroeder said. "But I also feel that if someone with a conservative point of view would have said anything half as incredulous in a satire article, ... we would have had the book thrown at us."

But Rothfuss maintains that his teaching persona and column-writing persona should be kept separate. He refused to apologize for the incident, a request made but then retracted by organization vice president Aaron Michels. Michels wrote a response to Rothfuss' column - minus the original apology request - in a letter to the editor published in The Pointer. Rothfuss also attended a College Republicans meeting to discuss the issue."*

Come on you College Republicans, you're being too sensitive. Why, if you'd written a "comedy piece" that suggested keying the cars of faculty members, punching them in the mouth, and shooting 15 or 16 of them, why I'm sure they wouldn't have immediately expelled you, they would have just laughed and laughed and laughed!

But, you know what's going to be really funny? Right Wing News is a pretty good sized website and I'm sure there will be more than a few links to this post. Fast forward a month or two and when people do a search for the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, you know like Republican Alumni who are thinking about donating or Republican parents who are wondering where to send their kids, this post should be fairly close to the top.

That means those Republicans will learn that members of the faculty publicly joke about murdering people like them and that's apparently A-OK at UWSP! Personally, I expect that some of those folks may consider another school or place to send their money, perhaps one where the teachers don't consider America to be a "pitiufl deluded sh*thol of a country". Now that's my idea of funny...


----------



## Infanteer (17 Dec 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> "If those people have such a problem with the states, move the f%$# back to were ever they came from before saying bulls^%$ about the country that took them in. "
> 
> Futuretrooper, this statement is so racially loaded I'm not sure whether to address it or hope that you had a momentary lapse (and not that your hood fell over your eyes while typing...).   Who are "those people" and where do you suggest they move back to?



Probably "these people"....

_Lee Wolf, another College Republicans member, described one of the women on Monday as shouting, â Å“The only way we can defeat you is to kill as many as possible! I'd rather die a suicide bomber's death than to call myself an American!â ? _


----------



## CivU (17 Dec 2004)

"one of the women on Monday as shouting, â Å“The only way we can defeat you is to kill as many as possible! I'd rather die a suicide bomber's death than to call myself an American!â ? 

Where does this imply that she isn't from America? And whether she is or not, how is that relevant?  It was said, "If those people have such a problem with the states, move the f%$# back to were ever they came from before saying bulls^%$ about the country that took them in. "  Why is it assumed that someone questioning American foreign policy is not American born...and why is it acceptable to tell people to "move the f%$# back to were ever they came from" ?


----------



## Infanteer (17 Dec 2004)

I'm failing to see how _"The only way we can defeat you is to kill as many as possible!"_ can be regarded as a "questioning of American Foreign policy."

As well, I am assuming by the fact that the the person used the terms we and you implies that she was:

A) Not American.

B) If she was American, did not wish to be American.

The fact that she is waiving a Palestinian flag and promoting violence against the US administration and its citizens gives me a good clue as to where her loyalties lie, so relax - the young guy getting pissed off is only a natural response to someone hurling threats of mortal harm upon your neighbour.

Hopefully, the people in the article will have the cojones to go to Palestine and put their money where there mouth is - maybe we'll all be lucky and they'll join this "patriot"

http://www.rachelcorrie.org/


----------



## Acorn (17 Dec 2004)

Well, considering Ms Corrie was killed underquestionable circumstances in Gaza, we could grant that at least she was willing to put her life on the line for her beliefs.

Acorn


----------



## CivU (17 Dec 2004)

"As well, I am assuming by the fact that the the person used the terms we and you implies that she was:

A) Not American.

B) If she was American, did not wish to be American."


I don't wish to reduce this to semantics, but the "we" and "you" distinction can simply represent a differention between a person supporting one cause and another person opposing it; I see no reason to assume that this ensures a difference in nationality...

"The fact that she is waiving a Palestinian flag and promoting violence against the US administration and its citizens gives me a good clue as to where her loyalties lie"

Her loyalties could be based on the American support of Israel...though I insist we do not reduce this to a futile battle over the deeply rooted Israeli / Palestinian issue, one must recognize that, if she is Palestinian as you suggest, she must have some connection to the fate of her peoples who are dying everyday in Israel...


----------



## 48Highlander (17 Dec 2004)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Well, considering Ms Corrie was killed underquestionable circumstances in Gaza, we could grant that at least she was willing to put her life on the line for her beliefs.



    Doubtful.  Do you really think she would have behaved the same way if she had any indication that she'd be killed?



			
				CivU said:
			
		

> I don't wish to reduce this to semantics, but the "we" and "you" distinction can simply represent a differention between a person supporting one cause and another person opposing it; I see no reason to assume that this ensures a difference in nationality...



    Who cares.  Her nationality doesn't matter.  If she really wants to kill Americans, she should either be deported or locked up.  If she's just being an idiot but really beleives that strongly that the US is evil, she should leave of her own accord.  I'm not seing why you think that saying "these people" should leave the country is racist.  And I'm wondering why you're making an issue of that statement instead of the one uttered by her.



			
				CivU said:
			
		

> Her loyalties could be based on the American support of Israel...though I insist we do not reduce this to a futile battle over the deeply rooted Israeli / Palestinian issue, one must recognize that, if she is Palestinian as you suggest, she must have some connection to the fate of her peoples who are dying everyday in Israel...



    Hey here's an idea.  If she doesn't want her people "dying everyday in Israel", maybe she should tell them to stop blowing themselves up in Israel.  That would probably work a lot better than threatening to kill Americans.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Dec 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> I don't wish to reduce this to semantics, but the "we" and "you" distinction can simply represent a differention between a person supporting one cause and another person opposing it; I see no reason to assume that this ensures a difference in nationality...



True, but the fact that she followed up with a statement involving self-immolation and Americans only served to further my suspicions.



> Her loyalties could be based on the American support of Israel...though I insist we do not reduce this to a futile battle over the deeply rooted Israeli / Palestinian issue, one must recognize that, if she is Palestinian as you suggest, she must have some connection to the fate of her peoples who are dying everyday in Israel...



...and the fact that she is enjoying the fruits of America's toil, which, according to her beliefs, would be founded upon the back of her people, exposes her for the cause-seeking hypocrite that she is....


----------



## canadianblue (17 Dec 2004)

> Futuretrooper, this statement is so racially loaded I'm not sure whether to address it or hope that you had a momentary lapse (and not that your hood fell over your eyes while typing...).  Who are "those people" and where do you suggest they move back to?



I was talking about the people that praise terrorists, and praise any person who tries to kill innocent people, and uses terror to get a point across. That goes for any radical, if they are supporting any form of terrorism than I don't think they should be welcome into this country. If I were to say that I would support any person that would kill off as many Albertan's as possible, however I take advantage of the standard of living in Alberta, and am living and getting an education in Alberta, than that does'nt really seem right does it. I thought the same thing about the people at Concordia that were spitting on jew's and anybody that did'nt agree with their point of view. Why do we really want  people like that in are country. 

PS: It's not a racially motivated statement, I'm against all forms of hatred. However I don't believe that its right to allow some hatred, and dissaprove of other hatred.


----------



## Glorified Ape (17 Dec 2004)

First off, I don't see how Concordia "allowed" the riot to take place, as someone claimed. A protest turned into a riot - protest supervision is the job of the police, not part-time security guards and university staff. What were they supposed to do - disperse the riot with 20 unarmed security guards? That's the job of the cops, which they did after things went riotous. 

Secondly, I don't understand the whole "get out in the real world and you'll see otherwise" argument always tossed at anyone associated with academia. I worked for years before I went to university and I can't say I gleaned a better understanding of issues in global politics or opinion dynamics because I was employed - quite the opposite. I find people far more myopic, intolerant, and ignorant outside universities than within them.


----------



## Torlyn (17 Dec 2004)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> First off, I don't see how Concordia "allowed" the riot to take place, as someone claimed. A protest turned into a riot - protest supervision is the job of the police, not part-time security guards and university staff. What were they supposed to do - disperse the riot with 20 unarmed security guards? That's the job of the cops, which they did after things went riotous.



Perhaps you should have tried reading the article.  There were 13 cops there from the get go.  And they were armed.  Also, the part that people are having an issue with is "SFSU President Robert Corrigan took no action against the GUPS or individual students involved in Monday's assault despite police eye-witnesses and even photographs of the perpetrators."  Kinda tough to continue to defend Concordia after their refusal to do anything about it after the fact, don't you think?

As for myopic, intolerant and ingorant(!) people, you'll find them both in, and outside the universities, generally in equal numbers.  It's heart-warming to see that you've both done the real world experience and the university thing (as I have) and yet still didn't take the time to fully read the article, and yet bash people who didn't go to university for being ignorant...  Interesting.  Very interesting.   :

T


----------



## Bograt (17 Dec 2004)

Torlyn,

Unless you are living in some kind of "Ground Hog Day" reality, there is nothing you will be able to say that will change some people's position. Pick the fights that are worth winning. The trick is deciding which ones are worth fighting. This one isn't one of them.


----------



## Torlyn (17 Dec 2004)

Bograt said:
			
		

> Torlyn,
> 
> Unless you are living in some kind of "Ground Hog Day" reality, there is nothing you will be able to say that will change some people's position. Pick the fights that are worth winning. The trick is deciding which ones are worth fighting. This one isn't one of them.



What's wrong with Ground Hog Day reality?    Sigh...  True enough.  Gonna have to hammer that in to my head.  "pickyourbattlespickyourbattles"   ;D  (hey, over 200 posts..  yay!)

T


----------



## CivU (17 Dec 2004)

"Hey here's an idea.  If she doesn't want her people "dying everyday in Israel", maybe she should tell them to stop blowing themselves up in Israel.  That would probably work a lot better than threatening to kill Americans."

This is an oversimplification of the Israel/Palestine issue to the most extreme.  Do you not question why Palestinians are blowing themselves up routinely? If you suggest its simply another example of the token "Extremist Islam" catchphrase that comes up more often on these boards than Michael Moore bashing, then you are certainly missing the big picture...


----------



## meni0n (17 Dec 2004)

Btw, Concrodia still hasn't removed the off-limit for military personnel rule. It's still a military-free zone.


----------



## Bograt (17 Dec 2004)

Tell me CivU, what else am I missing?

Type whatever you what, the internet has no consequences.


----------



## CivU (17 Dec 2004)

Bograt,

I don't follow? What did I say that suggested you are missing something? My last reply wasn't to a post you even made...


----------



## Slim (17 Dec 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> Bograt,
> 
> I don't follow? What did I say that suggested you are missing something? My last reply wasn't to a post you even made...



I think he means him as a soldier...

Slim


----------



## Britney Spears (17 Dec 2004)

> Well, considering Ms Corrie was killed underquestionable circumstances in Gaza, we could grant that at least she was willing to put her life on the line for her beliefs.



Heh, I've nothing to contribute to the OP, but "questionable circumstances" is a bit of a conspiracy theory. Ms Corrie was hit by an Israeli D9 Bulldozer during a routine protest. Unless its one of those new recce bulldozers that snuck up behind her, it seems to me that Ms Corrie was more or less(a healthy dose of bad luck, certainly) responsible for her own death. This fact is also well documented with photographs and eye witness accounts  if anyone cares.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Dec 2004)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Heh, I've nothing to contribute to the OP, but "questionable circumstances" is a bit of a conspiracy theory. Ms Corrie was hit by an Israeli D9 Bulldozer during a routine protest. Unless its one of those new recce bulldozers that snuck up behind her, it seems to me that Ms Corrie was more or less(a healthy dose of bad luck, certainly) responsible for her own death. This fact is also well documented with photographs and eye witness accounts if anyone cares.



It's like the first _Austin Powers_ movie where he runs over the guy with the packer at about 2 miles/hour....


----------



## Slim (17 Dec 2004)

I guess the Isreali army saw no reason to stop.

They follow different policies when dealing with protestors...But then we haven't had to put up with people blowing themselves up in crowded markets and on buses either.

Either way a D9 bulldozer moves at the speed of roughly a glacier...You can't say that she didn't see it coming...

Slim


----------



## Britney Spears (17 Dec 2004)

The blow by blow description seems to indicate the following:

Ms Corrie was attempting to make a placard or some such item visible to the driver of the D9, who is situated rather high off the ground, with only a limited field of vision through the vehicle's vision ports.

In trying to do so, Ms Corrie climbs on top of a pile of rubble directly in from the the dozer blade.

The dozer hits the pile of rubble which causes it to collapse, and Ms Corrie to fall, unfortunately straight into the blade.

The driver, seeing Ms Corrie fall, quickly puts the vehicle into reverse, in a vain attempt to avoid hitting her. Of course, this only brings the blade back over Ms. Corrie's body, dispelling any doubt as to her fate. 

I blame the Palestininan range staff.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Dec 2004)

Well, here are a couple photos from the event.  If the driver wanted to deliberately murder protesters, why didn't he run over the other guy too?

As for the second picture, does it seem like she's really under assault from a deliberate attempt to kill her?

Looks to me like it's just another example of the gene pool self-chlorinating itself.


----------



## 48Highlander (17 Dec 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> "Hey here's an idea.  If she doesn't want her people "dying everyday in Israel", maybe she should tell them to stop blowing themselves up in Israel.  That would probably work a lot better than threatening to kill Americans."
> 
> This is an oversimplification of the Israel/Palestine issue to the most extreme.  Do you not question why Palestinians are blowing themselves up routinely? If you suggest its simply another example of the token "Extremist Islam" catchphrase that comes up more often on these boards than Michael Moore bashing, then you are certainly missing the big picture...



No, it's not.  I wasn't commenting on the Israel/Palestine issue.  I was simply stating that if this individual doesn't want her people dying in Israel, she should tell them to stop going there in order to kill themselves.  Blaming Israel for the death of a succesfull suicide bomber is just a wee bit on the fanatical side don't you think?  Blame them for the deaths of Palestinian civilians in Palestine if you want, but those dying inside Israel chose their own fate.

If you really want to know why I think "Palestinians are blowing themselves up routinely" though, I'll tell you.  $25,000, martyrdom, 70 virgins, and vengence.  All of which are very good motivators for the individual bombers, and great recruiting tools for their leadership.  Our "Strong, Proud" commercials don't seem to be nearly as effective.  They're certainly not blowing themselves up out of a desire for peace.




			
				Slim said:
			
		

> I guess the Isreali army saw no reason to stop.
> They follow different policies when dealing with protestors...But then we haven't had to put up with people blowing themselves up in crowded markets and on buses either.



No, they don't, especially towards American protestors.  They don't need the negative press any more than we do.  By all accounts, her death was an accident, largely of her own making.  If Israel DID have a policy of killing protestors, she would have never been there in the first place.  Little Rachel assumed that she could make an ass of herself without being in any real danger.  Unfortiunately for her, she didn't understand that playing tag with heavy machinery isn't a good idea even if the operator has no wish to harm you.


----------



## McG (17 Dec 2004)

Funny thing about heavy equipment is that the field of view can be much worse than you would expect (especially when you do things like add armour to the cab).


----------



## CivU (17 Dec 2004)

"Blame them for the deaths of Palestinian civilians in Palestine "

Palestine is Israel, they are one and the same in terms of physical geography.

"If you really want to know why I think "Palestinians are blowing themselves up routinely" though, I'll tell you.  $25,000, martyrdom, 70 virgins, and vengence.  All of which are very good motivators for the individual bombers, and great recruiting tools for their leadership"

Perhaps their homeland being taken from them and their being forced to live in deplorable, highly congested ghetto-ized areas is enough for a person to determine they have little to live for...?


----------



## CivU (17 Dec 2004)

Though I'm not to sure this board continues to represent "What's wrong with University campuses today"


----------



## Infanteer (17 Dec 2004)

Things tend to happen that way


----------



## 48Highlander (17 Dec 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> Palestine is Israel, they are one and the same in terms of physical geography.



    I think you'd have a tough time selling that one to either the Palestinian or Israeli government.



			
				CivU said:
			
		

> Perhaps their homeland being taken from them and their being forced to live in deplorable, highly congested ghetto-ized areas is enough for a person to determine they have little to live for...?



    Statistics:

Israel:
Land Area:  20,770km sq
Population:  6,236,253
People/sq km:  300

Palestine:
Land Area:  10,435km sq
Population:  3,693,776
People/sq km:  353

Highly congested huh?

Deplorable?  You'd think maybe they'd try to secure a lasting peace so they can go about improving their living conditions.

Homeland being taken from them?

"Israel was established on May 14, 1948. Five Arab armies , coming to the aid of the Palestinians , immediately attacked it. Uncoordinated and outnumbered, they were defeated by Israeli forces. Israel enlarged its territory . Jordan took the West Bank of the Jordan River, and Egypt took the Gaza Strip. ( Israel occupied these lands after the Six Day War of 1967. ) The war produced 780,000 Palestinian refugees."

Shouldn't they be blowing themselves up in Egypt and Jordan?


----------



## Slim (18 Dec 2004)

48th

(voice dripping with sarcasm)

Just what makes you think that using facts will have any effect on these people what-so-ever?

I mean, come on man, they are students, aren't they. Isn't it written someplace they automatically know this already...!?

Ohh, they didn't know...Well how about that!  (dripping complete)

Slim


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Dec 2004)

Quote from civ u,
_Perhaps their homeland being taken from them and their being forced to live in deplorable, highly congested ghetto-ized areas is enough for a person to determine they have little to live for...?_
Quote from 48th highlander,
Israel:
Land Area:  20,770km sq
Population:  6,236,253
People/sq km:  300

Palestine:
Land Area:  10,435km sq
Population:  3,693,776
People/sq km:  353

civ u....So what exactly DID you mean???


----------



## CivU (18 Dec 2004)

I don't know that statistics about physical geography are representative of the conditions Palestinians live in each and everyday.  If you gave statistics on the number of persons per sq/km in Canada it would seem as though nobody lives in congested low income housing as we all have an immense amoung of space according to the data...

"Israel was established on May 14, 1948. Five Arab armies , coming to the aid of the Palestinians , immediately attacked it. Uncoordinated and outnumbered, they were defeated by Israeli forces. Israel enlarged its territory . Jordan took the West Bank of the Jordan River, and Egypt took the Gaza Strip. ( Israel occupied these lands after the Six Day War of 1967. ) The war produced 780,000 Palestinian refugees."

I don't know how this refutes the Palestinian homeland being taken from the Palestinians...

"Just what makes you think that using facts will have any effect on these people what-so-ever?"

Who are "these people" exactly?  The way you so quickly draw superiority/inferiority distinctions makes me question how you can fucntion in society with so many differing opinions and points of view.  

"If thats the case then another country would see the plight of those people and help them out"

How is Iraq presently being helped out?  What about the conditions in that country suggest life for the average person has improved since March 2003...


----------



## 48Highlander (18 Dec 2004)

CivU said:
			
		

> I don't know that statistics about physical geography are representative of the conditions Palestinians live in each and everyday.  If you gave statistics on the number of persons per sq/km in Canada it would seem as though nobody lives in congested low income housing as we all have an immense amoung of space according to the data...



Dammit, here we go again.

Listen, if Palestine has enough land, how is Israel responsible for them living in "congested" areas?  Is Israel also responsible for Canadian ghettos?



			
				CivU said:
			
		

> I don't know how this refutes the Palestinian homeland being taken from the Palestinians...



It refutes the idea that Israel was responsible for taking their homeland, and suggest that Palestinians picked the wrong target.



			
				CivU said:
			
		

> How is Iraq presently being helped out?  What about the conditions in that country suggest life for the average person has improved since March 2003...



How are they being helped out?  Oh, I don't know, how about American forces fighting to implement a fair democratic regime instead of letting Iraq be run by extrimists?

What suggests life has improved?  Nothing.  What's the point of your question?  Did you expect life for them to improve the day the first American tank rolled over the border?  Or do you suppose it's a proccess which, like most things in life, will take a lot of hard work and time before it has a positive effect?


----------



## a_majoor (18 Dec 2004)

December 17, 2004, 8:39 a.m.
*Cracked Icons
Why the Left has lost credibility.*

There is much talk of post-election reorganization and rethinking among demoralized liberals, especially in matters of foreign policy. They could start by accepting that the demise of many of their cherished beliefs and institutions was not the fault of others. More often, the problems are fundamental flaws in their own thinking â â€ such as the ends of good intentions justifying the means of expediency and untruth, and forced equality being a higher moral good than individual liberty and freedom. Whether we call such notions â Å“political correctnessâ ? or â Å“progressivism,â ? the practice of privileging race, class, and gender over basic ethical considerations has earned the moralists of the Left not merely hypocrisy, but virtual incoherence.

Democratic leaders are never going to be trusted in matters of foreign policy unless they can convince Americans that they once more believe in American exceptionalism and are the proper co-custodians of values such as freedom and individual liberty. If in the 1950s rightists were criticized as cynical Cold Warriors who never met a right-wing thug they wouldn't support, as long as he mouthed a few anti-Soviet platitudes, then in the last two decades almost any thug from Latin America to the Middle East who professed concern for â Å“the peopleâ ? â â€ from Castro and the Noriega Brothers to Yasser Arafat and the Iranian mullahs â â€ was likely to earn a pass from the American and European cultural elite and media. To regain credibility, the Left must start to apply the same standard of moral outrage to a number of its favorite causes that it does to the United States government, the corporations, and the Christian Right. Here are a few places to start.

1. There really isn't a phenomenon like â Å“Islamophobiaâ ? â â€ at least no more than there was a â Å“Germanophobiaâ ? in hating Hitler or â Å“Russophobiaâ ? in detesting Stalinism. Any unfairness or rudeness that accrues from the â Å“security profilingâ ? of Middle Eastern young males is dwarfed by efforts of Islamic fascists themselves â â€ here in the U.S., in the U.K., the Netherlands, France, Turkey, and Israel â â€ to murder Westerners and blow up civilians. The real danger to thousands of innocents is not an occasional evangelical zealot or uncouth politician spouting off about Islam, but the deliberately orchestrated and very sick anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism that floods the airways worldwide, emanating from Iran, Lebanon, and Syria, to be sure, but also from our erstwhile â Å“alliesâ ? in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

So both here and abroad, the Western public believes that there is a double standard in the moral judgment of our left-leaning media, universities, and politicians â â€ that we are not to supposed to ask how Christians are treated in Muslim societies, only how free Islamists in Western mosques are to damn their hosts; or that we are to think beheading, suicide murdering, and car bombing moral equivalents to the sexual humiliation and roguery of Abu Ghraib â â€ apparently because the former involves post-colonial victims and the latter privileged, exploitive Americans. Most sane people, however, privately disagree, and distinguish between a civilian's head rolling on the ground and a snap shot of an American guard pointing at the genitalia of her terrorist ward.

Moreover, few of any note in the Arab Middle East speak out against the racial hatred of Jews. Almost no major Islamic religious figure castigates extreme Muslim clerics for their Dark-age misogyny, anti-Semitism, and venom against the West; and no Arab government admonishes its citizenry to look to itself for solutions rather than falling prey to conspiracy theories and ago-old superstitions. It would be as if the a state-subsidized Ku Klux Klan or the American Nazi party were to be tolerated for purportedly voicing the frustrations of poor working-class whites who â Å“sufferedâ ? under a number of supposed grievances.

What is preached in the madrassas on the West Bank, in Pakistan, and throughout the Gulf is no different from the Nazi doctrine of racial hatred. What has changed, of course, is that unlike our grandfathers, we have lost the courage to speak out against it. In one of the strangest political transformations of our age, the fascist Islamic Right has grafted its cause onto that of the Left's boutique â Å“multiculturalism,â ? hoping to earn a pass for its hate by posing as the â Å“otherâ ? and reaping the benefits of liberal guilt due to purported victimization. By any empirical standard, what various Palestinian cliques have done on the West Bank â â€ suicide murdering, lynching without trial of their own people, teaching small children to hate and kill Jews â â€ should have earned them all Hitlerian sobriquets rather than U.N. praise.

2. â Å“Imperialismâ ? and â Å“hegemonyâ ? explain nothing about recent American intervention abroad â â€ not when dictators such as Noriega, Milosevic, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein were taken out by the U.S. military. There are no shahs and Your Excellencies in their places, but rather consensual governments whose only sin was that they came on the heels of American arms rather than U.N. collective snoozing. There really was no secret Afghan pipeline behind toppling the Taliban, nor a French-like oil concession to be had for the United States from the new Iraqi interim government. Many of Michael Moore's heroic â Å“Minutemenâ ? of the Sunni Triangle are hired killers â â€ hooded fascists in the pay of ex-Baathists and Saddamites, along with Islamic terrorists and jihadists who hate the very idea of democracy in the heart of the Arab world. The collective cursus honorum of these Saddamite holdovers during the last two decades â â€ gassing the Kurds, committing atrocities against the Iranians, looting and pillaging in Kuwait, launching missiles into Israel and Saudi Arabia, slaughtering Shiites and again Kurds, and assassinating Western and U.N. aid workers â â€ rank right up there with the work of the SS and KGB.

Reformers like Allawi and Yawar of Iraq are not â Å“puppetsâ ? but far better advocates of democratic reform than anyone else in the Arab world. Nor does â Å“no blood for oilâ ? mean anything when an increasingly small percentage of American-imported petroleum comes from the Gulf, and when an oil-hungry China â â€ without much deference to liberal sensibilities â â€ is driving up the world price, eyeing every well it can for future exploitation without regard for political or environmental niceties.

3. It won't do any longer to attribute American outrage over the U.N. to a vast right-wing conspiracy led by red-state senators and Fox News. All the standing ovations for Kofi Annan cannot hide the truth that the Oil-for-Food scandal exceeds Enron. Indeed, Ken Lay's malfeasance never involved the deaths of thousands, while cronies siphoned off food and supplies from a starving populace. The U.S. military does not tolerate mass rape and plunder among its troops, as is true of the U.N. peacekeepers throughout Africa. There can be no serious U.N. moral sense as long as illiberal regimes â â€ a Syria, Iran, or Cuba â â€ vote in the General Assembly and the Security Council stymies solutions out of concern for an autocratic China that swallowed Tibet. Millions were slaughtered in Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur while New York bureaucrats either condemned Israel or damned anyone who censured their own inaction and corruption. Rather than faulting those who fault the U.N., leftists should lament the betrayal of the spirit of the liberal U.N. Charter by regimes that are neither democratic nor liberal but who seek legitimacy solely on their ability to win concessions and sympathy from guilt-ridden Westerners.

4. So it is also time to take a hard look at the heroes and villains of Hollywood, liberal Democrats, and the Euro elites. Many are as obsessed with damning the senile dictator of Chile as they are with excusing the unelected President for Life Fidel Castro. But let us be frank. A murderous Pinochet probably killed fewer of his own than did a mass-murdering Castro, and left Chile in better shape than contemporary Cuba is in. And the former is long gone, while the latter is still long in power.

Similarly, Nobel Prizes increasingly go to either unsavory or unhinged characters. Yasser Arafat was a known killer and terrorist, not a global peacemaker. Wangari Maathai's public statements about AIDS are puerile and ipso facto would have eliminated any Westerner from consideration for anything. Rigoberta Menchu Tum herself was a half-truth, her story mostly a creation of a westernized academic publishing elite. Jimmy Carter's 2002 award was not predicated on his past work on housing for the poor, but his critically timed and calculated opposition to George W. Bush's effort to topple Saddam Hussein â â€ as was confirmed by the receptive Nobel Committee itself. Recent winners Kofi Annan and Kim Dae-jung are now better known for having their own sons involved in influence-peddling and bribery while they oversaw bureaucrats who trafficked in millions with unsavory murderers like Kim Jong-Il and Saddam Hussein. In short, such an august prize has come a long way from Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King Jr. â â€ and precisely because it has privileged leftist rhetoric over real morality.

If the moralizing Left wants to be taken seriously, it is going have to become serious about its own moral issues, since that is the professed currency of contemporary liberalism. Otherwise, the spiritual leaders who lecture us all on social justice, poverty, and truth will remain the money-speculator George Soros, the Reverend Jesse Jackson of dubious personal and professional ethics, and the mythographer Michael Moore. And we all know where that leads...

â â€ Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His website is victorhanson.com.


----------



## Bograt (18 Dec 2004)

CivU

I wanted to publically apologize to you for my earlier quip. I had just returned to my office after drinking a few too many pops at the staff Chritmas party. No excuse, you deserve more respect.

Cheers,


----------



## a_majoor (22 Dec 2004)

The best feature of Okrent's July column on media bias was his recognition that bias inadvertently informs the way reporters see the world. Liberal bias, Okrent wrote, "has not occurred because of management fiat, but because getting outside one's own value system takes a great deal of self-questioning." Why not apply this insight not only to reporters, but to the experts they quote? Then the issue wouldn't be whether experts are honest; it would be, as it is with reporters, whether experts are likely to be so self-critical that they can get past their own interpretive biases.

There is every reason to think that experts aren't capable of such inhuman objectivity. Consider the unmentioned elephant in Okrent's room: the legions of pedigreed academic experts quoted ad nauseam in the media, but who work for no interest group. Daniel Klein of UC Santa Clara has shown that Democrats outnumber Republicans in the humanities and social sciences by roughly seven to one, so it shouldn't be surprising that the faculties of Harvard and the University of California were the biggest group donors to the Kerry campaign. But measures of Democratic partisanship just scratch the surface, since a professor doesn't have to advocate voting Democratic in order to inculcate ideas that lead to such a vote as a matter of logic.

It gets worse. Modern reporters almost all have college degrees. This means that they tend to have gotten their interpretive lenses from the very type of professor they end up quoting once they become journalists. This is a point that conservative media-bias critics are reluctant to acknowledge, for it implies that the left-wing views professors teach aren't so contrary to common sense that their students are immune to being influenced by them. But that's the way it is, *especially when what the professors teach is assumptions rather than conclusions*. Biased professors don't have to deliberately teach a lopsided view of the world for their students to absorb a lopsided bias. All the professors have to do is teach the world as they honestly see it â â€ colored by their own, often-unrecognized ideological lenses.

It's not lying experts who should worry us, any more than we should fear a vast left-wing conspiracy of journalists deliberately scheming to spread liberal propaganda. The more insidious problem is experts who tell us how they think the world "undeniably" is â â€ and the journalists who credulously quote experts' opinions as anything more than that.

â â€ Jeffrey Friedman is the editor of Critical Review: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Politics and Culture


----------



## a_majoor (25 Dec 2004)

In the U.S., the law calls this a "heckler's veto," and it's considered an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of speech. Locally, we had a protest group composed of people of Mexican ancestry/citzenship. They were objecting to a local citizen's group which was trying to pressure airlines to check IDs on ALL people boarding flights (this was pre-9/11), since some airlines had been spotted letting large groups of presumably illegal aliens board without an ID check.*The pro-Hispanic protestors showed up at the airport and essentially rioted, throwing full soft drink cans and other objects at the ci tizen's group, and trying to attack them.* A judge issued a restraining order against the citizen's group, forbidding them from coming to the airport, saying the reaction of the rioters to them endangered other people. *Another judge, citing the "heckler's veto," vacated the order, saying the citizens had a right to peacefully assemble and that it was the cop's job to handle anyone who tried to keep them from their lawful purpose.* Good for us. Sounds like some of this common sense could be used elsewhere.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jan 2005)

Another example of a cowardly administration allowing toxic ideas free reign on campus and inverting morality. I would suggest American readers send their objections directly to Duke University, and perhaps a "Boycott Duke" campaign might get their attention as well

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=11901058_1


> Observations
> 
> *The Intifada Comes to Duke*
> 
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (7 Jan 2005)

Funny, it seems that, like Wilhelmine Germany, that Universities have again become a haven for Anti-Semitism.   And you wonder why the Jewish People are defensive - How can you say "Never Again" when academic institutions are tacitly supporting your eventual destruction at the hands of organizations like the Hamas?

Shame on Duke University.   Israel should have hit the convention with a Hellfire, it would of saved us all down the road....

PS:   I figured out a litmus test for this sort of behaviour.   Someone should have invited the local Stormfront chapter (along with any other White Supremacist organization) to the local "Anti-Jewish Fair".   Eager to get their message out, the fair would have a good stock of guys with shaved heads, white laces, and SA uniforms hanging around giving out leaflets.   The kicker is that the same anti-semitic, eugenic, and hateful message that seemed to be promoted by the speakers would be alongside the swastika on the leaflets the skinheads were giving out.

Invite all the media you can, national if possible - they would love to see a major American university give approval to a "Stormfront" meeting.   Watch as the federal funding is cut, the president is suddenly out of the job, and the group involved looks like the assholes they are....


----------



## Slim (7 Jan 2005)

> Invite all the media you can, national if possible - they would love to see a major American university give approval to a "Stormfront" meeting.   Watch as the federal funding is cut, the president is suddenly out of the job, and the group involved looks like the assholes they are....



Oddly enough this example is 100% valid...with the exception of the fact that these "student groups" would never be so stupid as too use that symbol to promote themselves. However that doesn't mean that's not whats going on. These are weapons of propaganda to be sure and seemingly being used in a very effective manner.

The average Joe on the street wants (or seems to want) to believe that they are "doing some good" by assisting these rights groups with their cause...And I'm sure in most cases they are. But the education system, and the universities specifically, have become haven for this type of negative behaviour and the people who propagate it.

It is racism as assuredly as the 60's in the Mississippi...

Slim


----------



## LF(CMO) (7 Jan 2005)

The vast majority of the students and nearly all the Instructors/Professors at today's Universities are COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY DIVORCED FROM REALITY!   Most of them have never spent even a day in the REAL WORLD.   In fact if the Profs had to make a living in the real world, most of them would starve to death.   

 When I was at University in the late sixties, there was still a significant minority of Profs and students that had been brought up on farms or in   circumstances where they didn't have everything handed to them, so there was at least some semblance of reality.   However, even then there was a healthy supply of kooks and misfits.

 The systemic anti-semitism that we are seeing today had it's rise in the seventies.   This vile, baseless anti-Israel attitude is not to be equated with the racism one sees directed toward blacks, Orientals etc.   It is much deeper and evil than that.   Much (if not all) the vehemence directed toward Bush is just plain anti-semitism because he has the courage to support a little, valient DEMOCRATIC country that is surrounded by it's enemies that are bent on it's destruction.   What is the most anti-semitic country in western Europe?   That's right; it is the most useless and deadbeat country as well.

 BTW: I'm not Jewish.   (Irish-Catholic and French-Canadian).   I got just one thing out of 4 years of University and for that I'm eternally grateful........A great wife out of the PE dept!

 To Gen. Moshe Dyan, one of my greatest heros, (second only to my WW II, Inf. Sgt. Dad)


----------



## Glorified Ape (8 Jan 2005)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> Perhaps you should have tried reading the article.   There were 13 cops there from the get go.   And they were armed.   Also, the part that people are having an issue with is "SFSU President Robert Corrigan took no action against the GUPS or individual students involved in Monday's assault despite police eye-witnesses and even photographs of the perpetrators."   Kinda tough to continue to defend Concordia after their refusal to do anything about it after the fact, don't you think?



I'm not trying to defend their treatment of those involved AFTER the fact, I'm taking issue with people accusing the university of "letting the riot happen" when there was nothing that they could have done but let the police do their job. Perhaps you should try reading my post, friend, since you seem to have drawn a conclusion that I was claiming no police were present when I said no such thing. I know there were police present - I was there. None of this justifies any accusation that Concordia let the riot happen. If you want to blame someone for the riot, blame the rioters or, at worst, the police - not the univsersity. 



> As for myopic, intolerant and ingorant(!) people, you'll find them both in, and outside the universities, generally in equal numbers.   It's heart-warming to see that you've both done the real world experience and the university thing (as I have) and yet still didn't take the time to fully read the article, and yet bash people who didn't go to university for being ignorant...   Interesting.   Very interesting.     :



What's more interesting is your inability to comprehend what you've read (university educated, eh? Suspect.) Where did I accuse people who didn't go to university for being ignorant or myopic? I said that I found the incidence of myopia and ignorance outside universities greater than within them - wherein is the accusation that all non-academics are myopic and ignorant?. It appears you've read what you wanted to hear, not what was written. I'll thank you to refrain from doing it again.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Jan 2005)

Quote,
_ It appears you've read what you wanted to hear, not what was written. I'll thank you to refrain from doing it again._

Actually I just went back and read your post and it READS exactly like Torlyn stated, perhaps your wording is suspect?

Quote,
_blame the rioters or, at worst, the police - not the univsersity._

...the rioters, yes, but the police?......what should they have done?...pulled an Ohio State?


----------



## FredDaHead (8 Jan 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> what should they have done?...pulled an Ohio State?



This might not be fully on-topic, but could you explain what you are referring to about Ohio State?


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jan 2005)

Ever see the bumper sticker "_OHIO 0 - ARMY 4: GO ARMY!_"?


----------



## 48Highlander (8 Jan 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Ever see the bumper sticker "_OHIO 0 - ARMY 4: GO ARMY!_"?



Oh wow.  If that wasn't so tasteless it might even be funny.  You've actually SEEN that?


----------



## McG (8 Jan 2005)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> This might not be fully on-topic, but could you explain what you are referring to about Ohio State?


Vietnam war peace rally.
National Guard called to maintain order.
protesters throw rocks.
guardsmen fall back to avoid escallation.
one guardsmen opens fire (paniced?).
other guardsmen do same.
4 dead protestors.


----------



## Glorified Ape (8 Jan 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote,
> _ It appears you've read what you wanted to hear, not what was written. I'll thank you to refrain from doing it again._
> 
> Actually I just went back and read your post and it READS exactly like Torlyn stated, perhaps your wording is suspect?





			
				Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> First off, I don't see how Concordia "allowed" the riot to take place, as someone claimed. A protest turned into a riot - protest supervision is the job of the police, not part-time security guards and university staff. What were they supposed to do - disperse the riot with 20 unarmed security guards? That's the job of the cops, which they did after things went riotous.



How so? I stated that a protest turned into a riot - something the police deal with, not the university. I asked a rhetorical question as to whether the university was supposed to have dispersed the riot with their security people to illustrate the absurdity of such a notion. Then I stated that the police eventually came in and dispersed the riot. Where do I state no police were present (I can specifically recall riot cops standing in a cordon in front of the glass windows of the Hall building just before it went riotous)? All I can draw from such interpretations vis a vis the issue is that it's being argued that the university should have employed the police to disperse the riot. As I'm sure everyone here knows, the university doesn't command the police so I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume this was not the implication being made. 

Where was I attempting to defend the university's punitive actions (or lack thereof) after the riot? Nowhere do I discuss anything but the riot and the university's inability to intervene therein, which is completely different from their efforts to sanction participants afterwards.

As for the latter half of the post, I stated that I find people's "real world" brainfarts to be baseless. The implications in such statements are that those in academia are necessarily ignorant or naive where the "real world" is concerned. I stated that I found people outside academia to be far more ignorant of the "real world" and myopic insofar as their considerations are lacking in scope. Nowhere did I say that everyone not in university is necessarily ignorant or myopic, simply that in my experience the number is higher outside universities than within. 

Quote,
_blame the rioters or, at worst, the police - not the univsersity._

...the rioters, yes, but the police?......what should they have done?...pulled an Ohio State?

Of course the rioters, and no, I don't believe the police are to blame but it seems people are looking for some institutional scapegoat here and the only other party which could be constituent thereof is the police since the university cannot logically have been expected to do anything to stop the riot.


----------



## Slim (8 Jan 2005)

> the university doesn't command the police



As the university is private property the police would have to waite to be asked on up to a certain point...When its apparent that a criminal act is about to take place they would then be able to step in and act, but not until...



> those in academia are necessarily ignorant or naive where the "real world" is concerned. I stated that I found people outside academia to be far more ignorant of the "real world" and myopic insofar as their considerations are lacking in scope. Nowhere did I say that everyone not in university is necessarily ignorant or myopic, simply that in my experience the number is higher outside universities than within.



I don't for a moment believe that those inside the hollowed halls of education are ignorant of what's going on outside. I think they know full well and use whats happening outside to further their own form of policy-making. Which I believe is NOT in the best interest of the country or the west.

...And I further delicately enquire where exactly you have accumulatedthe life-experience to be able to make these observations about the realistic outlook of academia? Bearing in mind that the people you're conversing with most assuredly have...

Slim


----------



## Torlyn (9 Jan 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> What's more interesting is your inability to comprehend what you've read (university educated, eh? Suspect.) Where did I accuse people who didn't go to university for being ignorant or myopic? I said that I found the incidence of myopia and ignorance outside universities greater than within them - wherein is the accusation that all non-academics are myopic and ignorant?. It appears you've read what you wanted to hear, not what was written. I'll thank you to refrain from doing it again.



If you're going to question my education, try and do it on a point regarding my actual education, not your inability to articulate your thoughts coherently.  A simple "that's not what I meant, this is what I meant" would have sufficed without the sarcasm.  Clarity, my good man.  Seek it out, it will serve thee well.

In regards to your first post, you said "A protest turned into a riot - protest supervision is the job of the police, not part-time security guards and university staff. What were they supposed to do - disperse the riot with 20 unarmed security guards?" Implying that cops were not present.  As it appears that you are the only one that doesn't seem to understand how you were interpreted, perhaps you *might* not be right?  I know this may shock someone of your vaunted intelligence, but the potential is there.  So, instead of going off half-cocked, maybe you should consider that you may have been misunderstood.

Also, you stated "I worked for years before I went to university".  So, as you are an Infantry Officer Cadet (congrats, BTW) it is apparent that you have a 4 year degree from a university.  And worked for years before going to university.  And you're 23.  I'm either questioning the veracity of your profile, your math skills, or that you may not be telling the truth.  I suppose the chance is there that you graduated high school early.  Care to enlighten?

And the "I find people far more myopic, intolerant, and ignorant outside universities than within them."  I'd love you to re-word that so it isn't offensive to those that haven't gone to university.  I wonder how many of the troops you will be commanding will have post-secondary education...   :

On another point, I remember right after the Waco incident seeing Texas 1 WACO 0...  Ah, bumperstickers...

T

[EDIT] Pick your battles pick your battles...  
[re-edit] Sigh...  Bograt, I need to listen to ya better.


----------



## Glorified Ape (9 Jan 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> As the university is private property the police would have to waite to be asked on up to a certain point...When its apparent that a criminal act is about to take place they would then be able to step in and act, but not until...



The riot took place outside, originally, then proceded inside. Concordia already had a police presence, as it does with every controversial speaking engagement or event likely to bring protesters (meaning just about anything that isn't concerning a conference on which urinal pucks to put in the bathrooms). The university could do nothing to prevent the riot - the cops can and did. 



> I don't for a moment believe that those inside the hollowed halls of education are ignorant of what's going on outside. I think they know full well and use whats happening outside to further their own form of policy-making. Which I believe is NOT in the best interest of the country or the west.
> 
> ...And I further delicately enquire where exactly you have accumulatedthe life-experience to be able to make these observations about the realistic outlook of academia? Bearing in mind that the people you're conversing with most assuredly have...



Mmm.. depends on if they have the power to influence policy, I guess. What policy-making do you specifically object to, since just about every type of policy, from neo-marxism to neo-liberalism, is advanced by the respective sectors of academia?

As for where I draw my observations from - my experiences with academics and students, my experiences with non-academics, etc. I thought that would be evident. As I said, my observations are my own and I draw my opinions from my own experience and represent them as such. If others' experiences differ, so be it. I'm no more inclined to believe theirs as they are to believe mine, nor would I attempt to convince them to do otherwise, though I find those preaching the incompatibility of "the real world" and academia to be more than willing to. 





			
				Torlyn said:
			
		

> If you're going to question my education, try and do it on a point regarding my actual education, not your inability to articulate your thoughts coherently.  A simple "that's not what I meant, this is what I meant" would have sufficed without the sarcasm.  Clarity, my good man.  Seek it out, it will serve thee well.



I'm not sure where I was unclear, but so be it. I suppose ambiguity is in the eye of the beholder, though one might recommend you seek clarity where you perceive none before drawing conclusions. 



> In regards to your first post, you said "A protest turned into a riot - protest supervision is the job of the police, not part-time security guards and university staff. What were they supposed to do - disperse the riot with 20 unarmed security guards?" Implying that cops were not present.



How is that stating the police were absent? The only enforcement (if you can use such a word) capacity the university has is its security force - wholly inappropriate for intervening in riots. To say the university is responsible for allowing the riot, then, is to imply that it should have used its security guards to disperse it, an absurdity requiring no further reflection. There are no other means by which it could have even attempted doing so. The police dispersed the riot, independent of the university's preference, request, or command. Since I didn't mention the police you seem to feel I assumed them absent, which is wholely inaccurate. When considering the university's options regarding dispersion of the riot, the police are a non-factor since the university has no power or control over them, and I treated the situation as such. 



> As it appears that you are the only one that doesn't seem to understand how you were interpreted, perhaps you *might* not be right?  I know this may shock someone of your vaunted intelligence, but the potential is there.  So, instead of going off half-cocked, maybe you should consider that you may have been misunderstood.



I have no doubt that I was misunderstood. My doubt lies in the assigning of responsibility therefor. 



> Also, you stated "I worked for years before I went to university".  So, as you are an Infantry Officer Cadet (congrats, BTW) it is apparent that you have a 4 year degree from a university.  And worked for years before going to university.  And you're 23.  I'm either questioning the veracity of your profile, your math skills, or that you may not be telling the truth.  I suppose the chance is there that you graduated high school early.  Care to enlighten?



Not at all. You're mistaken, though - I do not have a 4 year degree (that's coming), but am an Infantry Ocdt. (thank you) still obtaining my degree (in 3rd year now) on the CF's tab. I graduated HS at the normal age for Ontario (19) and worked for a couple years at menial positions, waiting for my CF application ban to expire (resultant from idiotic honesty during the "which drugs have you done" segment of the interview) then, after a renewed ban due to policy change, decided I'd go to university in Montreal (Concordia) and after working sh*t summer jobs I decided I'd reapply to the military and get them to foot the bill for my remaining 2 years while doing what I'd initially planned to do anyways. 

19+2(post-HS work)=21         21+2(uni)=23 



> And the "I find people far more myopic, intolerant, and ignorant outside universities than within them."  I'd love you to re-word that so it isn't offensive to those that haven't gone to university.  I wonder how many of the troops you will be commanding will have post-secondary education...   :



Lets see - *ahem* - I have found the number of myopic, intolerant, and ignorant people outside universities to be greater than the number within them. 
Does that do it? Seems to me like I just rephrased my original statement with little effect. Perhaps the issue is the oversensitivity of others? Given the negative correlation between education and racial/religious/sexual intolerance (if you really want the stats and relationships on this, I can get them) this isn't exactly a controversial statement (except for the "myopic" part, possibly).


[EDIT] Pick your battles pick your battles...  

Gee, funny you should say that....


----------



## Slim (9 Jan 2005)

> As for where I draw my observations from - my experiences with academics and students, my experiences with non-academics, etc. I thought that would be evident. As I said, my observations are my own and I draw my opinions from my own experience and represent them as such. If others' experiences differ, so be it. I'm no more inclined to believe theirs as they are to believe mine, nor would I attempt to convince them to do otherwise, though I find those preaching the incompatibility of "the real world" and academia to be more than willing to.



Sorry bud,

I have a hard time believing that a 23 year old officer cadet has some sort of mythical worldly experience in all the ways of society. You should be in learn and be quite mode, not preach mode. Or I guaruntee that the NCO's who are assigned to teach you will have a field day with the OCDT who KNOWS it all.

Slim


----------



## 48Highlander (9 Jan 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I'm not sure where I was unclear, but so be it. I suppose ambiguity is in the eye of the beholder, though one might recommend you seek clarity where you perceive none before drawing conclusions.



Talk about looking for a needle in a haystack.  Listen, if you're going to say anything, it generaly pays to make yourself clear.  Otherwise you may as well just do us a favor and shut the f*** up.  I beleive it's even in the rules of conduct for the site.  Ambiguous and easily misunderstood statements only degenerate into flame-wars, they don't accomplish anything constructive.  I'd suggest you modify your speech accordingly in the future.


----------



## McG (9 Jan 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I'm not sure where I was unclear, but so be it. I suppose ambiguity is in the eye of the beholder, though one might recommend you seek clarity where you perceive none before drawing conclusions.


There is a principle of leadership that puts the onus on your end to ensure people on the receiving end understand your message.


----------



## Glorified Ape (9 Jan 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Sorry bud,
> 
> I have a hard time believing that a 23 year old officer cadet has some sort of mythical worldly experience in all the ways of society. You should be in learn and be quite mode, not preach mode. Or I guaruntee that the NCO's who are assigned to teach you will have a field day with the OCDT who KNOWS it all.
> 
> Slim



No problem, bud, don't worry about it, pal. 

Where did I claim mythical worldly experience? I stated my experience - it's entirely up to you how much credit you give it. 

As for "quite" mode, I guess you're not a big fan of the whole "dialogue" thing, eh? I listen to the NCO's just fine - they sure as hell know better than me about whatever it is they're teaching me. My stating that, in my experience, "relationship A is like this", is not incompatible with that. Considering your confirmation of the validity of my empirical conclusions, one has to wonder why you're still even on the topic?



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> Talk about looking for a needle in a haystack.  Listen, if you're going to say anything, it generaly pays to make yourself clear.  Otherwise you may as well just do us a favor and shut the f*** up.  I beleive it's even in the rules of conduct for the site.  Ambiguous and easily misunderstood statements only degenerate into flame-wars, they don't accomplish anything constructive.  I'd suggest you modify your speech accordingly in the future.



It's unfortunate my statements were perceived as unclear. 

As for conduct, would this be what you're referring to:



> You will not post any material which is knowingly false.


?

If so, I believe I'm faaaarrrrr within such a rule. 




			
				MCG said:
			
		

> There is a principle of leadership that puts the onus on your end to ensure people on the receiving end understand your message.



Yes, pertaining to orders. Should I ever hold my O group on the site, I'll ensure everything I've said has been explicitly understood by everyone.


----------



## Slim (9 Jan 2005)

I think we're all rather sick of this. You're just another in a long line of people who come here looking to tell the BTDT's what the world is made of.

I don't normally do this but I am going to ask the relevant Mod to lock this thread. Its not dialog and friendly discussion anymore. You're just one-upping everyone. I'v had enough.

Slim


----------



## Glorified Ape (9 Jan 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> I think we're all rather sick of this. You're just another in a long line of people who come here looking to tell the BTDT's what the world is made of.
> 
> I don't normally do this but I am going to ask the relevant Mod to lock this thread. Its not dialog and friendly discussion anymore. You're just one-upping everyone. I'v had enough.
> 
> Slim



I'm not sure how to reply to this without appearing to be trying to "one up" you. I have no desire (nor did I ever) to do so, it's futile. I came here (the board, not this forum) to read what the experienced NCO's/officers have to say on military topics so I could maybe glean some insights to help me do my future job better. As it is, this is a politics forum and as such is necessarily going to consist of subjective statements and argument (which is good). 

Trust me, where the military is concerned I show all deference to everyone since, at this point, a private outranks me and has more experience. As for politics, unless duration of life is an indicator of a valid opinion, we're all entitled to our opinions. 

I'll refrain from posting in this thread, if you'd prefer, so people could continue discussing the topic without the side-tracking this entire fiasco has achieved.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Jan 2005)

:boring:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Jan 2005)

Oh, Yea!       :boring: :boring:


----------

