David Horowitz's Enemies List
| By Campus Progress - Feb 14th, 2006 at 7:10 pm EST |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
Check out our latest article, and the full list courtesy of Horowitz's latest book.
Is your school or professor on the list? Anything else about the issue on your mind? Discuss the article, David Horowitz, "the list," and anything else about the campus conservative crusade here.
Is your school or professor on the list? Anything else about the issue on your mind? Discuss the article, David Horowitz, "the list," and anything else about the campus conservative crusade here.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
I'm going to write an email to him this week.
I can't speak to any of them personally, but they're all relatively prominent personalities on campus, John Esposito especially.
That said, all in all, I thought it was a good article - While there are quite a few legitimate loons out there that deserve ridicule (Zinn, Chomsky, and Churchill, for starters), it seems like he stretched it much farther than that, and tarred quite a few mainstream academics.
That said, because I always have to find something worth critiquing... This sentence from the article jumped out at me:
Is the writer of the article intending to imply that America is self-evidently hostile toward women? Because personally, I'd beg to differ - I'd view Amerca (including our social customs, our laws, etcetera) as overall being more hostile to men.
Either way, it's a very open matter of debate, and not one where you can rightly take issue with someone for putting the word "alleged" at the front.
Indeed, I look forward to the day when we can have almost all of our major corporations run by men, when men can vote--hell, maybe someday we'll be able to actually elect a man President of the United States. ;)
Those are things that count, to the extent that they effect men. But wait! Last I checked, I'm not the president of a major corporation or the United States. Not yet, anyways. ;p
So, as a man, I'm not benefitting very much directly from that being the case.
And do those men necessarily make decisions based on their gender? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Consider, for example, the funding of breast cancer research vs prostate cancer - it's wildly tilted against men, not something you'd expect if the power 'trickled down' in the way that you imply.
A lot of the more common ways in which women have power over men - such as men paying for the majority of dates, or being the ones who have to take the initiative and ask a girl out - are much more common, and involve everyday men and everyday women in their everyday lives, not some CEO that 99.9% of both men and women will never be.
Got the stats on breast cancer v. baldness or impotence, though? I note we've got cures for those. ;)
Here's the thing: you as an average college graduate, regardless of CEO status, are still going to, on the mean, earn more than a comparably educated and experienced woman doing the same work. So, not only will the management decisions be left in the hands of men (by the by, when the vast majority of those top positions are held by men, do you think that we can infer the 'glass ceiling' is still hindering the progress of women in business?), but you'll be making more as a non-CEO than a woman of equal qualifications, for whatever reason. In this instance, you as a man are benefitting from that being the case.
Further, one of those examples you've cited got me thinking sociologically (always a dangerous thing after midnight and during chianti time). It is usually left to our gender to initiate relationships by asking girls out. Why is it that women are, from our anecdotal experiences at least, less likely than men to initiate something so benign as a dinner date? Shouldn't women in an equal social setting be just as likely as men to initiate an encounter like that? Isn't this further evidence that societal conditioning acts to hinder women from certain actions that would otherwise be innocuous?
LOL, touché. Though I'd argue that it's hard to compare life threatening diseases and "vanity ailments", because of the differing flexibilities of supply and demand with each. Federal funding plays a much greater role in the fight against life-threatening diseases (Where, presumably, those afflicted will give all the wealth they've got not to die), whereas an anti-impotence pill will operate more along the usual supply and demand slopes that we're used to thinking about for everyday products.
I've posted here before about why the "wage gap" is largely a myth, and we've had long debates about it - but sufficed to say, this is not an agreed-upon point.
For instance: Compare never-married, childless men and never-married, childless women. If there really were an oppressive patriarchy stifling the progress of women, you'd expect that the wage disparity you cited would hold true here, right? If anything, moreso - wouldn't the patriarchy be itching to 'punish' women who defy traditional social convention by remaining unmarried and not having kids?
...And yet, the opposite is true. I believe the figure is that in the above comparison, women come out slightly on top with 101.6 cents to every dollar earned by the men.
Such numbers make the existence of some systemic oppressive patriarchy rather doubtful. One then turns, instead, to a serious look at why such income disparities might naturally arise without serious prejudices by employers. The result, in a nutshell, is that women and men make different choices.
I have one question for you, JR: Are you a pimp? ;)
As in, seriously, have the ladies always been all up on you or something? Does your confidence and charm know no bounds?
Because for the vast majority of guys I know, asking women out on a date takes some working up the guts to do. In fact, most men I know would be perfectly happy if they never had to ask out girls again, and girls instead asked them out. (Which does happen more often these days, but most of the time, it's the men doing the asking)
Frankly, it seems a much more desirable position to be in, being the askee, than being the asker.
If women are naturally more endowed with a resource (attractiveness) than men which gives them leverage - an upper hand in the wild world of dating - such that they can afford to just sit back, relax, and wait for the men to come to them - Why wouldn't they use it?
Sure, there will be plenty of times when it goes the other way, but on average - for our species - I think there's compelling evidence that biology dictates men do most of the date-asking, and it's indicative of how biology has naturally given women the upper hand, by making them so pretty and whatnot.
I refuse to answer on the grounds that my fiancee occasionally reads this site, and I wish to avoid self-incrimination.
In the spirit of consensus I'll give you Chuchill but I cannot let you make generic assumptions about Zinn and Chomsky, quite naturally for one, because they have been largely responsible for--more than others---the intellectual equivalent of blue-collar progressivism.
At worst, they could be called elitest. But in this movement, elitism isn't the same thing as the monetary success of the seasoned and master Democrat and/or Republican. I challenge you to come up with something concrete as it relates to either one of them in reference to Progressivism.
Another thing, the progressive movement's biggest success has fundamentally flipped the script on contemporary campaign (champagne) heirarchies. It has remained underground and doesn't assume it's power from a loyal or professional media pundit and commentator.
This is precisely why Howard Dean's use of the Interent and grassroot's distribution of information was extremely successful upon a scale not seen in years. One can laugh about Dean but I guarantee you, there's hardly a candidate like him especially in relation to what he's been able to achieve.
Chomsky and Zinn get a bad rap--most certainly--from those who know little about either one's message. One thing's for sure, were you to rely on traditional forms of information, you'd get next to nothing.
Personal disclaimer: The one time Chomsky and I met, there was some animosity between us.
That said, the two of them are, essentially, wrong. While oftentimes the nuggets of information they seize upon are factually accurate, using flawed logic they integrate them into a warped overall worldview in which America is the bad guy pushing around all the nice people of the world.
Progressivism isn't about unfairly pinning the world's problems on America. Like it or not, even when led by a man such as George Bush, we're still the greatest force for good and progress that the world has ever known.
Horowitz probably isn't even aware of the University I attend.
Sure, Bush isn't a terribly nice guy, but is hatred of him really that all-consuming that it seeps into everything they do?
And, invariably, those making the comments (no matter how lame they are, purely in terms of humor) always have this "look how witty and cosmopolitan I am" look on their face.
There are a lot of classes where anti-Bush comments might make sense, because it relates to the material in some way. Government, International Affairs, Business, History, etcetera. But music? That's stretching it.
Now how long did McCarthy last with the embarrassment of a scandal he's named after? Hopefully Mr. Horowitz's days in the near-limelight are done. Cuz frankly, the joke's over. It ain't funny anymore. It's not adding anything to my understanding of the world. And I'm way past "it's so stupid it's entertaining."
Thanks Amy for another killer article!
I wish I had something more coherent to say about the actual article and blog comments (since, y'know, I WROTE it) but alas, not after a day spent flying back from El Salvador where I spent a week volunteering in a village. But Andrew is awwwww! some, regardless.