Even among conservatives the Scaife-funded David Horowitz is a kook, but of course on Fox News he’s given a whole segment of programming to push his new book slamming University professors. But check this out – he’s got the nerve to compare Ward Churchill – the obscure wacko college professor that the right elevated to supreme leader of the left – to Enron.
On one hand, Ward Churchill, on the other hand a multi-billion dollar fraud and bankruptcy that affected the lives of thousands of people – from employees to shareholders and beyond. Even if you assume that the worst things Horowitz says about Churchill are true (and you would have reason to wonder, thanks to Horowitz’s habit of lying), it’s a crazy statement to make. But in David Horowitz’s strange brain, the two are equivalent.
Am I the only one a bit put off by the idea of right-wingers compiling lists of subversives? I saw that movie before.
I saw this segment, and Horowitz said something which I wish Colmes had pushed him on (but hey, it’s not “HANNITY & colmes” for nothing!). At one point he said, in response to Colmes quite correct observation that this book was yet one more attempt to intimidate people with views differing from Horowitz’s to STFU, that the book was instead intended to spotlight individuals using their academic position in some way “illcitly” to “indoctrinate” students in areas which they have no real expertise, whether that indoctrination was liberal *or conservative*. If I’d been colmes I would have immediately jumped in and asked, “So tell me Mr. Horowitz, is even ONE of the 101 academics cited in your book committing *conservative* indoctrination? Surely in the 5 free nights of publicity Sean here is going to give you to plug your latest drivel, we can take 1 night to look at the conservative professors you describe in your book?”
Actually, he compares the Chuchill scandal to the Enron scandal. I suspect he was not comparing the economic damage of the scandals, but the fact that both scandals exposed the down-and-dirty of what was “business as usual” in their respective spheres — Churchill was given tenure despite his fraudulent credentials.
Richard?
Dude.
I fixed it. I probably was thinking of him as a “dick”.
So sayeth the George Soros-funded Oliver. Interesting application of the “takes one to know one” theory…
J.
The problem is that Churchill is inculcating his ugly poison into the minds of young impressioable students on a daily basis. Then multiplty that by the number of left wing yahoo professors out there and you understand Horowitz’ motivation. One poll of Ivy league coleges sjhowed 57% Dem and 3% Rep. And I bet the Churchills of the world, the Jensens, are within that remaining 40%.
Dugger, Keep up the good work Vladimir err David
Yes, we need to inculcate the impressionable students with *right-wing* poison! It’s amusing that when it comes to intelligent design, conservatives are all about “teaching the controversy”, demanding that the kinds be inculcated with their views right alongside science, no matter how ridiculous and ignorant they are. But when it comes to teaching ideas which may have a leftward slant — it’s all about the purges. There must be no controversy or we will confuse the poor young ‘uns!
Also I have to interject about this “George Soros funded” meme. It may well be true that Media Matters is backed by Soros. Doesn’t matter to me, because at least the fact is widely known and disseminated. Before the efforts and perseverance of investigators and the liberal blogosophere, would anywone have ever heard of Richard Mellon Scaife? All these right wing wacko billionares are perfectly happy to keep working in the shadows behind the scenes. Where are the disclaimers whenever any of these “Heritage Foundation” or “American Enterprise Institute” or “Club for Growth” “experts” appear on the talking head shows that their organizations are funded by Scaife, and Adolf Coors, et al.? I’ve seen Fred Barnes on a number of shows recently, editor of the “American Spectator” rag, which pushed the Clinton Chronicles nonsense nonstop in the 90s, but you never hear it mentioned that the Spectator is almost wholly underwritten by the Scaife and Olin foundations. But let anyone from Media Matters be mentioned and you can hardly get a word in edgewise before hearing the name “Soros”. I’m all in favor of transparency, and don’t object to it being known that Soros helps fund MM. I just wish this particular knife cut both ways equally. But, as usual, IOKIYAR.
I get no money from George Soros, but if you know how to contact him I’ll take whatever he’s got. See, Jaytea, this is what I’m talking about when I say you guys make stuff up.
Rheinhard,
Yes. Within the broad spectrum of conservative people and institutions, it is possible to find opposing view points. What a scoop you have!!! Differing positions within the conservative movement!!! Get the children off the streets!!!!
And are you pretending that Soros is the only source of money for left wing groups? You listed a couple of conservative foundations but conveniently forgot all of the left wing fat cat foundations/funders.
Dugger
Jay -Zip it. Your blog would’nt waste a second taking money from a billionaire who calls a journalist a “communist cunt”.
Too bad Wizdumb!! never see a dime. There are standards-
-even for idiocy.
Actually, Churchill is not teaching this term. So all those young, impressionable minds will have a chance to recover from his evil influence.
Good point Quaker. And now that I think about it, even when he was active he also did not teach at night, lunch hour, and Sundays. What was I thinking!!
Dugger
I for one am thankful people like David Horowitz are fighting against librul bias in the classroom.
Because as anyone knows, university is NO place to learn about viewpoints that oppose your own. It is to be a good little Bushbot capitalist.
I’ve had enough liberal professors to know that, in terms of a headcount, Horowitz is probably right, and 101 is just the top of the pile.
But what matters is, do they actually push the left wing line or don’t they?
I had a professor about 11 or 12 years ago who showed us Michael Moore’s first film, Roger and Me. After we saw it, I was stunned. Even though I knew next to nothing about the whole “GM in Flint” thing, something struck me as wrong. I said to the professor, “This just can’t be true!” He said, “Well, it is.”
I said nothing more about it, but I went and did a lot of (pre – Internet) research, and found out that GM had released information that the film had falsehoods in it, that Moore never denied; the city of Flint issued statements that Moore’s film contained falsehoods, which Moore never denied, and, finally, in a magazine about documentary making, Moore was asked a pointed question about how he had used editing, and other methods to falsify information, rather than just show what he wanted people to see, as most documentary makers do. His answer: “I said what I wanted to say. I wasn’t concerned about facts.”
This is what Professors are capable of. Probably the rest of the class thought they saw a documentary.
Are they all like that? No.
Is he unique? No.
Here’s why what Horowitz and the right are pushing is ridiculous: Yes, college professors are more liberal than the general population – conservatives don’t often take jobs in academia when they can make big bank in corporate America. But to extrapolate that to now make liberal college professors some kind of elite brainwashing force is ridiculous. On these assumptions, it would be a given that we have a tide of far left American citizens that vote Democratic. But we’re at a 50-50 state, with a slight edge to the right, and have been for almost 14 years now.
Hm, OW
Your analysis gives us onlty two options a harmless little natural selection process or an ‘elite brainwashing force’. Gee, OK. If thats how it is. I guess racism never existed then if it wasn’t a great national conspiracy and one got up in the morning and still saw minorities alive and smiling. Right?
I mean do you contend there was a an elite racism force.
Dugger