From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!CAD:ucbesvax!turner
Newsgroups: net.college
Title: Re: Orphaned Response - (nf)
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.807
Posted: Thu Mar 10 01:35:58 1983
Received: Fri Mar 11 02:49:01 1983

#R:rabbit:-113300:ucbesvax:2900004:37777777600:2662
ucbesvax!turner    Feb 17 16:20:00 1983


    In your flame above, we find the following statement:

	    I find the behavior of college students (in my day as well)
	who "KNOW" the facts in advance, and who KNOW what the speaker
	is going to say, so incredibly thoughtless and anti-free speech
	that I lack the ability to make a reasoned argument against them.
    
    Without going into the issue of your ability to make a reasoned
    argument, I would like first to point out that Jeane Kirkpatrick,
    upon re-assuming the podium (which she did, it turns out) went on
    in pretty much the same predictable vein.  I.e., steering clear of
    specifics, and blathering on to the effect "that concern for human
    rights forms the core of U.S. foreign policy".  During the question-
    and-answer session that followed, someone asked bout the abysmal human-
    rights record of Guatemala, and whether it merited the recent resumption
    of military aid.  Jeane Kirkpatrick denied any knowledge of this
    resumption, which was announced several days ago.  Then someone from
    the audience volunteered the figure: a little over $6 million.  So much
    for who "KNOWS" the facts in advance.  Kirkpatrick, having recently
    arrived from a tour of Latin America with praise for the Guatemalan
    government for their "improvements", could hardly have been ignorant
    of this.

    The protesters were not judging Kirkpatrick in advance (unless, of
    course, they were interrupting her announcement of a recent conversion
    to Amnesty International).  Nor were they interested in quashing freedom
    of expression.  What they were attacking was a woman who consistently
    HIDES facts, IGNORES them, and, when they happen to be forced upon her
    attention, simply DISMISSES them, whenever these facts happen to make
    U.S. foreign policy on human rights look at all hypocritical.

    You have not addressed my question: Kirkpatricks "freedom of expression"
    is moot, in this case, since her position as U.N. ambassador virtually
    guarantees her a hearing in the press.  The people for whom the protestors
    speak cannot afford to do so themselves, in most cases, because they live
    in countries which are not free.  U.S. foreign policy (which according to
    Kirkpatrick, has human rights at its core) has quite consistently
    been on the side of shutting them up.  So who is defending freedom of
    expression here?

    Personally, I don't think that booing an arrogant liar off the stage
    is "Totalitarian."  As for having my "perceptions of the world"
    changed by an arrogant liar...well, there are only so many cold days
    in hell.

	Michael Turner