From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!CAD:ucbesvax!turner Newsgroups: net.college Title: Re: Re: J. Kirkpatrick at U.C. Berkeley - (nf) Article-I.D.: ucbcad.629 Posted: Fri Feb 18 02:05:05 1983 Received: Fri Feb 18 06:12:47 1983 #R:rabbit:-113300:ucbesvax:2900004:000:2662 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