How Horowitz is my valley
That’s right, the Happy Valley is in for a real treat. David Horowitz is coming to Penn State! Fresh from his not-very-exciting debate with his long-lost twin, Ward Churchill, Horowitz descends on our fair campus this Thursday.
This is a historic week! Penn State’s College Republicans are doing their part to augment Horowitz’s half-million-dollar annual income, and campus and local media (including this very blog!) are helping out with the publicity. Today’s Centre Daily Times features Pittsburgh Tribune-Review resident wingnut Bill Steigerwald’s 1300-word interview with David Horowitz, in which he fulminates about how the “Democrat party” has “lurched far to the left” and talks a lot about his unhealthy obsession of the week (don’t ask). The CDT very graciously gave me space for a 650-word essay on Horowitz, and you can read it right here. (About Steigerwald interviewing Horowitz: when one employee of far-right billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife interviews another, do they “kick up” to the boss? ‘Cause I think they should.)
Somehow, a week or two ago, Mr. H. discovered that the CDT was going to run a little piece by me, and he wrote to the paper to congratulate them on their ecumenical spirit. “That’s the kind of journalism we need to see in this country,” Horowitz wrote. “Free and open exchange, healthy debate—just like the debate I want to inspire on college campuses.”
Fooled you! Horowitz said no such thing. On the contrary, when he found out that I had written something for my local paper, he simply lost it, going on one of his characteristically unhinged rants about bias this and IslamoCommunist terrorist that. And if you’ve been following the sorry saga of Horowitz’s long decline, you know how he responds when someone points out that his new book is full of jawdropping stupidities and boneheaded errors: he whines about being “attacked.”
The latest development is this: on my way through the Cincinnati airport last month, I picked up a copy of The Professors and learned that David (or one of his employees) had, indeed, updated the “Discover the Networks” entry on me. Even though I didn’t think it was humanly possible, they had made their discussion of my work even dumber. In their online version, they had merely missed the point of my essay, “Teaching Postmodern Fiction Without Being Sure that the Genre Exists,” in which I suggested that most of the fiction being written today isn’t postmodern, and that postmodernist experimentalism resembles modernist experimentalism more than it resembles anything else. As you’ll recall, the sorry old fraud had tried to claim that I advocate “teaching literature so as to bring about ‘economic transformations.’” His evidence for this was a sentence in which I wrote, “The important question for cultural critics, then, is also an old question—how to correlate developments in culture and the arts with large-scale economic transformations.” Competent readers understand that I’m asking for accounts of postmodernity to be grounded in empirical fact rather than in the claim that Pynchon is 20 percent more indeterminate than Joyce. But David, by contrast, has since gone on record affirming that he does, in fact, believe that “correlate” means “bring about.” And mirabile dictu, the book version is still worse! Now he’s accusing me of anti-religious bias. Why? Because I called antifoundationalists “sane” and “secular.” Anti-religious bias! You gotta love it. As I note in my CDT essay, my anti-religious bias will come as a shock to my Jesuit teachers. . . .
Now, most sane people are aware that if you say X is sane, you have not thereby said that all non-X is insane. Here, however, Horowitz mounts a powerful challenge to the sane/insane binary, just as he did in his recent appearance on The 700 Club with Pat Robertson, when he accused college professors of being “killers.”
As for David’s whining that I have “attacked” him by pointing this out, all I can say is that it’s kinda pathetic. Crybaby pathetic. I’m talking National Wuss League material. Here’s a guy who goes around saying truly unhinged, anti-American things, like claiming that my “entire political focus since 9/11 has been in getting our terrorist enemies off the hook,” and when I calmly call him on a couple of his many lies and inaccuracies, he cries and screams and writes Very Angry E-Mails. And that’s one reason why reasonably intelligent conservatives—and conservatives with some measure of cojones and self-respect—think of David Horowitz as 700 Club material. That’s kinda pathetic, too, when you remember that Horowitz actually wants to be thought of as an “intellectual.”
Well, the rest of the week should be action-packed. Tomorrow afternoon at 5 pm, I’ll be a guest on Radio Free Penn State, Lion Radio, WKPS 90.7 FM, and they’ll have Horowitz by phone. Sam Richards, Penn State’s other Dangerous Professor, will join us at 5:30. What about the main event on Thursday, you ask? Well, back on March 31, I’d read in the Centre Daily Times that one of the leaders of the College Republicans “said she is planning to invite Berube and Richards to appear with Horowitz,” but last Friday all I got was a personal invitation to attend Horowitz’s talk. I guess that counts as “appearing” with him, in the sense that people who sing along with “Positively Fourth Street” on the radio can say that they once sang with Bob Dylan. Ah, well, life goes on. I might still go . . . though I have to say that the hockey lineup for the night of April 13 is pretty tempting. There are thirteen (!) games that night, including Flyers-Devils, Avalanche-Flames, and the critical Canucks-Sharks matchup. So we will see. Tomorrow night, April 11, a real intellectual comes to town: Salman Rushdie. Janet and I got an invitation to that one, too. Now, that’s a serious invitation.
There might be some anti-Horowitz activity this week, though so far as I know, it’s nothing more than a brief press conference. I’ve advised the local left against doing any anti-Horowitz demonstrations, under the heading, “Horowitz’s Hands, Playing Right Into.” After all, we’re dealing with a guy who declares jihads against individual professors for handing out snarky T-shirts before his lecture and laughing at some of his remarks. I think we here at Penn State should be careful to treat Horowitz very, very nicely so that he doesn’t get very, very angry. For my part, I’m hoping to put together a special parade downtown, “A Celebration of Horowitz,” but I’m not sure I’ll be finished with my float—a 25-foot trailer depicting Horowitz’s service to the Black Panthers—by Thursday afternoon. If anyone in central Pennsylvania can stop by and give me a hand with the Huey Newton I’m sculpting out of carnations, I’d really appreciate it.
Oh, speaking of Horowitz and black folk. The publicity for his Thursday afternoon book signing at the Penn State bookstore lists him as “a nationally known author and lifelong civil rights activist.” Yes, I know it’s boilerplate. Michael Jackson insisted that he be referred to as “the King of Pop,” Kim Jong Il goes by “Beloved Leader,” and David Horowitz demands that he be hailed as “a lifelong civil rights activist.” But since David has just seen fit to publish on FrontPage.com this inconceivably vile attack on the woman who was allegedly raped by members of Duke’s lacrosse team (the essay refers to her as “a divorced, 27-year-old ‘mother’ of two”—love those scare quotes!—and argues that “the story, as reported in the papers, indicates either profound social retardation on the part of the black ‘dancer,’ or else irrationality on the part of racist-oriented reporters”), you have to wonder whether this is a good time for poor old David to be touting his civil rights record.
UPDATE: I just got word that Horowitz cannot manage to be available from 5 to 5:30 tomorrow, and that he will only debate Sam Richards. You know, I do believe there’s a song about this kind of thing. One, two, a one two three four. . . .
Ask Salman Rushdie whether he owes his sex appeal--the SOB’s married to a much younger supermodel and, Michael, we do expect photographs--to being the target of a fatwah. Because, if that’s what it takes, I gotta fresh, crisp portrait of Lincoln here for any part-time imam willing to re-present.Posted by on 04/10 at 02:43 PM
It’s called the “marketplace of ideas.” Whoever can make the most money peddling their ideas has the best ideas. I believe this is all covered in Hayek, somewhere towards the back.
Note that this also explains why no one watches hockey.Posted by Jonathan on 04/10 at 03:10 PM
Oh.My.God. I have avoided reading most of Horowitz’s screeds because ...well, no good excuse except that I have limited “fun” time on the computer and I prefer to spend it reading your essays, Michael, or other entertaining/educational stuff. ANYhoo… I clicked on the g*&-damned link to the CDT interview and all I want to go is poke my eyes out with a sharp pencil!! AARRRGGGHHHH!! I can’t believe people actually *pay* him to come and speak. He’s as bad as Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh.
Loved this stellar assertion—“Another pattern I show is professors who are promoted beyond their scholarly output; they don’t have the credentials for teaching what they teach ... If you have the right politics, you get promoted.” Uh, yeah, in Chimpy McFlightsuit’s admin.— Condi Rice, “Brownie,” anyone?
Ack, hack, spit… Thank goodness I read Michael’s piece first and I was eating chocolate while reading Horowitz’s crock. Otherwise I’d have a REALLY bad taste in my mouth.
Captcha word “else”—gotta read something else, fast!!!Posted by on 04/10 at 03:11 PM
You have an anti-religious bias? You???
I try and I try. Do I ever get appreciated for my anti-religious bias? No. Man, if Horowitz would call me anti-religious, I’d be so happy, and I’d quote him in some over-sized font on the front page of my blog, and he’d actually be right for a change.
This is just Horowitzian anti-atheist bigotry, is what it is.Posted by PZ Myers on 04/10 at 03:24 PM
Horowitz heads something called the “Center for the Study of Popular Culture.” Now, I study popular culture--I just finished a chapter for an anthology, a chapter on Yakima Canutt, the first really important Hollywood stuntman. Do you think Horowitz would have a place for me?
His stunts aren’t quite as spectacular as Yak’s (Yak, in his dotage, choreographed the chariot race in “Ben Hur"--his son doubling for Heston; he’s also the Indian who climbs over horses and is dragged under the stage in “Stagecoach”: oh, and he’s the renegade who threatens Scarlet in “Gone With the Wind"), but Horowitz certainly creates some of today’s most unusual ones.Posted by Aaron Barlow on 04/10 at 03:25 PM
“But few newsmakers are as sloppy and careless as Horowitz”
I would love to see he that cannot be named suggest that you have been disingenuous in suggesting that there are but a few. I might argue that unfortunately there are many, but that most of them are already in the celebrity business and as such act sloppy and careless because they are fully aware that it is all about generating revenue. As my captcha word suggests, it is “possible” that you have understated his qualifications here, and he will of course use any pissy point he can to attack you.Posted by on 04/10 at 03:33 PM
Don’t go! Watch hockey! Life is short!Posted by The Constructivist on 04/10 at 04:05 PM
Word to the wise: if not hockey on Thursday then acceptance-way eech-spay.Posted by black dog barking on 04/10 at 04:18 PM
Is it naive of me to ask if there’ll be Q&A after the talk? If not, would caclking loudly from the audience be an acceptable response?Posted by on 04/10 at 05:42 PM
Having been a conservative college student who came to his senses and saw the glorious light of fairly radical politics (I love me some Deleuze and Guattari) upon reading an essay about Nietzsche, age 22, at which point everything I had read in my undergrad postcolonial theory class (and others) coalesced into the realization that Holy Shit! I’m not a Republican!, I hold out hope for the College Republicans who invited Horowitz. As for DH, I expect to be waving down at him in the 9th circle of hell from whichever one I wind up in.Posted by D.B. on 04/10 at 06:11 PM
You have an anti-religious bias? You???
I try and I try. Do I ever get appreciated for my anti-religious bias? No. Man, if Horowitz would call me anti-religious, I’d be so happy, and I’d quote him in some over-sized font on the front page of my blog, and he’d actually be right for a change.
That ain’t the half of it, PZ. Horowitz also awarded me a Koufax for “Best Expert Blog.” Life is so unfair sometimes. Bwah hah hah hah!
black dog: isn’t that great? Sam and I totally pwned Columbia even though they had nine guys on the court and we had only two. Face! (Actually the last time anyone said “face” was 1977, but Sam and I are wearing vintage Penn State jerseys this week, so it’s OK for us to correlate developments in trash talk with large-scale economic transformations.)Posted by Michael on 04/10 at 06:13 PM
at which point everything I had read in my undergrad postcolonial theory class (and others) coalesced into the realization that Holy Shit! I’m not a Republican!
I’d love to hear more of that story!Posted by on 04/10 at 06:18 PM
Now, most sane people are aware that if you say X is sane, you have not thereby said that all non-X is insane.
True, but when I say your arguments are sane when pitted against those of the one whose name shall not be truncated, I do mean his are insane.Posted by on 04/10 at 06:28 PM
Media Matters weighs in with several examples of the “person’s” inability to be truthful.
Horowitz falsely claimed he doesn’t attack professors’ “political speech” outside the “classroom”
Summary: Right-wing activist David Horowitz falsely claimed that although he has criticized what university professors teach in the classroom, he has refrained from criticizing “professors’ political speech” outside the universities at which they teach. Horowitz added that he makes “a very clear distinction between what’s done in the classroom” and “what professors say as citizens.” In fact, in his most recent book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, Horowitz criticizes numerous professors for their political views and participation in political events outside the classroom.
captcha word “which” as in which lie will he try this to claim is not a lie????Posted by on 04/10 at 06:54 PM
spyder, I strongly object to your characterization of this “person” as unable to be truthful. Yes, his book consists largely of criticism of professors’ public speech, rather than criticism of professors’ demeanor in the classroom. But you forget that U.No. is largely unaware of the actual contents of his book. Personally, I blame his staff for not honoring the “very clear distinction” that Person himself is always careful to make.Posted by Michael on 04/10 at 07:02 PM
About halfway through your account of upcoming activities this week at Penn State, I remembered an event that occurred at my undergrad alma mater--and then immediately I shamed myself for being unfair to Horowitz. But when I read the final sentence in your post, well, the guy’s heinous disregard for humans, accuracy, and hell, anything that stands in the way of his strange mission to spew hatred just brought the whole memory flooding back.
In the mid-1980s, the KKK decided to march in our little college town and proudly set up posters announcing their parade (per law). My colleagues and I on the college’s R.A.C.E. committee spent one very long night planning all sorts of disruptive actions until, about 3 a.m., we hit upon the best idea of all. Invite schoolkids, church members, civic organizations, residents, everyone we could think of to a Town Day in the middle of the college commons, well out of sight of Main Street. The police captain was thrilled, of course; but at the end of a happy Saturday celebrating town/gown ties, he came by and, grinning, told us that fewer than a dozen people had been on the street to see the Klan come by.
I second your advice to the local left. Good luck with the radio broadcast tomorrow. My hope for Horowitz and his hate parade is that on Thursday he may be greeted by a nearly empty auditorium.Posted by on 04/10 at 07:28 PM
A little off topic but worth the diversion:
Go to Google
Type in Failure
Click on “I’m feeling lucky”Posted by on 04/10 at 08:04 PM
You know, when Ann Coulter came to my school, people wrote “HATE SHIELD” on pieces of paper and held the signs up whenever she said something horrible. I didn’t have one, but I got called “Downright Un-American!” for not giving hate speech a standing ovation. (Clearly it’s the work of my cultural anthropology professors; I was too busy studying Haitian zombies to notice.) In any case, I hope some nice discourse with Salman Rushdie helps to counteract the madness.Posted by on 04/10 at 08:21 PM
In England people who write lies about other people in books and then go on TV to repeat them end up sued for libel.
I wonder if his book is published over here?Posted by saltydog on 04/10 at 08:29 PM
Hey Bérubé, I’m a big fan of your “Web” “log”, but I’m afraid you messed up setting up your reference to Roy Orbison’s “Running Scared”. More specifically, you write, as if introducing the song, “One, two, a one two three four...” Now that intro, of course, implies a 4/4 time. And yet, that old Orbison standard is actually played on 3/4, so it would necessarily imply a “one, two three...”, that is, without a “four”. You see what I mean? I’m no musician myself (I can play “Dust in the Wind”, “Hotel California” and “Every Rose Has Its Thorn” on the ol’ gui-tar, but that doesn’t really count), but I figured a correction was due.Posted by on 04/10 at 08:33 PM
I’m sorry to inflate your ego, Michael, but your 650-word CDT column is fookin’ brill, to use a phrase someone from Australia probably once praised something with. Since prolixity is Horowitz’s trademark, your piece’s conciseness works in its favor. Not a wasted or ill-judged word. Cool.Posted by on 04/10 at 08:43 PM
Actually, AP, “Running Scared” is played in Thump. Thump thump thump thump. Thump thump thump thump. Thump thump thump thump thump thump thump thump thump thump time, also known as “Bolero.”Posted by on 04/10 at 08:46 PM
I usually avoid clicking links to that particular website - you don’t need to read it to know he’s going to say something awful. Sure enough, he makes the vilest statements possible about poor white boys victimized by a black exotic dancer. Since he probably reads this blog obsessively, I will ask him some questions here:
What does the black woman get out of charging these men with rape? If the accused are convicted, does she get a prize?
You seem to look down on her for being employed as an exotic dancer. Do you similarly look down on the people who employed her?
Under what circumstances would your wife, daughters, sisters, or female friends (assuming you have any of these) accept being raped and beaten as just part of a day’s work?Posted by on 04/10 at 09:02 PM
He Who Must Not Be Nicknamed really exposes his nasty, bigoted, opportunistic, demagogic nature in that link ("vile" is the right word), and he has other examples . . . yet he keeps getting exposure in national media and academic venues. If it weren’t for that second fact, we could ignore him or ridicule. It’s very depressing that he’s not completely discredited in everyone’s eyes by now. Michael, I’d say don’t go.Posted by on 04/10 at 09:14 PM
This “not available” thing is wonderful. I’m sure it’s really just that his small staff managed to screw up the time, but it sure looks like he (even he!) is finally understanding just how ludicrous he looks when responding to you. Good work, “Herr professeur.”
You’ll still be on, though, right? I plan to tune in via the internets.Posted by on 04/10 at 10:58 PM
To be fair, dear posters of #23 and #24, DH did not write the “indescribably vile” piece (as MB most excllently describes it); he merely allowed it to be prominently displayed on his website.Posted by on 04/10 at 10:59 PM
That was an disgustingly horrid piece that David H. wrote about the Duke rape incident. All his other idiotic comments aside, prehaps he should take a look at the reason why these women take up exotic dancing - it’s not because they like it, I can assure you. Could it be that...oh...um...they are of low economic status and have few options open to them because of racism and bigotry? Who wants to be daily degraded and used?
Oh, and D.B. welcome to the light.Posted by Maenad on 04/10 at 11:05 PM
Displaying the article for all to see is as almost as bad as writing it into existence.Posted by Maenad on 04/10 at 11:08 PM
From the CDT interview:
That’s your fundamental creed of the tenured radical.
One of the “researchers” penetrated a circle of tenured radicals and was able to discover the actual creed they chant at faculty meetings. (Sadly, he was subsequently brainwashed and now is but a shade of his former self and was last seen teaching Culturally Relative Anthropological Semiotic Literary Theory and Ping Pong at Wordsmith College.)
The Tenured Radicals Creed
I believe in Chaos,
the destroyer of order and prosperity,
and in communo-terrorism, the one true system, our hope and legacy
Which was conceived of the glorious Marx,
born of Vladimir Lenin,
suffered under The Great Communicator,
was torn down, declared dead, and was buried.
It fled to the nether regions of the world
But in the twelfth year it arose again from the wilderness, transformed and powerful
And struck a blow against the Great Satan of the United States
and now sits at the right hand of Chaos
whence He (or She) shall come to cast down the little Eichmanns of the bourgeoisie.
I believe in the versions of Marxism known as feminism and post-structuralism,
the ascendancy of postmodernism,
that “Jump the Shark” has jumped the shark,
the triumph of islamofacism,
the abolition of private property,
and most fervently in
personal employment everlasting (providing it includes sabbaticals and decent health benefits)
DudePosted by on 04/10 at 11:15 PM
You’ll still be on, though, right? I plan to tune in via the internets.
I’ll be on, 5 sharp. I may even do my Horowitz impersonation.
And what John said in comment 26. The author of that indescribably vile piece is identified at the bottom of the essay: “Dr. David A. Yeagley is a published scholar, professionally recorded composer, and an adjunct professor at the University of Oklahoma College of Liberal Studies. He’s on the speakers list of Young America’s Foundation. E-mail him at . View his website at http://www.badeagle.com.”
JP Stormcrow, thanks for the creed! Personally, I have always objected to the later addition of the words “and Foucault” (the “foucaultque clause") to the description of Holy Chaos, because I believe it is a clear violation of the Canons of the Third Hermeneutic Council. I’m glad to see you have reproduced the orthodox version here.Posted by Michael on 04/10 at 11:55 PM
Today’s Centre Daily Times features Pittsburgh Tribune-Review resident wingnut Bill Steigerwald’s 1300-word interview with David Horowitz, in which he fulminates about how the “Democrat party” has “lurched far to the left” and talks a lot about his unhealthy obsession of the week (don’t ask).
WTF? When did the Democratic Party “lurch” to the left? Did I miss something in the past 30 years?
If there’s one thing you can say for the right, it’s that their persistence in using the same lame laughable straw-man arguments is the stuff that legends are made of. One could string these vacuous arguments together using a gibberish generator come up with a standard run of the wingnut mill Regnery screed. I’m sure that Regnery would buy it. They’re a vanity publishing house anyway. Isn’t that what the right’s culture war is all about? It’s all about shoveling money into the GOP’s war chest and their glorious cultural revolution apparat.
It’s about “intellectual” whores turning a fast buck, peddling fear to their infotainment consuming base. The infotainment consumers have no clue. Trotting out “leftist” has become irrelevant. How can anyone take a claim from these flying monkeys seriously? The GOP Think Tank Archipelago has been pushing the “center” of the political spectrum to the right for so long that according to their perspective it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to call Dwight Eisenhower a Revolutionary Marxist. At the very least, Barry Goldwater is a Liberal.
Steigerwald’s observation of a “lurch to the left” has produced stalwarts of the radical left, such as the DLC. The acronym really stands for Destroy Liberalism Completely… or is it Democrats Love Corporatocracy?
BTW I loved the “The Tenured Radical’s Creed”Posted by on 04/11 at 12:05 AM
I thank the person very much for guiding me to your work, professor. So he really is a useful fool.Posted by Hattie on 04/11 at 01:19 AM
Oh, man-- I would check (best hockey allusion I’m capable of) MB’s blog in the last fading post-midnight moments of my West-Coast wakefulness… groan.
This rambunctious post is far too meaty to digest at this late hour, but tomorrow’s another day.Posted by on 04/11 at 03:08 AM
David Yeagley (AKA Bad Eagle), who wrote the vile piece on the Duke incident, is a famous crackpot, who has greatly benefitted from his long relationship to Horowitz. Here’s an informative piece about him from Indian Country Today (FYI, ICT is the nation’s leading native American newspaper).
One of the things that ICT notes is that Yeagley has no ongoing relationship with my institution, the University of Oklahoma. He taught one course, once, back in 2001 for the College of Liberal Studies, which is an interdisciplinary, continuing ed unit of OU. His present tense claims of a position at OU (which have actually also appeared in OU’s Dartmouth Review clone, The Fountainhead) are thus fairly fraudulent. Time to fire those “assistants,” Horowitz!Posted by on 04/11 at 11:33 AM
I like the simplicity of breaking down H’s logic to X/non-X terms that lay bare its asininity. Has anyone ever done a more thorough catalogue of the fallacies Horowitz has committed in his “intellectual” work? A quick review of one recent defense of *Professors* revealed the presence of fallacies of biased sample, common practice, non sequitur, ad hominem abusive, and good-old-fashioned factual error. One more that springs readily to mind: false dilemma, as in, “if you don’t support the ‘war on terror,’ then you are pro-terrorism.”
I’m not a big fallacy buff, it’s just that, I would think, even to his defenders, that such a list would be hard to argue with. (I know, “argument” isn’t the preferred method of wingnuttery, but I need this.)
Captcha: “red”Posted by Lance on 04/11 at 11:46 AM
there’s a song about this kind of thing.
“gimme an F,
gimme a U,
and so forth???? Well being a sixties radical i suppose i might be forgiven for moving on from Roy, though i still do so greatly appreciate his complete works. Unlike “him,” i am still a radical, maybe more so now.
As for my suggestion that it was the Man himself who exhibits the prevarication, i find it inordinately difficult to apologize for that besmirching. I do see though that the captcha word “policy” represents that about which i need to be more careful talking, round these parts.Posted by on 04/11 at 12:33 PM
...because I believe it is a clear violation of the Canons of the Third Hermeneutic Council.
Bitter it is indeed that all do not see as clearly as you on this point, and selfishly threaten our hegemony by indulging their appetite for doctrinal eisegesis.
However, at least we can all still glory together in the absolute destruction of the Mereological Nihilistic Heresy of the Pre-Post-Structuralist Unintended Paraphrase. Many Shuvs, Zuuls and wilful junior faculty members knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!Posted by on 04/11 at 01:18 PM
If anyone gets a chance to ask Horowitz a question make sure to ask about when he was a left-wing radical-- he was a black panther and a commie and has built his present career on the idea that he came from the other side. Apparently he wasn’t well liked back then either.
In a nutshell, the man is an opportunistic, contrarian asshole who likes to persecute others while under the heavy burden of a persecution complex of his own. He’d probably go back to being a left-winger if he thought he could make a buck from it, sell himself as an ex-conservative.Posted by zoe kentucky on 04/11 at 01:56 PM
there is a song about this sort of thing…Posted by Steinn Sigurdsson on 04/11 at 04:14 PM
Wha...? Horowitz gave you my Koufax?
Could you send it back to me please? There’s an empty spot on my mantel for it.Posted by PZ Myers on 04/11 at 04:20 PM
Oh, when Horowitz gives talks, he brags about his former career as a left-wing radical. You don’t need to prompt him.
It’s a standard salvation trope: he was a sinner, and now he was saved, and his conversion is evidence that his old ways were wrong.Posted by PZ Myers on 04/11 at 04:23 PM
I LOVE David’s work.
Oh, THAT David! We don’t talk about him anymore since *the accident* at the pond. He hasn’t been right since…Posted by DocMara on 04/11 at 04:42 PM