Home | Away

Warning!  Warning!  Danger!  Danger!

At least two readers want to know how I feel about being named one of the 101 most dangerous professors in America by some guy named David Horowitz.  “Congratulations, Michael!” writes my mysterious friend Tristero, in the course of dubbing me the Keith Richards of academe.  “No false modesty now, you’ve earned it.”

But listen, everyone, I don’t care about these accolades and awards.  False modesty made me what I am today, and I’m certainly not going to change now.  Look, if I went around thinking I’m an emperor just because some wingnut with a website lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!

Besides, truth be told, this “101 most dangerous professors” thing is a complete sham.  It’s a travesty.  It’s an outrage, I say, an utter outrage.

First of all, Horowitz didn’t even bother to rank us.  In his promotional email for the book (sent to me last week by the invaluable Rick Perlstein, but you can read the whole thing at Gisela’s corner), Horowitz catalogues some of the reprobates and miscreants I’m in with:

At Cal State-Long Beach:  Ron Karenga is a Professor and Chairman of the Black Studies Department. He’s also a convicted torturer and inventor of Kwanzaa. [Emphasis in original.]

Hold the phone!  He’s a what? You’re thinking, “golly, isn’t that a little like saying ‘he’s an arsonist and the creator of Grandparents’ Day?’” Well, yes, it does sound a little odd.  But remember, dear friends, that most of David’s readership thinks torture is just fine.  Kwanzaa, however—that’s downright un-American.

Moving right along:

At Brandeis University: Robert Reich is a Professor of Social and Economic Policy. He was Bill Clinton’s Labor Secretary and is a multi-millionaire. That doesn’t keep from [sic] telling his students that the U.S. has “fallen under the sway of radical conservatives who, by the malicious application of intolerant moral precepts, intended to secure the ‘reign of the rich’ at the expense of most Americans.’”

Seriously, folks.  There’s no way I’m in the same league with former U.S. Secretaries of Labor who go around saying true things.  (Apparently Reich is also a traitor to his class.  Hang ‘im high, David!) In fact, I happen to know that until I got myself this here blog and began driving David into spittle-flecked frenzies, I wasn’t even in the upper quartile of the country’s most dangerous academics.  Although when I have my pruning knife I’m in the top twenty.  Or so say some of the local flora.

OK, so that’s one obvious reason The Professors is an outrage.  Here’s another.  According to my contacts at the American Association of University Professors, only 23 of the 101 are members of the AAUP.  What the hell is the matter with the other 78 of you?  Consider this your wakeup call, people!

Last but not least, the “book” is apparently just a bunch of reprints of David’s “Discover the Networks” pages.  You probably remember what mine looks like.  It’s pretty feeble stuff, really.  Here’s how it works.  I write something like this, from an old essay on postmodernism:

There really are some remarkably salient differences between the prewar and the postwar world, between the financial crash of ‘29 and the computer crash of ‘87, the phonograph and the Internet. Though some critics prefer 1945 and some prefer 1973 as postmodernism’s Year One, there seems to be a fitful consensus that something like postmodernity does indeed exist—and that it involves the incomplete, deeply contested globalization and digitalization of capitalism.

Postmodernism, in this sense, is based on an electronic global economy and what David Harvey, the geographer and cultural critic, famously calls “the regime of flexible accumulation”—by which he means a world in which part-time labor, adjunct professors, and just-in-time production lines supersede the Fordist logic of modernism, in which laborers were assured wages high enough to allow them to buy the products they made. 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.

And David summarizes it like so:

Believes in teaching literature so as to bring about “economic transformations.”

At least he’s succinct!  Or I write something like this, opening a review essay in the journal American Literary History:

Four new books on the state of the academy, and not one of them elaborates a line of argument that bisects any of the others.  One gets the eerie feeling that this kind of intellectual noncoincidence is no coincidence, that one could review 20 new books on the state of the academy (if one could take the necessary time away from one’s “normal” academic work) and discover the same result:  the contemporary university is so amorphous that it can be described as the research wing of the corporate economy, the final resting place of the New Left, the last best hope for critical thinking, the engine room of global technological advance, the agent of secularization and the advance of reason, the training ground for the labor force, the conservatives’ strongest bastion of antifeminist education, the progressives’ only bulwark against the New Right, the natural home of intellectual isolates, the natural home of goosestepping groupthinkers, and the locus of postmodern skepticism and fragmentation.  Perhaps Clark Kerr, whose influence on David Damrosch and Bill Readings seems to me one of the few common threads in the books under review, put it best when he remarked, in a phrase as felicitous as it is cynical:  “I have sometimes thought of [the university] as a series of individual faculty entrepreneurs held together by a common grievance over parking.”

And David summarizes it like so:

In a 1998 essay called “The Abuses of the University,” Professor Berube described the university as “the final resting place of the New Left,” and the “progressives’ only bulwark against the New Right.” Critics of this definition—in particular those who failed to regard “feminist or queer theory as a legitimate area of scholarship”—were only perpetuating “ignorance and injustice,” he wrote.

Now, I could dilate endlessly on the random-access technique by which Horowitz cut and pasted those last two phrases into his account of me (they occur near the end of the essay, and have nothing to do with each other), but I think you get the point by now.  Horowitz can be a fairly clever guy when he wants to be, but here he’s not even trying.  This is genuinely stupid stuff.  I mean, Michelle Malkin quality stupid.  Personally, I’m disappointed.

Still, there’s one little thing about The Professors that bears closer attention.  It’s the front cover blurb by Laura Ingraham: “A thoroughly enjoyable and useful guide to the worst of the worst in the hallowed halls of academia.”

The worst of the worst?  I have to say that’s kind of harsh, coming from someone like Ingraham.  I mean, this is the woman who, as editor of the Dartmouth Review and comrade-in-arms of Dinesh D’Souza, sent a henchman to tape meetings of the campus Gay Students Alliance, then mailed copies of the tapes to GSA members’ parents—and published the transcripts (along with some of GSA members’ stolen documents and personal letters) in the Review.  As Dudley Clendinen reported at the time (“Conservative Paper Stirs Dartmouth,” New York Times, May 30, 1982), “one student named, according to his friends, became severely depressed and talked repeatedly of suicide.  The grandfather of another who had not found the courage to tell his family of his homosexuality learned about his grandson when he got his copy of The Review in the mail.” Of course, Ingraham pulled that little stunt long before she became a regular feature of the liberal media—before she was hired by CBS (!) and MSNBC and became a talk-radio star.  But still, even though I believe in teaching literature so as to bring about economic transformations, I can’t say that I’ve ever jeopardized the life or the safety of another human being.  I’m not that dangerous, after all.

Posted by on 02/06 at 09:27 AM
  1. I guess a congratulations is in order Michael. The existence of this book by Horowitz poses a real dilemma of the ethical sort. As you have shown we need to respond to these kind of Neo-Con charges. In addition to the credibility they garner by being hired by the mainstream press to fulfill some anemic version of balance, there is unintended credence that attends the non-response (because they are too crazy) tact. However, to respond responsibly (by reading it) might entail actually purchasing the book either by plunking down cash directly or indirectly by requesting that a library purchase it.  I cannot and will not steal a copy. Is there an alternative I’m not seeing?  This may be a job for Mr. Answer Man.

    Posted by  on  02/06  at  11:21 AM
  2. Watch your back, Michael—when pruning knives are outlawed, only outlaws will have pruning knives!

    Posted by  on  02/06  at  11:35 AM
  3. Kwanzaa? Completely spurious tradition made up out of whole cloth? Why, there’s nothing more American than that! Next he’ll be saying he’s against Mothering Sunday and the Easter Bunny! (on a serious note, this Ron chap sounds like he may be a little unhinged.)

    It’s a shame the 101 X-TREME STONE COLD KILLER ACADEMICS OF AMERICA aren’t ranked, but probably he intends you to sort it out among yourselves. In the Thunderdome.

    I hear Reich favours the Floating Dragon Kick. So watch out.

    Posted by  on  02/06  at  12:52 PM
  4. Michael, Michael, Michael, Michael. Ingraham is a piker. CBS commentator? A fellow named Meese, in 1967, joined in the bugging of a rival Reagan staffer’s hotel room to try to produce evididence of homosexuality (they produced no such evidence, but spread the rumor nonetheless, thus getting rid of the guy anyway).

    And they made HIM attorney general!

    Posted by  on  02/06  at  01:30 PM
  5. What most people don’t know is that you are actually the Charlie Watts of academe!

    Posted by Michael A.  on  02/06  at  01:31 PM
  6. The great thing about Horowitz on Karenga: of course he’s right, the guy’s a scoundrel--not least because he worked for the FBI to take down the Black Panthers, who, of course, were D-Ho’s buddies at the time.

    Apparently David still holds a grudge. Once a Panther, always a Panther.

    Posted by  on  02/06  at  01:32 PM
  7. What’s even worse is that no one knows who the 101 are.  Will someone actually have to shell out bucks for this volume to find out who’s included?  And can I get a refund if I’m not in it?

    Posted by Sherman Dorn  on  02/06  at  02:04 PM
  8. A black-list of academics preaching ideas that may be against the interest of the State? Now why does that sound familiar?

    Posted by  on  02/06  at  02:23 PM
  9. Horowitz begins his book with an account of the invitation to Ward Churchill to speak at Hamilton College last year—an invitation withdrawn in the face of death threats, that grew out of the public hysteria whipped up by David Horowitz, Bill O’Reilly and like-minded folk.  Horowitz notes that Churchill was to be paid $3500 plus expenses for his talk, which he finds outrageous.  Perhaps so (and, for the record, I would not have invited him to speak at Hamilton, had I been consulted, which I wasn’t).  What Horowitz neglects to mention is that two years earlier he himself had been an invited speaker at Hamilton College—invited to come to speak to one of my classes, and to debate me in a public forum on the history of the 1960s.  And guess what he was paid?  $3500, plus expenses (talked down from the $5,000 he had initially requested.)

    Of course, I’m miffed that I failed to make Horowitz’ list of the top 101 evil profs—Tom Hayden made the list, and he’s not even an academic.

    Posted by  on  02/06  at  02:59 PM
  10. Happily, I was in my local strip-mall bookstore looking for a copy of Packer’s The Assassin’s Gate (Decided that I’d already read most of it in his periodical publications and that I’d wait for the paperback) and, Lo! Behold! there was Horowitz’s tome. Several impressions:

    1) This is one poorly put together book. There’s no comprehensive list in the thing, which suggests to me that the thing was cobbled together over a weekend (Yeah. It might not have actually taken that long.) and profs were added until the number 101 was reached. Since chapters in the book were sorted alphabetically, this had the added benefit of making sure that all those Arab professors with names prefixed with “al-” get in, but good.
    2) “Berube.” Missing something? Yeah. David was too cheap to spring for a typface that included an “e” with an acute accent.
    3) No pictures, which pretty much means he’s gonna miss the target demmographic pretty widely.

    Posted by  on  02/06  at  03:15 PM
  11. Michael: you’re an admitted dilator and the inventor of Theory Tuesdays, and see the modern university as the conservatives’ strongest bastion of antifeminist education… the natural home of goosestepping groupthinkers?

    That’s gotta rate top ten at least.  Somebody call a tow truck!

    Posted by  on  02/06  at  03:40 PM
  12. Now, now, Michael, I think you’re being too sensitive and analytical about the ranking thing. Be proud you made the cut.

    Posted by Bulworth  on  02/06  at  04:48 PM
  13. You’ve given me an idea for a study on “ideological discrimination” in academia! Since, as we all know, the one true measure of rank in academia is your parking space (oh, how many times I’ve lamented my low status on the totem pole as I walked to the psychology building from my parking place three towns over), we could conduct a study in which we correlate parking-space distance with the level of conservativism!

    Posted by Chris  on  02/06  at  04:50 PM
  14. I am only sorry my dad retired from professoring before he could achieve this honor.  Not that he *would* have, since he didn’t have a blog and would not have come to DH’s attention.  But he *should* have, based upon his comments to me.

    When Clinton was in office, dad told me that the Republicans had no morals and were capable of anything in their quest for power.  I’m afraid I felt he was exagerating.  But no, he was just prescient.  So I think he deserves a Most-Dangerous-Emeritus award, and I am hereby nominating him.

    Posted by  on  02/06  at  05:20 PM
  15. Wow, you guys (and gals) ought to band together and start a new university. Call it Danger U. Or U. of Danger. Maybe Dangerous State. Man, I’d love a degree from Danger U. That would be one impressive diploma.

    Posted by  on  02/06  at  06:33 PM
  16. Thanks, Grambo!  I can’t decide between Dangerous State and Dangerous Tech, myself.

    Posted by Michael  on  02/06  at  06:49 PM
  17. I have to wonder who would buy this book. Would conservatives really want to shell out $30 for hastily assembled information about people they don’t like? Information they could immediately acquire for free via Google (or “Discover the Networks,” which is almost as good)?

    I can only think that Horowitz aims to sell the book to liberal academics and their friends, who will give the book to one another as an amusing present/ party prop. I also fully expect to get a copy from a family member on my birthday this year, with the inscription, “So, when are you going to make this list, hm?”

    Posted by Amardeep  on  02/06  at  07:15 PM
  18. I think the fix is in. I mean, no slight intended of your many and admirably nefarious qualities, Michael, but any list of dangerous academics that doesn’t include this fellow is obviously incomplete and shoddily compiled.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  02/06  at  07:24 PM
  19. You are plainly one dangerous MF.

    Posted by  on  02/06  at  07:31 PM
  20. That’s it!  I’m starting a new line of T-shirts with Berube’s image on them, looking slightly seedy and dangerous with his garden tools.  You’ll be the new Che Guevara, getting college boys who don’t a Hoover vaccum from a Horowitz laid left and right.  Well, maybe not right, but that’s okay, since the right in undergraduate populations is still represented primarily by the sausagefest known as the College Republicans.

    Posted by Amanda Marcotte  on  02/06  at  09:52 PM
  21. *who don’t know a Hoover, etc.


    Posted by Amanda Marcotte  on  02/06  at  09:53 PM
  22. I got to the bottom of your post and itunes kicked on Dazed and Confused by Zepplin.  That’s very cool.  Can you make it dispense hot chocolate? I’d be forever grateful.

    Posted by  on  02/06  at  09:59 PM
  23. What Horowitz neglects to mention is that two years earlier he himself had been an invited speaker at Hamilton College—invited to come to speak to one of my classes, and to debate me in a public forum on the history of the 1960s.  And guess what he was paid?  $3500, plus expenses (talked down from the $5,000 he had initially requested.)

    Well, Maurice, as you know, it’s not like he was invited there by the faculty.

    And you paid him what? Dag nab it, man, I’m going to withhold all future alumni donations to Hamilton on those grounds alone.  But first I need to get a degree there.

    Chris, I was aware that Bullwinkle was objectively pro-Osama.  But I wish you wouldn’t mention it on this blog, seeing as how often Horowitz and his staff cruise the comments section.

    And Amanda, feel free to start printing those T-shirts.  Thanks!  Would it be too false-modest of me to ask you to use the pruning-knife photo?  I believe the photographer—Janet Lyon by name—would make it available for a nominal per-shirt fee. . . .

    Posted by Michael  on  02/06  at  10:37 PM
  24. And Ingraham would surely know about the worst of the worst, especially after some of her college antics.  Like when she wrote an affirmative action ‘article’ in dialect about her freshman room-mate.  I guess it’s that kind of uncover journalism that really helps one move up the corporate ladder.

    Posted by  on  02/06  at  10:55 PM
  25. <objectively pro-Osama.  But I wish you wouldn’t mention it on this blog, seeing as how often Horowitz and his staff cruise the comments section.</blockquote>

    D’oh! And after I thought I’d learned my lesson.

    Next thing you know, Boris Badenov will show up and take us all to task for improperly correlating Abstract Expressionism with Mandelbrot sets.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  02/06  at  11:13 PM
  26. I think I can clear this up.

    Correlate with does not mean bring about.

    There now. All a big misunderstanding.

    Dude, if you’re doing the economic transformation thing, I think you probably could be doing some better at the Heritage Foundation, hein?

    Posted by julia  on  02/06  at  11:23 PM
  27. Obviously I should have said “Julia Sets.”

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  02/06  at  11:27 PM
  28. Well, I just want to add that since my original post on my blog (02/01/06), Horrorwits actually had the nerve to email me two other times! Same exact email, same bold and underlined paragraphs.

    The man is a joke.

    Michael, in any case - thanks, my little blog has received an unusual number of hits ever since you mentioned it…

    Posted by Gisela Schon  on  02/06  at  11:33 PM
  29. Well, I just want to add that since my original post on my blog (02/01/06), Horrorwits actually had the nerve to email me two other times! Same exact email, same bold and underlined paragraphs.

    Wow!  Lucky you, Gisela.  And thanks so much for reproducing David’s entire email on your blog in the first place.  I suppose that means if you make three donations, one for each email, they will be—as David puts it—“doubled in essence” three times.  You don’t suppose “doubled in essence” is code for something, though, in a Dr. Strangelove kinda way?

    And yes, he is indeed a joke.  On this humble blog we like to say he’s funny like a clown.  But kudos to you for writing to people like David Irving.  He’s really not funny at all.

    Posted by Michael  on  02/06  at  11:45 PM
  30. Michael, if “doubled in essence” is code for something, then who is subversice now, eh?

    David Irving is kinda funny too, no? Except for when he posted my contact info on his website for all the creeps who follow him around to see… Thankfully he only paid the minimum fee at US Search and ended up with my old addresses and phone numbers - which in turn means the said creeps went knocking on the wrong doors and calling the wrong people too! Hehe.

    Michael, did you hear about the UCLA student (or alumni, I can’t remember) who is paying $100 for information on so-called liberal professors (who knows what that means, in these people’s lingo)? I think he worked for/with Horrowits for a while…

    Posted by Gisela Schon  on  02/07  at  12:47 AM
  31. Thanks, Grambo!  I can’t decide between Dangerous State and Dangerous Tech, myself.

    Now is not the time for half-measures.

    Dangerous A&M!

    Posted by  on  02/07  at  02:08 AM
  32. Cool!

    Another top 100 to obsess over.

    huh? 101?


    Posted by  on  02/07  at  02:16 AM
  33. I would take classes at the Institute of Dangerous Studies.

    Posted by The Heretik  on  02/07  at  02:20 AM
  34. Whatever it’s called, I have a question. Will I be able to transfer my credits from Fugue State?

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  02/07  at  02:43 AM
  35. Beyond the t-shirt idea, there’s a much bigger financial upside to be mined here.

    As we all know, there are a lot of women out there who are very, very attracted to dangerous men (not me, of course, but you know, other women). I propose a calendar or high-gloss magazine featuring some of the men on this list, with Micheal being either the cover-boy or centerfold.

    “America’s Most Dangerous Professors - Hot Pix Just 4U!” - it’d be flying off the shelves so fast, you couldn’t even begin to keep up with the demand. But the fun thing would be all the Republican women who would be buying them in secret. Or maybe the most fun thing would be all the Gannon/Guckerts who would be buying them in secret. Either way, big-ass cash money.

    Posted by  on  02/07  at  06:04 AM
  36. Whatever the most dangerous institute of higher learning ends up being called (and I vote for Dangerous State), may I ask that all degrees granted by the institution have an extra “D” appended to them to signify their extreme dangerousness?  As in PhDD, MDD, DDDS, JDD, and so on.

    Posted by  on  02/07  at  10:41 AM
  37. What Horowitz neglects to mention is that two years earlier he himself had been an invited speaker at Hamilton College—invited to come to speak to one of my classes, and to debate me in a public forum on the history of the 1960s.  And guess what he was paid?  $3500, plus expenses (talked down from the $5,000 he had initially requested.)

    Of course, Prof. Isserman, you were dramatically underpaying him.  We all know that, if he were a liberal, Horowitz would not only occupy the William Z. Foster Chair of Treasonous Networking at Harvard, earning more than the 300 large that he currently rakes in per year, but he’d also be a famous and successful screenwriter. Be glad he didn’t mention your invite.  It’s a wonder he didn’t attack Hamilton for the pittance you offered!

    Posted by  on  02/07  at  10:45 AM
  38. Horowitz is over at frontpagemag.com whining that liberal fascists are sabotaging his book by giving it bad reviews at amazon.com.  Michael, I think you should copy this post over at amazon and give DH something to really feel bad about.

    Posted by  on  02/07  at  12:13 PM
  39. I prefer The Academy, as in, The Academy of Danger. ("Mr. Horowitz, there are some men here to see you. They say they’re from the Academy.")

    Is there a place to find the full list? Do I have to navigate frontpagemag to see if old profs made the list?

    Posted by  on  02/07  at  03:56 PM
  40. 1.  I would totally buy the T-shirt.  And the mug.  And the mudflap silhouette.

    2.  I also look forward to the opportunity be a member of Future Alumni of Dangerouse State ("FADS").

    3.  DS plays in the same conference as Miskatonic, right?  What do you see as DS’s main strengths in intramural athletics?

    Posted by  on  02/07  at  04:59 PM
  41. Lack of gibbering on the field, mostly

    Posted by  on  02/07  at  05:17 PM
  42. And may I further suggest that Dangerous State adopt as its motto Caroline Lamb’s famous description of Byron?  I’d suggest translating it into Latin, but I’m not sure “Demens, Improbus, et Periculosus Nosco” has the same ring.

    Posted by  on  02/07  at  07:55 PM
  43. The fight song would probably have to be Peter Tosh’s “I’m Dangerous.” Or maybe the No Talents’ “I Live for Danger.”

    Posted by  on  02/07  at  08:12 PM
  44. Screw the tee shirts. I’m ready to buy the motorcycle leathers.

    Posted by  on  02/07  at  08:13 PM
  45. The fight song would probably have to be Peter Tosh’s “I’m Dangerous.”

    “Ladies and Gentlemen… your 2008 Steppin’ Razors!”

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  02/07  at  08:15 PM
  46. Just so long as our hockey team isn’t compelled to take the ice to “Highway to the Danger Zone.”

    To answer CaseyL’s question—I don’t know about IMs, but in intercollegiate athletics, we will play in the Big Lebowski Conference against our peers, Peril A & M, Threat Institute of Technology, and (of course) Menace U.

    Posted by Michael  on  02/07  at  08:30 PM
  47. Once again I feel like an underachiever; I’m going to ask Regina Austin to mentor me in dangerousness (see http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=72 ).  You’d think being Southern would give me an edge!

    Posted by Ann Bartow  on  02/07  at  10:20 PM
  48. Y’all, I just got hired for my first tenure-track gig this past year (ABD in music theory, and hating the diss - you know how that is - but I’ll finish the damn thing if it kills me).

    I would so volunteer to head the Department of Loud Music at Dangerous State.


    Posted by Wes F. in North Adams  on  02/07  at  11:59 PM
  49. Professeur Bérubé, what graduate programs are available at l’École Polytechnique Dangereuse?

    Posted by Orange  on  02/08  at  12:25 AM
  50. As a true social scientist, I must inquire about Mr. Horowitz’s methodology...How did he go about collecting his data, you think? He clearly didn’t interview YOU, right?

    Posted by petya  on  02/08  at  12:28 AM
  51. If you open Danger U, I might just have to get another degree once I finally finish at Big City U.

    And believe me, nothing short of Danger U. could possibly convince me to go through this again.

    Posted by Ancrene Wiseasss  on  02/08  at  02:22 AM
  52. Just to be clear in case my comment in #35 seemed too risque: I did not mean that the Country’s Most Dangerous Professors would be posing in the buff. I meant that they would be posing brazenly displaying - openly and for all to see - subversive literature and documents. Imagine Michael’s picture on the home page, but instead of a garden tool, he’s holding a copy of the Bill of Rights.

    So bad...so hot...so dangerous.

    Posted by  on  02/08  at  04:51 AM
  53. Professeur Bérubé, what graduate programs are available at l’École Polytechnique Dangereuse?

    Thanks for asking!  The Department of Loud Music is chaired by Wes F. in North Adams, and our Department of Blaming America First is ranked # 1 by the National Research Council.  We have recently hired queer theorist Michael Warner away from Objectively Pro-Saddam University, so our Program in Undermining Normative Heterosexuality is quite strong.  Last but not least, our Institute for the Defense of Liberalism is unmatched, but we’re looking to augment our new Institute for the Stigmatization of Conservatism as well.

    How did he go about collecting his data, you think? He clearly didn’t interview YOU, right?

    “Data”? “Interview”?  Your questions, Petya, betray your membership in the reality-based community.  The very idea of factual accuracy belongs to a distinctly pre-9/11 mindset.

    And O-Girl, thank you—everyone is breathing a sigh of relief.  After all, we may be dangerous professors and all, but we’re not exactly buff calendar material.  As wielders of garden tools and the Bill of Rights, however, we are truly formidable.

    Posted by  on  02/08  at  05:39 PM
  54. The calendar could perhaps be called “Les Tres Riches Heures du Michel, duc de Prunes.”

    Posted by  on  02/08  at  05:51 PM
  55. Did Dan Dennett make the list, you won’t many more dangerous than him, armed with an idea so dangerous that many feel the need to violate the constitution to supress it.

    Posted by  on  02/09  at  12:32 AM
  56. Michael, what, you don’t play Naked Hockey? And here I thought you were dangerous. Pish-tosh!

    Posted by Ron Sullivan  on  02/09  at  07:52 PM
  57. The Tosh comment is up at number 43.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  02/09  at  08:22 PM
  58. Michael,

    Reich’s inclusion in the book was necessary for an expose about the Marxist bourgeoisie on American campuses. David Horowitz is an agnostic, I believe, but the education issue basically comes down to you beleiving that you are a better teacher of morality than Jesus Christ.

    You’re a pretty smart guy, you are certainly interested in intellectual exercises, but alot of your energy is being wasted and misdirected. I know it is hard to believe because of the impression that you hold to the contrary. Let me put this bluntly: if you libs can criticize America, we can criticize you.

    Here is an instance regarding your old essay on postmodernism where you give the readers two paragraphs of your writing and put it next to only a part of a sentence written by David Horowitz. Though your writing is pretty interesting, like Marx’s, it simply doesn’t correlate with the text that you selected in presenting David’s statement. That can definitely be called the “random-access technique” of copy pasting, but you can’t call the paragraph that we can see here of David’s summary your essay that.

    From what you have expressed here, together with what I can gather from David’s statements in your post, it is obvious that David pulled your card and you just didn’t like it. This reminds me the way that a few days ago I was accused of unfairly associating Marx’s call for a workers jihad with the totalitarian regimes that Marxism produces. Regardless of how much you identify or sympathize with his rhetoric, you have to measure its actual value.

    David is right, and you help make his case in your argument that the academe should be an ideological property of the New Left, as the political philosophy of paganism is known.

    In my view “communism” is a unity in vision, and Marx’s was fundamentally flawed. And that is because he couldn’t get past the materialist’s epistemological problem of what a human being really is; If we are simply machines then of course we need dictators to improve upon “it”.. but libs mistake the alternative of that approach to be the opposition to improvement.

    The left’s faith is that life is a senseless pursuit of self-gratification, it is a departure from the faith which gave birth to the United States of America whose government is really the pinnacle of civilization, you are not even forced to subscribe to the faith and values that form its invisible foundations. That the left is actively undermining them is indeed dangerous. That danger manifested itself in the left’s empowerment of Mao over Chiang Kai Shek and the train of results that followed, it resulted in the empowerment of the Ayatollah over the Shah, and today in the left’s undermining the global struggle for liberty by undermining America’s resolve.

    The inordinate mortification of the call to defend civilization whenever it is threatened (the ostrich approach of France and Chamberlain to Nazism and that same approach of libs to Islamofascism) stems from your percieved “last best hope for critical thinking.” You are the pinnacle of evolution, correct? Apparently it is your interpretations of reality which make America the most productive and innovative nation on the face of the earth. The social environment that America’s families and faith have shaped have nothing to do with the development of free-market economics and the uplifting effect that they have on the world. They are not worth fighting for, nor teaching because some of us never learned them.

    “...in the meantime, if you are worried about the people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is to remain outside yourself. Christians are Christ’s body, the organism through which He works. Every addition to that body enables Him to do more. If you want to help those outside you must add your own little cell to the body of Christ who alone can help them. Cutting off a man’s fingers would be an odd way of getting him to do more work.” -C.S. Lewis

    Whenever I see people who argue that they are fighting for liberty and progress campaigning to change America rather than the rest of the world it makes me wonder how we expect technological innovation when so much of the world lives in the stone-age or worse: many against their will. Why does the left continue to flirt with dictatorship such as Castro’s which is in league with the horribly oppressive Islamofascist Iran?

    It makes me wonder how many potential Einsteins, Marie Pasteurs, Isaac Newtons or Wrights Brothers’ have starved to death or been destroyed by tyrants, fanatics and ignorance and the combination of all those things put together? Nevermind the millions that waste their own potential in a free country on their own, although that also definitely and obviously takes its toll.

    One might call it dangerous in certain contexts.

    Posted by Sirc_Valence  on  02/10  at  12:54 AM
  59. A bit earlier, I asked why the left flirts with dictatorship, and I believe that it is because if you do not detect evil you are unable to confront it. I belive this to result from the embrace of sin.

    Evil is not merely a word to describe that which we don’t understand (though it often contains that quality), because there is a malice behind it, ultimately one which will not be persuaded by any appeal to reason or justice. We struggle against it and sometimes that struggle manifests itself physically, such as in the American Revolution, the the American Civil War, the Second World War, and the current conflict that we find ourselves in.

    Evil continues to lose ground, there is reason for optimism. We must remember something that America’s Founders spoke of often: PROVIDENCE. It is a force that manifests itself through the unity of God’s purpose and our determined will to fulfill it.

    “Phlegyas deposits them at a great Iron Gate which they find to be guarded by Rebellious Angels. These creatures of Ultimate Evil, rebel against God Himself, refuse to let the poets pass. Even Virgil is powerless against them, for Human Reason by itself cannot cope with the essence of Evil. Only Divine Aid can bring hope. Virgil accordingly sends up a prayer for assistance and waits anxiously for a Heavenly Messenger to appear.” -John Ciardi describing Canto VIII, The Inferno

    “That explains what used to puzzle me about the Christian writers; they seem to be so very strict at one moment and so very free and easy at another. They talk about mere sins of thought as if they were immensly important: and then they talk about the most frightful murders and treacheries as if you had only got to repent and all would be forgiven. But I have come to see that they are right. What they are always thinking of is the mark which the action leaves on that tiny central self which no one sees in this life but which each of us will have to endure -or enjoy...”-C.S. Lewis

    Posted by Sirc_Valence  on  02/10  at  01:12 AM
  60. Sirc_Valence wrote: [some stuff]

    I know! I know! Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5, paragraph 7, final couplet! Right?

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  02/10  at  01:33 AM
  61. "The left’s faith is that life is a senseless pursuit of self-gratification.”

    No, this is the faith of… I don’t know who this is the faith of, it’s certainly not the faith of the left. The left, as I understand it, believes in a lot more, the dignity of all persons, the value of knowledge over ignorance, the importance of thinking in all tenses, past present and future and the importance of not just your happiness but the happiness everyone and the value of liberty.

    Posted by  on  02/10  at  07:06 AM
  62. Chris Clarke, try Miracles, by C.S. Lewis. Or check out of Chapter 10, Nice People Or New Men, of Mere Christianity:

    Their free will is trembling inside them like the needle of a compass. But this is a needle that can choose. it can point to its true North; but it need not. Will the needle swing round, and settle, and point to God?

    He created [Timothy’s] sound nerves and good digestion, and there is plenty more where that came from. It costs God nothing, so far as we know, to create nice things: but to convert rebellious wills cost His crucifixion.

    Natural causes come together in [Timothy] to make a pleasant psychological pattern, just as they come together in a sunset to make a pleasant pattern of colours… Presently..they will fall apart again and the pattern in both cases will disappear.

    Posted by Sirc_Valence  on  02/10  at  03:58 PM
  63. The dignity of all persons.. sure, about 98% share that feeling; the value of knowledge? See 1 Thes. 5:21- Test everything Hold on to the Good; the importance of trying to see things from another person’s point of view? I try to do it all the time.

    I sympathise with socialist and islamic radicals who believe that they are propagating the truth. I don’t need a film to tell me that America’s enemies can be human beings - believe me, I know this all to well. Yet they must be condemned, much like their academic enablers, the immature professors of nihilism. After all, your beliefs and political positions have to be based on something after all is said and done.

    Apparently many in academia have insulated themselves from the laws of supply and demand, and turned around and dedicated themselves to demanding what the market (the people) should desire - in the name of not demanding any moral virtue from people! It really is nonsense, an injustice to the public. It is obvious that the left is exercising cultural socialism on the American public, my what false impressions lead us to do.

    If we remember that socialism is a deviation from the laws of economics which required that failing and wasteful enterprises be “subsidized” so to speak, we can detect the parallel in cultural socialism, a la what is known as multiculturalism or the betrayal of civilization’s Judeo-Christian precepts in the attempt to subsidize wasteful and failing cultures. This is based on a foolish conception of the notion of equality and fairness.

    Basically, the untenable situation is that we need serious scholars and patriots and are instead being sent clowns and subversives. Not that there isn’t a place for clowns, don’t get me wrong here.

    Posted by Sirc_Valence  on  02/10  at  04:02 PM
  64. Michael, couldn’t you have afforded the real Victor Davis Hanson as a commenter to match the Hansens design theme? This cheap “Solus Christus” Hanson knock-off leaves much to be desired. He’s got the haughty condescension, the careless reading of opponents, and the hermetic remove from fact down, but I really want reflexive invocations of Anaximander and Plutarch along with my New Testament and pallid libertarianism.

    Really, if it’s a budget matter, you could put up a tip jar.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  02/10  at  04:13 PM
  65. Oh, how the puffy ego cannot stand its deflation. And here I thought that I was being gentle and kind with Chrissy.

    Now let us avoid the trap of actually participating in an actual discussion and sticking to the subject. And all this time I’ve been doing things the wrong way, perhaps someday I too can progress to the point where I might be filled with even a fraction of the intellectual self-adulation that Chris Clarke has displayed here. One can only hope. Yes, I’m crossing my fingers and typing with my elbows here. You should see me.

    BTW, as long as we are speaking at people instead of replying to them, the clown who suggested the tip jar forgot to explain how a certain individual is guilty of a “careless reading of opponents.”

    Posted by Sirc_Valence  on  02/10  at  05:30 PM
  66. intellectual self-adulation

    Well, you know, the cosmetic self-adulation wasn’t getting me anywhere.

    But you’re right. I should have explained myself better to you. True, the majority of people reading this thread got it, but a careful writer thinks of ALL his or her readers.

    Very slowly now: My Macbeth reference was not an attempt to guess who’d written what you typed out. It was a really rather remarkably direct reference to an hitorical literary passage that was, in the parlance of the evolutionary biologists, preadapted to characterize your comment. I referred to only the last two lines out of an attempt to live up to certain standards of discourse Michael and I have discussed in the past, but in the interest of thoroughness, here is the passage with a bit of context preceding it.

    a poor player
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
    And then is heard no more: it is a tale
    Told by an idiot,
    full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.

    But really, I gave you literally chapter and verse. My spine is starting to hurt from the way I’m bending over backwards to help you understand this stuff.

    [filter word: values.]

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  02/10  at  05:51 PM
  67. Funny stuff, I’m glad that you can amuse yourself and can cite Macbeth to the folks. Rather than wonder why you stated that I have nothing to say I decided to recommend some reading to you.

    The fact that you read Shakespeare, Hans Herman Hoppe, or the Menu at Denny’s can only take you so far.

    Apparently you really do share certain “standards” of discourse with Mike, (e.g. “I’m gonna ignore you, lalalalala; So about that review you demand. How’s never?") Perhaps that feeling that you described is your spine demanding you to grow it.

    Posted by Sirc_Valence  on  02/10  at  06:10 PM
  68. Dad? Is that you?

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  02/10  at  06:12 PM
  69. Really, REALLY funny piece Michael. I’m sickly addicted to FrontPageMag and the truly bizarre forum ‘discussions’ there, and I was wondering when responses from those mentioned in David’s latest booklet might start to appear. With his typical modesty, sections of the “The Professors” are posted as the lead article at FPM today - which makes sense, I guess, ‘cause hey, that’s pretty big news, right?

    Too friggin’ much.

    Posted by truth4achange  on  02/11  at  12:04 AM
  70. They should double your salary at Penn.I don’t want to read or buy the book, but I do want to know who the other 100 are. Where can I find this list. I too teach literature (in Bangladesh) and often talk about the centrality of politics in the study of literature.

    Posted by  on  02/15  at  09:56 AM
  71. Micheal,

    I did not see a page for you by Horowitz when I searched his “Discover the networks” pages.
    Has it been taken down?

    Posted by  on  02/20  at  01:45 PM
  72. Just Google “101 most dangerous professors,” Dr. Hussain, and the list will turn up.  Here, for example.  And Edwina, yes, Horowitz has taken down all the DTN pages of professors named in the book.  Perhaps he did this in response to my remark that the book consists of reprints of those pages, perhaps not.  Only The Shadow knows.

    Posted by  on  02/20  at  04:21 PM
  73. I was surfing when I passed by your website. I must admit that I really enjoyed the quality information you offer to your visitors… Will be back often to check up on new stuff you post here!

    Posted by promotional caps  on  12/15  at  03:24 PM
  74. UGG Boots Classic collection at Firshoes.com. Shopping it now for your dream classic UGGs.

    Posted by  on  11/05  at  04:31 AM





Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:

<< Back to main