The Saturday edition of the Democrat and Chronicle included a guest essay from RIT Professor Ronald Amberger. The essay was titled Obama doesn't set oil prices and tried to "explain the real reasons that oil prices are rising ("speculators, people who refuse to conserve oil and the refusal to look to alternative energy sources").
The essay is brief, but Professor Amberger's agenda comes through quite clearly. He is clearly in the Obama/Chu camp of persons who think that Americans need to get used to higher prices for fuel so that "good" (read: green) alternative energy sources are economical (he underscores the fact that natural gas or nuclear energy need not apply).
He makes an incredible argument that if we produced more oil in the US it would only mean "that less oil is produced elsewhere and the price is unaffected". Really? I would love to challenge the economic theory behind that statement, but suffice it to say, if we produced more oil in the US, we would, at least not be lining the pockets of our enemies by purchasing foreign oil. Amberger, like Obama and Chu, wants us to fall for green energy even though the cost is 4 to 5 times the cost of carbon fuels and despite the fact that no green energy source has proved feasible on any significant scale.
The thing that really bugs me about the essay is the hypocrisy. The President, the Energy Secretary and Professor Amberger all actually believe that rising prices for gasoline are a good thing. They just don't want to be blamed by the" unreasonable" and "ignorant" public who don't want or like the high prices. If they are all so damn sure they are right, they should make the case for alternative energy without resort to smoke and mirrors.
The problem is that they can't.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Saturday, March 10, 2012
UR Free Speech Update
My latest Update on this issue was so far down the page I decided to paste it up here, as well. The links are live in UPDATE II at the bottom of the original post.
There is quite a storm in academic and political circles over Seligman's remarks (much of it available thanks to Instapundit). Check out posts here, here, and, here. The last link includes this quote:
“Most worrisome, however, is the fact that UR allowed its students to disrupt Landsburg’s class without any consequences, despite the fact that campus security was on the scene. What happened in Landsburg’s class is a textbook example of ‘mob censorship,’ where a group of people silence or drown out a speaker with whose views they disagree. A classroom is perhaps the least appropriate place for something like this to happen, and the fact that UR did not see fit to clear the heckling students out of the class is disturbing.”
There is quite a storm in academic and political circles over Seligman's remarks (much of it available thanks to Instapundit). Check out posts here, here, and, here. The last link includes this quote:
“Most worrisome, however, is the fact that UR allowed its students to disrupt Landsburg’s class without any consequences, despite the fact that campus security was on the scene. What happened in Landsburg’s class is a textbook example of ‘mob censorship,’ where a group of people silence or drown out a speaker with whose views they disagree. A classroom is perhaps the least appropriate place for something like this to happen, and the fact that UR did not see fit to clear the heckling students out of the class is disturbing.”
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Free Speech Out at U of R
U of R President Joel Seligman criticized economics professor Steven Landsburgh for agreeing with the underlying premise of Rush Limbaugh's comments about Sandra Fluke. Landsburgh disagreed with Limbaugh's use of pejoratives describing Fluke, but he concurred with Rush on the issue of obtaining free contraception. This was Landsburgh's blog post on the topic.
Seligman was not amused. He criticised Landsburgh for defending Rush. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit cited the flap. His post contains remarks by several professors indicating their concerns that Seligman's attack would appear to be contrary to a reasoned view of Free Speech.
Ann Althouse quoted Seligman and commented on his criticism:
(Seligman) "I was deeply disappointed to read UR Professor Steve Landsburg’s recent blogs praising Rush Limbaugh for a “spot-on analogy” with respect to his offensive remarks about Georgetown student Sandra Fluke (although Landsburg parted company with Limbaugh for calling Fluke a “slut”). Landsburg went further. He stated that Ms. Fluke’s position deserved “only to be ridiculed, mocked and jeered.” He further stated that the right word for her position was “extortionist,” characterized those who disagreed with his view as “contraceptive sponges,” and added that there is nothing wrong with being paid for sex... I am outraged that any professor would demean a student in this fashion. To openly ridicule, mock, or jeer a student in this way is about the most offensive thing a professor can do. We are here to educate, to nurture, to inspire, not to engage in character assassination."
(Althouse) "To openly ridicule, mock, or jeer a student in your classroom may be one of the most offensive things a professor can do, but when a student is a political activist who testifies before a congressional subcommittee on a specific policy question that you disagree with, it's not that horrible to blog about that. Of course, Seligman is a political actor. He's got to deal with his intra-university constituencies. I'd like to know who's been pressuring him to push back Landsburg."
(Seligman) "Landsburg now has made himself newsworthy as one of Limbaugh’s few defenders. I wish he had focused instead on the ideal of a university as an institution that promotes the free exchange of ideas and lively debate at its best in an atmosphere of civil discourse in which the dignity of every individual is respected."
(Althouse) "Lively, but not too lively, apparently. And please don't stick out "as one of Limbaugh’s few defenders." The more people are all on one side of an issue, in Seligman's view, the more important it is for everybody to get over on that side. And Landsburg ought to focus on... what? Some abstract ideal that Seligman seems to be violating in the process of mushily stating?"
The Instapundit link takes you to Althouse's whole post and includes other views on the point.
Interesting that I didn't see any of this in the local paper. Not surprising, however, as Seligman is one of the D&C's local favorites. And we sure know how they feel about Rush. I'd love their take on the Free Speech question, though.
UPDATE: Oops, see what happens when I go out of town and don't read the newspaper? The D&C did, in fact, report on the Seligman and student protests of Landsburg. I stand corrected.
UPDATE II: There is quite a storm in academic and political circles over Seligman's remarks (much of it thanks to Instapundit). Check out posts here, here, and, here. The last link includes this quote:
“Most worrisome, however, is the fact that UR allowed its students to disrupt Landsburg’s class without any consequences, despite the fact that campus security was on the scene. What happened in Landsburg’s class is a textbook example of ‘mob censorship,’ where a group of people silence or drown out a speaker with whose views they disagree. A classroom is perhaps the least appropriate place for something like this to happen, and the fact that UR did not see fit to clear the heckling students out of the class is disturbing.”
Has there been any follow-up in the Democrat and Chronicle?
Seligman was not amused. He criticised Landsburgh for defending Rush. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit cited the flap. His post contains remarks by several professors indicating their concerns that Seligman's attack would appear to be contrary to a reasoned view of Free Speech.
Ann Althouse quoted Seligman and commented on his criticism:
(Seligman) "I was deeply disappointed to read UR Professor Steve Landsburg’s recent blogs praising Rush Limbaugh for a “spot-on analogy” with respect to his offensive remarks about Georgetown student Sandra Fluke (although Landsburg parted company with Limbaugh for calling Fluke a “slut”). Landsburg went further. He stated that Ms. Fluke’s position deserved “only to be ridiculed, mocked and jeered.” He further stated that the right word for her position was “extortionist,” characterized those who disagreed with his view as “contraceptive sponges,” and added that there is nothing wrong with being paid for sex... I am outraged that any professor would demean a student in this fashion. To openly ridicule, mock, or jeer a student in this way is about the most offensive thing a professor can do. We are here to educate, to nurture, to inspire, not to engage in character assassination."
(Althouse) "To openly ridicule, mock, or jeer a student in your classroom may be one of the most offensive things a professor can do, but when a student is a political activist who testifies before a congressional subcommittee on a specific policy question that you disagree with, it's not that horrible to blog about that. Of course, Seligman is a political actor. He's got to deal with his intra-university constituencies. I'd like to know who's been pressuring him to push back Landsburg."
(Seligman) "Landsburg now has made himself newsworthy as one of Limbaugh’s few defenders. I wish he had focused instead on the ideal of a university as an institution that promotes the free exchange of ideas and lively debate at its best in an atmosphere of civil discourse in which the dignity of every individual is respected."
(Althouse) "Lively, but not too lively, apparently. And please don't stick out "as one of Limbaugh’s few defenders." The more people are all on one side of an issue, in Seligman's view, the more important it is for everybody to get over on that side. And Landsburg ought to focus on... what? Some abstract ideal that Seligman seems to be violating in the process of mushily stating?"
The Instapundit link takes you to Althouse's whole post and includes other views on the point.
Interesting that I didn't see any of this in the local paper. Not surprising, however, as Seligman is one of the D&C's local favorites. And we sure know how they feel about Rush. I'd love their take on the Free Speech question, though.
UPDATE: Oops, see what happens when I go out of town and don't read the newspaper? The D&C did, in fact, report on the Seligman and student protests of Landsburg. I stand corrected.
UPDATE II: There is quite a storm in academic and political circles over Seligman's remarks (much of it thanks to Instapundit). Check out posts here, here, and, here. The last link includes this quote:
“Most worrisome, however, is the fact that UR allowed its students to disrupt Landsburg’s class without any consequences, despite the fact that campus security was on the scene. What happened in Landsburg’s class is a textbook example of ‘mob censorship,’ where a group of people silence or drown out a speaker with whose views they disagree. A classroom is perhaps the least appropriate place for something like this to happen, and the fact that UR did not see fit to clear the heckling students out of the class is disturbing.”
Has there been any follow-up in the Democrat and Chronicle?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
