...go there and set something on fire in protest?

I'm very confused here, the state's colleges have been inviting crank lefties to speak all the time, that costs money, have any of these "outraged" liberals ever complained about that?

It's OK for school funds to go to ridiculous communists to speak but not ridiculous right wing idiots?

In all the articles I have searched and read over, I have yet to find what the difference is, other than when loudmouth loons like David Horowitz complain about left wing speakers on college campuses, the so called left whines about free speech and a battle of ideas.

What exactly is the difference?

After years of barking about David Horowitz from the left, how are they different on this?

Used a dozen variations of this search, you wouldn't have a link of some sort?

"
Leland Yee Merced Berkeley speaking fees bill clinton
"

I'm more interested in the interesting switch up here, if you do a search for David Horowitz and his fetish for publicity, and for college campus free speech you will find him harping on universities and who they pick to speak using tax dollars.

Try "david horowitz college campus speakers" and you will see he is a one man orgy of this type of rant, Horowitz may have changed sides but he still uses the tactics of the Bay Guardian left.

That there is now a concern for speaking fees from political cranks from such spots as the Bay Guardian on its surface is hilarious, unless I'm missing something. Because Sarah Palin was never as crazy as Bill Ayers or any number of left wing idiots the left trumpets out speaker wise.

I clicked out so another post that says same may come up.

I'm just puzzled as to why now all of a sudden after paying for all type of left wingers to speak at colleges its an issue now.

Palin in a buffoon and paying her, or anyone else that type of money, or even 1/10 is ridiculous, just to blather away.

She is probably saner than a Norman Finkelstein or Ward Churchill... but not by much.

Wow, you left wingers are a freakin' riot.

Ms Trollop, Sarah Palin went to several collages and took 6 years to graduate because she paid her own way through.

Unlike Barack Obama, whose rich communist benefactors paved the way with all tuition paid.

Palin literally grew up in a log cabin in the Alaska wilderness. Her family wasn't dirt poor, Chuck her dad is a teacher, but they weren't rich either.

Palin worked hard to get where she is. She didn't ride her daddy's or her husband's coattails to have a career. She built it herself from nothing.

She went from city council member to Mayor, and president of the Alaska Council of Mayors.

From there she became the Chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, one of the most powerful jobs in the state. She was the state's chief energy and environmental regulator.

She took on Big Oil and kicked their ass, and then took on corruption within the Republican party and sent people to prison. That took guts.

Meanwhile, Obama wallowed in Chicago corruption and has infected the entire American political process with it.

Sarah Palin stood up to the "Corrupt Bastards Club" in Alaska and took down the sitting Republican Governor.

She was the most successful Governor in the country. Had the highest approval rating. She fulfilled every single campaign promise she made.

As Governor, she became the Chairman of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission as well as the National Governor's Association's Natural Resources Chairman. She is recognized as one of the nation's authorities on energy production and regulation as well as environmental regulation.

Watch her on April 9 in New Orleans when she rips that little Chicago street thug to shreds over his scam "off shore drilling" scheme. This is going to be a whoopin' of biblical proportions! I almost feel sorry for Obama, I really do.

Look for her address to the nation to be carried live.

Anyhow, she was this chosen to be the GOP's vice presidential candidate, and has never looked back.

Currently, Sarah Palin, who is a private citizen, holds no office, is one of the most powerful people in the world. She makes Obama piss his pants when she writes something on her Facebook page!

You think a woman of her stature doesn't belong at your school?

What a sad, petty little life you must lead.

Her speech at your college is sold out and is bringing in a ton of cash. BTW.
.
Get over it.

1. Palin took so long to graduate because she goddamned quitter - she's quit every political job she's had half-way through because she's a pea brain who's more interested in cashing in on her red-state celebrity than she is in doing the hard work of governing. Even her own father said she left school in Hawaii because she was uncomfortable that there were so many minorities there.

2. President Obama paid his way through school with loans, which he finished paying off the same year he was elected senator from Illinois. Your statement is libelous and as usual with you right-wing blowhards - utterly false.

3. What a sad, petty life you live when you think the President of the United States gives a shit what a three-time quitter from Alaska thinks and writes on her Facebook page.

4. Palin wouldn't ever be admitted to "my school" because someone who attends "my school" got there through brains and hard work - not demagoguery and quitting.

It's no wonder she's your hero - the right wing in this country is best represented by a pea-brained loser who's more interested in cashing in on her infamy than actually DOING anything to improve the country.

You have heard of Bill Ayers and Angela Davis? Those two fly around giving speeches for money at various Universities. They are admitted communists. Davis was Gus Halls side kick when running for president one of those half dozen times. You don't get much more real than that.

Whats really your point there?

===

It's OK to use government funds to pay Angela Davis and other kooks to speak at various university campuses, but not to pay that clown Palin?

What am I missing here?

Whats the exact point of the outrage here? That its so much money? She should be priced more in line with Ward Churchill and a recording of Mumia, and then it would be OK?

I should ask you at this moment if you are really interested in having a discussion on Marx or Lenin, or if you just want to post one-liners, ridicule and ad hominems? I can't recall you ever putting forth a position, argument, or any ideology, so I want to make sure I am not wasting my time.

A communist as defined by Marx and Lenin, not me.

As to your assertion there being only 25 communists as defined by Marx and Lenin: you not only once again demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about, but also further display your reliance on one-liners, ridicule, and ad hominems as a substitute for any real argument. I do not see why anyone should take any of your claims or protests seriously, and I can only surmise that you post on this site to engage in troll-like behavior. I guess the joke is on me that I actually have tried to engage you in a discussion.

There's a little perspective missing here. Lots of people get paid to speak at colleges; there's nothing wrong with that. Speaking is teaching, and colleges pay people to teach. Most of the visiting speakers -- the commies that Glen is so worried about -- get modest sums, a few thousand dollars, if that. College speaking fees of more than $10,000 are very rare. (Full disclosure: I, who am often called a commie, have been paid to speak at campuses numerous times. Typically I get $50; once or twice I got $100.)

And if you contacted the journalism departments that paid me a modest honorarium, they would, by law, disclose the amount (or you could just ask me; I'm happy to tell you. A bit embarassed at how meager a fee I command, but happy to share anyway.) Same goes for what public universities  pay Angela Davis; it's public record.

The problem Leland Yee and others (including me) is that Palin -- who doesn't need the money -- gets huge, massive speaking fees, in excess of $100,000. And the amount is kept secret. It's pretty bad for someone who knows that the UC system is broke to demand that kind of money -- and it's bad for UC to refuse to fess up and say how much she's getting paid. Even if it's a special foundation (those special foundations -- see City College of SF -- are often slush funds for bad behavior).

That's the issue here.

Again, why is California State University bringing this insipid, willfully ignorant woman to speak to the students in the first place? They should be speaking to her, not that they could teach her anything. One could put a piss ant in front of the microphone and you'd get more information from Mister Ant than this SP woman thingy will give you.

And I see there's a fixation here with communists. I thought that dragging out the "commie" card ended back during the Reagan regime. Although on some message forums I have noticed some willfully ignorant people referring to Bush3 (Obama) as a communist. Bush3 is a lot of things, but he ain't a communist. Clearly, some people are confused and don't know the difference between a communist and corporate fascism. Between the two of those things, the focus should be on corporate fascism because that is what is ruining this nation. Not communism.

Ralph Nader has talked about this....corporate fascism is when the corporations run the nation---which they are doing now and have been doing for some time---and they essentially write the legislation for the house and senate because both D and R parties are paid by their corporate owners and accordingly they work for their corporate owners. Even though they pretend to, neither give a damn about We The People, which should be blatantly clear to most people who have been paying attention to the federal level politicians, especially since 2000.

14 points of fascism:

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism

From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
[Sam's Editorial: Anyone ever notice that wall of flags behind Obama or Pelosi whenever they are speaking at a podium. It looks the same as it did when Bush or Cheney spoke. "Change we can believe in." And those ubiquitous lapel pins that these corrupt politicians wear trying to prove who's more "patriotic" than the other corrupt politician. "Change we can believe in." When actually, it's all about fascism. Not communism. I think some people here need to do a little bit of homework on their "isms."]

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights

The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism

Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism

Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media

Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security

Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together

Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected

Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated

Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts

Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment

Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption

Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections

Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

NOTE: The above 14 Points was written in 2004 by Dr. Laurence Britt, a political scientist. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of: Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile).

and then list "Power of labor suppressed or eliminated' as number 10 on your list of 14 points of fascism.

You are aware that Nader is a protectionist in terms of labor, are you? (Not to mention on platforms with Pat Buchanan.)

Glen, why would you care what problem(s) I have with Nader on a platform with Buchanan? I highly suspect your interest has to little do with any intellectual curiosity or sincere interest, but rather to score a one liner or insult. Go bait somebody else.

I was not claiming you wanted to have a discussion, I was asking if you wanted to have a discussion about communism, since you post on the subject--and many others-- as if you are knowledgeable about it. I only wished to demonstrate that you are not, which is why I believe you resort to assertions, personal attacks, and ad hominems because you have really have nothing to say. You merely resort to dishonesty to camouflage your ignorance.

As Old Father William said to the young man:

I have answered three questions
and that is enough.

Be off
or I will kick you down the stairs.