Why David Horowitz Is an Infant, Part 1:
David Horowitz is a sick, sick fuck, so enthralled at the smell of his own bile-infused vomit that he wants everyone to enjoy the piquant odor, driven so insane by the polar opposition of his youthful liberalism and his older self's fascism that, if it weren't for the Internet and Fox "News," he'd be curled into a ball, shitting himself on a cold bench in Harvard Square, screaming at the trees. He has an ego that, in a rational nation, would be described as "sociopathic," and his writings are mad rants disguised as academic treatises, but underneath, like a feral cat in a canvas bag, you can hear the crazed screeches and clawings. He believes he is an erudite grown-up, but his writings are the ejaculatory yowls of an infant masturbator who wants everyone to look at his newly discovered boner.

Here's Horowitz, in his blog, talking about David Brock's Media Matters: "Suppose conservatives gave $2 million to Armstrong Williams or Jeff Gannon to run a website devoted to criticizing leftwing media for lack of journalistic ethics." Then Horowitz attacks Brock for having the same ideological change of heart that Horowitz underwent, albeit in the opposite direction, as well as trying to discredit Media Matters for receiving money from "George Soros and friends." And here is why David Horowitz is a fucking idiot, his opinions worthless on their face and filled with self-hatred and unrelenting disgust at his own image in his Lacanian mirror. 'Cause one easy answer would be to say, "Hey, Davey, what did the mainstream media do to Dan Rather?" But instead, let's introduce Horowitz to Accuracy In Media, which has been around for years, whose sole purpose is to "counteract the misdeeds" of the so-called "liberal media." And whose major funders are the wacko-conservative Kirby and Sarah Scaife foundations. In other words, "suppose," motherfucker?

Why did Horowitz get his diaper in a wad over Brock? Because Brock dared to call "bullshit" on Horowitz's blurbles about an unsubstantiated story that a student failed an exam because he refused to answer a question on why George Bush is a war criminal. Problem is no one can locate the professor or provide Horowitz any back up. Horowitz cites only his own organization as having "the complete facts," (much like his press publishes his screeds) and expects us to believe him because "who could actually doubt this story, particularly in the Wake of the Ward Churchill Affair? Does anyone think that Churchill, a man who thinks he is living in Nazi Germany, would have scruples about putting such a 'question' on an exam?"

See, like a particularly deranged baby building a teetering tower of blocks, Horowitz is a man on a crusade in that, under the oh-so convenient guise of "balance" (in the Foxian sense of the word), he is trying to get state legislatures to pass an "Academic Bill of Rights" or legislation that approximates Horowitz's deep desires. He believes that "there are thousands of Ward Churchills on our college faculties," which, if you think about it, which would make you far, far more mature than Horowitz, means that the lack of revolution in this country demonstrates how ineffective all these thousands of "Ward Churchills" are. (See, get it? "Ward Churchill," a radical leftist and, by many accounts, a fucking great professor, becomes shorthand for any professor who professes any liberal leanings. See how that works? Like "feminazi" before it, no?)

Liberals in academia are a scourge that must be driven from the ivy-covered buildings like witches from the villages of 17th-century France. Horowitz wants states to legislate "balance" on college campuses, which Horowitz seems to believe would mean that conservative viewpoints would have to be presented. He seeks to control the behavior of professors in the classroom, organizations that present speakers, the grading of exams, and on and on. The "Bill of Rights" uses big scary words that are wide open for interpretation, words like "indoctrination," as in, "Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination." Now, if a professor teaching, say, American history dares to say that America was founded as a secular nation, is that "indoctrination"? And is that professor obligated to say, "Oh, and some people disagree"? Is a biology professor, the vast majority of whom don't treat evolution as anything but the well-documented fact that it is, be "indoctrinating" students into "anti-religious" ideologies if said professor doesn't teach "creationism"? Howzabout economics profs who espouse free market theories, Milton Friedman accolytes, for instance? Will they be forced to acknowledge the positives of a socialistic system?

You get it yet? It's absurd. It's stupid. And it treats college students, who, at age 18, are adults, like babies. But that's because Horowitz loves it when he gets his diaper changed and he can piss all over Mommy: "Look, Mommy, don't you love my stream. Tell me you love me, Mommy." If a student doesn't like the ideology of a professor, take another professor. We all knew who the batshit insane professors were back in the day; shit, we used to dare each other to take them. And if a student doesn't like the ideology of a university or college, take your tuition and go somewhere else. College is a voluntary activity done by adults.

Last Tuesday, Horowitz recently testified before the Education Commitee of the Ohio Senate in support of a measure that's based on the "Academic Bill of Rights." Again, his arguments seem well-meaning, rational, the man's got a goatee, so he looks smart. "All too frequently," he said, "professors behave as political advocates in the classroom, express opinions in a partisan manner on controversial issues irrelevant to the academic subject, and even grade students in a manner designed to enforce their conformity to professorial prejudices." In other words, he believes not in the processes of the university, like grade appeals, but only in the dictums he has so obfucastingly laid down.

Underneath it all is a seething meanness, a desire for control, a lashing out at a profession that, frankly, wouldn't have him if he walked around a community college with three PhD's tied to his dick. He says he speaks for students who are being oppressed but, in the end, his blatherings are about nothing more, and nothing less, than his monumental desire for attention and his ability to whip his followers into a frenzy of accommodating hatred.

And we haven't even gotten to his crazed, rambling diatribes about liberalism in general. That's coming soon. (Michael Berube, the Rude Pundit's got your back.)