Fresno RJCCC Debate on the U.N. with Drs. Bruce Thornton & Victor Davis Hanson

Stuart Weil

[Jim Robinson]

The Republican Jewish Coalition of Central California is pleased to sponsor the

6th GREAT OXFORD/FRESNO DEBATE

Wednesday, June 29th, 2005 7pm

Bullard High School Theater
5445 N. Palm Avenue
Fresno, CA

The motion before the House:

THE UNITED NATIONS HAS OUTLIVED ITS USEFULNESS

Distinguished panelists include:

PRO:
Victor Davis Hanson, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute
Bruce Thornton, Ph.D., Professor of Classics, CSU Fresno
Stuart Weil, Chairman, Republican Jewish Coalition of Central California

CON:
Jim Bartram, Speech Instructor, Fresno City College
Howard Hendrix, Ph.D., Lecturer, English Literature, CSU Fresno
Richard Stone, Administrative Director, Fresno Center for Nonviolence

ANALYST:
Kevin Ayotte, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Communication, CSU Fresno

MODERATOR:
Vincent Lavery, Board of Directors, Fresno Center for Nonviolence

Please bring your cheers, jeers, applause and catcalls (within the bounds of decency, please) to support the RJCCC for this important and timely debate on the United Nations.

FREE ADMISSION!

[hineybona]

I wouldn't want to ever have to debate Hanson..The man is brilliant , extremely well read and articulate..

[tame]

btw, did anyone ask why the leftists always seem to want what terrorists want?

--Leftists want us out of Iraq, the terrorists want us out of Iraq.

--Leftists hate President Bush (but they think Clinton was okay), Saddam hates President Bush (but he thinks Clinton was okay).

--Leftists wanted Bush to lose to John Kerry, Osama Bin Laden wanted Bush to lose to John Kerry.

HELLOOOOOOOOO! Doesn't the average democrat on the street see a pattern here?!?

[hineybona]

Good points bro...hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[tame]

Good points bro...hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Awe, shucks ;o)

[tame]

I wish I would have been there. Was it taped? Will a tape be made available?

[tame]

Was the event recorded? Will tapes be made available?

[Saundra Duffy]

Please ping me if you get a report of last night's doings. Wow!

[backtothestreets]

Good report Jim. Very good. I noticed a couple things that you touched on.

Our camp was entirely Pro-USA. The people in the opposing camp, were anti-USA, except for a scattering of people that are genuinely conflicted and trying to hold an alliance to the USA and the UN simultaneously. There is hope for those few yet. A lot of these people are struggling with the worldwide problems they know exist, and the inability of the UN to deal with them. Those that are anti-USA are a whole different story. They are quite willing to accept the failures of the UN to protect sovereign nations and protect lives. Their singular purpose was to bash the USA under the veiled premise the UN is useful.

It wasn't until I got home that the issue of failures, successes and usefulness of the UN, as compared the the early decades of the USA really got me thinking. Here's the meat and potatoes answer to this comparison. Barely 3 decades after our Constitution was ratified, our infant nation adopted what many historians consider the most enduring policy assuring the sovereignty of free nations. The Monroe Doctrine has no equal in the annuls of foreign policy successes.

We are presently in the sixth decade of the UN. The body has yet to assure the sovereignty of a single nation on its own. All endeavors it has participated in with any success have only been made possible because of the commitment of the USA.

I'm not going to debate the premise of the debate, "THE UNITED NATIONS HAS OUTLIVED ITS USEFULNESS", but instead hold fast to the conviction the USA should withdraw from the UN entirely. It would be then that everyone would learn the answer to the question of this debate. If we were to ever rejoin, let it be when this body meets our higher standard of national sovereignty as established by our nation, under the guidance of President Monroe, while we were in our infancy.

To those of the audience that abhor war, and want nothing but peace, they have my respect, but they are misguided. As unfortunate as it is, sometimes the only path to peace is by war. It is unfortunate, but it is the reality of mankind. These people need to understand that all rational people hate war, but fortunately some are willing to risk war to assure peace.

Thank you once again Jim for the report and the invitation to the debate. It was enlightening.

[gracie1]

Here is my view on the evening. I sat on the other side, predominately among the pro-UN side. From that vantage point I could hear most of the comments that were made, even the ones that were not yelled out. It was interesting to note that many people were making anti-US comments, mostly regarding slavery, the Indians, etc, but making them quietly. Occasionally someone would yell out something, but they were mostly shocked that there are people who place democratic ideals and our national sovereignty first. There was a couple next to me who seemed against the idea of spreading democracy across the world. The liberal panelist seemed to think it was a bad thing that we "imposed" democracy to Japan and Germany.

Because I was in the midst of "enemy territory", so to speak, I kept my reactions to minimum, but did applaud all the great points made by Dr Hanson and the rest of the panel. There was one man, however, who seemed to single me out for some reason. At the end of the debate when we held up our hands to vote, he kept pointing at me and saying "That blond, right there, that one, yeah, she swallowed the whole thing, she fell for all of their lines, that dumb blond fell for the whole thing!" and so forth. I debated for a moment to approach him and say something like "Do you know me? Those are quite chauvinistic statements to make of someone you don't know." But in the end I didn't feel it was wise, and didn't wish to dignify his his ignorance with a response.

All in all, I had a good time. It was a pleasure to see Dr's. Hanson and Thornton in person, as well as Stuart.

[stainlessbanner]

They criticized America for killing off the Native Americans and for slavery and for all the bad things that happened during our early history

Interesting since Hanson is a big fan of Gen. Sherman. Looks like they did some homework on their opponent.

Did Hanson respond?

[stainlessbanner]

There was one man, however, who seemed to single me out for some reason.

Were you only one that took a bath that day?

Thanks for the report.

[gracie1]

Were you only one that took a bath that day?

LOL!

All seriousness aside, I was surprised that most of the audience was middle age and older. There was a couple of young men, one of which had on a Che t-shirt, on the liberal side. His buddy asked extremely looooong winded questions. I guess his folks got their moneys worth from college!

[stainlessbanner]

The obligatory Che t-shirt, sign of a conformist. Maybe the man who asked long-winded questions dressed him.

[bitt]

thanks for the ping!

[Sabra 4 Bush]

The final vote was 85 Pro (i.e., that the U.N. HAS outlived its usefulness) to 62 Con (that we ought to continue to sing Kumbayah while the Sudanese are slaughtered).

Funny--Kevin Ayotte (the Analyst) proclaimed himself neutral, without any conflict of interest. Google him and see how many Peace Fresno and Center for Nonviolence links you get. Liar.

Drs. Hanson and Thornton and Mr. Weil had logic and reasoned arguments on their side. The other side had arrogance and emotion.

[rafiz101]

It is humorous that you essentialize all who wear Che shirts as being conformist morons. Maybe if you took the time to actually enter a dialogue with that individual you would come to find that he has many core "American" values, has firmly began his investigations into many philosophical schools of thought, and truly finds Che to be a man that many could learn from.

Or you can go ahead and point a finger at a self-constructed moron with no possible point to offer to yourself.

I was that young man who had "long-winded" questions, and I am happy that you found them to be long and complete. I would rather be identified and/or criticized as that type of investigator within the resolution we were debating rather than one of the many who threw mindless jabs at the other side, both liberal and conservative, and spewed mindless metaphysical violence at the other.

The reason my questions were long was because I felt they should have a proper historical background and source relevance as well as qualifications before being considered. As a person who was recently ranked with my partner as the 5th best policy debate team in the nation from Clovis West High School, I have found that taking a step back to fully ask a relevant question usually helps us find better policy paths for future action than one that is blippy and short-sighted.

[REDWOOD99]

Che was a terrorist. You could've said you were a troll in a lot fewer words. Here's a tip Master Debater- get to the point. Here's another - get lost!

[rafiz101]

Maybe you should go read some literature on threat construction, collateral discourse and identity politics. I won't go into it here because you need a proper background before discussing.

I'm not a troll, just thought this board should be open to counter points. Why don't you go off and learn how to actually raise questions and debate before you sit behind your laptop screen spewing bullshit.

[Brandon_Hill]

Despite the atrocities being carried out in Sudan and the authoritarian nature of the Sudanese government, the Bush Administration continues to carry out diplomatic relations with Sudan. In addition to this, the CIA has forged a close relationship with the Sudanese government. It seems as though they are the ones "singing kumbayah as the Sudanese are slaughtered" and not the left

[REDWOOD99]

Maybe you should contribute something to this world beyond your pompous verbiage. In the immortal words of W.C. Fields, "Go away, kid. You bother me."