I stumbled upon this picture in Flickr today: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmontgom/4408200024/ This is an unidentified image from the March 4 protests, a nationwide exercise in angry socialist agitprop masquerading as rallies against tuition hikes. Jay Schalin uncovered the radical roots of the protests in "The New Campus Radicals." The photo linked here, however, is worth a thousand words. The banner pictured reads, "The Whole Capitalist System has to Go! We Need Revolution + COMMUNISM!"
I've noted that financial gain surely figured in the motivation of the scientists who appear to have conspired to suppress climate data. But of course there is also this possible motive, suggested in an historically grounded article by Rand Simberg that explores the ideal of and deviations from the objective pursuit of science:
It is easy to postulate that they have political aims, and there are certainly many “watermelon” environmentalists (green on the outside, “red” on the inside) who see the green movement as a new means to continue to push socialist and big-government agendas, after a momentary setback with the collapse of the Soviet Union two decades ago. But ... science doesn’t always follow the idealized model of the objective scientist seeking only truth; it is often driven by fashions and fads, peer pressure, and a lust for glory and respect by the other courtiers of the court that fund [these scientists] ... [perhaps] this defense of a flawed theory arose from the sense of power that it might give them over the rest of our lives. Or perhaps it was due to simply an emotional attachment to a theory in which they had invested their careers. Either way, what they did was not science, and they should be drummed out of that profession. They can no longer be trusted.
In this Pope Center piece released today, Charles Johnson, a student at Claremont McKenna College, writes about the contrast on his campus: Lots of attention for the Stonewall Inn incident of 1969, but no interest at all in the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. The Berlin Wall was a testament to the dismal failure of socialism. It's easy to see why campus leftists would rather forget about it.
A couple of months ago Carlin Romano of the University of Pennsylvania wrote an excellent review of Stephen H. Norwood's Third Reich in the Ivory Tower: Complicity and Conflict on American Campuses in the Chronicle of Higher Education. At the time, I noticed that the word fascism is repeatedly used in the review to refer to Hitler's ideology. It was rather Mussolini who was the proponent of fascism. Hitler advocated national socialism. In his book Democracy and Populism: Fear and Hatred John Lukacs points out that the ideologies of Hitler and Stalin were eerily close. Hitler advocated "national socialism" while Stalin advocated "socialism in one country". The old saying that the extremes meet is inaccurate. The two were the same all along. But to cloak the obvious unity of national socialism and socialism in one country (an ideology intimately linked to Progressivism, which is why conservatives like James Burnham in his Managerial Revolution, socialists like Gunnar Myrdal, and New Deal Democrats like Joe Kennedy admired Hitler), the media used the term fascism to inaccurately denote Hitler's national socialism. In fact, it would have been more accurate to call Mussolini's fascism national socialism. The continued use of fascism to refer to Nazism suggests that the ideology that piqued the interest in protecting Stalin, a killer of equivalent proportions to Hitler, is alive and well in universities.