Here We Go Again....

Once again freedom and sensitivity are clashing, and as has become all too frequent, freedom is losing the battle .....

Seems a student at a New Jersey community college felt motivated to put up a number of posters pointing out that communism had killed lots of people in the name of "progressive" social policy. These posters also make the claim that Ronald Reagan and his ilk had "freed" many more people.

How you feel about these kinds of claims is up to you. Personally, I would argue with the fact that Reagan had really "freed" people, since contributing to the demise of an oppressive government, while a noble undertaking, means little if it's replaced by another repressive government. I would, however, try to keep the argument civil.

This was not the case for adjunct English instructor John Daly of Warren County Community College. His revolutionary zeal and "progressive" values led him to send off an email to this student that sounds like an angry member of the Worker's World Party on a bad day.

Just so I won't be accused of favoring one version of the story over the other, read the report of your choice from either the right side or the left side. Daly's email is included in full on the YAF site, however.

Anyhow, now Daly's in danger of losing his job. The student went public with his email, and the college is now soiling itself worrying about bad publicity. Daly himself sums this up as follows: "As more and more professors are teaching part time, this is a direct attack on our academic freedom."

I think it's much more of an attack on common sense. Daly's obviously far too full of lefty hyperbole to appreciate this, but it is possible to politely and professionally disagree with a student (or anyone else for that matter). When a faculty member writes something like "I will continue to expose your right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like yours won't dare show their face on a college campus" to an undergraduate, this is a bit more aggressive than necessary. Moreover, it's implying that only certain viewpoints should be allowed on campus. Meanwhile, the offended student is not being helped out by the right-wingers because they're just nice people. They're going to milk this one for all it's worth. Yeesh.

How friggin' difficult is it to process this sentence??

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You'll note that there is no mention of sensitivities, "hate speech", taking offense, or any other emotional claptrap. I think NO LAW is pretty clear.

Was Daly smart about this? No. Was the student within her rights to express her opinion? Yes. But the real bad guys here are the lilly-livered college administrators who are missing a great opportunity to preserve liberty and let the First Amendment work. Instead of firing (or threatening to fire) Daly for expressing himself inelegantly, they should set up a public debate series where he and the YAF kids can take each other on. Let a college be a marketplace for ideas. Let the passion (and irrationality) of partisan politics be heard. Get a moderator to maintain some semblance of order, warn everyone that they're about to hear honestly held opinions, and let the fun begin.

But, alas, I doubt it'll happen. The right will feel vindicated, the left will feel prosecuted, and the Bill of Rights will take another direct shot in the nuts.

A Thought About Polls

It seems you can't turn on the TV or read a newspaper without finding a news report critical of our current fearless leader. This, in and of itself, is nothing new. In many cases, it's well deserved. But what really struck me was the fact that many of these critiques are bolstered by some kind of poll / approval rating number.

As far as old GWB is concerned, I doubt he's really losing any sleep over this. He can't be re-elected, he's got a majority in the House and Senate, and as long as Howard Dean and the current Democratic leadership are in office, I don't think they're going to be taking control of the government any time soon.

But what really caught my attention was the underlying assertion: that somehow if the poll numbers dip, the person with the low poll number should do whatever the masses want to get those numbers up. I think it's attributable to that popular myth that this nation is supposed to be a democracy rather than a republic with democratically elected representation. Or maybe it's just that after 8 years of Bill Clinton, people now expect every President to govern by poll results.

The thing that really gets to me, however, is this implied faith in the judgement of the masses. Historically, the founders of this nation understood the danger of unchecked majority rule. I think John Adams (our 2nd President for those of you who attended government schools) said it well:

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

I invite anyone who uses poll numbers (or any other form of popular expression of opinion) to prove the correctness of their position to consider the following:

• At least 90% of the people believe in "god"
• A large percentage of these people reject evolutionary theory, regardless (or in ignorance of) the overwhelming evidence for it
• Very few people can even name their elected representative, much less their senators, or members of the cabinet
• Huge numbers of Americans live in chronic consumer debt
• The new age / holistic / natural medicine movement rakes in billions each year, despite the fact that the majority of these alleged "remedies" either lack objective scientific testing or have been proven to be bogus
• Far too many people breed without planning for it (financially or otherwise), then expect the rest of us to foot the bill for their decisions
• It is not at all uncommon to find people who carp about wanting lower taxes, while simultaneously demanding more government programs
• Our inboxes are full of spam, which suggests that there are enough idiots responding to it to make it profitable
• People have come to depend upon technology (cars, computers, home entertainment systems, sex toys, etc.) yet they neither understand how it works nor do they particularly want to learn. But when it breaks, "somebody" needs to do "something".

In short, "the public" careens through life making stupid decision after stupid decision, embracing a strange combination of comfort, reassurance, hope and preceived security. If anything goes wrong, it's always someone else's fault, and the government should do something about it ... but their opinion should count??!!

Hence, I would point out that while poll numbers may tell you what (usually contradictory) opinions the sheeple have at any given point in time, suggesting that we should use them to govern, or using them to govern, is a really poor idea. Look how well it's served us so far.