Unallowable Questions

Add a new query to the "too sacred to be uttered" list. Evidently asking if childless adults are less interested in posterity than adults with children is strictly verboten. (And, no, I am not aware of a groundbreaking social science study which conclusively answers such a question. A preliminary search turned up very little, but who needs "studies" when you have moral exactitude!)

I really wish the new American Taliban would publish a list of these unquestionable 'holy of holies" so we can all be as "enlightened" as they are. Of course, being merely censorious is small potatoes when you could be a true visionary, which evidently involves advocating burning books that challenge these new sacred truths.

Exciting times we are all in.

Good News (A Rare Feature)

Here is something of a counter cultural result these days; the powers that be don't actually win all the time.

A federal jury today found former Valdosta State University (VSU) President Ronald M. Zaccari personally liable for $50,000 for violating the due process rights of former student Hayden Barnes in the case of Barnes v. Zaccari. In May 2007, Zaccari expelled Barnes for peacefully protesting Zaccari's plan to construct two parking garages on campus, calling a collage posted by Barnes on his personal Facebook page a "threatening document" and labeling Barnes a "clear and present danger" to VSU. Barnes first came to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help in October 2007.

"College administrators have been blatantly and willfully violating student rights for decades, but they have far too often dodged personal responsibility. Not so today," said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. "We hope this serves as a much-needed wake up call to college administrators that it's time to start paying close attention to the basic rights of their students."

"After five years, I finally feel vindicated. This is a victory for me but it's also a victory for students everywhere," said Barnes. "I hope that other college administrators take heed and see that violating students' rights can be costly and that they will be held accountable. I thank my legal team and FIRE for making this victory possible and my friends and family for standing by me through this difficult fight."

Barnes' ordeal began in the spring of 2007, when he protested Zaccari's plan to construct two new parking garages on campus at a cost of $30 million. By posting flyers and sending emails to Zaccari, student and faculty governing bodies, and the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, Barnes expressed his concerns and proposed what he saw as environmentally friendly alternatives. Barnes also penned a letter to the editor of the VSU student newspaper about the proposed parking garage plans and wrote to Zaccari to ask for an exemption from the mandatory student fee designated for funding the construction.

In response to Barnes' activism, Zaccari personally ordered that he be "administratively withdrawn" from VSU in May of 2007, ignoring the concerns raised by members of his administration. Zaccari absurdly claimed that Barnes presented a "clear and present danger" to both Zaccari and the VSU campus on the basis of a cut-and-paste collage Barnes had posted on his Facebook page that included pictures of Zaccari, a parking deck, and the caption "S.A.V.E.—Zaccari Memorial Parking Garage." Given no notice or opportunity to defend himself, Barnes came to FIRE for help in October 2007. 

Today's verdict follows five years of litigation, both at the trial and appellate levels.

All too often university administrators, particularly at the uppermost levels, act as if they were tin pot dictators because most times there is no one able or willing to hold them accountable for their misdeeds. Cases like this can serve an important reminder that state-run colleges and universities are not personal fiefdoms to be run any way they damn well please, nor are students and faculty second-class peasants without Constitutional rights.

Who knows, maybe they will learn the lesson.

(Okay, I realize they will not but a man can dream, can't he?)

Breaking My Silence For Convicted Domestic Terror Bomber Brett Kimberlin Day

There is no need to go into details, as they are copiously explained in dozens of places around the Net today. However, I would like to point people towards this harrowing account on harassment and attempted intimidation directed towards Patrick Frey of Patterico fame.

THE NIGHT I COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED BECAUSE OF MY BLOGGING



At 12:35 a.m. on July 1, 2011, sheriff’s deputies pounded on my front door and rang my doorbell. They shouted for me to open the door and come out with my hands up.


When I opened the door, deputies pointed guns at me and ordered me to put my hands in the air. I had a cell phone in my hand. Fortunately, they did not mistake it for a gun.


They ordered me to turn around and put my hands behind my back. They handcuffed me. They shouted questions at me: IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE HOUSE? and WHERE ARE THEY? and ARE THEY ALIVE?


I told them: Yes, my wife and my children are in the house. They’re upstairs in their bedrooms, sleeping. Of course they’re alive.


Deputies led me down the street to a patrol car parked about 2-3 houses away. At least one neighbor was watching out of her window as I was placed, handcuffed, in the back of the patrol car. I saw numerous patrol cars on my quiet street. There was a police helicopter flying overhead, shining a spotlight down on us as I walked towards the patrol car. Several neighbors later told us the helicopter woke them up. I saw a fire engine and an ambulance. A neighbor later told me they had a HazMat vehicle out on the street as well.


Meanwhile, police rushed into my home. They woke up my wife, led her downstairs and to the front porch, frisked her, and asked her where the children were. Then police ordered her to stand on the front porch with her hands against the wall while they entered my children’s bedrooms to make sure they were alive.


The call that sent deputies to my home was a hoax. Someone had pretended to be me. They called the police to say I had shot my wife. The sheriff’s deputies who arrived at my front door believed they were about to confront an armed man who had just shot his wife. I don’t blame the police for any of their actions. But I blame the person who made the call.


Because I could have been killed.

Pat is a friend of a friend, has been incredibly nice and generous to me and my little blog over the years, and has fantastic taste in music. It is a damn shame he was to deal with these kinds of lunatics. Its also a damn shame that so many on the Left, after they hear about this situation, have taken the side of the lunatics because they disagree with Pat's politics. It is unconscionable, but, sadly, par for the course these days.

The Most Implacable Enemy Of Free Expression: Higher Education

FIRE has the low down on a case that, sadly, has become all too typical in the very places that ought to know better: Peace College to Critics: ‘Desist’ From Exercising Free Speech

In higher education, a significant transformation has been underway at Peace College in North Carolina, a women's college that will begin admitting men to its full-time undergraduate programs starting this fall. The proverbial "winning hearts and minds" is an important task for a college leader guiding her institution through a major transformation, and criticism from within and without is an inevitable part of the process. How colleges respond to such pressures can greatly affect their public perception.

Pity, then, the way Peace College (which will be renamed William Peace University as part of its transformation) has responded to criticisms leveled by the Preserve Peace College Campaign. In response to a letter circulated by the coalition, Peace College (through an outside law firm) has not-so-kindly asked all signatories to the letter to "desist from further distribution" and "send letters of retraction" to atone for the letter's supposedly "damag[ing]" content....

FIRE does not vouch for the assertions in the group's letter or take any position on its content, though it is worth pointing out that the assertions in the letter can be checked rather easily, and statements of opinion are clearly labeled as such. And, to be clear, the right to circulate a list of grievances as the Preserve Peace College Campaign has done is about as basic a principle of freedom of expression as there is.

Yet here is what Arrowood wrote to roughly 40 signatories of the letter:

The university has recently become aware of a letter sent over your signature which contains various statements about the University and its President, statements which are not only false but individually and collectively damage the reputation of the University and its President. The letter reflects an intent to deliberately and improperly interfere with the University's relationships with its various constituencies. ...

[...]

[I]n order to mitigate damage arising from the continued publication of the letter, you should desist from further distribution of the letter and send letters of retraction to any persons to whom the letter was published, whether they received the letter directly by mail or otherwise. In addition, we ask that you furnish us with the list utilized to distribute this letter so that we may communicate directly with its recipients to correct your misstatements.

You have to give them some credit: It takes a lot of nerve to send that kind of letter in response to a letter expressing disagreement with the way Peace College is being run. Actually, you don't have to give them credit. Such disrespect by the college for the basic exercise of the group's free speech rights, in fact, smacks precisely of one of the charges leveled against the college by the group: that it is unaccountable to the public and that "[c]oncerned alumni of Peace College are treated as adversaries when they pose legitimate questions to the new guard."

God only knows what is going on here, and what the motivations are of those who have "taken over" Peace College is certainly a mystery to me. However, the bullying brownshirt tactics being used to silence dissent have no place in a free society, especially at an institution supposedly dedicated to free inquiry. Seemingly, the powers that be at Peace College had no rational arguments to make in response to their critics, so they resorted to threats and intimidation.

How classy. How enlightened. How pathetic.

Bad Judges

Head shaking time again:

A New Mexico man said today he will fight to keep up a controversial billboard that suggested his ex-girlfriend had an abortion.

The billboard has a photo of Greg Fultz holding the outline of a baby with a playground in the background. The large text beside the photo reads, "This Would Have Been a Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To NOT KILL Our Child!"

The sign is on White Sands Boulevard, the main thoroughfare in Alamogordo, N.M., and has been up since mid-May. Fultz's ex-girlfriend Nani Lawrence took him to court with a petition for domestic violence and charges of harassment and invasion of privacy....

Last week, Otero County Domestic Violence Court hearing commissioner Darrell Brantley recommended an order of protection for Lawrence and that the billboard be removed by 8:14 a.m. on June 17 on the grounds of harassment.

Judge James W. Counts is expected to approve these recommendations, but his office says they cannot comment on pending cases.

If this is "approved" all it shows is Brantley and Counts are rights denying idiots. This is so clearly protected speech you really have to be stupid, and I mean truly blithering, to not recognize it. In fact, no reasonable person with even a modicum of knowledge free speech jurisprudence could reach any other conclusion.



No names are used here. No telephone numbers are used here. The topic is clearly one of public controversy, even if presented as an example of how the issue affects individuals. It's protected speech. You have to be a moron to think otherwise.

I certainly hope there is a mechanism in New Mexico to hold judges civilly liable for egregious violations of civil rights.

A Message To Everyone On Earth: With All Due Respect, Screw Your Delicate Sensibilities

Meet the straw that broke this camel's back: Pub singer's 'racism' arrest over Kung Fu Fighting performance

A pub singer has been arrested on suspicion of racial harassment after singing King Fu Fighting in front of two Chinese people.

Simon Ledger says he fears he will end up with a criminal record for performing the 1974 disco classic at a seafront bar on the Isle of Wight on Sunday after two people walking past apparently took offence.

The 34-year-old, from the island, regularly features Carl Douglas’s 1974 number one hit in his set when he performs at the Driftwood Beach Bar in Sandown.

But after striking up the melody in front of customers at the weekend he noticed a man of Chinese origin walking past with his mother, making gestures at him and taking a picture on his mobile phone.

He said that he later received a telephone call from police - while he was dining in a Chinese restaurant - asking him to meet officers about the incident.

He was then arrested and questioned before being bailed.

You know what? I've had it with this bullshit. Someone say something you find offensive? Well, welcome to the real world where things are tough all over. If you don't want to be a "victim" then stop play-acting the part. If you want to confront something you find offensive then learn how to construct a logical argument and write a goddam op-ed.

What began as merely sickeningly annoying "woe is me and my kind" shtick has now become a serious threat to human freedom and dignity (well, as much dignity as one can muster singing "Kung Fu Fighting".)

So to all you "sensitive" types in the world out there, you can stick your "feelings" where the sun don't shine. Freedom is a hell of a lot more important.

Of course, you could try growing up and becoming an adult, or is that just crazy talk?

In This Instance It Ought To Be One Strike And You Are Out

Unbelievable:

David N. Cox says he was merely exercising his right to petition the government, but a state Department of Transportation official has raised allegations that Cox committed a misdemeanor: practicing engineering without a license.

Cox and his North Raleigh neighbors are lobbying city and state officials to add traffic signals at two intersections as part of a planned widening of Falls of Neuse Road.

After an engineering consultant hired by the city said that the signals were not needed, Cox and the North Raleigh Coalition of Homeowners' Associations responded with a sophisticated analysis of their own.

The eight-page document with maps, diagrams and traffic projections was offered to buttress their contention that signals will be needed at the Falls of Neuse at Coolmore Drive intersection and where the road meets Tabriz Point / Lake Villa Way.

It did not persuade Kevin Lacy, chief traffic engineer for the state DOT, to change his mind about the project. Instead, Lacy called on a state licensing agency, the N.C. Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors, to investigate Cox.

Cox says Lacy is trying to squelch dissent.

"All we ever tried to do was express our view about this," said Cox, a computer scientist. "We never expected something like this. We think it's wrong. We're just trying to make our neighborhood safe."

Lacy said his complaint "was not an accusation" against Cox.

"I'm not trying to hush him up," Lacy said.

The technical term for this claim by Lacy is "bullshit".

Lacy is a public servant and nothing more.

Lacy ought to be a former public servant starting today. He obviously is not interested in protecting the people of the state in their rights and liberties, but is interested in using the power of the state to silence dissent. As a result Lacy has forfeited his right to work for the people. Ever.

ADDING:

From Instapundit on this matter:

Stay in your place, proles, and don’t challenge your betters.

The Intellectual Level Of The Leftist Blogosphere (An Example)

Gotta love our moral superiors!

It begins with this post by a blog called Mahablog which was pointing to The Daily Caller calling for news organizations to issue corrections of their early reporting linking the Tuscon shooter to the Tea Party:

Wow, talk about trying to silence your opposition! I say again, if today’s Right ever gets unfettered control of the government, they’ll turn America into a totalitarian state the likes of which Orwell could not have imagined. They complain about “political correctness,” but no one dares not be “conservatively correct” in America.

Just wait — if it hasn’t happened already — somewhere, some wingnut mouthpiece will declare open season on anyone who thinks hate speech played a part in the shooting in Tuscon. Countdown to the progroms [sic] …

Got that? Calling for a newspaper to correct faulty information is the equivalent of Orwellian totalitarianism and a pogrom.

Now, I should have known better given this level of outright stupidity, but I decided to be neighborly, so I posted this comment:

If you are really interested in the connection between violence and ideas – and you do sound as if you are – I suggest you look at the FBI’s “Most Wanted” domestic terrorist list. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/dt

What conclusions do you draw from that list and the ideologies it represents?

Which drew this response:

Obviously, that right-wing terrorists get a pass. That’s been true for years. The Justice Department since Reagan has looked the other way at threats against abortion clinics until someone actually dies, for example.

To which I responded:

huh?

Wouldn’t it make more sense to say the opposite? (Unless you are complaining the Feds are not arresting people BEFORE they commit crimes.)

Do you know of someone who bombed an abortion clinic or killed an abortionist who is still on the loose? Hell, they unleashed the National Guard on that nutjob in North Carolina a few years back. It would make a lot more sense to say they are much more diligent going after those on the right as opposed to the left.

Still, now I know… you are not in fact interested in the connection between ideology and violence, only in bashing your “enemies”.

As I said, now I know.

Notice, to this point, only I have actually pointed to anything like factual information.

Here was the response:

You wanted to prove that only lefties are violent, dear. And I refuse to take the bait. Do take your hypocritical ass elsewhere.

Then I was banned from commenting.

Notice the delusional aspect of the reply here. I made no claim to the exhaustiveness of the information I pointed out. Indeed, the information I pointed out was collected by the FBI, not by some right-leaning blogger. To read this response at face value, it seems Mahablog thinks *I* have control over the FBI! ("Ground control to major nutjob!") But this is par for the course in the lefty blogosphere. When confronted with evidence they do not like, e.g. the make up of the FBI most wanted domestic terrorism list, they invent a conspiracy theory to make that evidence go away, e.g. right-wingers are secretly controlling the FBI's list making. Meet the lefty blogosphere, a place where Ockham's Razor is not welcome.

Mahablog also seems to believe their original post was a balanced assessment of the link between violence and ideology. It isn't. It only bashes the right. (The entire substance is in the quote I have above.) But, somehow, my response with information that doesn't fit their prejudices is deemed out-of-bounds.

Indeed, pointing out information they do not like makes me an "ass" to the likes of the enlightened there.

Meanwhile, a poster called "c u n d gulag" (gee, like Stalin much?) was free to post the following about yours truly:

"You probably won’t read this, but you might want to consider some salad’s. Your fat cheek’s are almost wider than your fedora. And you’ve got more “chin’s” than the Hong Kong phone directory. Also, can you really trust one finger to hold that fat head up?"

Ah the intellect of, I'm presuming, a 9 year old. And a racist 9 year old to boot.

That is the intellect that is OK at Mahablog. That is the writing that isn't asinine.

That such people, the author and gang over at Mahablog, routinely refer to themselves as "liberal" is a tragedy. If John Stuart Mill were around he would want to label himself differently.

What thinking person could blame him?

UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau Ought To Resign

This is truly reprehensible:

Yesterday morning, UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau e-mailed the campus community with regard to the horrendous mass shooting in Arizona that killed a federal judge, a 9-year-old girl, and several others while gravely injuring Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the apparent target of the attack...

Dear members of our campus community:

This weekend's shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the deaths and injuries of many others in the horrific event in Tucson, Arizona[,] have shocked our nation. We here at UC Berkeley offer our sincere condolences to everyone who has been personally affected by this tragedy.

Such a brutal and violent attack on an individual who has devoted herself to public service is deeply regrettable. It calls upon us as an academic community to stop and ponder the climate in which such an act can be contemplated, even by a mind that is profoundly disturbed. A climate in which demonization of others goes unchallenged and hateful speech is tolerated can lead to such a tragedy. I believe that it is not a coincidence that this calamity has occurred in a state which has legislated discrimination against undocumented persons. This same mean-spirited xenophobia played a major role in the defeat of the Dream Act by our legislators in Washington, leaving many exceptionally talented and deserving young people, including our own undocumented students, painfully in limbo with regard to their futures in this country.

On our own campus, and throughout all the campuses of the University of California, we must continue to work toward a climate of equity and inclusion for all. We must be vigilant to condemn hate speech and acts of vandalism on our campuses by those wanting to promote enmity. We must work to support dialogue about our differences and eschew expressions of demonization of others...

If demonization of others is unacceptable in the UC system then how can its head get away with demonizing everyone who disagrees with his personal public policy preferences? Chancellor Birgeneau has simply labelled every opinion other than his own as racist? It is disgusting.

Birgeneau is a disgrace, and if he had any sense of morality in his makeup he would step down.

Dumb On Oh So Many Levels

The Board of Regents for the University of Wisconsin System must not be very bright people. From FIRE:

The University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents recently filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review a Seventh Circuit decision that invalidated the University of Wisconsin's policies governing funding for student organizations. The Seventh Circuit held that Wisconsin's policy of denying student activity fee funding to student organizations who wish to use the money for worship, proselytizing, or religious instruction violated the First Amendment. The University of Wisconsin now seeks to undo prior Supreme Court precedent holding that the denial of funding to religious organizations unconstitutionally penalizes groups for their particular viewpoint, and that funding religious groups does not violate the Establishment Clause.

Indeed, if you bother to read the Seventh Circuit's opinion, it becomes clear this is a well travelled area of law with clearly holding, and recently affirmed, precedents readily apparent. Well, readily apparent to everyone but the tin eared members of the Wisconsin Board of Regents.

This is a particularly stupid course of action for two reasons: 1) In an era of tight financial constraints at the state level, the idea of spending even an additional dime on a quixotic effort to remove First Amendment rights for Catholics and other religious groups, is suspect at best. At worst it shows an "out to lunch"-ness that speaks of the worst kind of ideological fervor imaginable. 2) Given the political environment in Wisconsin presently, where a new hard line Republican governor will be able to work with a new Republican held state legislature on whatever they want to do, this action of the Regents is asinine. Republicans already view academia as suspect, so the Regents decide to act in as spendthrift a manner as possible, and as hostile to religion as possible.

So, the Regents are wrong on the legal merits, and have shown all the political instincts of Herbert Hoover looking at the Great Depression.

Bang up job guys.

Ethical My Aching Ass [UPDATED]

First Amendment anyone? Keith Olbermann suspended after donating to Democrats

MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has been suspended indefinitely without pay after POLITICO reported that he made three campaign contributions to Democratic candidates.

MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in a statement Friday: “I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."

Olbermann made campaign contributions to two Arizona members of Congress and failed Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway ahead of Tuesday’s election.

Olbermann, who acknowledged the contributions in a statement to POLITICO, made the maximum legal donations of $2,400 apiece to Conway and to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. He donated to the Arizona pair on Oct. 28 — the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann’s “Countdown” show.

NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns, and a wide range of news organizations prohibit political contributions — considering it a breach of journalistic independence to contribute to the candidates they cover.

Don't get me wrong here. I believe Olbermann is a mean spirited nitwit, but this "ethics" policy is more stupid than Olbermann. I'm sorry but being a journalist, even a really bad one, does not make you a second class citizen. The free exercise of citizenship has to include the ability to "put your money where your mouth is." It's one thing for an organization not engaged in an activity intimately connected to the First Amendment to put restrictions on the free political activities of its employees. Its another for a journalistic operation to do so. Oh, they are free to make whatever policies they want; it is just in the case of MSNBC, or any other organ of the press, such policies are asinine.

UPDATE:

I just loved this from Simon over at Stubborn Facts:

At first blush, this is all to the good: Olberman is vile, a poison to public discourse, and so there's a certain satisfaction seeing him get slapped. Alas, on closer inspection, it's Griffin who's the jerk in this story. Just what are those policies and standards that Olberman violated? "Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest. Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions."

Is this a joke? How could anything jeopardize the "standing as an impartial journalist" of Keith Olberman, who is one of the most viciously partisan hacks ever to defile a television studio? Olberman is paid to be partial, and now he's being suspended for endangering an impartial reputation that he's never had?

Presumably, before today we were supposed to believe Olbermann was an ethical jackass.

NPR Proves It Ought Not Exist

The disgraceful behavior of (so called) National (so called) Public Radio in firing one of its journalists for not being politically correct enough has shown anyone who ever doubted it that it simply cannot be saved. NPR rejects The Constitution and it's protections, specifically because NPR favors some Americans over others...thus I believe American have the right, or duty, to reject NPR.

In the wake of NPR's firing of contributor Juan Williams over comments about Muslims, Mike Huckabee is calling on the next Congress to cut the radio network's funding when it convenes next year.

"NPR has discredited itself as a forum for free speech and a protection of the First Amendment rights of all and has solidified itself as the purveyor of politically correct pabulum and protector of views that lean left," Huckabee said in a statement provided to CNN.

Williams told Fox News host Bill O'Reilly on Monday that he gets "worried" and "nervous" on flights when he sees people wearing "Muslim garb." NPR terminated Williams' contract on Wednesday evening.

Huckabee said he "will no longer accept interview requests from NPR as long as they are going to practice a form of censorship, and since NPR is funded with public funds, it is a form of censorship."

I've never been a big fan of Gov. Huckabee, but he has it right here. I can only hope this acts as an additional rallying cry for centrists and conservatives as they go to the polls in a couple of weeks.

Really, I have just had it. I hope the Democrats get their asses handed to them in November. I'm tired of having to listen to the inanities of under-educated nitwits like Steve Benen who labor continuously under the misapprehension that they somehow constitute an "elite" who ought to be listened to. Listen up folks; you are not an elite. Real elites don't have "credentials," they have actual intellectual abilities; real elites just don't say they want a free exchange of ideas, they actually allow for such a free exchange without the threat of punishment for deviating from some preordained orthodoxy; real elites are smart enough to recognize the issues that matter to them may not be the same as what matters to people who actually work for a living; a real elite doesn't act as if their status as elites was dependent upon denigrating those who work for a living when they disagree with you; basically, a real elite would be everything the chattering left of today is not.

Jeffrey Goldberg: An Embarrassment To The Enlightenment

Here is what passes for civilized discourse for The Atlantic.

Really, how did American Judaism produce this vile, racist creature?

How did America produce someone as thoroughly pig ignorant and intolerant of political differences as Goldberg?

Actually, that isn't a rhetorical question. The Left in this country is as convinced of its moral superiority as any Robespierre or Lenin ever was. Disagreeing with them, they believe, is simply proof of your moral deviancy. Thus the name calling; thus the attempts to punish thought and speech they don't care for; thus the non-stop campaigns to demonize and marginalize.

In every sense it is illiberal. Unfortunately, we now live in an age where a 140 character tweet is deemed sufficient space to issue one's opinion on the value and worth of another human being.

The Supreme Court Fails The Country

Five addled brain morons just gutted the First Amendment in the name of Political Correctness. Today the Court struck down the right of free association for citizens.

I am seething with anger.

This means war. Conservative groups on college campus need to fight and fight hard. Is there a socialist group on your campus? Great, pack their opening meetings and vote one of your own to "lead" the group. Maybe there is a gay/lesbian alliance on your campus? Great. Get every evangelical on campus to to take over that group. A muslim student association on campus? Great, get every friend of Israel, Jewish or otherwise, to take over that group.

Fuck 'em. If they want war, then give it to them.

Really this country would be a better place if Stevens, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Sotomayor, and Breyer were never born.

From the rational part of the decision (i.e. the dissent):

I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that today’s decision is a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country. Our First Amendment reflects a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate onpublic issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964). Even if the United States is the only Nation that shares this commitment to the same extent, I would not change our law to conform to the international norm. I fear that the Court’s decision marks a turn in that direc-tion. Even those who find CLS’s views objectionable should be concerned about the way the group has beentreated—by Hastings, the Court of Appeals, and now thisCourt. I can only hope that this decision will turn out tobe an aberration.

I will not be holding my breath.

Talk About Missing The Point

Read this where the sometimes reliable Ann Althouse misses the Freedom of Speech issue in favor of the "lets all sing kumbaya" approach:

I have endless contempt for the threats/warnings against various cartoonists who draw Muhammad (or a man in a bear suit who might be Muhammad, but is actually Santa Claus).

You have contempt for fascism. Good. That is something I suppose:

But depictions of Muhammad offend millions of Muslims who are no part of the violent threats.

So I should countenance censorship as a result? I'm sorry there are things in the world that upset sensitive Muslim types, but tough titty. Welcome to the real world. How many nice, kind, practicing Catholics have been offended by the anti-Catholic zeal of the MSM over the last 20 years? The answer, of course, is untold millions. But no one is suggesting we should censor anyone to defend Catholic sensibilities. You know why? Because, Catholics are not going out and murdering those who they dislike. Some Muslims are doing exactly that, and the vast majority of Muslim do nothing to stop it.

And get Ann's attempt at "logic" on this point:

In pushing back some people, you also hurt a lot of people who aren't doing anything (other than protecting their own interests by declining to pressure the extremists who are hurting the reputation of their religion).

How is allowing extremists to define what their faith is an example of anyone "protecting their own interests"? It would be just as consistent to look at these silent Muslims and believe they actually support the goals of the extremists but they are simply too cowardly to do anything about it themselves. But Ann believes it is better to NOT chastise them for looking on silently while other murder in their name than to expose them to cartoons of the "prophet."

I don't like the in-your-face message that we don't care about what other people hold sacred. Back in the days of the "Piss Christ" controversy, I wouldn't have supported an "Everybody Dunk a Crucifix in a Jar of Urine Day" to protest censorship.

What a stupid example. For starters, "Piss Christ" wasn't censored. It was produced using taxpayers money in the first place. Also, no one was murdered over their promotion of it. "Piss Christ" was shown on every news network, was depicted in every newspaper, hell, I bet it even made its way into school textbooks. Funny how that was deemed acceptable while depiction of the "prophet" is deemed beyond the pale. Althouse would have you believe that difference has nothing to do with the violence that always seems to attend the Muslim response to people they do not like. That is simple nonsense, and Althouse knows it:

At the same time, real artists like the "South Park" guys or (maybe) Andre Serrano should go on with their work, using shock to the extent that they see fit.

WHAT SHOCK?!?!?!?!? The "prophet" was not even shown because the network censored their work! It says something that the mere possibility of something is now taken as proof of its existence. (It's just like Obama's supposed "moderateness"!)

I'm sorry, but respect is a two-way street. If Muslims would like to have their beliefs respected THEY can start by respecting Freedom of Expression, including the freedom of those you do not like. However, Islam has a big problem with anything and anyone considered "the other." For too many Muslims, anyone outside of the ummah deserves and gets no respect. And that is ultimately the point here. This isn't about artistic expression or the feelings of innocent people who probably wish the whole controversy would just go away. It is about the sphere of freedom for all citizens in a free society. The threat to that sphere does not just come from those who threaten violence, but it also comes from those who would throw away freedom in the name of "civility."

Leftist Hack: "Criticism Of Democrats Or Obama = Journalistic Malpractice"

And tools like this wonder why they are routinely dismissed by the American people:

One question has tugged at my professional conscience throughout the year-long congressional debate over health-care reform, and it has nothing to do with the public option, portability or medical malpractice. It is this: Why haven't America's old-school news organizations blown the whistle on Roger Ailes, chief of Fox News, for using the network to conduct a propaganda campaign against the Obama administration -- a campaign without precedent in our modern political history?

Through clever use of the Fox News Channel and its cadre of raucous commentators, Ailes has overturned standards of fairness and objectivity that have guided American print and broadcast journalists since World War II.

Catch the shell game? The real complaint has nothing to do with "fairness" or imaginary journalistic "objectivity." What this fool actually misses is the "good old days" of Democratic party hegemony over the media, itself a deformity of the American political spirit born of the emergence of the Democratic New Deal coalition and its consolidation during the Second World War. It was an era that allowed a self appointed elite to define what was allowable, which they labelled "fair" and/or "objective," and what wasn't, which they called "unfair" and "biased." The real goal, of course, was to marginalize ideas the elite didn't like. Thus you had the New York Times hide the crimes of Stalin from its readers because, somehow, the truth was deemed to be "unfair" and "biased."

My appeal to Stalinism is purposeful, because what dishonest hacks like this really want would be modelled more by the old Soviet Pravda than anything else. Only one elite approved view would be allowed.

This truly moronic and perverse view of journalism largely explains why we no longer have a newspaper culture in this country while places like the UK still does. One knows in Britain that you can read papers with differing editorial views. Going to London is always fun for an American because one can buy three or four different papers that provide a riot of contrasting styles, information, ideological visions, and perspectives. In the United States our papers are nothing of the sort. The are bland, homogenized, and, frankly, a mockery of our free speech protections. Why have a First Amendment when all the papers say the same damn thing?

Television news, because it was born at the moment of Democratic hegemony, had always suffered from the same stultifying ideological conformity that dominated the "New York Times" model of newspapers. The rise of Fox News, which offers a different perspective from the old liberal model, presented American viewers with something of the color and diversity we can see in English newspapers, and, for this reason, the reactionary old guard hate it. They long for the days when they acted as the sole arbiter of what the American people could learn about the social and political world. Just think of the hubris involved in the motto of the Times. "All The News That's Fit to Print" isn't a promise of public service, it's a symbol of the repression of democracy by a benighted elite who view themselves in almost Nitzschean terms. They are the overmen who create the values the rest of us inferiors must live by, and as such they put themselves above questioning or criticism. People like Howell Raines, former editor of the Times and the author of the drivel linked to above, have no respect for honest differences or real diversity of opinion, and when it comes to the tenets of democratic society they are truly amoral beasts.

UPDATE:

Here is an interesting and slightly different take on this column from Right Wing Nut House: HOWELL RAINS AND JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS

In order to compete with network news, newspapers abandoned straight, factual news reporting and went into the business of using news as a way to convey opinion, infusing “drama” into stories. A young black kid did not kill the old white lady for her purse because he’s a criminal. Racism killed the old lady as surely as if George Wallace had pulled the trigger.

An exaggeration, but nevertheless, the entire concept of “objectivity” had been turned on its head in order to both sell newspapers and satisfy the “new journalism” that was making a mark in publications like Rolling Stone and Village Voice. The young, strongly opinionated writers for those publications and others were the vanguard of new kind of “journalist” who saw newspaper reporting as more than just a means to inform the public about what was going on in their part of the world, but viewed their mission as “reforming” the staid, old institutions of the media in order to promote a decidedly liberal point of view.

Rains has got to know that the New York Times does not report news the same way it did in the 1950’s, doesn’t he?

I understand where this is coming from, but I'd argue that the difference between the way papers like the Times were covering news in the 1950's and how they were covering it the last ten years is a difference of degree not kind. The mid-twentieth-century Liberal "consensus" was already well established and reflected in how the Times of the world did business in the Fifties. The "new journalism" of the late 60's and early 70's is mostly a matter of younger journalists who differed from their elders not in their politics, but in their rejection of existing decorum. In a sense the "new journalists" did interject a first moment of honesty by saying, "Screw this pussyfooting around. Let's just be what we are already (i.e. ideologically motivated activists), and stop pretending we are something else."

To date, that also marked their last moment of honesty.

Another Reason To Have Free Speech

Too bad no one knows Constiutional history or liberal political theory anymore, because this would be a great teaching moment:

Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns, and most favor new limits on such spending, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court's Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent "strongly" opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.

One of the main reasons why we have the 1st Amendment is exactly to stop a majority from denying a minority the right to speak.

Unfortunately, too many people in this country are only interested in exercising power over others, particularly if the other is unpopular in some way.

To their mind the Bill of Rights sucks because it doesn't allow them to always get their way.

I say, thank God for that!

Irony In Oregon

You can't make up this kind of stuff. Fascism on the march: University of Oregon Divided over Free Speech Controversy

The University of Oregon student body has been learning some useful lessons in liberty as the campus debates what to do about an extremely controversial group's presence on campus. Last week, the student government narrowly voted to defend free expression when it voted down a resolution designed to push the group off campus for good.

The organization is the Pacifica Forum, a discussion group hosted on campus by an emeritus professor, as permitted by university rules. The group is so controversial, it appears, because every so often it discusses topics that a lot of people on campus find extremely offensive—such as the swastika or Nazism—well, not just because of the topics, but because some of the participants appear to the critics to be voicing far too much sympathy for ideas of white supremacy....

The group met at the university's Erb Memorial Student Union until a few weeks ago, when it met in a larger space than usual because of the expectation of hundreds of protesters for the discussion of the swastika on January 15. The protesters came and disrupted the event.

The disruption appears to have been organized by student government president Emma Kallaway, and Vice President Getachew Kassa who, according to the Oregon Commentator's January 25 issue, helped to coordinate a rally prior to the disruption:

"We wanted to create fear and anger in the forum, and we accomplished that today," said Kassa. [emphasis added]

Of course, the irony here is the only fascism practiced in this situation was by Kallaway and Kassa who admit they wanted to use fear to intimidate their political opponents.

Mussolini couldn't have said it better himself.

A Good Argument In Favor Of Loyalty Oaths

I swear, the more of this kind of crap I read the more I begin to think all public university employees should be required to take an oath pledging they will conduct themselves in accordance with the Constitution under pain of dismissal. This time it is my alma mater the University of Illinois where the anti-First Amendment fascists have arisen. The lengths the power that be will go to in order to squelch speech they don't like is truly repugnant. This time they are targeting students who wish to bring back the Chielf Illiniwek mascot, which I guess ranks as a criminal enterprise to the minds of these "scholars."

The efforts to actually stop the SFCI event appear to have ended here — but the attempts to silence expression about the Illiniwek mascot continued. Professor Robert Warrior, director of American Indian Studies at UI, wrote to Romano to complain about the fact that the SFCI event was being promoted on the billboard outside the venue where it was to take place, asking, “Can ROs that rent the hall say anything they want on the billboard, including racial stereotyping?” Romano responded, “I share your feeling about the billboard,” but she said that there was nothing she could do because it was “part of the package.”

Warrior also demanded that the university take down posters in the student union that he found to have a “genocidal” message. The posters had a picture of Illinois fans on it and read: “Never seen a real Indian? GOOD! Because obviously we haven’t either. The ‘Next Dance’ — Because even though ignorance may not be bliss, it sure is fun!” When informed that administrators would look into posting rules to see if the posters could be removed (that e-mail is missing from the FOIA materials), Warrior wrote to Gonzalez on September 29 that he was taking his ball and going home: “I don’t care about posting rules. Hate escalates. It’s a fact. … I am no longer willing to participate on diversity committees like the one I am on that you chair, initiatives, or events.”

Gee, they would have to do without the good professor's ignorance of the Constitution on diversity committees. That would be a blow. I mean, who would take on the role of ignorant hateful buffoon? Oh wait, its a modern university, there would be plenty of folks ready to step into that role.

*sigh*

I am philosophically opposed to loyalty oaths, but when you see such persistent rank stupidity the oaths begin to look more and more appealing.

Unconstitutional, Illiberal, And Fascistic (Welcome To Connecticut!)

Free speech certainly lacks supporters among the Democrats these days.

The bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport, Conn., says he's a man of God, not a lobbyist. But state officials say he's both.

According to the Connecticut Office of State Ethics, the diocese acted as a lobbying organization in March when it rented buses to transport people to a rally in Hartford — the state capital — to protest a bill that would have granted more power to parishioners regarding church finances.

Officials also are investigating whether the church acted as a lobbying organization on its Web site when it urged parishioners to contact lawmakers about the bill, which eventually was withdrawn amid public outcry, and about a another bill to legalize same-sex marriage, which was signed into law in April.

You heard that right. According to the dimwitted Demcorats in Connecticut, if you organize a protest (something explicitly protected by the Constitution) you can be charged with a crime if you spend more than $2000 to do it. Funny thing is, the Constitution doesn't mention anything about a $2000 limit. Let's look at that pesky First Amendment, shall we?

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.

Nope, nothing about $2000 there. In fact, it explicitly prohibits legislatures making any law abridging free speech, peaceable assembly or petitioning the government. Democrats in Connecticut, being morons presumably, believe this allows them to criminalize all of the said activity because more than $2000 was spent in doing it.

If this is what "just what Ethics Panels do" well then all "Ethics Panels" are unconstitutional.