Planned Parenthood & Racism

I want to thank Spartan Spectator for notifying me of this video.

HATE SPEECH & MSU

Hate speech. What an elusive concept. What makes something hate speech? Well, according to most speech police, it would include any and all speech (or actions) that incite, or could potentially incite, violence. It is speech that is, or could possibly be, harmful to the psyche of another. It is, to many, what is referred to as revisionist history, although this is highly qualified in the favor of the speech police. It is speech that is believed to be prejudicial or bigoted; the latter being another very elusive concept. While these qualities and characteristics are the most common among what is referred to as hate speech, this by no means satisfies the entirety. But at least this gives us a framework wherein the discussion can be understood.

The problem here, in my estimation, is not so much the idea of hate speech - or even censorship for that matter - but the standard used to determine what is hate speech. Even more important is the matter of who is the standard bearer. As recent history has played out, the standard tends to be secular pluralism, and the standard bearers tend to be a cabal of academic leftists.

This should raise flags for those on the other side of the ideological spectrum. Their views are in the cross-hairs here, and theirs alone. They will be labeled by the establishment as intolerant, bigoted, xenophobic, fascist, and even historical revisionists. Their ideas, values, and heroes will be maligned. They will be forced, not by persuasion, but by fear, into keeping their opinions to themselves. They will be told to keep their mouths shut, with penalties for any brave soul who violates their newly founded code.

The irony here is in the tenets within the standard. Most of the speech police work off of presuppositions that include moral relativism, epistemological subjectivism, diversity and tolerance. But their actions speak much louder than their words. Moral relativism wouldn't provide any basis by which to distinguish between hate and love. Epistemological subjectivism wouldn't grant them any intellectual rationale for judging one idea to be more repugnant than another. Diversity would require them to embrace and celebrate the fact that there are people who hold different political, ethical, and cultural ideas than they do. And tolerance would force them to bite the bullet, regardless of how ideologically distasteful they may think these hate-mongers to be. On each and every front, the speech police fall upon their own standard as Saul fell upon his own sword.

So how will this play out? In my estimation, the speech police will win. Not because their ideas are right, not because their standard holds up, but because they hold the trump card; they are in power. The entire affair is rather unfortunate, but it is all too typical.

R.I.P. First Amendment...

GUNS ON CAMPUS

In the wake of an ever increasing number of school shootings, many people are asking whether or not it would be prudent and wise to allow students and teachers who have gone through the appropriate channels to carry loaded weapons on campus and in the classroom. In fact, Senator Erwin of Alabama is putting that very idea before the state legislature. Senator Erwin believes that the time is long overdue for us to have this discussion, and he hopes his bill will bring it out into the open.

Many people are opposed to this idea, especially those within the educational establishment. Many fear that it would result in more events similar to those at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois. Others insist that it would create, in their opinion, and unnerving learning environment. Still others are opposed to it on purely ideological grounds, being opposed to most any deregulation of currently existing gun laws.

But do their arguments and concerns hold up to scrutiny? I don't believe so.

First of all, the people who committed these crimes weren't law abiding citizens that went through the proper channels. These people were not only diabolical, they were criminal. Under Erwin's proposal, the new law would only include those who pass inspection and undergo the kind of weapons safety training currently required under law.

Secondly, the naysayers presume that allowing guns on campus will result in a sudden surge in those interested. Granted, there would be a mild increase in numbers, but it would be far from the "everyone would be packing" doomsday scenario envisioned by the opponents. Nobody is talking about passing out guns like candy on Halloween. The same rules apply, and the same type of citizens currently submitting to the process would be the ones to likely purchase such weaponry.

Third, an unnerving environment is one where any lunatic could walk in with an illegally purchased weapon with the sole intention of killing the most people he can before taking his own life, all the while being confident that there isn't one living soul in the classroom that could stop him short of his scheme. It is unnerving that one shooter could cause an entire classroom of students to run and hit the floor, fearing for their life, knowing that there is nothing but the desk they cower under to protect them. That is unnerving! Were the renegade student to be aware of the fact that the teacher and/or students have loaded weapons on the other side of the door, he may think twice before opening fire.

Fourth, these law-abiding students carrying weapons may not deter the mentally unstable from unloading on students, but minimizing the damage is certain worth their having the right to carry in the classroom. Thirty-two students, teachers, and faculty were killed at Virginia Tech. Thirty more were wounded. Even if the law-abiding gun-carrier were to drop that number from 32 to 30, I can list off two people and 4 parents who would be thankful that a brave student stood in defense of classmates who were otherwise defenseless.

Regardless of whether or not the law in Alabama passes, it is providing a framework wherein the discussion can be held. This, in and of itself, is a good thing. In fact, I'd dare say it is too many dead students overdue.

BREAKING NEWS: Not Really...

Breaking news! Britney Spears is a lunatic.

Breaking news! Someone is experiencing something dreadful... somewhere.

Breaking news! There was a house fire in Timbuktu.

How are these examples of breaking news? Well, they aren't. Honestly, this type of "breaking news" should be on page 37D of the newspaper. Unfortunately, these stories make their way to the "top of the hour" broadcasts and page 1A of many of our newspapers.

Living in the era of the Information Age, lacking the ability to find a solid story should be as hard as playing pick-up-sticks with your butt cheeks. Reporters should never feel as if they don't have a story. News-runners should wear through their shoes at least once a week, and should have callouses on their fingertips from scanning the World Wide Web for stories of real substance and relevance.

Still, people get what they asked for. People want to hear about Britney Spears recent escapades into insanity. People want to know about a fire in Timbuktu. So many tune in to hear of the latest "news" about someone going through something miserable... somewhere. Sad as it may be, this nonsense sells.

It is my hope that journalists will begin telling people what they need to hear rather than what they want to hear. They need to box ears, not tickle them. This is the nature of the journalistic beast. Keep telling it like it is, but make sure that "it" is truly newsworthy.

FREEDOM TO CENSOR

We discussed censorship in seminar this morning. The question was:

Is there any instance where censorship is a good thing?

Most students immediately said no, but then - predictably - gave various exceptions. Some of these included child pornography, others included porn that involved animals. Beyond this, most thought it was entirely up to the individual. So long as it doesn't infringe on the right of another individual, all was well.

I humbly disagree. I think that while the federal government should probably stay out of censorship, there should be a degree by which a school, community, or even state should maintain the right to defend themselves from things that they believe would be harmful to the commonwealth. If a school doesn't want to permit Darwinism to be taught or My Two Mommies to be read, that is the right of the school. If a community doesn't wish to have pornography in their stores or gay bars on Main Street, they should be permitted to prohibit these things. If a state wishes to retain a specific moral climate, it is their Constitutional right to do so. In each of these cases it begins and ends with families, communities, cultures, and values.

While this may seem radical to the modern mind, our Founding Fathers understood this very well. The very same people who wrote free speech into the first amendment also wrote blasphemy laws and codes pertaining to public vulgarity. They knew that while people should be free to make decision, communities also had the right to do so. They didn't view America as "we the individuals" as much as "we the people," and this was reflected in the way they enacted various laws.

We now live in a day and age where Jerry Springer, MTV, and mild-porn run rampant across a civilization that, in days past, would be repulsed by what they see and hear. They most certainly wouldn't have celebrated it as stellar examples of freedom of speech as they meant it to be. On the contrary, they would shake their heads in disgust. So should we.

Families, school, communities, and states should begin taking advantage of their constitutional right to censor what they believe to be harmful to their children, their students, and their citizens. If America wishes be a shining city on a hill, then we may wish to rid ourselves of porn shops, filth on airwaves, and smut in our schools. Until then, we may be shining on a hill, but a city shining with moral depravity.

IMMIGRATION AND TERRORISM

AL QAEDA IN AMERICA

People called me a pessimist back in 2004 when I said that Al Qaeda would be just as much a threat in 2008 as it was in 2001. Yesterday proved the optimists wrong.

As the New York Times reported, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell admitted that not only is Al Qaeda still recruiting, but that their efforts are steadily improving. They continue to train operatives to attack the United States, and many of their new operatives appear to be coming from the Western Hemisphere. Furthermore, many of these new jihadists seem to be from the United States.

While McConnell and others tried to ease the mind of the American public by saying that there is little evidence to suggest that they have infiltrated the motherland, this is in blatant contradiction to remarks made by President Bush during his State of the Union Address. During the earlier portion of his speech he admitted that terrorists are taking advantage of our broken borders, specifically that which divides the US and Mexico.

Due to the reaction of 9-11, terrorists have had to shift gears. Flying planes into buildings isn't on their current agenda. According to intelligence estimates, they are focusing on cyberterrorism, polluting our water supply, and possibly mounting attacks on other means of travel such as metro systems or railroads.

What our politicians need to take serious is what they have already recognized: the threat is on the motherland. If or when they do choose to attack us, it will be on our soil. This means that they must first be here. This will require our political leaders to begin taking matters such as our borders, work visas, and immigration very serious. It also forces them to be more scrupulous about what is coming in through our port system. Revising our agreement with Mexico to allow vast amounts of semi-trucks into our country is also a worthy consideration. Lastly, they may wish to take a closer look at the truckloads of refuse coming to our country (specifically Michigan) from Canada.

Each and every one of these must be taken very serious if we hope to stop a terrorist attack on our country. Unless our politicians begin taking steps towards stopping terrorists from entering our country, whether it's through immigration, visas, broken borders, imports, or trucking, they will be putting this nation at great risk. Worse yet, they will be derelict in their responsibility to confront the threat that they readily admit already looms over the American people.

MATTERS OF RACE AND GENDER

Race and gender matter. We all know they do. We may act like they don't. We may say they don't. But deep down inside, we all know that they do.

Last night gave us a perfect example of this reality. The mainstream media has, possibly above all except for the educational establishment, talked down the significance of race and gender. Yet as I watched the Super Tuesday commentary I couldn't help but to notice something as strange as it was predictable: the journalists were fixated on the racial and gender dynamics of the election. They had pie charts, graphs, and a never ending stream of statistics, all having to do with race and gender. They broke down the Hispanic vote, the Black vote, the White vote, and then broke these down into the categories of male and female.

I wish I could say that I was shocked by this, but I'm not. It's easy to say that race and gender don't matter when there are a bunch of rich white men in fancy suits pacing the platform. It is something altogether different when we have a black man and a white woman running neck-and-neck for the Democratic nomination, both having the potential to be the next president of the United States. Now race and gender matter, and they matter a lot! In fact, it seems as if racial and gender identities are the only things on everyone's mind.

Prior to this election, such focus on race and gender would have been seen as racialist or sexist. Now it is a matter or national interest and intrigue. Talking about these two factors is not only permissible, it is something that may cut hard into your ratings if you choose to ignore it.

The big question shouldn't be why race and gender have taken a central role in election coverage and commentary. The answer to that question is rather obvious. The real question is why such conversations were ever taboo in the first place. And what will happen post-election? What if Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton lose? Will we return to silence? Or will this newfound fascination reinvigorate lively debates over racial and gender inequality that have, for at least some time, been confined to academic symposiums and sit-ins? Time will tell. It always does.

THE AMAZING AMERICAN SYSTEM

Here we are in the midst of Super Tuesday. Different candidates winning different states at different rates. This all seems too typical. What many may miss is the fact that when all is said and done and the final primary vote is cast, the winner may come out with just around 40% of the party vote. This, too, is all too typical.

The problem I see here is that the next Republican candidate, and his platform respectively, will have the backing of just over 1/3 of all those he will soon represent. How is this representation? Will this person tailor his platform in order to better represent those 60% of people who didn't vote for him in the primaries? This is unlikely. Instead, if history is trustworthy guide, the winner will ignore the beliefs and values of the 60% that caused them to vote for another candidate and act like he and his platform have some mandate from heaven to stay the course.

My fears and frustrations were confirmed while recently watching Chris Matthews interview a delegate from New Jersey. He is an officeholder and has endorsed Mrs. Clinton. The question was what he would do were Clinton to lose the state. Would he delegate in a way that is consistent with the voice of the people, or would he stay true with his endorsement of Clinton. Without hesitation he vouched for the latter! While he admitted he would be going against the people, he must stay true to his endorsement. Bye-bye representation. Bye-bye notion of delegation! Yet this is typical not only of delegation but of those who take home the gold and head on to the general election.

However this works out one thing is for sure: 2/3 of the American voters will be let down... once again. What an amazing system we have.

YOUR LAND ISN'T OUR LAND?

Russel Means, the mediocre actor and former Libertarian presidential candidate, is urging various tribes to secede from the United States. This new country, which Means and others are calling the Lakota Nation, would take out portions of North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Montana. To entice nay-sayers into joining the revolution, he is promising that it will be a "tax free" zone. Furthermore, they will issue their own drivers licenses and passports. The new nation would be made up of small autonomous towns loosely networked into a general confederation.

Interesting. Not sure how that will turn out for them. Regardless of how just their cause may be, this isn't the first time a sector of the US population properly invoked their rite of secession based on what they believed to be abuses of the Constitution by the federal government. If history serves me well, it didn't work out too well for those brave souls.

On a related note, it would be rather interesting having a nice little tax haven this side of the Pacific, or this side of the southern border for that matter. I mean, the slaves of Mammon would get all the benefits of China, Mexico, or India, but a lot less in travel and shipping costs!

FREE TRADE vs. AMERICA

I will not be on the air this evening. I am very sick. Liz may be doing the program on her own, but I am not sure.