Archive for December, 2002
Is There Political Bias at Colleges and Universities?
Sunday, December 22nd, 2002Acco rding to a professional survey of Ivy League schools, only 3% of the professors considered themselves to be Republicans. [i] Liberal professors have an outrageous monopoly of the sociology, economics, history, journalism, and political science departments at top schools like Harvard, Penn State, and the University of California at Santa Barbara. [ii]
We must also consider who has the most politically powerful influence on the American public education system, The National Education Association (NEA), the country’s largest union and most powerful political lobby, which clearly has a liberal agenda. [iii]
The NEA is against the moment of silence, mandatory and/or random drug testing, school choice, home schooling, as well as measures for teacher accountability. But, the NEA does support abortion, socialized medicine, tax-funded education for convicts, bilingual education, and even racist policies like affirmative action. [iv]
The Federal Government’s National Standards of U.S. History also showcases liberal bias. The Standards make 19 references to the Ku Klux Klan, but only mentions George Washington once, and completely ignores such American innovators like Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers. [v]
This past year, the top schools in this country chose liberal political figures and entertainers as Commencement speakers, while completely ignoring prominent conservatives. [vi] Conservative speakers, when they are chosen, usually meet protest, as did Laura Bush at UCLA this year. Yet, few protests ever occurred at schools that had convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal to be the keynote speaker at their schools. [vii]
Higher education is also a battleground for liberals to paint conservatives in the worst possible light. To read the descriptions of courses being offered at universities is like reading anti-conservative propaganda pamphlet. Many courses are fixated on sex, homosexuality, Afro-centrism, or the advantages of Marxism. These courses are anti- Western culture, the United States, capitalism, and Judeo-Christian values. Courses discussing conservatism show their bias by equated the right wing with white supremacy, the KKK, and Nazism. [viii]
So, is there political bias at colleges and universities? Is there really any room for doubt?
[i]Horowitz, David, “Frontpage magazine.com” [url]http://www.frontpagemag.com/content/read.asp?ID=11[/url] November 2002
[ii] Sorokin, Ellen, “’One-party campuses’ – The Washington Times” [url]http://www.washtimes.com/culture/20020905-94412890.htm[/url]
[iii] “NEA Hot Topics Index” [url]http://www.nea.org/topics[/url] November 2002
[iv] Kaiser, Kent, “NEA Resolutions Show Liberal Agenda” [url]http://www.mfc.org/pfn/97-10/nea.html[/url] November 2002
[v] Flynn, Daniel Why the Left Hates America. California: Prima Publishing, 2002.
[vi] Walsh, Katherine, “UCLA has a lot of gall turning away Laura Bush” [url]http://www.ccchronicle.com/back/2002-02-25/opinions3.html[/url] November 2002
[vii] Flynn, Daniel “Cop Killer Commencement” [url]http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/may_2000_1.html[/url] October 2002
[viii] “Comedy & Tragedy” [url]http://www.yaf.org/publications/c&t.html[/url] November 2002
Anti-America, not Anti-War
Saturday, December 14th, 2002After reading the news story in the University of Hartford’s school newspaper, The Informer, about the forum featuring Doug Morris, I found myself quite disturbed. The Dean of Students and the Vice President of Student Affairs of the University of Hartford actually donated money for an event that preached anti-Americanism. Doug Morris was quoted saying “Iraq is not a threat to global peace and security, The United States is a threat to global peace and world terrorism.” Of course, one could only expect that from someone who aligns himself with such America haters as Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and Manning Marable - all contributors to the ultra-left wing online magazine Zmag.org.
Professor Donald Ellis, of the School of Communications at the University of Hartford, presented a rebuttal to Doug Morris, was also aware of the anti-American tone of Doug Morris’s position, “I disagree with a position that simply blames the United States.” said Ellis.
Morris chose to preach typical warm and fuzzy statements, almost making the “anti-war” movement appear as an oppressed minority fighting for its rights, “Hope is the last thing to die,” Morris preached. “And as long as we have solidarity and love, we have hope.” These are absolutely meaningless statements that have nothing to do with Iraq, Saddam Hussein, his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, or the War on Terror in general. These are carefully scripted words that paint the so-called “anti-war” movement as being a higher moral plane, when in reality their only motivation is their mutual distrust of America, George W. Bush, and the entire Bush Administration.
Morris suggests that America should completely change its policy towards Iraq. He claims that the two countries should work together to reinvent the country of Iraq. Morris says this while apparently under the impression that Saddam Hussein is actually interested in giving up his dictatorship. If Saddam Hussein was truly interested in reinventing the government of Iraq, doesn’t he think that Hussein would have said something to this effect by now?
If Saddam Hussein was truly interested in working with the United States constructively, would he be going through this charade, risking possible invasion by the United States, and being overthrown? Morris presents this suggestion of a policy as if it’s a truly win-win situation for both sides, which, on the surface it may sound like it is, but, does Morris really think that Saddam Hussein really wants this? If this is what Saddam Hussein really wanted, it would’ve been done by now.
Morris’s statement show that he agrees that some form of regime change must be made in Iraq, only he believes that Saddam Hussein is actually willing to do this.
For Morris to believe this, he must think that Hussein is not an evil person. The forces of evil are never so willing to give up their power, and Morris ignores this fact.
We have reached the last options in dealing with Saddam Hussein, diplomacy has not worked, and more and more Iraqi people have suffered. Clearly, regime change is the ultimate goal — but that cannot be accomplished with Saddam Hussein in power. At this point, the only effective way to handle the situation is through force. All other options have been exhausted, war is not the preferred option, but sometimes it is necessary as a last resort.
Doug Morris has simply chosen to advocate unrealistic options for handling the situation in an attempt to paint America as a belligerent country. His faith in Saddam Hussein is only the product of his distrust in George W. Bush, and hate of America — not genuine at all. His preaching is not anti-war or pro-peace, but rather anti-American. The Progressive Student Alliance wasted both time and university money for bringing such a person to the University of Hartford.
Playing The Race Card: The Kings & Queens of Hypocrisy
Tuesday, December 10th, 2002The race card is an easy, desperate move for Democrats to make against Republicans. Any chance they get, they can make an otherwise innocent action become the worst of all intolerable acts.
Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.) in honoring Sen. Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday made a remark that Thurmond, if he won his bid for President back in 1948 we wouldn’t have the problems that we have today. Although, back then Thurmond was a Southern “Dixiecrat,” and at the time advocated racial segregation. Does anybody really believe that Trent Lott was making a direct reference to that particular part of Strom Thurmond’s then-platform (which he has since denounced), or was he merely trying to honor the long serving Senator with some kind words on his 100th birthday celebration. Lott’s innocent remarks are now being demonized as being deliberately racist in an attempt to scare African-Americans and independents from voting for the Republican Party.
This is a great example of how the liberals selective play the race card, even when they don’t have a good hand to back it up with. The best example would be the lack of outrage over Senator Robert Byrd’s use of the N-word multiple times during a TV interview last year. Senator Byrd is also a former member of the KKK, yet no one is calling for the Senate to censure him like former vice president Al Gore has suggested now for Trent Lott. Let’s not forget how nobody takes notice of the often-racist remarks and ideas of such liberals like Rev. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
Lott said in a statement that his comments “were not an endorsement of [Thurmond’s] positions of over 50 years ago, but of the man and his life.” Enough said - well not enough for liberals. So, the scare tactics will continue. Liberals will not stop making a fuss out of this. And for every time they play this race card, it is the sign of their party’s inability to reach their constituency on the issues. Their deck has depleted, and they’re going to do anything they can to get a royal flush. But the Democrats should realize that the house usually wins, and when Republicans call their bluff, they’ll see that the race card does not give them a winning hand.
Is Murder Protected by the Right to Privacy?
Tuesday, December 3rd, 2002Yesterday, in one of my classes, there was a presentation made by a student about privacy. Beyond the fact that I generally disagreed with his opinions and allegations, there was one comment he made which bothered me a great deal - casually inserted into his scripted presentation was the comment that privacy rights “reached a pinnacle with Roe v. Wade” and has since reached an ultimate low with the recent passing of the Homeland Security Bill. Essentially, what he was saying was that the right to have an abortion is equal to the government granting it’s citizens full rights to privacy.
Why is it that people think abortion is about privacy? The unnatural termination of a life is a right guaranteed by the right to privacy? How do you figure? Regardless of the reasons behind it, an abortion is when an expectant mother terminates her pregnancy. Left alone, that fetus becomes a child - yet people seem to think that as long as a child is in utero, it is merely a faceless “choice” that a woman can make - to keep or not to keep - and that right to choose which is guised as “reproductive freedom.”
Were Susan Smith or Andrea Yates exercising their rights to privacy when they murdered their children? Should we call those incidents a postpartum abortion and make these woman icons of women’s rights? Why not? If a woman can end the life of her child while it is still the womb, what makes the situation different when the child is out of the womb? Why is one of those situations an issue of privacy while the other is horrific crime?
Praising the right to have an abortion as the pinnacle of privacy rights is absurd. What a woman does in her bedroom is her business. But the decision to end the life of her child is not - that decision belongs to God.
One Percent is Nothing To Cry About
Sunday, December 1st, 2002It must be nice to know that every year you’re going to get a raise. I’ve never been guaranteed a 4.1 percent yearly pay raise. Not only that, any pay raise that I ever am entitled to is based on my performance only. So what are federal workers complaining about today? Instead of the expected 4.1% pay raise that has been guaranteed to those covered by the government’s general schedule pay system since the 1990, they’re getting a 3.1%.
In the Boston Globe story on November 30, 2002, Paul Light, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution said “It’s one of several lumps of coal in the stocking this year.” Give me a break. Bobby L. Harnage Sr., president of the American Federation of Government Employees calls the 3.1% pay raise “… just another slap at federal employees,” then criticizes the Bush Administration for wanting to “recruit the best and the brightest, but they can’t even keep the best and the brightest in those jobs now.”
Excuse me? These federal workers are still getting a raise, a raise that exceeds the rate of inflation nonetheless, and suddenly the pay isn’t adequate? Does 1% really mean the difference between a good salary and a bad salary? These people are making it out like their pay was cut.
Let’s think about this… We are in the middle of a war. To give federal workers their full 4.1% raise would cost $13.6 billion in 2003, and according the article that’s $11.2 billion more than Bush had proposed for the year. I think the War on Terror is more important than the pocket change difference that 1% means to each individual federal worker’s salary.
Federal workers ought to think about what they’re whining about. One percent won’t add too much to your wallet, but saving over 11 billion dollars for the country will have more of an impact on something more important.