Archive for the ‘Get Real’ Category

Moral Depravity, Constitutional Ignorance, and the University

6 April 2009

The headlining story in today’s Diamondback, wholly unsurprisingly, covers the continuing porn brouhaha here on campus. Amusingly, it reads “Students push on with porn: Campus groups to host XXX film in name of free speech.”

At what point did the great contemners of decency become so brazen as openly to contort the purportedly sacrosanct freedom of speech to defend the public showing of xxx-rated pornography, despite a history of Constitutional law that explicitly denies hardcore obscenity the same extensive protection given to less prurient — not to mention wholly unnecessary and anti-communitarian — forms of expression? In the fall semester of the 2007-2008 school year, the Times, in what, sadly, was our only issue of the year, ran a front-page exposé revealing that the alleged noose hanging outside of Stamp and Nyumburu, source of embarrassment and outrage on our hyper-sensitive, politically correct campus, was, in truth a simply Boy Scout knot, the leftover string from a since-removed sign or banner.

How the Left roared in indignation! Such speech — had it in fact been “hate speech,” and not a harmless piece of string — simply could not be tolerated. To what great extent University officials went to assuage the great offended masses, to assure them that this University takes racial diversity and “tolerance” seriously, and would never defend a racist’s right to speak his mind over the right of a student not to be offended.

Now, the Left cries, “Wolf!” suggesting the the state legislature is out of line threatening to cut funding if the showing happens — on a public university campus, no less —, calling it “censorship,” an offense to free speech. What of those of us who find repulsive that students worry more about some spurious notion of free speech than about moral and intellectual cultivation? Those of us who think that certain things belong in the privacy of home or dorm room, and not in a campus theater or lecture hall, who reject the risible claim that charging an admission fee negates the publicly supported nature of a showing of obscene material on a public campus? Some of us just want to attend an ostensible institution of higher education that recognizes that education, though open debate is necessary to it, requires limits, too.

Then again, the Left on campus not only dominates, but is composed of a bunch of intellectually enervated whiners who need to grow up.

Advertisements

The Curious Case of Benjamin Cardin’s Delusion

3 April 2009

In today’s Post, our fearless senator offers what he deems to be a plausible, sound solution to the agonizing decline of the daily print newspaper. As the editor of a print-only newspaper and a curmudgeonly ol’ crank of a conservative with serious delusions of romanticism, I am more than sympathetic, and seriously hope that we see a resurgence in print newspaper output, readership, and quality, whether it relies on or spurns the Internet. Thus, it was with open-minded interest I read Sen. Cardin’s opinion today, in which he defends his Newspaper Revitalization Act, under the auspices of which newspapers could “operate under 501(c)(3) status for educational purposes, similar to public broadcasters.”

How silly I was to give a Maryland Democrat serving in the great morass of amorality and state-philia! An excerpt:

Under this arrangement, newspapers would not be allowed to make political endorsements but would be permitted to freely report on all issues, including political campaigns. They would be able to editorialize and take positions on issues affecting their communities. Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax-exempt, and contributions to support coverage or operations could be tax-deductible.

First, we have in our Senate someone so naïve as to think that curbing political endorsements would suffice to prevent de facto endorsements — of specific candidates, parties, or platform planks (“take positions on issues affect their communities” sounds awfully close, at least in some instances, to implicitly endorsing someone). Second, “tax-exempt” is just a libertarian-and-“public do-gooder”-friendly way of saying “bailout,” isn’t it? The journalists’ bailout has arrived!

The measure is targeted at local newspapers serving communities, not large newspaper conglomerates. There is little chance these conglomerates would find such an arrangement appealing because they depend on a revenue stream to remain operational. I want to make clear that this proposal would involve no infusion of federal taxpayer money. In fact, because newspaper profits have fallen in recent years, no substantial loss of federal revenue is expected.

As much as I possibly could get behind this bill, the anti-bigness populist streak in me certainly support this; however, the idea of letting government extend its hand deeper into the pants of the Fourth Estate terrifies me. The media consensus, far from being part of some vast, conspiratorial “liberal media,” is that of the status quo, of the Establishment. Ragtag local papers may, I willingly grant, be less inclined to accept the status quo, particularly at the federal level, given the physical distance separating Capitol Hill from Starke County, IN, but allowing local media to slip under the covers with Uncle Sam is just plain dirty.

UMD, Home of the Diamondback. FML.

11 March 2009

Today, our venerable Diamondback decided that the news of the day most worthy of prominence on the front page is the wonderfully hilarious, but hardly newsworthy FMyLife.com. Misunderstand me not: Few things get me through a rough day like the Schadenfreude derived from learning about some poor soul who was “groped by a grandma” while carrying her groceries to her car. However, this, even on a university campus, is not front-page-worthy, especially when the brilliant editors opted to hide this sad article in the bottom corner of the page:

Although a recent nationwide survey of university faculty found that more would rather encourage social change in their classes than teach students the classics, university professors rejected the dichotomy, saying the two are not mutually exclusive.

The study, done by the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, found that among about 22,000 faculty members nationwide, 57.8 percent said they thought it was important to encourage undergraduate students to become agents of social change, while only 34.7 percent felt it was very important to teach classic works such as Homer’s epic poems or Shakespeare’s plays.

FML indeed.

The Diamondback, Enemy of Civilization

9 March 2009

by Nathan P. Origer, executive editor

From the 27 February 2009 Diamondback, idiotic, knee-jerk liberalism as its finest.

We’re a bastion of Christianity, holding the line after centuries of battle against the raging masses of Islam. White, black and brown immigrants are sneaking across our borders in a determined attempt to erase the last waning vestiges of the European culture that our civilization was founded on. If we don’t line our borders with marines and military robots, we’ll never stop the hordes from sneaking in and sullying our country. And while we’re at it, we should probably stop all of that legal immigration too. We’ve got to stop buying into this “cult of multiculturalism;” it’s a sham.

It isn’t hard to recognize spouts of racist bile as hateful blather when they’re this blatant. The ideas above are held and promoted by former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.). When he came to speak at American University earlier this week, students from throughout the region came to protest Tancredo’s bigoted ideas, and we’re happy they did.

[…]

In many ways, Tancredo is useful as a rallying point – it’s clear he stands for what’s wrong.

[…]

We believe there are strong arguments for both broadening access to higher education and maintaining access to licensing. But that isn’t the point. The point is that it’s difficult but imperative to define the boundaries of citizenship. It’s easy to argue we aren’t a bastion of Christianity, but it’s harder to define what makes us true Americans or true Marylanders.

Responding to such a daft editorial is a bit like trying to reply to Billy Madison’s “rambling, incoherent response”. You know that it’s horribly wrong, but offering anything more than, “Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it” proves to be stupendously difficult. Deigning to such a low level of intellect hurts.

The wise editors of our venerable campus daily are well within their right to disagree with the solutions proffered by Mr. Tancredo; they’re even permitted to think that Tancredo is a “bigot.” They are not, however, as members of the Fourth Estate, to be making such ludicrously false allegations as they do in this piece.

To deny that the United States is a “bastion of Christianity” is to ignore the entire history of this nation. Every single president, devout or not, has been at least nominally Christian. Seventy-six percent of all Americans still identify as Christians, and the entire history of Western Civilization, beginning in the Fourth Century, is inseparable from Christianity. The Enlightenment, for all of its rejection of Christianity, nonetheless happened only because of Christianity; it could not have arisen in an equally “backward” culture. Particularly amusing is that the editors attempt to distance our nation from Christianity in a state that was established as a safe-haven colony for Catholic Christians.

Most disturbing about this silly rant is that the editors never bother to show how Mr. Tancredo is wrong. They disingenuously conflate a sincere, wholly sensible concern for the distinctly Anglo, Christian heritage of our nation, without bothering even to consider the results when this culture is submerged into a heretofore praised, but never materialized “melting pot”, with “racism” and “bigotry.” To rally against illegal immigration is to preserve a necessary definition of citizenship, imperative for the defense of what remains of our republic. There is nothing racist about suggesting that non-citizens should be prevented from entering our nation; there’s nothing racist about saying that we should limit even legal immigration, at least for a time, if even legal immigration threatens the cultural foundation upon which contemporary society so very precariously sits.

Most offensive to me, an out-of-state student who works as a teaching assistant to avoid the pains of paying tuition, the editors defend permitting immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates, regardless of immigration status, defending this asinine position with the equally imbecilic contention that “there are strong arguments for … broadening access to higher education.” If we wish for a university education to retain any real value — that is, something more meaningful than the opportunity for a bigger paycheck —, then we need to be restricting access and cutting down admissions, not compelling the taxpayers of Maryland to subsidize the education of student who don’t legally belong here as it is.

Update One: Jim Antle has a solid piece on the immigration debate, and the disturbing tactics of the pro-amnesty/immigration crowd in the most recent issue of The American Conservative. (Subscription required.) A lovely excerpt:

Janet Murguia of the National Council of La Raza also desires a “middle ground” between the First Amendment and censoring commentators like CNN’s Lou Dobbs with whom she disagrees about immigration policy. “Everyone knows there is a line sometimes that can be crossed when it comes to free speech,” she told the New York Times last year. “And when free speech transforms into hate speech, we’ve got to draw that line.”

Apparently, suggesting that illegal immigrants should be deported to their home nations is now the equivalent of falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

Update Two: The basic point about immigration policy is this: Although we should be welcoming, we must be wary. The presence of foreign elements in our communities threatens the very nature of our communities as we need to perceive them: that is, as people who share roots in place and culture. It’s analgous to planting invasive species in an ecosystem where they do not belong. You might have the most beautiful flower to add to your garden, but not being part of the environment naturally, it disrupts the natural cycles of the place, perhaps poisoning an unwitting animal that happens to nibble, growing sufficiently large to prevent other plants from receiving enough sunlight, or requiring more nutrients than the soil can provide for it and the native plants. If and when outside elements can be integrated smoothly, organically, and over an appropriately long period of time into the community, all the better for the sustainability thereof. But “facilitating democratic participation,” which coerces integration in much the same way that busing did during the slow, agonizing end of segregation — which is to say in a manner wholly destructive of community in the name of a sense of equality that is risible —, is both unsustainable and a political anathema.

America is a nations of immigrants” is little more than a deceitful canard when we start to talk about Hispanic immigrants, illegal or legal — or any non-Europeans. Why? No, dear offended, politically correct reader, not because Europeans are better, but because American culture(s) developed out of European cultures, whereas Hispanic culture, although in part rooted in Spanish culture, has followed an significantly different trajectory. Eastern Europeans were still from the Continent, and, strange as they may have been, still came from similar cultures, particularly in the age of the great empires. Comparing a Ruthenian from the Austro-Hungarian Empire to a Salvadorian just ignores all too much.

The Diamondback‘s Luridness Continues

12 February 2009

Yesterday, gay sex columnist Dan Savage presented a lecture in the Grand Ballroom at the Stamp Student Union here on campus. This is part of the Sex Education Week, or whatever we’re calling it here at UMD, leading up to Saint Valentine’s Day; stop by the food court and grab yourself a gift pack, complete with tuxedo condom to share with your special someone. (Your tax dollars at work, Marylanders!) We had intended to cover the event for the Times, but, forgivably, the staffers who had planned to attend, on account of time commitments and a sense of decency, could not make it.

Fortunately, our friends at the Diamondback made sure to highlight Mr. Savage’s tal on the front page. Doubtless, this event does deserve front-page coverage, and we likely should have done the same — though in a critical tone. No stranger to lasciviousness (Hell, I think this word is synonymous with “journalistic integrity” at that paper.), the Diamondback felt it appropriate to start the front-page article as follows. (Warning, mildly offensive language.)

Ever wondered what a cock ring does, how common armpit fetishes are or what to do if you are “afraid of dick?”

Really? These words are appropriate for the front page — or any page — of a daily newspaper, whether national broadsheet or campus publication? I respectfully dissent. Perhaps I’m just a prude.

This is not, of course, the Diamondback‘s first flirtation with puerile, ribald “provocativeness”.