By Dave Oliver
On Monday night, the UAlbany College Republicans debated the College Democrats. It was supposed to be about ideology, but I'll get to that in a second. The debate was put on by the political science honors fraternity, Phi Sigma Alpha, and I have to say that the bill of goods that they sold was pretty good. First, it would be heavily promoted to ensure the biggest crowd of any debate this semester. Was it heavily promoted and did we have the biggest crowd? Um, not so much. Free food for everyone! Wonder why somebody had to stop at Price Chopper and by a small vegetable platter? There would be an independent moderator. Um, once again, not so much. They apparently "forgot" to get one. So who moderated? A member of the College Democrats! Nice. Now, my friend Matt and I could have a pulled what the dems have been pulling recently anytime Foxnews is a sponsor of a presidential candidates debate....sucked our thumbs, held our breath, stomped our feet, and pulled out. But, both of us really like competing in the arena of ideas, so we went ahead with it. Now, as I said earlier, the debate was supposed to be about ideologies...Conservativism vs. Liberalism. We knew right away that wasn't going to be the case, because when they got up to give their opening statements, they stated that they were going to talk about the Democratic platform, and that they got a lot of their information right off the DNC website (it should also be noted that they rarely said the word liberal, and were actually called out on it by an audience member.."The conservatives don't shy away from conservatism, why do you guys shy away from the word liberal?"). As Rush says, they are incapable of stating out in the open what they really are. So, first of all, because of our conservative beliefs, Matt and I were called extremists in the mold of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. And quite a few times. Matt is catholic and I'm agnostic (sorry Mom and Dad, don't give up on me yet). My family is very christian. We tried to convey that there are millions of christians who don't like, respect, or listen to Falwell or Robertson. I don't know a single member of my family or other christians that I know who like those two. But, oh well...we're extremists. Then to further back up that they got their talking points right off the DNC website, we were treated to the "culture of corruption" line many times during the night. They even threw Tom Delay into that mix. So of course we brought up William "Cold Cash" Jefferson, Democrat-Louisiana. "He hasn't been convicted of anything," they said. Really? Last time I checked either had Tom Delay. Didn't matter...culture of corruption, culture of corruption! In our opening statement, we talked about how we are traditionalists who believe in the traditional family structure. Well, we of course got bashed for that, but there was one really interesting point made to us. They were talking about how great Hillary is...Hillary this, Hillary that...at one point they said because she was first lady for 8 years, that gave her a lot of experience. Hey, Laura Bush will be first lady for 8 years, lets run her in 2008! She's got approval numbers that probably throw Hillary into a fit everytime she sees them! Anyhoo, I made the point that I didn't understand why some women thought Hillary was this great role model to be looked up to. I mean, she just sat there while her horny husband cheated on her repeatedly. Great message to send the girls and women of the country. So, you would not believe what was thrown back at us. "Well, Hillary wanted to keep her family together, so doesn't that fit into your traditional beliefs?" Ugh! I didn't realize that a husband who is a serial adulterer and a woman who does nothing but take it were apart of traditional, family beliefs. Must be my blonde hair. In our opening statement, we made no secret of how much we love and respect our military. The only time the libs even came close to talking about the troops is when they said they believe in strong national security. Really? Then how come it's the libs who don't want us listening to terrorist phone calls coming in or going out of our country? How come the libs don't want us tracking and stopping the terrorists money flow? How come the libs want to continue chipping away at the Patriot Act? Again, must be my blonde hair. So anyhoo, it was basically beat up the conservatives night. The next day I was thinking what a waste of our time. But, now that I've had a couple of days to think about it, something good did come from it. More than ever, I'm proud to be a conservative and I'm proud to stand up for our conservative beliefs. Ah, the joys of college debating! Oh, by the way. We evil College Republicans have something planned on campus tomorrow. It could definately lead to some interesting stories to tell you about. Stay tuned.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Iraq Debate
The Iraq debate went well tonight. The Greens had a thoughtful discussion with us and I want to personally thank them for participating in this event with us.
I would also like to thank Dr. Walker for moderating. He did an excellent job.
Sincerely,
James Novak
I would also like to thank Dr. Walker for moderating. He did an excellent job.
Sincerely,
James Novak
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Lynching Free Speech by James Novak
Lynching Free Speech
by James Novak
Shock Jock Don Imus recently referred to the Rutger's Women's Basketball team as, "nappy-headed hos." The racial slur led to a two week suspension from his job broadcasting from CBS. MSNBC followed suit by dropping the simulcast of his morning show. This raises a few important questions: Are we becoming too politically correct as a society? Are people over reacting to Imus' comments?
Junior guard Matee Avjon said, "It kind of scars us. We grew up in a world where racism exists, and there's nothing we can do to change that, I think that this has scarred me for life." She should spare us all the dramatics. I can't fathom the mindset of a 20 year old who actually cared what an increasingly obscure (before all of the press) shock jock said. Other members of the team expressed similar reactions to Imus' joke. I bet you that most members of this team had no idea who he was before this great act of evil took place. They all need to stop being so thin skinned. Do they have a right to be pissed off at him? Sure. Should they act as if it is having a great impact on their lives? Not at all. If some decaying loser in a cowboy hat called me a fag on the radio, I think I'd either ignore it or laugh it off saying, "Who the hell cares about him? The guy is a freaking joke." The outrage is also an overreaction because Don Imus has been making jokes like this for years. MSNBC, CBS, his listeners, and his sponsors were all aware that he says stupid stuff like the "nappy-headed hos," all of the time. On that note, it is also possible that it is selective outrage in light of that fact.
American society is becoming too politically correct. It's suddenly becoming a crime to have an opinion or to tell a moronic joke that insults people. ABC dropped Bill Maher's show, Politically Incorrect because a ton of thin skinned people got offended because he expressed (ironically) a politically incorrect opinion, saying that he thought the 9/11 hijackers had guts. He later clarified his position on the O'Reilly Factor by saying he thought they were moral cowards for attacking civilians, but not physical cowards for carrying out the acts. That didn't matter though, he had said something that had offended people, and they wanted him gone. The same type of thing has happened with Ann Coulter for describing Presidential candidate John Edwards as a, "Faggot." Campaigns to boycott the political commentator soon sprung up left and right.
Al Sharpton, the so called civil rights leader who has a long history of instigating violence against Jews has decided to throw in his two cents. On Amy Goodman's Democracy Now radio show he said, "I'm calling for Imus to be fired. I think that what he said was racist and sexist, and there must be accountability. If there is anything at all to FCC regulating and protecting the public, and if there's any kind of ethics at all among advertisers, they would immediately move to have him removed. This is no borderline amusing comment. This is as racist and sexist as you can get." I believe that Sharpton has every right to try and discourage advertisers from supporting don imus. However, I do not think it is the role of the government to make sure he gets his way. Adults shouldn't be told what they can and cannot say by the FCC. It absolutely goes against the very idea of free speech. Human beings do not have a moral right to not be offended. The very reason we have freedom of speech in this country is to allow people to say things that are controversial, and even wrong. The people who enjoy listening to Imus' crumby show shouldn't have the government telling them they aren't allowed to enjoy a certain type of humor or listen to a certain type of point of view. Sharpton's reasoning that the government should decided what is good or bad for us to hear is the type of mind set I'm sure is shared by great libertarian thinkers such as Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Mao Zedong.
The censorship mentality has been seen before. Michael Richards got in trouble for his racially charged verbal attack at the Laugh Factory last year. He apologized to Jesse Jackson and the black community at large. Was the end result Michael Richards earning the forgiveness of those he offended? No. What ended up happening was Jackson called for a boycott of the Seinfeld DVD. Even if a person admits guilt, and asks for the absolution, certain elements of society will still seek to shut them up.
People in the 9/11 Truth Movement often tell society to, "Wake up!" I have a similar battle cry for the American people, "Grow up!" Controversial opinions that upset people are a fact of life. If some one doesn't like an opinion, they don't have to read it or listen to it. Society is better served by having morons like Don Imus out there, than having the thought police regulating what can be said.
by James Novak
Shock Jock Don Imus recently referred to the Rutger's Women's Basketball team as, "nappy-headed hos." The racial slur led to a two week suspension from his job broadcasting from CBS. MSNBC followed suit by dropping the simulcast of his morning show. This raises a few important questions: Are we becoming too politically correct as a society? Are people over reacting to Imus' comments?
Junior guard Matee Avjon said, "It kind of scars us. We grew up in a world where racism exists, and there's nothing we can do to change that, I think that this has scarred me for life." She should spare us all the dramatics. I can't fathom the mindset of a 20 year old who actually cared what an increasingly obscure (before all of the press) shock jock said. Other members of the team expressed similar reactions to Imus' joke. I bet you that most members of this team had no idea who he was before this great act of evil took place. They all need to stop being so thin skinned. Do they have a right to be pissed off at him? Sure. Should they act as if it is having a great impact on their lives? Not at all. If some decaying loser in a cowboy hat called me a fag on the radio, I think I'd either ignore it or laugh it off saying, "Who the hell cares about him? The guy is a freaking joke." The outrage is also an overreaction because Don Imus has been making jokes like this for years. MSNBC, CBS, his listeners, and his sponsors were all aware that he says stupid stuff like the "nappy-headed hos," all of the time. On that note, it is also possible that it is selective outrage in light of that fact.
American society is becoming too politically correct. It's suddenly becoming a crime to have an opinion or to tell a moronic joke that insults people. ABC dropped Bill Maher's show, Politically Incorrect because a ton of thin skinned people got offended because he expressed (ironically) a politically incorrect opinion, saying that he thought the 9/11 hijackers had guts. He later clarified his position on the O'Reilly Factor by saying he thought they were moral cowards for attacking civilians, but not physical cowards for carrying out the acts. That didn't matter though, he had said something that had offended people, and they wanted him gone. The same type of thing has happened with Ann Coulter for describing Presidential candidate John Edwards as a, "Faggot." Campaigns to boycott the political commentator soon sprung up left and right.
Al Sharpton, the so called civil rights leader who has a long history of instigating violence against Jews has decided to throw in his two cents. On Amy Goodman's Democracy Now radio show he said, "I'm calling for Imus to be fired. I think that what he said was racist and sexist, and there must be accountability. If there is anything at all to FCC regulating and protecting the public, and if there's any kind of ethics at all among advertisers, they would immediately move to have him removed. This is no borderline amusing comment. This is as racist and sexist as you can get." I believe that Sharpton has every right to try and discourage advertisers from supporting don imus. However, I do not think it is the role of the government to make sure he gets his way. Adults shouldn't be told what they can and cannot say by the FCC. It absolutely goes against the very idea of free speech. Human beings do not have a moral right to not be offended. The very reason we have freedom of speech in this country is to allow people to say things that are controversial, and even wrong. The people who enjoy listening to Imus' crumby show shouldn't have the government telling them they aren't allowed to enjoy a certain type of humor or listen to a certain type of point of view. Sharpton's reasoning that the government should decided what is good or bad for us to hear is the type of mind set I'm sure is shared by great libertarian thinkers such as Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Mao Zedong.
The censorship mentality has been seen before. Michael Richards got in trouble for his racially charged verbal attack at the Laugh Factory last year. He apologized to Jesse Jackson and the black community at large. Was the end result Michael Richards earning the forgiveness of those he offended? No. What ended up happening was Jackson called for a boycott of the Seinfeld DVD. Even if a person admits guilt, and asks for the absolution, certain elements of society will still seek to shut them up.
People in the 9/11 Truth Movement often tell society to, "Wake up!" I have a similar battle cry for the American people, "Grow up!" Controversial opinions that upset people are a fact of life. If some one doesn't like an opinion, they don't have to read it or listen to it. Society is better served by having morons like Don Imus out there, than having the thought police regulating what can be said.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Another Reason Why John McCain Should Not be the Next President
Recent news stories have been circulating regarding the alleged proposal from 2004 of John McCain running as the vice president candidate on the Kerry ticket. Needless to say, both sides are denying that they approached the other individual in regard to this idea. But what is clear, for the time being, is that John McCain actively interacted with the Democrat nominee and enemy of victory in the war on terror in an attempt to advance his own career.
Participating (even tacitly) in the campaign of a Democrat nominee and the mere consideration of running against the President during a critical period in our country's history should be reason enough not to vote for the Senator from Arizona.
Story here
Participating (even tacitly) in the campaign of a Democrat nominee and the mere consideration of running against the President during a critical period in our country's history should be reason enough not to vote for the Senator from Arizona.
Story here
Monday, April 2, 2007
Supreme Court Buys Into Global Warming Fiction
A five Justice majority has mandated that the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") regulate greenhouse gasses as pollutants in order to curb the effects of global warming. Justice Scalia (who was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas and Alito) wrote the following in dissent:
The majority, led by Justice Stevens, ignored some of the critical standing issues (e.g. how does the Court resolve the global warming problem in favor of the Petitioners, or, how have the Petitioners been individually harmed by the EPA's refusal to regulate?)
Chalk this decision up to judicial activism again. Rather than arriving at a reasonable interpretation of the statute, the majority has simply used Al Gore science to order an Executive Agency to regulate a farce.
Update: 2:20 PM - Justice Stevens, writing for the Court, argues that "The harms associated with climate change are seriousand well recognized." He continues: "A well-documented rise in global temperatures hascoincided with a significant increase in the concentrationof carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientistsbelieve the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding theescape of reflected heat."
Doesn't this fall under the "political question" doctrine that allows the Court to refuse to adjudicate issues of a political nature. cf. Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849).
The case is Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. [Click title to link to decision]
In order to be an "air pollutant” under the Act’s definition, the substance or matter [being] emitted into . . .the ambient air must also meet the first half of the definition namely, it must be an “air pollution agent or combination of such agents.” The Court simply pretends this half of the definition does not exist.
In other words, regulating the buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the upper reaches of the atmosphere, which is alleged to be causing global climate change, is not
akin to regulating the concentration of some substance that is polluting the air.
No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency.
The majority, led by Justice Stevens, ignored some of the critical standing issues (e.g. how does the Court resolve the global warming problem in favor of the Petitioners, or, how have the Petitioners been individually harmed by the EPA's refusal to regulate?)
Chalk this decision up to judicial activism again. Rather than arriving at a reasonable interpretation of the statute, the majority has simply used Al Gore science to order an Executive Agency to regulate a farce.
Update: 2:20 PM - Justice Stevens, writing for the Court, argues that "The harms associated with climate change are seriousand well recognized." He continues: "A well-documented rise in global temperatures hascoincided with a significant increase in the concentrationof carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientistsbelieve the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding theescape of reflected heat."
Doesn't this fall under the "political question" doctrine that allows the Court to refuse to adjudicate issues of a political nature. cf. Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849).
The case is Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. [Click title to link to decision]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)