AT LEAST THERE IS FREEDOM SOMEWHERE ON CAMPUS
I live near an abortion clinic. No, I'm not going into
Roe v. Wade. My former girlfriend claimed she wanted to slug me after why I said that decision was bad law. (I am pro choice, as a matter of public policy, but I'd rather the decision be made by appropriate entities- state legislators. I am also a damn hypocrite for getting into the abortion issue after saying I'd avoid it, but that's another matter.)
Now, this clinic has spray-painted a half-circle
eighteen feet around the door. Anti-abortion protesters, who occasionally show up with their gruesome photos and religious tracts, are not allowed inside Every time I see that spray painted fluorescent orange line, I think to myself 'now leaving America,' 'The First Amendment ends here,' or similar uncharitable thoughts. In contrast, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in the case of
Benefit v. Cambridge, has ruled that the First Amendment
protects beggars pestering people trying to enter Harvard Square convenience stores.
The reason I bring this up is as an introduction to another telling of Political Correctness AKA Pinko McCarthyism on Campus. The University of Maryland has
magnanimously consented to allow free speech in two whole locations on campus. While that seems to make the Terrapins more enlightened than others in academe's bestiary,
[University spokesman George L.] Cathcart noted that the university allowed students to hold a rally protesting war in Iraq that drew about 500 people to McKeldin Mall yesterday. McKeldin Mall is not one of the two areas reserved for public speech under the university policy being challenged by the ACLU, and Cathcart said he believes the area is regulated under another policy.
|
ACLU officials seized on the discrepancy. "The university's willingness to close its eyes when it's a highly public demonstration leads to the inevitable problem of selective enforcement," said staff attorney David Rocah, noting that other student groups, including environmental activists and supporters of former presidential candidate Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., have been prevented from marching or leafleting on the mall.
|
Oopsie. Looks like the
Free Speech for Me, And Not For Thee mentality remains the order of the day for the American Left and liberalism. For example, some 'peace lovers' in California
destroyed a 9-11 memorial. (via
LGF Meanwhile, listeners to
NPR (AKA National Pinko Radio) are furious when the
other side is presented. (Via
Andrew Sullivan) How dare they present other views! Don't they know the way
it's supposed to be? You present the Palestinians attacking the Jews, then the Israelis who attack their own government.
Now that I have brought up NPR, I need to mention something I heard on '
Fresh Air' Saturday. No, I did not listen to NPR willingly. I was in the back seat of the car and my
Rio Volt's batteries were running low. Anyhow, the commentator was talking about the word 'protest.' Being a NPR chatterer, he could not resist an utterly unnecessary dig at conservatives, who complained about Barry McGuire's song '
Eve of Destruction.' They used the
Fairness Doctrine to protest. The commentator, Geoffrey Nunberg, remarked with typical NPR snideness, "This was before they realized they could live without it." Well, the liberals
pine for the Fairness Doctrine, because, as usual they
can't handle the marketplace. (Which is why NPR is subsidized. But that's a furious rant for another day.)
It is no secret that the left in the institutions it controls attempts to create a monolithic ideological culture. Some people have made a good
career out of exposing it. The reason is why does current liberalism is so intolerant towards those who disagree? I blame the 60s. Yeah. That's my default position on almost anything, but hear me out. First, as
David Horowitz would say, the Left snatched the banner of liberalism. Instead of Scoop Jackson liberals, you had Eugene McCarthy times who were far more disposed to empathize with the Warsaw Pact than their own country. The current left retains the totalitarian instincts of its former Soviet mentors/role models.
The other problem is that, as the terminology of the day went, they made the political personal. They internalize their ideology to such a degree they can not imagine anyone on the opposite side of the aisle being a decent human being. They can not agree to disagree rationally. If you do not hold their views, you are evil. They see their opponents as warmongers, racists, the avaricious and vile. Such monsters have no right to speak, or if they can not be silenced, must not be taken seriously.
Of course when you make the political so personal, every defeat is all the more painful. Their desperation to MAKE A DIFFERENCE has been driving them over the edge, with promises to commit acts of
sabotage and violence. Hysteria rises in proportion to impotence, and the ensuing ugliness ensures irrelevance. So by trying to get others to shut up, they make those who disagree more attractive. The vicious circle continues.
Thank goodness.