Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech?
Academic freedom and freedom of speech apparently do not exist at the University of Toledo (not holy Toledo, but unholy Toledo!).
University of Toledo Associate Vice President Crystal Dixon was recently fired from her job for writing, not for the campus paper, but for the Toledo Free Press, regarding her support for traditional marriage.
In her published article, Ms. Dixon also opposed homosexual rights activists tactic of using civil rights, that is, equating race with homosexuality. As an African-American, Ms. Dixon objected to a column that compared the gay rights movement to the civil rights movements.
The Free Press agreed to print Ms. Dixon's rejoinder opposing homosexual marriage for traditional marriage.
After hundreds of e-mails protesting her response, the president of UT buckled under pressure in just a few weeks, deciding that Ms. Dixon's right to free speech and her right as a thinking academic is superceded by homosexuals right not to be opposed or offended in the marketplace of ideas on and off campus.
It seems, that UT President Lloyd Jacobs supports freedom of speech and academic freedom only when it offends traditional views.
Let's hope that Ms. Dixon's legal team from nearby Thomas More Law Center will win back her constitutional rights.
Where have all our freedoms gone?
Mar 3, 2008
Alamo: Hillary Clinton's Last Stand
Much like Davy Crocket, Jim Bowie and Col. William Travis, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton will make her last stand on similar terrain. After 10 consecutive losses and an uneventful debate performance, Clinton is also facing great odds in the Lone Star state.
Though the polls indicate a dead heat, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama has the “big mo,” mimicking the power of General Santa Anna, the Alamo’s eventual victor. Obama’s momentum seems insurmountable. Former President Bill Clinton, has said that his wife has to win Texas. Can she still win this state and the nomination?
Media prognosticators from left to right are already writing her political obituary: “Hillary Should Get Out Now,” said Jonathan Alter of Newsweek and “Who Will Tell Hillary?” asked Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun Times.
According to Real Clear Politics, it is a statistical tie — Clinton and Obama splitting four current polls. Clinton’s home state, Arkansas, is a close neighbor to Texas, so Clinton’s familiar face may be the one advantage she has left — and it may be enough.
Hillary can still win in one of three ways: 1) a successful last stand in Texas and future wins in a few big states; 2) seating of Michigan and Florida delegates; or 3) in a brokered convention, persuading super delegates to nominate her, thus, snatching the win from the jaws of defeat.
Clinton will need everything from tears to toughness, maternal instincts to meanness to win the next three big states (Texas, Ohio, Penn.) by even slim margins. In Ohio and Pennsylvania, she leads by 8 and 14 percentage points respectively. From these three states, Clinton can win most of 577 combined delegates, which would reshape the delegate race. Currently Obama has at 1,351 and Clinton for 1,262.
Another way of avoiding political ruination for Clinton emanates from the fluxed fate of the Florida and Michigan delegates.
Clinton won both states in questionable circumstances but by wide margins. If those delegates are seated, Clinton’s deficit to Obama would immediately close. A decision on those delegates, however, does not seem likely in the near future.
The Clinton camp would like to see them instated outright, which may happen if the Obama agrees to a compromise.
In any event, if the Clinton machine can reinstate those delegates, the race is once again summarily changed.
Finally, the last and least attractive scenario involves the unique concept of the Democrat Convention’s 796 super delegates. If neither Democrat candidate has the necessary 2,025 delegates by the convention, these super delegates will be the deciding factor.
With the power of the Clinton name within the Democrat Party, many of those super delegates could be swayed Clinton’s direction. Even if Obama goes into the convention with a slight lead in the popular vote and delegate count, Clinton may have the influence to overturn the will of the Democrat electorate and take the nomination.
Of course, that would be the least attractive avenue for winning and would require a major effort to reconcile and heal the party’s divergent interests and interest groups.
Crockett, Bowie and Travis lost at the Alamo during the Lonestar state’s decisive drive for Texas Independence. Hillary has a chance to reverse history by winning in Texas against the likes of Mexican Gen. Santa Anna, the Napoleon of the West. The general she’s fighting — Barack Obama — who is overseeing a new political army, however, is much more polite, polished and dynamic.
The Santa Anna winds seem to be blowing Obama’s way, but Clinton cannot be counted out.
Though the polls indicate a dead heat, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama has the “big mo,” mimicking the power of General Santa Anna, the Alamo’s eventual victor. Obama’s momentum seems insurmountable. Former President Bill Clinton, has said that his wife has to win Texas. Can she still win this state and the nomination?
Media prognosticators from left to right are already writing her political obituary: “Hillary Should Get Out Now,” said Jonathan Alter of Newsweek and “Who Will Tell Hillary?” asked Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun Times.
According to Real Clear Politics, it is a statistical tie — Clinton and Obama splitting four current polls. Clinton’s home state, Arkansas, is a close neighbor to Texas, so Clinton’s familiar face may be the one advantage she has left — and it may be enough.
Hillary can still win in one of three ways: 1) a successful last stand in Texas and future wins in a few big states; 2) seating of Michigan and Florida delegates; or 3) in a brokered convention, persuading super delegates to nominate her, thus, snatching the win from the jaws of defeat.
Clinton will need everything from tears to toughness, maternal instincts to meanness to win the next three big states (Texas, Ohio, Penn.) by even slim margins. In Ohio and Pennsylvania, she leads by 8 and 14 percentage points respectively. From these three states, Clinton can win most of 577 combined delegates, which would reshape the delegate race. Currently Obama has at 1,351 and Clinton for 1,262.
Another way of avoiding political ruination for Clinton emanates from the fluxed fate of the Florida and Michigan delegates.
Clinton won both states in questionable circumstances but by wide margins. If those delegates are seated, Clinton’s deficit to Obama would immediately close. A decision on those delegates, however, does not seem likely in the near future.
The Clinton camp would like to see them instated outright, which may happen if the Obama agrees to a compromise.
In any event, if the Clinton machine can reinstate those delegates, the race is once again summarily changed.
Finally, the last and least attractive scenario involves the unique concept of the Democrat Convention’s 796 super delegates. If neither Democrat candidate has the necessary 2,025 delegates by the convention, these super delegates will be the deciding factor.
With the power of the Clinton name within the Democrat Party, many of those super delegates could be swayed Clinton’s direction. Even if Obama goes into the convention with a slight lead in the popular vote and delegate count, Clinton may have the influence to overturn the will of the Democrat electorate and take the nomination.
Of course, that would be the least attractive avenue for winning and would require a major effort to reconcile and heal the party’s divergent interests and interest groups.
Crockett, Bowie and Travis lost at the Alamo during the Lonestar state’s decisive drive for Texas Independence. Hillary has a chance to reverse history by winning in Texas against the likes of Mexican Gen. Santa Anna, the Napoleon of the West. The general she’s fighting — Barack Obama — who is overseeing a new political army, however, is much more polite, polished and dynamic.
The Santa Anna winds seem to be blowing Obama’s way, but Clinton cannot be counted out.
Feb 7, 2008
McCain no friend to conservatives
*Published by The Greenville News on February 5, 2008
Conservative pundits and leaders question if U.S. Sen. John McCain would be a loyal standard-bearer of GOP principles.
Some pundits, albeit surprised by his Lazarus-like political ascent going into the South Carolina primary and his subsequent wins in South Carolina and Florida, are no longer overlooking McCain's record in favor of his military and political background.
"His mere third of the voters in South Carolina means that, once again, he failed to carry Republicans or conservatives," Larry J. Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center of Politics, wrote in a Rasmussen Reports commentary.
And conservative pundits are not letting their base ignore McCain's drawbacks either.
David Limbaugh, in his Jan. 28 opinion, called conservatives to remember the damage the Arizona senator has dealt to conservative causes, naming his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, favor of the McCain-Kennedy illegal immigration bill and Roe v. Wade decision as examples of McCain's betrayals.
"Vote for McCain if you wish, but please don't insult conservatives by suggesting he's one of us," Limbaugh concluded.
Conservative leader Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, agreed: "I served 12 years with him, six years in the Senate as of one of the leaders of the Senate, trying to put together the conservative agenda, and almost at every turn, on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side."
McCain's penchant to compromise conservative values in favor of liberal ones causes deep concern. More often than not, he has taken his role of power broker much to the delight of liberals and the chagrin of conservatives.
Consider McCain's marquee pieces of legislation.
Recently McCain-Lieberman came to the U.S. Senate floor. This bill embraces some environmental protection language and raises taxes on certain energy sources.
Then, last summer McCain co-sponsored McCain-Kennedy. The bill provided a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country and several other illegal immigration-related provisions. The bill went down due to strong opposition from conservatives -- led by talk radio hosts.
He is the co-author of McCain-Feingold -- a bill intended to clean up money in politics. Instead, it has pushed money to front groups under the 527 IRS Code, and consequently politics has become arguably even more unscrupulous. Rush Limbaugh dubbed it "the Incumbent Protection Act."
McCain's leading bills have embraced not only liberal Democrat leaders but also liberal policies on campaign finance and the environment, alienating him from conservatives.
Even on his strongest issue, national security, McCain has problems. He advocates closing Guantanamo Bay, an offshore security installation for suspected agents of terror. He has embraced the liberal rhetoric of America's "damaged image" abroad. And he has been instrumental in opposing the president on terror detainees and interrogation methods.
According to Newsmax.com, McCain is strong in the war on terror, but on domestic policy, "he's very, very dangerous. There's nothing worse than having a Democratic Congress and a Republican president who would act like a Democrat in matters that are important to conservatives."
While many respect congressmen for working across the aisle, McCain seems to stand against conservative interests when he compromises. Not only has John McCain compromised with Democrats, but he has compromised on conservative principles also.
McCain was the ringleader of the "Gang of 14" that was instrumental in legitimizing the extra-constitutional filibustering of judicial nominees. On fiscal policy, he voted against President Bush's tax cuts -- twice. Thus, the Arizona senator deserves no credit for the economic growth of the past seven years.
McCain does not support the federal Human Life Amendment or the Federal Marriage Amendment and voted to fund embryonic stem-cell research, calling evangelical icons Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance."
And McCain has a history of courting liberals for their approval. The New York Times has endorsed McCain this primary season.
McCain may be the next president. If elected, he will serve well, but based on his record, he will not lead in the mold of Reagan conservatism. McCain will lead in his amalgam of moderate compromise under the moniker of a maverick, a move that plays well in the eyes of the media but will not assuage conservative fears.
Conservative pundits and leaders question if U.S. Sen. John McCain would be a loyal standard-bearer of GOP principles.
Some pundits, albeit surprised by his Lazarus-like political ascent going into the South Carolina primary and his subsequent wins in South Carolina and Florida, are no longer overlooking McCain's record in favor of his military and political background.
"His mere third of the voters in South Carolina means that, once again, he failed to carry Republicans or conservatives," Larry J. Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center of Politics, wrote in a Rasmussen Reports commentary.
And conservative pundits are not letting their base ignore McCain's drawbacks either.
David Limbaugh, in his Jan. 28 opinion, called conservatives to remember the damage the Arizona senator has dealt to conservative causes, naming his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, favor of the McCain-Kennedy illegal immigration bill and Roe v. Wade decision as examples of McCain's betrayals.
"Vote for McCain if you wish, but please don't insult conservatives by suggesting he's one of us," Limbaugh concluded.
Conservative leader Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, agreed: "I served 12 years with him, six years in the Senate as of one of the leaders of the Senate, trying to put together the conservative agenda, and almost at every turn, on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side."
McCain's penchant to compromise conservative values in favor of liberal ones causes deep concern. More often than not, he has taken his role of power broker much to the delight of liberals and the chagrin of conservatives.
Consider McCain's marquee pieces of legislation.
Recently McCain-Lieberman came to the U.S. Senate floor. This bill embraces some environmental protection language and raises taxes on certain energy sources.
Then, last summer McCain co-sponsored McCain-Kennedy. The bill provided a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country and several other illegal immigration-related provisions. The bill went down due to strong opposition from conservatives -- led by talk radio hosts.
He is the co-author of McCain-Feingold -- a bill intended to clean up money in politics. Instead, it has pushed money to front groups under the 527 IRS Code, and consequently politics has become arguably even more unscrupulous. Rush Limbaugh dubbed it "the Incumbent Protection Act."
McCain's leading bills have embraced not only liberal Democrat leaders but also liberal policies on campaign finance and the environment, alienating him from conservatives.
Even on his strongest issue, national security, McCain has problems. He advocates closing Guantanamo Bay, an offshore security installation for suspected agents of terror. He has embraced the liberal rhetoric of America's "damaged image" abroad. And he has been instrumental in opposing the president on terror detainees and interrogation methods.
According to Newsmax.com, McCain is strong in the war on terror, but on domestic policy, "he's very, very dangerous. There's nothing worse than having a Democratic Congress and a Republican president who would act like a Democrat in matters that are important to conservatives."
While many respect congressmen for working across the aisle, McCain seems to stand against conservative interests when he compromises. Not only has John McCain compromised with Democrats, but he has compromised on conservative principles also.
McCain was the ringleader of the "Gang of 14" that was instrumental in legitimizing the extra-constitutional filibustering of judicial nominees. On fiscal policy, he voted against President Bush's tax cuts -- twice. Thus, the Arizona senator deserves no credit for the economic growth of the past seven years.
McCain does not support the federal Human Life Amendment or the Federal Marriage Amendment and voted to fund embryonic stem-cell research, calling evangelical icons Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance."
And McCain has a history of courting liberals for their approval. The New York Times has endorsed McCain this primary season.
McCain may be the next president. If elected, he will serve well, but based on his record, he will not lead in the mold of Reagan conservatism. McCain will lead in his amalgam of moderate compromise under the moniker of a maverick, a move that plays well in the eyes of the media but will not assuage conservative fears.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)