Why...hello

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186528,00.html

The president of Harvard University recently resigned after his comments at an "informal luncheon" disturbed members of the Arts and Sciences department faculty. His speech, which was directed by the organizer of the event to be "speculative and intentionally provocative", discussed reasons for the lack of women in the fields of science and math. One reason was a possible "innate difference between the genders."

I realize that perhaps there may have been more to the story than this, but from what I've gathered from the article, this comment was the primary reason the president (Lawrence H. Summers) felt enough pressure to resign.

Anyone who has read what I've written on this site knows that one thing which really angers me in society and politics in particular is political correctness. It hinders our rights because offense felt by a select few has the power to cause the simple expression of one's opinion to result in enough pressure to, in this case, force one to resign. It's truly frightening that instead of government taking away our rights through force or through other more blatant measures, it's the slow but steady hand of political correctness which is proving to be the biggest threat in the long run. It's a sad day when fear of offending someone has the capacity to be one of the primary reasons we don't exercise our rights.

http://www.wkowtv.com/index.php/news/story/p/pkid/22534

(If you choose not to read it, it's about the fact that Halloween costumes are being banned in some Madison, WI area schools because Halloween "can be classified as a religious holiday."

""We encourage schools to really look at diversity and the multiple cultures we have within our school district and because of that we encourage them to have celebrations without costumes so that we address the needs of all of our students."

"For us it's a sensitivity issue with cultural differences in our district."

It's truly frightening that children cannot dress up for Halloween because the mere fact that they are celebrating Halloween translates into them making some sort of "religious statement." (Nevermind the fact that I've never met a kid who didn't see Halloween solely as an opportunity to dress up and get free candy.)

Let's take this a step further. It's Christmas time, which is obviously religious holiday, much more so than Halloween. Are we not going to allow children and teachers to wear clothing with Christmas themes on them (Christmas tree patterns on clothing and the like)? Are we not going to allow santa hats and Christmas music to be played by the bands and orchestras? After all, all of those things are relating back to-and celebrating-a religious holiday.

When is it going to end? How far do we have to go to ensure we won't offend anyone, even the slightest bit, before our lives are regulated by a government? It's not like these schools aren't allowing costumes because they feel they might be a distraction to children who are supposed to be learning. I can understand that this might be a reason (although I don't think it's a good enough one to ban all Halloween costumes.)

What are we teaching our children when we are shielding them from the real world? If children cannot accept Halloween costumes and if they cannot acknowledge the right of others to celebrate it, how are they going to accept the real world? Is it not the purpose of the education system to prepare students for American society?

In addition, aside from the fact that I know pretty much no one who dresses up in costumes to celebrate their religion-is it not their right to, as long as they aren't infriging upon anyone else's rights? It's not like the religion is being taught in school. It's not like Halloween is even really specific to one religion (or at least they say in the article. I certainly am not aware of Halloween being one religion's holiday.)

Banning costumes addresses the "needs" of students? What needs? Have these people lost their minds altogether? They say they want to encourage diversity-how is banning diversity doing that? How is disallowing the celebration of one of our culture's holidays protecting diversity? Isn't it hindering it?

Honestly. Enough is enough.

The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has caused quite an uproar, particularly among conservatives. I haven't had the opportunity to really research into this woman's background; I know she's been a legal counsel for President Bush, a commercial lawyer, and a political figure in Texas, but that is pretty much the extent of my knowledge. Many people have said that she does not have a sufficient career and background for the Supreme Court. I agree that her experiences stray from the traditional backgrounds and job experiences of other justices. From what I can tell she isn't of the typical Washington makeup, and unlike the typical ivy-league politicans, attended Southern Methodist University. I heard some political commentator-I don't remember who-say that part of this uproar has come from the "snobbery" of most politicians to anyone outside of the traditional standards of political life. I do not feel the fact she attended SMU means she is any less qualified, but I do think her difference in experience might bring diversity to the Supreme Court (diversity outside of the fact she's a woman. Her being a woman will hold no influence over my opinion of her.)

Many people have made statements which I do not feel are appropriate or logical at this point in time. While her experience might be considered "lacking" by some, some people are making statements outside of this particular matter. For example:

"Another said much of the anger resulted from the fact that 'everyone prepared to go to the mat' to support a strong, controversial nominee and Miers was a letdown."

(The article, which I will cite at the end, does not name the person who said this.) I've heard this comment a few times since her nomination-that she isn't as strong of a conservative or as "controversial" as they had hoped. But we need to look at this. First of all, I don't think anyone, especially those who said things alone these lines immediately following her nomination, are really sure of where she stands. She could be a "strong conservative" or perhaps "controversial" but then again, she might not be. How would we know that yet? (These comments have come from conservatives, mind you. I understand that liberals might interpret Bush's aid as a nominee as being likely of being categorized as controversial.) Secondly, do we really need someone who's "controversial" in the first place? Is this really holding true to the fact that the justices' first priority should be to hold true to the constitution? I understand that someone who steers clear of judicial activism or doesn't hold extreme opinions would not be "controversial", but would we-both conservatives and liberals-really want someone like that on the bench in the first place?

"'We feel this is a disappointment in President Bush. If it's going to be a woman, we expected an equal heavyweight to Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her liberal stance, and we did not get that in Miss Miers.'"

The same applies for this. For one thing, for those who claim to be Bush-supporting republicans and conservatives, it does mean something that he knows this woman and trusts her. (I would assume most liberals would not be assured by this, but that is not directed towards them.) As a part of my belief in conservatism I believe in strict interpretation of the constitution. If someone adheres to this, then in my opinion that is enough to balance a liberal "heavyweight." Of course, many issues have to be decided upon individual interpretation of the constitution. Given that she is republican and nominated by a republican president, I would also assume she would lean towards interpretations typically associated with the right. However, as we know, many justices have strayed from what people thought they would follow when they were initially nominated (O'Conner, for example.) With that said, I therefore think that most of these accusations are unjustified until more is known about her, and until she is questioned like John Roberts was.

"Another conservative captured the mood, according to a witness, by scorning Miers. "She's the president's nominee," he said. "She's not ours."

Once again, I think they're absolutely and unnecessarily jumping the gun. I can understand people thinking that experience matters, and I agree. But we have to keep that in context, and wait and know more about this woman before making such huge judgment calls; it is my opinion that it is unreasonable to so soon accuse her of being inadequate with so little known. And I'm not saying I necessarily like her; I'm saying more needs to be known.

I'm probably a little behind in this, since she was nominated on Monday or whenever, and I'm sure more information is out and about now. Nonetheless it applies to the clamor that was everywhere upon her nomination.

quotes from:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/05/AR2005100502200_pf.html

yikes. sorry that was so long.

"Since Katrina, Scott Stevens has been in newspapers across the country where he was quoted in an Associated Press story as saying the Yakuza Mafia used a Russian-made electromagnetic generator to cause Hurricane Katrina in a bid to avenge the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima. He was a guest on Coast to Coast, a late night radio show that conducts call-in discussions on everything from bizarre weather patterns to alien abductions. On Wednesday, Stevens was interviewed by Fox News firebrand Bill O'Reilly."

Hmm.

This man, a weatherman, recently quit his job to pursue these "weather theories."

I'm sure it isn't necessary for me to state my opinion and reaction on the matter. Just thought I'd post it for kicks.

Read it here: http://www.journalnet.com/articles/2005/09/23/news/local/news05.txt