Grab your soapbox and Rant away

This page is reserved for ANY and ANYONE'S comments, musings, rants, and opinions on political topics.  In reverence of free speech, they will not be censored or modified.  We feel that open discussion is a key way to discuss libertarian viewpoints, as well as others.  Commenting will be made possible on every entry.  So if you'd like to contribute to the College Libertarians website, do not hesitate to email your thoughts to the webmistress at liberty@nd.edu.

http://ndlibertarians.blogspot.com/ <--Alternate blog location

Hope to hear from y'all soon.

[Posted by: She Who Says Boh|9/23/05|10:49PM|]

Diversity - Pull Your Head out of your ass

For 2/3rds of last semester, all Notre Dame students were forced to attend a class called "Contemporary Topics." Among other things, I learned that I am a binge drinker, which the class defines as someone who has had more than 4 drinks in one night sometime within the last two weeks, that people who had taken this class (every Notre Dame student) experienced "increased self-esteem" as a result, and that “diversity” is good. In Notre Dame's attempt to appear diverse, a "diversity expert" came into our class and lectured us on how the white man is bad, everyone else is good, and how racism and sexism are still prevalent all over the United States (while in the same breath commenting on the greatness of affirmative action, which I guess proves her point, a point which she was too dull to see). In order to better demonstrate the irrationality of racism, the diversity expert showed us a small documentary. It followed a diversity Nazi who would visit classrooms and attempt to make the students feel inferior. First, she would treat everyone with brown eyes like they were completely worthless by calling them “boy” or some other derogatory name. Then she changed her mind and decided to repeat the exercise with the blue eyed people. She made one completely insecure dumbass high-school girl burst into tears within about thirty seconds, which made me laugh. If you can’t stand being yelled at for about thirty seconds by someone you don’t know about something that really doesn’t matter, what does that say about you?
 

Anyways, we had to write a two page paper on what we had learned both from the movie and from the diversity expert. The following was my response.

"Diversity”

I won’t lie. I learned virtually nothing during this video or presentation. The only point that was really driven home was that racism was bad, which any moron would have known before watching a video. If that “woman” entered a classroom and attempted to do that to me, I would have torn her a new one. I despise most of this “diversity crowd.” To me, they represent the politically correct do-gooders that have come to symbolize the American Left. Strictly speaking, the whole concept of “diversity” is merely politically correct racism.

The underlying tenants of the diversity movement are quite scary to think about. According to the “diversity crowd,” we supposedly gain valuable insights from the viewpoints of minorities. Apparently, everyone benefits from this system. However, this view requires that you accept the fact that one’s race determines what is in one’s mind. Hispanic people have Hispanic ideas and black people have “black” ideas. Thus, people have worldviews based on their ethnic identity. This is a very similar belief to that of any racist. Racists believe that a person’s ethnicity determines their thoughts and actions. A person’s character is predetermined by his race, not by his reason and experiences.

An individualist, on the other hand, does not hold any of these racist views. He judges each person on their merits as a person, their rationality, their character, not by the color of their skin or something else equally arbitrary. The diversity crowd of today, such as the NAACP, has ceased to demand government “color-blindness” and now demands government enforced racism, such as affirmative action (both in colleges and the workforce) and minority set-asides. To quote Ayn Rand:
 

"So long as the Negro leaders were fighting against government-enforced discrimination-right, justice and morality were on their side. But that is not what they are fighting any longer...Instead of fighting against racial discrimination, they are demanding that racial discrimination be legalized and enforced. Instead of fighting against racism, they are demanding the establishment of racial quotas. Instead of fighting for 'color-blindness' in social and economic issues, they are proclaiming that 'color-blindness' is evil and that 'color' should be made a primary consideration. Instead of fighting for equal rights, they are demanding special race privileges."

Equally ridiculous is the notion that females are being discriminated against on a wide scale. It does not stand to reason that a competent employer (employers have to be competent or they will go down in flames) would discriminate based on the sex of the person. If it was true that women really earned 76 cents for every dollar a man makes for the exact same work (with the same experience), then the employer is pretty damn stupid for not maximizing his profit by firing all adult males and hiring cheaper women in their place, who will do the exact same work for less money. The Independent Women's Forum says, "The average wages of women are lower than those of men because the average woman has less work experience and is more likely to choose a lower-paying job that provides flexibility to combine work and family responsibilities." Numerous other studies have confirmed the conclusion that women that do the same work with the same experience make virtually the same amount of money as men. This is merely common sense. Likewise, an employer is pretty stupid if he won’t hire someone because of their skin color. In a capitalist society, the profit motive will trump most racism and sexism through the economy.

While the multicultural/diversity/”ethnocentrism is the devil” people have a few legitimate points, for the most part, they have their heads up their backside. No logical person would ever support such racist policies as affirmative action or racial set-asides because no logical person supports racism. Rational people understand that a person’s ideas are not determined by the color of one’s skin and that the color of skin does not determine the way a person thinks.

[Posted by: Mark Poyar|10/6/05|10:06PM|]

Letter to the Editor of the Observer

[Posted by: Scott|9/30/05|10:00AM|]

The Idiocy of the Supreme Court Nomination Process

Somehow, a left-wing Internet group got my name and sent me an e-mail declaring that the confirmation of Judge John Roberts “could undo all progressive decisions of the past century!” Apparently, they would have me believe, a conservative judge will undoubtedly rule against “progressive” court decisions and set back American “progress.”
I hope I am not the only person who sees the incongruous sentiments behind that statement.
I know very little about John Roberts, and have become so disillusioned with the Supreme Court that I honestly care very little about him. However, here is a sample of the questions posed to Roberts by senators during his confirmation hearings:
Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) asked: “What role would you play in making right the wrongs revealed by Katrina?” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) demanded to know: “What is the best way for our society to protect ourselves against terrorists not affiliated with a nation-state[…]?”
Here is my question: what does any of this have to do with the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court does not set foreign policy or determine the best way to protect Der Vaterland. The Supreme Court does not control disaster relief. The Supreme Court has one job, and it is a simple one: listen to America’s legal problems, look at the Constitution, and decide if it gives the government any authority to bother with their problems. It is not difficult.
However, the Supreme Court has become a grandstand for “activist” judges of the left and right wings. Recently, in Gonzales v. Raich, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with the Court’s decision that medical patients who grow and smoke marijuana in their own homes are seriously affecting interstate commerce, and therefore the federal government has a right to regulate (read: outlaw) it. In Kelo v. New London, left-wing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg supported the majority decision to allow the appropriation of private property in order to generate higher tax revenue for local governments. Both of these decisions illustrate two of the myriad of unclear interpretations of the Constitution the Court has made, and both exemplify the type of agenda-pushing that occurs on the level of the nation’s highest Court.
Does the Commerce Clause allow for regulation of locally grown marijuana? Does the Fifth Amendment allow private property to be stolen on behalf of private developers?
No, of course not. Sadly, common sense is lacking in our government today.
The political debate that has been raging about Roberts and his place on the Court is fundamentally misguided. The Constitution is apolitical; it does not lean left and it does not lean right. However, no one seems to notice.
The Left has the sophomoric belief that the Constitution is some kind of “living document” whose interpretation changes with time. The Constitution is not perfect, but nothing could be further from the truth. This assumption is founded on the idea that as American society grows, bigger government and more laws are needed in order to control it. Such disingenuity is as politically sound as the Marxism that grounds it. If anything, as American society becomes more efficient and liberal (not left-wing; I mean the real kind of “liberal”), there should be more restrictions on the power of the government to control its citizens. We are not moving in that direction, unfortunately, and will continue to see increasing politicization of our desecrated Constitution.
As has become more usual, the conservatives seem to agree. Instead of sticking to the strict constructionism that should be governing rulings of the Court, they are just as willing to sacrifice their supposed ideals of limited government in favor of the right-wing brand of social engineering.
Supreme Court justices are not elected officials. Far be it for me to extol the virtues of limited republican democracy, but at least we have one-quarter of ourselves to blame for electing the politicians who are ruining the nation. With the Supreme Court, however, there is no accountability. These are people who are appointed by the Politician-in-Charge, and they remain in power as long as they want. There is no reason the American public should tolerate judicial “activism;” if the Constitution does not give the government explicit authority to do something, it is reserved to the States or to the people. It is very clearly enumerated.
I do not know what future-Chief Justice John Roberts will do to stain the fabric of American liberty. I almost do not want to think about it. What I do know, however, is that the politicians in Washington will continue doing what they have been doing for decades, and America will remain blissfully unaware of the political destruction that occurs every single day.

[Posted by: Scott|9/24/05|12:19AM|]