After every terrorist attack the response from the conservative media is always the same - liberal apologists and political correctness are to blame for this horrific tragedy. Such is the case with a conversation between Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin from earlier this week on Fox News titled, "Political correctness 'at all costs' costs lives". In their minds, despite the fact that many terrorist attacks are home grown, laws such as the President's unconstitutional travel ban are a panacea for stopping terrorism.
Of course what they are really talking about here is the conservative belief that Islam is the root cause of these attacks, and the counter argument from liberals, that on the whole Islam is a peaceful religion that is being manipulated and co-opted by violent extremists. While there is no denying that many of these attacks are perpetrated by groups claiming to be ruled by Islamic doctrine, and there are many countries where the Quran is used as justification for oppressive and archaic laws; asserting that not all Muslims view the teachings of the Quran in the same way is hardly the roadblock to stopping terrorism that conservatives pretend it is.
Having said it's possible that what we have here is a failure to communicate, let's put the argument for a measured response to Islam in terms that conservatives are more comfortable with. After every mass shooting, liberals quickly demand new restrictions on guns because they believe that guns kill people. The conservative response to this is always - Guns don't kill people, people do. It turns out that same logic is at the heart of the push back from liberals on Islamic terrorists. It's not that liberals don't believe there are Muslims that kill people under the guise of Islam. It's just that Islam doesn't kill people, people do.
So if we believe the trite memes that argue pencils don't misspell words, forks don't make people fat, and cars don't make people drive drunk, then it follows that Islam doesn't make people terrorists. Similarly, if banning guns is useless because bad guys will find ways to get guns; then banning Muslims won't work either since bad Muslims will find a way to commit acts of terror. In fact the sort of extreme vetting some people think will prevent terrorists from entering the country is nearly identical to the guns laws that many believe prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. As the NRA has argued, the only thing these proposals do is add an unnecessary burden to law abiding citizens.
Gun advocates also believe that only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. With this in mind, perhaps the best solution to a bad guy with a Quran is a good guy with a Quran. This means arming more citizens with the peaceful interpretation of the Muslim holy book and helping them spread the word instead of painting all Muslims with the broad brush of terrorism.
The reality is that, just as the right to bear arms is protected by the constitution, so is the right to religious freedom and protection from discrimination due to your religious beliefs. This is why the courts continue to block the Muslim travel ban that it has determined "drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination".
Asking people to refrain from pigeonholing Islam and it's followers as inherently evil isn't because liberals are afraid of offending ISIS or other terrorist groups committing atrocities under the guise of Islam. It's because books don't kill people - people do, which means stopping Islamic terrorists requires us to combat the terrorists, not Islam.
Friday, May 26, 2017
Friday, March 24, 2017
Conservative Media Coverage of Maryland Student Rape is Shamefully Political
Looking to avoid hot topics like the false allegations of wiretapping, the failing health care bill, and the increasingly troubling connection between the Trump administration and Russia, Fox News and other conservative media outlets have shifted their focus to a story that fits their narrative - the rape of a 14 year old girl by two Central American immigrants, at least one of which is believed to be in the country illegally.
Obviously such a case is something the Trump administration is going to want to showcase because it provides cannon fodder for the "build the wall" crowd which is why Press Secretary Sean Spicer made sure to mention it in a recent press briefing. It should come as no surprise that the media arm of the Trump Administration - Fox News - would make this one of their top news stories.
Bill O'Reilly for example said that is was shameful that none of the "liberal" news outlets were covering the story because "Illegal immigration is a political issue." While true that illegal immigration is a political issue what rape cases Fox News chooses to cover versus what other main stream media outlets cover says a lot more about the bias at Fox News than it does ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN. For instance a quick Google search of the rapes Fox News deems news worthy come up with the following headlines: "Afghan teenager detained in rape, slaying of German student", "Mexican charged with rape in Kansas had 19 deportations", and "Idaho town torn by alleged rape, fear of refugees".
Of course it should be noted that Fox News has ignored a number of other recent rape cases that really don't fit their narrative like "Diocese places priest accused of rape on leave", "West Tenn. pastor accused of raping teen after tying her up", "Pastor of LaFollette church charged with statutory rape of 16-year-old girl", and "Preacher, teacher's assistant charged in rape". The reality here is that Bill O'Reilly and his cohorts at Fox News are attempting to portray immigrants as inherently criminal despite the multiple studies that show immigrants actually commit less crime than natural born citizens.
Having said that if these conservative talking heads aren't pushing this story simply because it matches their political ideology and the real goal is just to make sure Americans are safe then they might like to know that white Americans make up an inordinately large number of those arrested for Arson, Vandalism, and DUI's. In fact whites make up 84.2% of those arrested for DUI with white kids under 18 accounting for 91% of the DUI's in this age group. Given that around 10,000 people die a year in the U.S. from drunk drivers perhaps there needs to be some extreme vetting for whites who would like to drive in the United States.
If the concern here however is mainly with sexual assault then it should be mentioned that despite making up 62% of the population whites accounted for 66.2% of the rapes and 72.4% of other sex offenses. Data also show that 93% of sex offenders label themselves as "religious" and that within faith communities the sexual abusers have more and younger victims.
There is no doubt that we should do our best to make sure that rapes like the one that occurred in Maryland are stopped but complaining that everyone else is presenting bias information when your coverage focuses almost exclusively on the few cases of rape by illegal immigrants while ignoring the other 100,000 rapes that occur every year is extraordinarily hypocritical.
Beyond that demonizing an entire segment of the population so that you can present some anecdotal evidence is a great way to create fear among your viewers but it is awful way of generating good legislation to deal with a real problem. The reality is that for every "bad hombre" that comes to the U.S. there is another hero who saved a cops life, rescued a child from a kidnapper, or saved the life of a young boy or girl in need of help. If only Bill O'Reilly and the other fine folks at Fox News were willing to hold themselves to the same journalist standards they demand of others.
Obviously such a case is something the Trump administration is going to want to showcase because it provides cannon fodder for the "build the wall" crowd which is why Press Secretary Sean Spicer made sure to mention it in a recent press briefing. It should come as no surprise that the media arm of the Trump Administration - Fox News - would make this one of their top news stories.
Bill O'Reilly for example said that is was shameful that none of the "liberal" news outlets were covering the story because "Illegal immigration is a political issue." While true that illegal immigration is a political issue what rape cases Fox News chooses to cover versus what other main stream media outlets cover says a lot more about the bias at Fox News than it does ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN. For instance a quick Google search of the rapes Fox News deems news worthy come up with the following headlines: "Afghan teenager detained in rape, slaying of German student", "Mexican charged with rape in Kansas had 19 deportations", and "Idaho town torn by alleged rape, fear of refugees".
Of course it should be noted that Fox News has ignored a number of other recent rape cases that really don't fit their narrative like "Diocese places priest accused of rape on leave", "West Tenn. pastor accused of raping teen after tying her up", "Pastor of LaFollette church charged with statutory rape of 16-year-old girl", and "Preacher, teacher's assistant charged in rape". The reality here is that Bill O'Reilly and his cohorts at Fox News are attempting to portray immigrants as inherently criminal despite the multiple studies that show immigrants actually commit less crime than natural born citizens.
Having said that if these conservative talking heads aren't pushing this story simply because it matches their political ideology and the real goal is just to make sure Americans are safe then they might like to know that white Americans make up an inordinately large number of those arrested for Arson, Vandalism, and DUI's. In fact whites make up 84.2% of those arrested for DUI with white kids under 18 accounting for 91% of the DUI's in this age group. Given that around 10,000 people die a year in the U.S. from drunk drivers perhaps there needs to be some extreme vetting for whites who would like to drive in the United States.
If the concern here however is mainly with sexual assault then it should be mentioned that despite making up 62% of the population whites accounted for 66.2% of the rapes and 72.4% of other sex offenses. Data also show that 93% of sex offenders label themselves as "religious" and that within faith communities the sexual abusers have more and younger victims.
There is no doubt that we should do our best to make sure that rapes like the one that occurred in Maryland are stopped but complaining that everyone else is presenting bias information when your coverage focuses almost exclusively on the few cases of rape by illegal immigrants while ignoring the other 100,000 rapes that occur every year is extraordinarily hypocritical.
Beyond that demonizing an entire segment of the population so that you can present some anecdotal evidence is a great way to create fear among your viewers but it is awful way of generating good legislation to deal with a real problem. The reality is that for every "bad hombre" that comes to the U.S. there is another hero who saved a cops life, rescued a child from a kidnapper, or saved the life of a young boy or girl in need of help. If only Bill O'Reilly and the other fine folks at Fox News were willing to hold themselves to the same journalist standards they demand of others.
Monday, February 13, 2017
Republicans will regret confirming Betsy DeVos
The recent appointment of Betsy DeVos has proved one thing - conservatives are far more concerned about politics than they are about educating children. A sampling of their self-serving arrogance can be seen in the numerous Fox News opinion articles from the likes of Bobby Jindal, Ralph Reed, Liz Peek, and the entire New York Post Editorial Board.
The New York Post believes "The War on Betsy DeVos Is All About the Teachers’ Unions". Conservatives have long believed that unions are bad for the country, but the data doesn't support that assertion when it comes to teachers. If these conservatives were being honest they would acknowledge that multiple studies show teachers’ unions have a positive impact on educational outcomes, while another study showed that in areas where union membership was greater, children in low income families were more likely to achieve higher incomes.
Beyond that, if unions were the biggest obstacle to improving education, then why do so many countries that outperform the U.S. have higher rates of unionization among their teachers?
Of course the idea that unions need public schools to maintain their power ignores the fact that 12% of charter school teachers are represented by unions.
Ralph Reed feels that the opposition to Betsy DeVos is due to the "liberal war on religion" despite the fact that her faith and religiosity were not a reason given by any of the fifty Senators that voted against her appointment. Having said that, there are clearly concerns that DeVos, who was quoted as saying she wanted to confront the education culture "in ways that will continue to advance God's kingdom" while her husband - Dick DeVos - stated it is "certainly our hope that more and more churches will get more and more active and engaged in education".
Given the multiple cases that have helped define the separation of church and state within public schools, it would seem there is little DeVos can do to push her faith as the Secretary of Education; however, she wouldn't be the first conservative to advocate for getting public funding to flow to private religious schools. If following the constitution constitutes a war on religion, conservatives should get ready for a battle.
Like many others, Liz Peek pretends our schools system is broken and that the ideas DeVos supports are the answer. Unfortunately for DeVos supporters like Peek, they are woefully uninformed on the problems of education. Data show that we have a poverty problem not an education problem. In fact, when adjusted for poverty, the U.S. test scores rank number one in the world.
The reality is that, if conservatives spent as much money and effort on ending poverty as they do trying to end public education, the system we have in place would already be producing the best results in the world.
Unlike the others that were mainly interested in presenting biased information to make liberals look bad, Bobby Jindal presented biased information to pat himself on the back in addition to making liberals look bad. In Jindal's mind, DeVos will save education because she agrees with the policies he has followed as the Governor of Louisiana. Jindal goes on to talk up the value of charter schools while ignoring the most recent data that show there is virtually no difference between the performance of charter schools and public schools. Making matters worse is the fact that the data used to show this doesn't include some of the best performing public schools in the country. This means charter school are only as good as the public schools people have deemed failing. That is faint praise to only be as good as the bad public schools.
Of course Jindal also fails to mention a number of other issues with charter schools that should trouble most people that claim to care about children, like the fact that charter schools spend less on teachers yet don't save tax payers any money. Charter schools are less transparent, give parents less control over the direction of their child's education, and take money out of local communities. Despite costs tax payers as much as their local public school, Charter schools serve fewer special needs and English learner students which tend to cost more to educate. Charters weed out students with lower test scores and expel more students, yet still don't outperform their local public school.
Beyond this, as Fox News contributor Todd Starnes noted, over the last eight years, where charter schools have increased by 47 % under President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, U.S. test scores have gone down. Odd that this free market competition has led to a general decline in outcomes given the rhetoric from conservatives.
When you analyze the data you see that charter schools aren't the panacea of education reform but just another type of school plagued by the problem of poverty.
Jindal also believes that Betsy DeVos has proven she is dedicated to improving the education system because she has "spent millions of dollars of her own money" on education reform. Well Governor, if spending her own money shows the level of commitment DeVos has to our children then it should be mentioned that teachers across the U.S. spend $3.5 billion of their own money to buy supplies for their classroom and for students who can't afford the necessities. In fact, some of the lowest paid teachers spend the largest percentage of their own money. How is it DeVos's spending shows her dedication, yet opposing her view of reform while spending a greater percentage of your income directly on students suggests you want kids to fail?
The concerns that most Senators - including two Republicans - had with DeVos was the fact that she had never been part of the public education system as a student, parent, or staff and that she couldn't answer some simple policy questions that are quintessential to the job.
The question these opinion writers should really be asking themselves is not does DeVos support charters, the reduction of unions, and the transfer of public funds to private institutions, since every person Donald Trump would nominate for this position would have backed these ideas; but rather, is Betsy DeVos the best candidate for this position. It seems ideologically inconsistent to suggest that DeVos's lack of experience is an asset while also arguing that teachers should be assessed, reviewed, and rated to determine if they are "highly qualified" for their job.
In the end, this hypocrisy and willful ignorance in supporting an unqualified candidate tells you all you need to know about the motives of the conservatives that back Betsy DeVos. Unfortunately, the well-being of America's children seems to fall a distant second to the political motivations of killing unions, weakening the separation of church and state and enriching the same corporate interests behind the explosion in defense spending.
The New York Post believes "The War on Betsy DeVos Is All About the Teachers’ Unions". Conservatives have long believed that unions are bad for the country, but the data doesn't support that assertion when it comes to teachers. If these conservatives were being honest they would acknowledge that multiple studies show teachers’ unions have a positive impact on educational outcomes, while another study showed that in areas where union membership was greater, children in low income families were more likely to achieve higher incomes.
Beyond that, if unions were the biggest obstacle to improving education, then why do so many countries that outperform the U.S. have higher rates of unionization among their teachers?
Of course the idea that unions need public schools to maintain their power ignores the fact that 12% of charter school teachers are represented by unions.
Ralph Reed feels that the opposition to Betsy DeVos is due to the "liberal war on religion" despite the fact that her faith and religiosity were not a reason given by any of the fifty Senators that voted against her appointment. Having said that, there are clearly concerns that DeVos, who was quoted as saying she wanted to confront the education culture "in ways that will continue to advance God's kingdom" while her husband - Dick DeVos - stated it is "certainly our hope that more and more churches will get more and more active and engaged in education".
Given the multiple cases that have helped define the separation of church and state within public schools, it would seem there is little DeVos can do to push her faith as the Secretary of Education; however, she wouldn't be the first conservative to advocate for getting public funding to flow to private religious schools. If following the constitution constitutes a war on religion, conservatives should get ready for a battle.
Like many others, Liz Peek pretends our schools system is broken and that the ideas DeVos supports are the answer. Unfortunately for DeVos supporters like Peek, they are woefully uninformed on the problems of education. Data show that we have a poverty problem not an education problem. In fact, when adjusted for poverty, the U.S. test scores rank number one in the world.
The reality is that, if conservatives spent as much money and effort on ending poverty as they do trying to end public education, the system we have in place would already be producing the best results in the world.
Unlike the others that were mainly interested in presenting biased information to make liberals look bad, Bobby Jindal presented biased information to pat himself on the back in addition to making liberals look bad. In Jindal's mind, DeVos will save education because she agrees with the policies he has followed as the Governor of Louisiana. Jindal goes on to talk up the value of charter schools while ignoring the most recent data that show there is virtually no difference between the performance of charter schools and public schools. Making matters worse is the fact that the data used to show this doesn't include some of the best performing public schools in the country. This means charter school are only as good as the public schools people have deemed failing. That is faint praise to only be as good as the bad public schools.
Of course Jindal also fails to mention a number of other issues with charter schools that should trouble most people that claim to care about children, like the fact that charter schools spend less on teachers yet don't save tax payers any money. Charter schools are less transparent, give parents less control over the direction of their child's education, and take money out of local communities. Despite costs tax payers as much as their local public school, Charter schools serve fewer special needs and English learner students which tend to cost more to educate. Charters weed out students with lower test scores and expel more students, yet still don't outperform their local public school.
Beyond this, as Fox News contributor Todd Starnes noted, over the last eight years, where charter schools have increased by 47 % under President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, U.S. test scores have gone down. Odd that this free market competition has led to a general decline in outcomes given the rhetoric from conservatives.
When you analyze the data you see that charter schools aren't the panacea of education reform but just another type of school plagued by the problem of poverty.
Jindal also believes that Betsy DeVos has proven she is dedicated to improving the education system because she has "spent millions of dollars of her own money" on education reform. Well Governor, if spending her own money shows the level of commitment DeVos has to our children then it should be mentioned that teachers across the U.S. spend $3.5 billion of their own money to buy supplies for their classroom and for students who can't afford the necessities. In fact, some of the lowest paid teachers spend the largest percentage of their own money. How is it DeVos's spending shows her dedication, yet opposing her view of reform while spending a greater percentage of your income directly on students suggests you want kids to fail?
The concerns that most Senators - including two Republicans - had with DeVos was the fact that she had never been part of the public education system as a student, parent, or staff and that she couldn't answer some simple policy questions that are quintessential to the job.
The question these opinion writers should really be asking themselves is not does DeVos support charters, the reduction of unions, and the transfer of public funds to private institutions, since every person Donald Trump would nominate for this position would have backed these ideas; but rather, is Betsy DeVos the best candidate for this position. It seems ideologically inconsistent to suggest that DeVos's lack of experience is an asset while also arguing that teachers should be assessed, reviewed, and rated to determine if they are "highly qualified" for their job.
In the end, this hypocrisy and willful ignorance in supporting an unqualified candidate tells you all you need to know about the motives of the conservatives that back Betsy DeVos. Unfortunately, the well-being of America's children seems to fall a distant second to the political motivations of killing unions, weakening the separation of church and state and enriching the same corporate interests behind the explosion in defense spending.
Friday, February 3, 2017
Homophobic, Racist, Xenophobic Conservative Jesus Freak Todd Starnes Doesn't Understand Freedom of Speech
Conservatives often claim that any news that doesn't support their narrative is "fake news" yet many of these same people are oblivious to how fictitious the information they report as news really is. A recent article by Fox News contributor Todd Starnes in response to the protests at the University of California Berkeley offer an excellent example of this hypocrisy.
The concern from Starnes and other conservatives is that a speech by an alt-right author was shut down by protesters that felt the author, who had been kicked off Twitter for incessantly harassing and bullying SNL star Leslie Jones with racist comments, should not be allowed to speak on campus. To Starnes these protests show that "the Left is absolutely terrified of free speech".
It seems that the irony of this statement is lost on many conservatives. The students that are protesting are simply exercising their right to free speech. They were not protesting him as a person or his right to speak. They were protesting his hate speech. The reality is the speaker was not physically prevented from speaking by the protesters. He could just as easily have taken his act to another venue. His right to free speech was in no way infringed upon by these students.
The first amendment doesn't protect everyone’s right to say whatever they want whenever and wherever they choose. Just as Congress doesn't have to allow a person who wants to extol the virtues of Sharia Law a forum to speak, the school has no obligation to allow every person who wants to hold an event to do so. Many of these same conservatives certainly had no qualms with protesting the Duke University decision to allow Muslims to use the university's chapel bell tower for Friday prayers. Notre Dame Students and alumni didn't have any problems protesting President Obama due to his views on abortion. And it seems few conservatives argued for free speech when Bill Ayers was disinvited to speak by multiple colleges and universities.
In fact while Fox News, and Starnes in particular, would have you believe that there is an epidemic of schools censoring conservative speakers, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) keeps records on such occurrences and has found that less than 60% of speakers who were the targets of disinvitation protests came from the left. There may be a rash of speaker protests sweeping the country, but the political leanings of the protesters is far more evenly divided then conservatives would have you believe.
Of course part of Starnes' issue is the fact that the UC Berkeley protests resulted in damage to the student union and a few physical confrontations. While the vast majority of liberals will tell you there is no place for these sorts of actions in a protest, the focus on violence and destruction from conservatives is again very self-serving. Many of the same people that claimed the protests against Donald Trump late last year were stocked with hired professional protesters only seem to hold that view when the protests are peaceful. As soon as things turn violent these conservative talking heads suggest this is par for the course with liberal protests. Either these protests represent liberals/Democrats or they don't. Picking and choosing which events contain the true liberals/Democrats based on how it fits your personal or political narrative exposes a bias and hypocrisy that makes it difficult to take these talking heads seriously.
Having said that, many of these same conservatives didn't seem to have a problem with citizens pointing guns at federal agents during a dispute over grazing fees or the armed takeover of public lands in Oregon. They also don't seem very concerned about the racist and pro-Trump property damage and vandalism at universities and other locations across the country. And while physical violence is clearly a problem in what should be peaceful disagreements, you'll notice that for people like Todd Starnes, conservatives attacked by liberals are victims yet liberals attacked by conservatives are agitators that got what they deserved.
But perhaps the most disturbing idea that Starnes seems to support is removing federal funding for any "public universities that want to silence conservative voices". You'll notice he didn't say for public universities that want to stop free speech. He said for those who want to silence conservative voices. Perhaps this is because he is so ill informed on the breakdown of who is being protested at college campuses; but more likely it's because he truly feels anyone who identifies as conservative should be given carte blanche over all public spaces.
This is an extraordinarily dangerous opinion which Starnes should be embarrassed to hold. Protecting every American’s right to free speech and forcing public institutions to provide a forum for hate speech are two totally different things. Should Neo-Nazis be free to argue that there is a master race and that other races should be exterminated? Absolutely. Should all public universities be forced to provide a venue for this sort of speech? Absolutely not.
The problem here is that conservatives like Starnes are clueless on the duplicity of their positions, so they are fine with putting a gag order on government agencies that disagree with their beliefs, but letting public entities determine what qualifies as educational is unpatriotic and unconstitutional.
Of course few liberals would disagree with Starnes assessment that these aggressively racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic speakers trolling college campuses epitomize the views of conservative Republicans. If only he had the same sort of clarity on what qualifies as a restriction on free speech.
The concern from Starnes and other conservatives is that a speech by an alt-right author was shut down by protesters that felt the author, who had been kicked off Twitter for incessantly harassing and bullying SNL star Leslie Jones with racist comments, should not be allowed to speak on campus. To Starnes these protests show that "the Left is absolutely terrified of free speech".
It seems that the irony of this statement is lost on many conservatives. The students that are protesting are simply exercising their right to free speech. They were not protesting him as a person or his right to speak. They were protesting his hate speech. The reality is the speaker was not physically prevented from speaking by the protesters. He could just as easily have taken his act to another venue. His right to free speech was in no way infringed upon by these students.
The first amendment doesn't protect everyone’s right to say whatever they want whenever and wherever they choose. Just as Congress doesn't have to allow a person who wants to extol the virtues of Sharia Law a forum to speak, the school has no obligation to allow every person who wants to hold an event to do so. Many of these same conservatives certainly had no qualms with protesting the Duke University decision to allow Muslims to use the university's chapel bell tower for Friday prayers. Notre Dame Students and alumni didn't have any problems protesting President Obama due to his views on abortion. And it seems few conservatives argued for free speech when Bill Ayers was disinvited to speak by multiple colleges and universities.
In fact while Fox News, and Starnes in particular, would have you believe that there is an epidemic of schools censoring conservative speakers, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) keeps records on such occurrences and has found that less than 60% of speakers who were the targets of disinvitation protests came from the left. There may be a rash of speaker protests sweeping the country, but the political leanings of the protesters is far more evenly divided then conservatives would have you believe.
Of course part of Starnes' issue is the fact that the UC Berkeley protests resulted in damage to the student union and a few physical confrontations. While the vast majority of liberals will tell you there is no place for these sorts of actions in a protest, the focus on violence and destruction from conservatives is again very self-serving. Many of the same people that claimed the protests against Donald Trump late last year were stocked with hired professional protesters only seem to hold that view when the protests are peaceful. As soon as things turn violent these conservative talking heads suggest this is par for the course with liberal protests. Either these protests represent liberals/Democrats or they don't. Picking and choosing which events contain the true liberals/Democrats based on how it fits your personal or political narrative exposes a bias and hypocrisy that makes it difficult to take these talking heads seriously.
Having said that, many of these same conservatives didn't seem to have a problem with citizens pointing guns at federal agents during a dispute over grazing fees or the armed takeover of public lands in Oregon. They also don't seem very concerned about the racist and pro-Trump property damage and vandalism at universities and other locations across the country. And while physical violence is clearly a problem in what should be peaceful disagreements, you'll notice that for people like Todd Starnes, conservatives attacked by liberals are victims yet liberals attacked by conservatives are agitators that got what they deserved.
But perhaps the most disturbing idea that Starnes seems to support is removing federal funding for any "public universities that want to silence conservative voices". You'll notice he didn't say for public universities that want to stop free speech. He said for those who want to silence conservative voices. Perhaps this is because he is so ill informed on the breakdown of who is being protested at college campuses; but more likely it's because he truly feels anyone who identifies as conservative should be given carte blanche over all public spaces.
This is an extraordinarily dangerous opinion which Starnes should be embarrassed to hold. Protecting every American’s right to free speech and forcing public institutions to provide a forum for hate speech are two totally different things. Should Neo-Nazis be free to argue that there is a master race and that other races should be exterminated? Absolutely. Should all public universities be forced to provide a venue for this sort of speech? Absolutely not.
The problem here is that conservatives like Starnes are clueless on the duplicity of their positions, so they are fine with putting a gag order on government agencies that disagree with their beliefs, but letting public entities determine what qualifies as educational is unpatriotic and unconstitutional.
Of course few liberals would disagree with Starnes assessment that these aggressively racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic speakers trolling college campuses epitomize the views of conservative Republicans. If only he had the same sort of clarity on what qualifies as a restriction on free speech.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
