September 20, 2015
Had an old friend visiting yesterday, and then today was filled with a bunch of chores and… naps. So, not much to post about, not even the controversy over Dr. Ben Carson saying that Islam is incompatible with the Constitution. (I did reply to Rick Moran’s excoriation of Carson, if you’re interested.) For what it’s worth, I don’t find Carson’s statement about Islam and the Constitution at all controversial.
So, anyway, it’s a weekend blog holiday. Enjoy what’s left of it. Maybe even take a nap or two.
September 7, 2015
Via Prager University, Princeton University Professor of Jurisprudence Robert George looks at several reasons for the decline of liberty in America — from the growth of the national government particularly since the New Deal, to the growing willingness of the courts to “legislate from the bench” and the acquiescence and even collusion of the other two branches in that– and identifies one key reason: citizens’ own ignorance of our founding documents.
Here’s Professor George:
In other words, you’re not going to be a very successful owner, if you don’t understand the “owner’s manual.”
August 31, 2015
Yesterday I wrote about politically-correct silliness at Wesleyan University, head-shaking but largely harmless identity politics.
Today’s video, however, takes a look at a far grimmer trend at our colleges and universities: the assault on free speech in the name of not hurting anyone’s feelings.
What were once places of free inquiry and defenders of intellectual liberty are more and more becoming places where speech –and, by extension, thought– is controlled by a progressive “PC police.” The irony is rich, because it’s the intellectual descendants of the free speech movement of the Sixties who have become the new enemies of freedom of speech.
Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss.
via Prager University
RELATED: The narrator of the video, Greg Lukianoff, has written two books about the assault on free speech at our universities — Freedom from Speech and Unlearning Liberty.
May 25, 2015
The Electoral College is one of the more obscure features of our government, yet it plays a crucial role: it elects the president, not the popular vote. When people in a state go to the polls, they’re really voting for slates of electors pledged to a particular candidate. The electors have traditionally honored the voters’ wishes (with the occasional individual exception for a protest vote), but the fact remains that they could choose someone other than “the People’s choice.” It also means that, occasionally, a candidate could win enough electoral votes to win the presidency while not winning the overall popular vote, as happened in 2,000 in the race between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
The fact that the winner of the popular vote might not win the race has annoyed a lot of people, especially on the Left (1), and they have proposed something called the “National Popular Vote,” a compact among the states comprising 270 electoral votes (the number need to win) to award them to whomever wins the national vote, regardless of individual state results. Not surprisingly, given the source, this represents an end-run around the system established in the Constitution, rather than an honest attempt to amend it.
In the video below from Prager University, attorney and author Tara Ross explains how the Electoral College works, why it was set up this way, and why NPV is a very bad idea:
(1) Because, you know, the Electoral College is “unfair!” “Unfairness” meaning “I didn’t get what I want!”
(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)