Politics: June 2007 Archives

As a follow-up to my mini-rant about the DUI exception to the Constitution, it looks like the courts think there's a general "drug exception" to it, too (via Reason Hit & Run):

As I feared, the Court seems to be opening up a "drug exception" to the First Amendment, albeit limited (so far) to students in school. It's true that high school students do not have the same free speech rights as adults, but the Court has held that they do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." They have a right, for instance, to wear anti-war armbands. In that case, the Court held that student speech may be suppressed only if it will "materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school." A "mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint" or "an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression" is not enough to justify censorship. But fear of drugs apparently is.

An American citizen is an American citizen is an American citizen. High school kids should not be denied rights simply because they're forced to be in a classroom all day, and further, talking about a subject, however controversial, is a right that should not be infringed upon.

...from the politically-correct everyone-is-right-unless they're successful and particularly if they're the United States bullshit. Check out this page from my online workbook for my Spanish class (click thumbnail to see larger version): What's it say? Glad you asked. It asks to identify the country's citizens who could make the following claims. (Possible answers in parenthesis after the questions, correct answers bolded.)

1. We have earned the World Cup in soccer. (Americans, Japanese, Brazilians)
2. We have lost much of our territory and a big part of our primitive culture. (English, Russians, Native Americans)
3. We have crossed the border to the north to work in the United States (of America). (Mexicans, Canadians, Russians)
4. We have discovered faraway lands, like the New World. (Aztecs, Spanish, Africans)
5. We have created forms of government, like democracy. (Italians, Greeks, Germans)
6. We have invented various explosives, like fireworks. (Chinese, Portuguese, French)
7. We have dropped an atomic bomb on another place. (Japanese, Russians, Americans)
8. We have been part of an empire. (Costa Ricans, Romans, Guatemalans)

So... let me see if I can figure this out. The grand contribution of the United States has been dropping an atomic bomb, destroying our native populations by taking their land and primitive culture, and lazing while Mexicans come to work in our country. Somebody, please shoot this textbook. P.S. As I understand it, the following countries do not currently exist:

• Native America
• Aztekia Aztectaca?
• Africa
• Rome

A little over a year ago, a staff writer for UNO's twice-weekly newspaper (The Gateway) approached me to ask what I thought of some new federal funding for scientific research. My response, in the following clip:

"I am personally opposed to most government spending, particularly in the sciences," physics teaching assistant Erica Tesla said. "Government funding frequently comes with a lot of strings attached, many of which are inconvenient at best or crippling at worst. My opposition to government spending in the sciences is not meant to imply that I think the science should be a lower priority than other things-the problem is that spending implies control."

Full article: Pessimism follows federal science initiative announcement. Looks like research is backing up my opinion: Reason Hit & Run makes a mention of some research saying private research is better at making breakthroughs. Given that we can't get protection for scientists who expose manipulation, distortion, or suppression of their research, is that really any surprise?