Politics: A new beginning

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not a bad first draft. My additions are in ALL CAPS. Brackets represent deletions. Let's take the first one first. We can move on to others later.

I note that these DO NOT necessarily represent all of my views; rather, just my views of the respective beliefs of the left and right.

The Left believes that the first Amendment is critical to the American way of life, and that free speech and respect for diverse viewpoints is part of what makes this country great, EXCEPT IF THE SPEECH IS COMMERICAL SPEECH AND EXCEPT IF THE SPEECH IS POLITICALLY INCORRECT.

The Right believes that free speech is [fine but national security comes first] CRITICAL TO THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE AND IS WHAT MAKES THIS COUNTRY GREAT. HOWEVER, THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS NOT UNLIMITED AND CERTAIN INFRINGEMENTS, AT TIMES, ARE NECESSARY BASED ON THE RESPECTIVE INTERESTS INVOLVED. FOR EXAMPLE, AN ALLEGED TERRORIST SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREELY COMMUNICATE WITH OTHER TERRORISTS IF DOING SO REASONABLY THREATENS NATIONAL SECURITY. THE RIGHT ALSO PREFERS THAT Free speech not be used to say anything unAmerican, BUT GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT PROSECUTE THOSE WHO EXERCISE THIS RIGHT, SO LONG AS NATIONAL SECURITY IS NOT REASONABLY THREATENED.

Your additions on the description of the Left don't work; these are hotly debated issues within the left and you're trying to characterize the whole left based on them. I think I could get pretty universal agreement on the statement I made fromt he Left, however.

On the statement about the Right, you see the urge that everyone, left and right, has whenever someone tries to simplify your beliefs, and I could do it with the statement on the left as well and it would then more accurately reflect my own personal beliefs.

There is always a "...but" because none of us limit our beliefs on these issues to two lines. I know I asked about your own beliefs and not the Right as a whole, but don't you think a lot of folks on the right would disagree with you on the notion that "government should not prosecute those..." and argue that anarchism and communism are inherantly a threat to national security? I know this was a hallmark of the right I grew up around.

But I will not burden you with Goldwater's views, and in turn would ask that you refrain from oversimplifying my position on the first amendment to suggest that I, as an avowed leftist, would limit the application of the first amendment to protect non-"PC" speach, whatever that is (is that like saying things that are unAmerican?).

[SlaveNoMore]

Final - Yankees 4 Boston 2

Boo fucking hoo.

[Watchtower]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The Left believes that the first Amendment is critical to the American way of life, and that free speech and respect for diverse viewpoints is part of what makes this country great, EXCEPT IF THE SPEECH IS COMMERICAL SPEECH AND EXCEPT IF THE SPEECH IS POLITICALLY INCORRECT.

Curious. I believe I was the one defending telemarketers on these boards (as well as my beloved Jehovah's Witnesses).

Now my political beliefs fall about where Jimmy Carter's did. So why was I the only one defending telemarketers? Where were all you right-wingers?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Final - Yankees 4 Boston 2

Boo fucking hoo.

I love October.

And all those classy Yankees fans!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Can you give me an example of a mainstream leftist institution seeking to use government power to silence speech on the basis of "politically incorrect"* content since, say, 1993?**

*I still have no idea what this means, but for purposes of your answer please use whatever definition suits you and we'll go from there.

**Not to be taken as a tacit admission that it was prevalent before that time, but I want to avoid a discussion of wrongheaded public university speech codes, which have been roundly criticized from left and right since 1993.

Speech codes are exactly what I had in mind, and it's my understanding that they are still in effect at many universities that accept federal funds. So, if it is fair to use the acceptance of federal funds for determining whether there is a church/state separation issue, I thought it appropriate here.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So, if it is fair to use the acceptance of federal funds for determining whether there is a church/state separation issue, I thought it appropriate here.

I'm not sure I understand the second point. Here in Boston, Boston College is clearly a Jesuit institution and also gets lots of federal funds. Who has argued that it should not?

There are separate issues on parochial high schools, but there the question is not should they be eligible for grants on the same basis as other private schools, but rather should they be eligible for full funding akin to public schools. And the issue is local funds not federal funds. I'd pose that this is a very different and more complex issue.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I love October.

And all those classy Yankees fans!

Sucks to lose, doesn't it?

I wonder how many beanballs we'll see tomorrow if the Yanks get an early lead?

s4e

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Your additions on the description of the Left don't work; these are hotly debated issues within the left and you're trying to characterize the whole left based on them. I think I could get pretty universal agreement on the statement I made fromt he Left, however.

I could say the same for your characterization of the right. Remember, that a fairly large minority of the right is on the right because they are liberatarian.

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy On the statement about the Right, you see the urge that everyone, left and right, has whenever someone tries to simplify your beliefs, and I could do it with the statement on the left as well and it would then more accurately reflect my own personal beliefs.

These are not my beliefs, as I said in my intro. I am essentially a purist on the 1st amendment, with the exception of national security. These are my views of the views of the left and right, generally speaking.

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy There is always a "...but" because none of us limit our beliefs on these issues to two lines. I know I asked about your own beliefs and not the Right as a whole, but don't you think a lot of folks on the right would disagree with you on the notion that "government should not prosecute those..." and argue that anarchism and communism are inherantly a threat to national security? I know this was a hallmark of the right I grew up around.

That's not how I view the right. Sure there may be some that hold that view, but certainly not the majority.

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy But I will not burden you with Goldwater's views, and in turn would ask that you refrain from oversimplifying my position on the first amendment to suggest that I, as an avowed leftist, would limit the application of the first amendment to protect non-"PC" speach, whatever that is (is that like saying things that are unAmerican?).

I think you are taking this too personally. I'm trying to get to a point where we all can agree on the general positions of the left and right. I have no idea what your views are.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Sucks to lose, doesn't it?

I wonder how many beanballs we'll see tomorrow if the Yanks get an early lead?

s4e

Wait for Pedro for the beanballs. I don't think Burkett is known for them. The Globe made the point this morning that $50,000 may be alot for one beanball, but amortized over all the beanballs it doesn't come to that much.

As I said this am, I wasn't defending Pedro, but criticizing your bullpen bullies.

And I've supported losing teams before (I grew up a Mets fan); builds character. Try it some time.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I'm not sure I understand the second point. Here in Boston, Boston College is clearly a Jesuit institution and also gets lots of federal funds. Who has argued that it should not?

You miss my point. I am not (at this time) arguing a church state issue. Atticus asked what government institutions have restricted politically correct speech (or something to that effect) and my response focused on universities where speech codes exist. Because universities are not governments per se, I was using the federal funds analogy in the church/state context to suggest that, when a university accepts federal funds, it is acting like a quasi governmental entity.*

*Any resemblance to Con Law terms is strictly coincidental. I have limited knowledge of the case law in this area.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I could say the same for your characterization of the right. Remember, that a fairly large minority of the right is on the right because they are liberatarian.

I thought on the whole I did a respectable job characterizing the right. I tried not to characterize unfairly. So how would you summarize the right in a statement the same length as the one on the left?

These are not my beliefs, as I said in my intro. I am essentially a purist on the 1st amendment, with the exception of national security. These are my views of the views of the left and right, generally speaking.

Sorry, skimmed there (but not the whole post). Apologies.

That's not how I view the right. Sure there may be some that hold that view, but certainly not the majority.

I was looking for a consensus position. It may be that there is none. I've heard a lot of folks on the right take very strongly to the view that "unAmerican" statements should not be protected.

I think you are taking this too personally. I'm trying to get to a point where we all can agree on the general positions of the left and right. I have no idea what your views are.

Maybe. But I have yet to see you come up with a two line position on the first amendment that represents the Right. Is this a fool's errand?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You miss my point. I am not (at this time) arguing a church state issue. Atticus asked what government institutions have restricted politically correct speech (or something to that effect) and my response focused on universities where speech codes exist. Because universities are not governments per se, I was using the federal funds analogy in the church/state context to suggest that, when a university accepts federal funds, it is acting like a quasi governmental entity.*

This is a dangerous path for a modern Republican to walk. For every Vassar-with-a-no-hate-speech-code,* there's a Georgetown-with-a-no-student-newspaper-editorials-in-support-of-Roe-v-Wade. If you deny federal funds (what does that mean? NSF research grants?) to one, you have to deny them to all. It's easy for a libertarian purist to say "No federal funds, then" but those of us who live in the real world have to live with the consequences of that. Must religious colleges turn down all government research grants in order to teach their religion?

*I'd still like to see which private universities still have these, and what their terms are (i.e., whether they pass the Chaplinsky test). I don't have the patience to read 500 student handbooks.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You miss my point. I am not (at this time) arguing a church state issue. Atticus asked what government institutions have restricted politically correct speech (or something to that effect) and my response focused on universities where speech codes exist. Because universities are not governments per se, I was using the federal funds analogy in the church/state context to suggest that, when a university accepts federal funds, it is acting like a quasi governmental entity.*

*Any resemblance to Con Law terms is strictly coincidental. I have limited knowledge of the case law in this area.

I said I missed the point - I didn't understand the point and am still fuzzy on it. So are you saying that the "group on the left" you are identifying is "universities" or "the people who got universities to adopt these"; if so, I don't think you need to even use the federal fund analogy since I don't think anyone tries to limit their thinking to be about "state action".

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
This is a dangerous path for a modern Republican to walk. For every Vassar-with-a-no-hate-speech-code,* there's a Georgetown-with-a-no-student-newspaper-editorials-in-support-of-Roe-v-Wade. If you deny federal funds (what does that mean? NSF research grants?) to one, you have to deny them to all. It's easy for a libertarian purist to say "No federal funds, then" but those of us who live in the real world have to live with the consequences of that. Must religious colleges turn down all government research grants in order to teach their religion?

*I'd still like to see which private universities still have these, and what their terms are (i.e., whether they pass the Chaplinsky test). I don't have the patience to read 500 student handbooks.

I am only a Republican because of the 2 parties they come the closest to representing me on the issues I care most about. I suspect that on many issues (e.g., free speech, gay rights) I am as liberal as you are.

In my mind, the Vasser and Georgetown policies are equally reprehensible and should both be abolished or federal funds should be denied, and I am willing to live with the consequences of that (which, of course, would be that the codes/policies would go away).

The religion issue, in my mind, is different, because I do not read the establishment clause in the same way I am guessing that you do. But if I had to make a choice, I would be consistent and say the same thing (i.e., if you want to teach religion, then don't accept federal funds).

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I thought on the whole I did a respectable job characterizing the right. I tried not to characterize unfairly. So how would you summarize the right in a statement the same length as the one on the left?

I have no doubt you made an honest attempt, but go back and reread it. It is definitely prejudicial to the right.

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy Maybe. But I have yet to see you come up with a two line position on the first amendment that represents the Right. Is this a fool's errand?

Here's an attempt, though in rereading it, I think it works for both right and left.

The Right believes that the first Amendment is critical to the American way of life, but that, at times, the rights of the individual to speak freely are outweighed by the rights of the people as a whole to be secure.