Third Party Rising

As the government attempts to pass a $700 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street through Congress, some independents are surely looking back on the last eight years and asking themselves why we don't have stronger third parties in this country. Spanning even beyond the G.W. Bush presidency, it isn't outlandish to state that both Republicans and Democrats have failed us multiple times since the passage of Reagan's absurd "trickle-down" economic plan, and yet those on the outer fringes of the political spectrum are still waiting for more citizens to take up the third party cause. Why?

One reason could be the fact that many of our fellow citizens are baby-boomers, thus products of not only their parents opinions due to the first Red Scare, but a cold war that brainwashed them into thinking that any non-mainstream party might be made up of Soviet agents hell bent on destroying the American way of life. These same baby-boomers had children, whom they raised in a manner that undoubtedly attributed to their political leanings, and as a result the wicked cycle of misunderstanding continued with the donkeys and elephants of politics gaining a firmer hold on Congress at the expense of dissident parties. Another reason for the lack of third party participation may merely be public consent. Controversial journalist Arianna Huffington hit the nail on the head in her 2000 book How To Overthrow The Government when she said that:

"Our political landscape is so littered with duplicity and deceit, we've actually come to expect our leaders to lie. What once would have shocked us now barely registers. We've become inured to wrongdoing. So politicians mangle the truth--call it "spin"--and the public lets it slide, too numb to care."

Who reading the above statement would not agree with this assessment to some degree? We all know someone who doesn't care about politics, no matter how negatively it affects them. Still the last eight years have shown that the tide of apathy is changing, and just how we realized taking cover under a desk wouldn't save us from a nuclear attack, many citizens are finally starting to see the potential third parties possess.

Voters across the nation are starting to ask more difficult questions of their candidates, seeking answers to problems that differ from the standard Democrat/Republican response. Questions about the economy, protection of jobs, state funded education, and universal health care are taking precedence in this election. Presidential nominees and Congress are quickly realizing that the American public are starting to look for a departure from mainstream Washington and if they don't change their image, they could see new faces on the Senate floor.

In addition, Libertarian Bob Barr and radical Republican Ron Paul have both enjoyed a surprising amount of support in this years presidential election, with the latter being particularly popular amongst college students. Given both candidates libertarian stances, their success can be seen as further proof that the public is slowly shifting away from mainstream political thought and the endless woes that accompany it. This news should be greeted with satisfaction and excitement by third party voters who have longed to see a greater representation of ideas in Congress, but many will feel that it's too late with the damage done by lobby-influenced, big-money politics being too great to overcome. Thankfully though it appears many young Americans feel it doesn't have to be this way.

This is because regardless of what happens in this election, the young electorates of this nation realize they are going to take part in a unique opportunity over the next four years to begin exploring new political avenues. We see it's quite evident that the current path is damaged and one way we are going to find brighter skies is to look beyond this election and continue to consider the value of third parties in dealing with future problems. From talking to fellow citizens I see that interest in ideas of Barr and Paul won’t stop after November 4th. A quick trip around the web shows that more people will still be asking new questions after someone is voted into the White House, knowing that just because change is being promised doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. This all means that finally a further willingness to move past the stereo-types and misconceptions of what third parties represent is becoming evident.

As the questions asked of our government get more complex, those offering different solutions will continue to grow and though one may not always agree with what they say, that doesn't mean they can't help point this country in the right direction. If it keeps up only good can come from it, as this nation will soon become fully comfortable with “other” political ideas that can help to create the real democratic, multi-party process we crave.

Shalom Israel

Israel's history as a full blown, UN recognized, nation has been short and filled with conflict. Officially recognized in 1948, Israel did not have long to enjoy its new found independence before it was attacked by Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. Though the Arab-Israeli War (and the later Six-Day War of 1967) seemed like climatic moments resulting from years of conflict between Jews and Arabs, the world has still yet to see a cooling off of tensions in the region, with many nations coming in and out of the fray of controversy over what is to be done in the highly disputed area.

Over the last 25 years it is reasonable to say no other nation has supported Israel more than the United States. Our government has lead the way by supporting Israel on multiple fronts such as the military, economy, and foreign policy. For example, according to a 2007 New York Times report, Israel will receive towards $30 billion dollars in military aid from the U.S. between 2008 and 2017. The U.S. also supplies Israel with almost all of its yearly economic aid, with half of the government's external economic debt owed to the U.S. Given these two facts it's unsurprising that current presidential candidates have also pledged support for the Jewish state, despite the fact that the current geopolitical situation makes such blind support dangerous to the nation.

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them...I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran." --Hilary Clinton, 2008

"We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza." -- Barack Obama, 2006

"The United States of America has committed itself to never allowing another Holocaust." --John McCain, 2008

Thankfully Hilary Clinton won't be president any time soon, but regardless any reasonably minded citizen has to be concerned with the comments made by the three mainstream presidential candidates.

The notion that we would obliterate anyone let alone Iran, just for attacking another country, is a frightful idea that should have be itself prevented people from voting for Clinton. If she would attack Iran for attacking Israel, who else would she attack and for what other reasons? Obama speaks of a "unique defense relationship" between our nations, and yet what is he talking about? As far as I know, our relationship with Israel consists of us providing them with weapons, money, and global support while they provide us with yet another reason for Middle Eastern countries and terrorists to despise us. Finally as far as Johnny Mac is concerned, I find it hard to believe that any attack on Israel could be mentioned in the same breath as Hitler's coordinated rounding-up and calculated extermination of the Jewish population of Europe. In fact it's pretty clear that they only thing our relationship with Israel gives us is a foothold within the troubled region in which it lies, but is that enough to justify a possible war with Iran? No. No it isn't. The U.S. government already has a foothold in the Middle East via Kuwait, we don't need another one, especially one that causes more trouble than it's worth.

Should we maintain a friendship with Israel? Absolutely. We should also be friendly with every nation be it Israel, Iran, China, Russia, Germany, or North Korea. The key to reestablishing the U.S. internationally is to realize that in this globalized world you can't just cut people out and ignore them because doing so will only create hatred, ill-will, and resentment towards our nation that may come back to haunt us later. We need to start building positive relationships with all nations and if we have a friendship that hurts us, it needs to be restructured so it does not. Long ago we've reached this point with Israel and there is nothing but dark days ahead unless we alter our friendship into a positive one.

That being said I want to close by reminding readers that when individuals reach a certain age they are told to grow up, take care of themselves, and solve their own problems. Israel has already proven at a young age it can fend for itself and it's time for them to cut the child leash crap and stand on their own. As for the U.S., the first step to correcting a problem is to identify what's wrong and fix it. If we want to ease tensions in the Middle East and build relationships with the nations that reside within the region, the first thing we have to do is say "Shalom" to Israel, cut back on our blind support, and start acting as a friendly mediator instead of a big brother with a hidden agenda. Israel, it's time for a new deal.

Students for Anti-Academic Freedom

I am writing today to state one simple fact: I am completely against Students For Academic Freedom (SAF). The reason why I'm against this organization is because while it may seem like a good idea, it is actually a group that if they got their way would open the door to a pitfall of questions that would cripple academics as we know it. My objections lie in the fact that the majority of SAF complaints are based on the alleged victim's perception and beliefs. In addition the group receives more members than it should because people do not take time to visit the organization’s website. If they did, they would realize that the mission of this organization is to attack without reason, attack because of dislike, and to control the academic world. To highlight my points I will be quoting the SAF Mission and Strategy document, which is available online for all to read. Lets begin.

"Liberal Arts faculties at most universities are politically and philosophically one-sided, while partisan propagandizing often intrudes into classroom discourse. It is appropriate for faculty to want open-minded students in their classes, not disciples. Faculty bias is reflected in the curriculum of courses available, in the manner in which they are taught, in readings assigned for classroom study, and in discussions only open to one side of a debate." -- SAF Mission and Strategy

It is utterly amazing how many things are wrong in that simple statement and it alone should be an alarm to anyone interested in joining the group. First and foremost, where are their facts? How do they know that most Liberal Arts faculties at universities are one sided? There are hundreds if not thousands of universities across this nation and I highly doubt they have checked each one to make sure that their faculties are non-biased. If they claim this broad generalization to be true, what else can they claim to be accurate information?

Secondly, who decides if a curriculum, course, teaching method, discussion, or reading assignment is biased to begin with? Are they going to set up a committee at each university whose job it will be to monitor courses and professors, thus deciding the status of both and eliminating them if the committee declares them to not be "unbiased enough?" I would certainly hope not, as the idea of what is politically charged or biased is completely open to individual interpretation and as such should never be considered in an argument. Nevertheless members of this group continue to believe that they can tell what is biased and what should not be in a classroom and to this point I ask: How can SAF promote intellectual diversity if it refuses professors the right to speak their minds? A member of the organization may answer such a question with a quote from their mission statement such as:

"In The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declared: "Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject." --SAF Mission and Strategy

Once again, and I cannot stress this enough, who decides what “matter” is relative to the subject being taught? Apparently SAF has and since they have taken it upon themselves to attack the Liberal Arts, which we will now look at for an example.

The Liberal Arts consists of a variety of subjects that are considered "Humanities" like Philosophy or "Social Sciences" like Sociology. I chose one of these two for my example because on the many Facebook Group pages dedicated to SAF, students seem to have the most problems with Philosophy departments. According to these students the professors in the aforementioned departments are chief violators of the American Association of University Professors 1940 Statement of Principles and it’s the job of SAF to stop them. However I have to urge caution before you, the reader, jump to your own conclusion because I feel it is necessary to highlight the following points:

First, many if not all of the Liberal Arts disciplines are impacted by politics. As such the government affects professor’s studies and they are in their right to comment on the government's actions and how it affects their discipline or society as their discipline views it. An example would be a Philosophy professor giving his/her view on abortion to a class via lecture and their own written work. Perhaps the professor believes that Pro-Choice is the best option and explains how he/she feels it is wrong for the government to project a Pro-Life stance because in their scholarly opinion, the government should not be involved in trying to answer such a question. Given in this example, was the professor stepping out of line? By SAF standards they were, but I myself am not so convinced.

Philosophy professors often examine society, the individual, and morals. In fact some people might argue that a philosopher’s greatest contribution to humanity is to examine the morals and values of our society and critique them. In the scenario above the professor thinks Pro-Life is not the best option for everyone and because of this feels the government is morally wrong by supporting it. By stating such a view, the professor is lecturing to the student body on the moral questions involved with abortion by using his/her own opinion and written work. The intention is that the students digest the professor’s lecture and when coupled with other information reach their own conclusions about the topic at hand, in this case abortion. Keeping this in mind I ask: How is this any different then lecturing or being tested on Plato's view of government or Nietzsche's thoughts on God? According to the SAF it is.

Based on SAF standards and members’ views, it would appear that it is okay to study the works of classic philosophers, but wrong to study and be tested on the works of modern ones, especially if they are teaching the class. Is the professor above, who has a doctorate in Philosophy and has studied subjects like abortion for years, not worthy to have their work be examined and tested on? Most SAF members it seems would tell you “yes,” but I am sure the majority of them would jump at the chance to take a class taught by Plato that focused on his work "The Republic." Though I have to wonder what Plato would test on…but SAF views do not stop there! They have more to say about professors:

"In an academic environment professors are in a unique position of authority vis-à-vis their students. The use of academic incentives and disincentives to advance a partisan or sectarian view creates a environment of indoctrination which is unprofessional and contrary to the educational mission." --SAF Mission and Strategy

SAF claims that professors use their position of authority to indoctrinate their student body with whatever viewpoint they see fit. Yet how is a professor’s position unique or different than that of an elementary or high school teacher?

When I was in elementary school I was told not to trust strangers and to look both ways before crossing the street. It was drilled into my head, along with every other child’s in America, that these two precautions were the right way and because of this I was indoctrinated to believe that trusting strangers was wrong and not looking both ways would bring certain death. Still I have not seen a group called "K-6 for Academic Freedom." Why is that? Once again the answer is perception.

In society today I think, we would all venture to agree, that children should not talk to strangers. We believe this because we have heard stories about the youth of our nation being kidnapped, raped, or worse. However right in those few words lies the main point against SAF's illogical statement. Because everyone believes that children should not trust strangers, no one seems to have issue with teachers "indoctrinating" our youth with this and other such agreed upon ideas. Then again once these same people reach a collegiate level, where people are supposed to think for themselves, they suddenly take issue with a professor preaching about how a particular party might be ruining the country. Why? Probably because they might not agree with it and because they don't agree with it, they feel it is indoctrination and not mere opinion and active dialogue. In spite of that however, still more absurd is their idea that professors use academic incentives to advance their views.

If a professor offered extra credit to all those who attend a viewing of the film Birth of a Nation, does that mean that the professor in question is trying to push the Klu Klux Klan? No! It does not because the film can be used as a mode through which to study American culture and the Klan's role in society at the time of the films release. However if I felt the professor was promoting the KKK I could just as easily say: "This is just another example of a professor using their authoritative position and an academic incentive to push their views on me."

If I said this to someone, they would probably think I was nuts because of the nature of the topic. But if I said it about a professor giving extra credit to watch the Democratic debate on CNN, suddenly in SAF's mind I am in the right and the professor in question needs to be stopped! It doesn't take a genius to see that SAF is completely absurd and using perception as a weapon against our intellectual community. If you do not believe me, here is another quote from their mission statement:

"It is the goal of Students for Academic Freedom to secure greater representation for under-represented ideas and to promote intellectual fairness and inclusion in all aspects of the curriculum, including the faculty hiring process, the spectrum of courses available, reading materials assigned, and in the decorum of the classroom and the campus public square." --SAF Mission and Strategy

The quote above basically states that students should have to right to decide who gets hired and fired as well as what should be assigned in classes, what should be in the curriculum, and what should occur in classes and campus common grounds. This statement alone signals the desire of SAF to crush the intellectual community by taking control of our nation's universities and dictating how they're run! If this step was ever reached, it would only be a matter of time before they would be cutting out certain ideas all together, thus truly indoctrinating us with those they see fit and given their attack on Liberal Arts faculty, I think I have an inkling of which ideas would be force fed down our throats.

Therefore in light of this it is easy to see, from just a few examples, how the arguments made by the SAF organization are irrational and completely driven by perception and opinion. They continue to stress their so called goal of “academic freedom” by strangling the free exchange of ideas and turning personal grudges against liberals into a debate about class censorship. Frankly put, what they are doing is wrong and they should be fought at all costs as I am convinced that Students for Academic Freedom is the most anti-academic freedom group in this country. If it grows too powerful, then it will be our job as educated individuals to stop them and preserve true academic freedom for all, instead of a cheap hybrid that revolves around interpretation and political grudges.