THE DAILY BLADE: Communications Professor Allegedly Offered Extra Credit For Burning U.S. Flag, Constitution
University of Maine sophomore Rebekah McDade, a journalism and political science double major, says she dropped a History of Mass Communications course on the first day when associate professor Paul Grosswiler “offered extra credit to class members if they burned the American flag or the U.S. Constitution or were arrested defending free speech,” reports the Bangor Daily News.
"I was offended. I come from a family of military men and women, and the flag and Constitution are really important symbols to me because of my family background," McDade tells the paper.
Responding to an E-mail from the paper requesting a comment, Grosswiler explained that a provocative example of free speech, such as flag burning, “demonstrate[s] the courage necessary to support free expression,” and added:
"I don’t intend for students to burn either the Constitution or the flag, and over the years hundreds of students have understood that. … If they don’t tolerate thought that they hate, they don’t believe in the First Amendment. I applaud the student’s exercise of free expression. If she had stayed in the class, I would have given her extra credit for publicizing her opinions."
Regular readers of this blog know that The Stiletto is a free speech advocate, so this is all well and good. But to be honest, if Grosswiler really meant to inspire students to have the courage of his convictions, he should have encouraged them to draw cartoons of Mohammad.
A UM spokesperson exercised his free speech rights by describing Grosswiler as a "well-respected member of the faculty" and then suggesting that students should not have taken his comments “literally” and that “extra credit would not be granted for carrying out such activities.”
So, basically, the official UM position is that the “respected” professor is either a fool or a liar.
Pay-as-you-go (AKA “pay-go”) – the budget rules House Dems adopted require Congress to pay for spending programs and tax cuts – has put Dems in a bind in the “mend it, don’t end it” effort to enact yet another one-year freeze of the alternative minimum tax. The party that won the mid-term elections in part on promises of enforcing budget discipline, must somehow offset the resulting revenue shortfall. Natch, the offset won’t come from cuts in entitlement programs but from increased taxes, reports The New York Times:
On Thursday, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a $76 billion bill that would freeze the alternative minimum tax, extend several other tax breaks and pay for that mainly by eliminating a major tax break for people who run private equity funds and scores of other investment partnerships.
But the Masters of the Universe who run private equity and hedge funds are among the biggest Dem donors, and some are reluctant to bite the hands feeding their party’s candidates.
So, the dilemma is: Do the Dems piss off their biggest campaign donors, or do they piss off middle class voters by allowing families with incomes of $50,000 and up get hit by the AMT – originally a tax that affected only the super-duper rich who are now cash cows for the Dems?
What to do … what to do …
† Hunting Hokies: The FBI’s first “Crime in Schools and Colleges” study finds that a knife was the most commonly used weapon in more than 558,000 offenses reported over the five-year period from 2000 through 2004. Almost 11,000 of these incidents involved a blade; more than 3,400, a firearm. Fists and feet were the weapons of choice in the vast majority of the crimes. Roughly 96 percent of the crimes which resulted in an arrest were simple or aggravated assaults, or acts of intimidation. The study, which included schools ranging from elementary to colleges and universities, represents about one-fifth of the U.S. population, according to the agency. Obviously, “gun free zones” at schools and colleges have no effect on reducing violent incidents involving fists and feet – thus, have virtually no effect on the overall rate of violence in schools.
† The Part About Illegal Liberals Don’t Understand: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) being for NY Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer's plan to award drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens before being against it (or is it the other way around?) in last week’s Dem debate has shined an unwanted spotlight on where the candidates stand on illegal immigration. In the “Univision” debate focusing on Hispanic issues held at the University of Miami on September 9th, the candidates were variously for amnesty, chain migration, the DREAM Act, extending universal health coverage to illegals and putting an end to immigration raids (check out this excellent recap of the debate on the Lonewacko blog). The Stiletto could not find a transcript of the debate in English so she cannot say whether the topic of drivers’ licenses came up at that debate but by last week “ the topic burst into the forefront of the primary campaign and exposed a quandary for Democratic candidates, who broadly embrace immigrant-friendly policies,” reports The Washington Post:
Immigration, chief Clinton strategist Mark Penn said, is emerging as "a new wedge issue" for Republicans, who will attempt to use it to paint Democrats as weak on border security. …
According to a CNN poll last month, 76 percent of Americans oppose giving licenses to illegal immigrants, compared with 23 percent who favor it.
Democracy Corps, a polling group run by Democratic strategists Stan Greenberg and James Carville, put out a memo this week addressing the challenges immigration presents to the party.
"Voters want control of the borders and workplace and recreating an immigration system that works and oppose driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, positions supported by two thirds of the country," said the memo, which was released before the debate.
But noting that many African Americans, a strongly Democratic group, oppose creating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, they wrote "this is a real wedge issue that Democrats need to get right." …
But unlike the Republicans, who have been very specific in how they would fight illegal immigration, the Democrats have said little except when asked about the issue, not addressing the most explosive elements, such as whether to build a fence on the southern U.S. border or to give immigrants sanctuary in urban areas.
Yeah, well much as the Dems want to keep voters in the dark about their positions on issues relating to illegal immigration, as Hillary found out the hard way inquiring minds want to know – without having to parse and deconstruct obfuscating “nuances.”
Comments