Modern Dictionary of Political Discourse, No. 1

Note: This is the first of a periodic series. And yes, these aren't real words.

marksteyn (vt)-to silence speech, especially of a conservative, on grounds of being "offensive to a group." Etymology-eponym from Mark Steyn, Canadian commentator brought before Canadian Human Rights Commissions for statements critical of Islamic terrorism on grounds of being anti-Muslim. Usage-as any transitive verb, i.e. "The bias response team marksteyned the student who criticized Obama's immigration plan."

obamanation (n)-small portion of East and West coasts enamored with Barack Obama, plus college campuses everywhere. Etymology-Obama+nation. Usage: "Yes, British consulate? I am seeking asylum from the obamanation, can you help me?"

Fair Play/Yellow Card: Blowout Edition

In the spirit of The Flat Hat's "Cheers and Jeers" feature, this edition of Fair Play/Yellow Card will be cumulative!

Fair Play

• Taylor Reveley-Without question, his forward-looking, pragmatic governance in the wake of Gene Nichol's (never heard of that guy) resignation has put the College in a better position for next year than any dared hope.


• Matt Beato-The dare-I-say-likely Councilman has run an aboveboard campaign, committed to moderate policy in both student-city relations and general city governance. If he wins, one hopes that his term will be defined by care and moderation, in addition to the signature achievement that reform of the absurd three-person law would be.


• Tribe Basketball-res ipsa loquitur.


• Tribe Women's Soccer, Women's Track, Women's Tennis-for bringing athletic glory (and some silverware) to the College while no one watched.

Yellow Card

• The Flat Hat-for showing a committment to journalistic excellence commensurate with rewriting and reproducing press releases. Journalism isn't class-you can ask questions, even of people you like, and a hundred people DON'T issue sighs of dread.


• The Virginia Informer-for incredibly biased coverage of almost everything. Even though controversy is the paper's raison d'etre, I cannot say I've read anything positive about an administrator in this paper. It is right to criticize error, but it is also right to commend proper actions.
  
• All the folks who wore T-shirts reading "If Nichol isn't welcome here then neither am I"-see you next fall.

Straight Red

• Artists-whether it is Aliza Shvarts' heaven-knows-what sort of bullshit at Yale or the dude in Guatemala starving dogs to death, it seems that putting anti-Bush words to pretty good music or depicting various nudes just isn't hardcore enough for them these days. Look, I'm all for free expression, but a simple code of behavior is necessary right now. Perhaps "Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal" would be a start.

And now, the first annual Robbie Savage award for being an all-around wanker and stuff:

• Gene Ray Nichol-could his actions in wake of his non-renewal have been any worse? Not content simply to resign, he issued an email blaming politics for his termination and inciting protest among his "Tribespeople" (my quote). Although I myself was neutral, and would have accepted the BOV's decision either way, by the end of the week I couldn't help telling Nichol to not let the door hit his arse on the way out. That, and Reveley's exceptional performance in the special legislative session puts your claims to absolute shame. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Fair Play/Yellow Card: Now Biweekly!

There's been a lot of good, solid, fucking up by the Estates General this week, so here are the midweek's bookings.

Fair Play:

1. The BOV-denied green fee action. Well done.

Yellow Card:

1. The Flat Hat-for the hit piece on John Foubert. The founder of One-in-Four was attacked in a very poorly written front-page-below-the-fold article on Tuesday that did not address the supposed reason for writing it. The piece was written in a backhanded attempt to discredit Foubert and secure support for the SA's mixed gender sexual assault prevention program.


2. The SA-spent your money on the Lips female sexuality magazine. Now, I don't suppose I could get funding for W*nker, the single male bachelor's sexuality magazine. Not that I would try or anything; I'm just trying to illustrate the absurdity of the thing. Your absurdly high student fees at work.
   

Sent Off: Second Bookable Offence

1. The Flat Hat-the Friday issue was unmitigated shit. Whether it was the unusually asinine Confusion Corner column, the pejorative use of the term "conservative" in their staff editorial, or the self-congratulatory "pat on the back" to readers of Mr. Pieprenbring's column, this Friday's issue earned a vote of no confidence from your haughty correspondent. In punishment for your week of FAIL, humanity fines you Z$100 (<$.01).

Straight Red

1. The "Sadler Celebration": My God, ten people sitting in a circle handling themselves would be less of a circle-jerk than the five minutes of that I sat through. Had Sadler been the center of attention, had the emcee not spent his time massaging the egos of the student organizations, had Sadler given a rally-the-troops, my-god-this-is-a-great-place-thanks-for-the-memories speech (which he might have, later, after all 150 spectators not participating left in disgust), there might have been the dignity I expected. Had the "parade of banners" consisted of the banner-carriers escorting Sadler on his ceremonial walk around campus, it may have had dignity. But it didn't. Madame President Hopkins, since you are the captain of the SA's ship, humanity holds you responsible for the EPIC FAIL in the amount of Z$200 (<$.01).

Fair Play/Yellow Card: Week of April 14

First in a new periodic series.

Fair Play:

1. The Flat Hat: Max Fischer may still be on staff for another month, but the editorial page has taken a much more responsible, moderate tone, in keeping with its position as the newspaper of record on campus. One wonders how long such movements will last in an election year, but this is a good change while it lasts.
2. Interim President Reveley: I would hope that the eventual permanent President of the College is paying attention to Mr. Reveley's style of leadership. Rather than using his position to advance a divisive liberal social agenda, Mr. Reveley has concerned himself with the mundane matters of earning College professors necessary raises, lessening financial losses in uncertain economic times, and ending the row over Nichol (who's he anyway?).

Yellow Card:

1. Senator Barack Obama: The emperor's new clothes, uplifting rhetoric and speechification in this case, could not save the Junior Senator from Illinois from himself this weekend when he implied that those not voting for "hope" and "change" were a bunch of bigoted protectionist gun-toting rednecks. If this is "Change we can believe in" I'll settle for carrying a lit lamp in daylight in search of an honest man.
2. The Bias Response Team: It seems that investigating political harassment is either too difficult or not "edgy" enough to warrant their attention. Perhaps this suggests they shouldn't exist.

The Inexorable March of Liberty, No. 1

The last feudal system in Europe was abolished this week. Was that headline from 1840? No, it was from 2008; the United Kingdom-controlled Channel Island of Sark, population 600, was this very week granted a legislature chosen by universal suffrage. Other than being on the front page of Wikipedia, what does this mean for the rest of the world? Probably not much, as stability and rule of law have existed there for a long time. Indeed, the constitutional changes were made to bring the Channel Islands into compliance with EU policy. But it does show that yes, despite 200 years of cynicism, attempts at utopia (i.e. Communism and Fascism), and ethnic clusterfucks in the Balkans and Third World, the West still believes that representative democracy is the only legitimate system of government. Of course dictators like Mugabe, Hu Jintao, al-Bashir (dictator of Sudan), Ahmadinejad, and Kin Jong-Il will not bat an eye at a mandatory reform in a dependency of 600 motor-vehicle-free souls. It's nice to think that they would, though.

So THIS Is Tolerance?

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local_wmvandalism_0402apr02,0,2636527.story

Read that. Let it sink in.

Seeing as I'm sure you didn't, allow me to summarize what is reported. Former Virginia Informer editor Joe Luppino-Esposito's door was vandalized with references to his efforts to have Nichol removed. There is only one of two explanations, and either would say someting absolutely terrible about the state of the WM community.

1. Mr. Luppino-Esposito set this up. If this is the case, Mr. Luppino-Esposito does not deserve to call himself a WM student, a Republican, or a conservative. He would be dragging WM's name through the dirt without cause in an attempt at shameful publicity. He would deserve to be expelled. False "hate crimes" detract from the justified outrage at legitimate hate incidents. I have more trust in Mr. Luppino-Esposito than to believe that this is the likelier case.

2. This was committed by someone else, either as a prank or as an act of political intimidation. If this is true (which I wholeheartedly suspect) it is the worst crime that no one will give half a damn about. All would rightly be up in arms if anti-homosexual slogans or graffiti were painted or smeared on the door of the Lambda Alliance president-why are we not righteously indignant that the most prominent campus conservative has been so threatened? Why doesn't anybody know about this? Is it because the campus is monolithically liberal? Dare I broach the obvious?
Say what you want about Mr. Luppino-Esposito. I say that he overextends his influence, is cocky to an extent that puts Christiano Ronaldo to shame, and has a massive case of hubris. However, no one, regardless of any category into which he may fall, regardless of any personal wrongs he may have committed, regardless of any circumstance, should be so violated. If this is a simple prank gone to Hell, which I pray it is, it is still vandalism, which is still, I believe, a crime. It is still distasteful as fuck. It still deserves to be fully condemned. The silence is deafening.
But what if it isn't a prank gone to Hell? What if more sinister forces are at work? Then this shows the most under-considered (not sure if that's a word) form of "category-based" intimidation-intimidation based on political viewpoint. Look, liberals, libertarians, conservatives, socialists, communists, and greens will have PERFECTLY FUCKING LEGITIMATE disagreements about stuff. That goon squads should never be able to fuck up the property or person of those with whom you disagree is something to which EVERYONE of EVERY PERSUASION should agree. This shouldn't be a suggestion-it is the founding principle of democracy. Intimidation is not the means by which to convey a message. Silencing the opposition is a tactic of tyrants. I would ask whomever considers intimidation a legitimate means of conveying your message to look at the flag and motto of Virginia: "Sic Semper Tyrannis"-Thus Always to Tyrants. If you cannot compete in an open marketplace of ideas, YOUR IDEAS ARE WRONG. Tyranny is never the anwer, whether against a Tory or the leader of Lambda.

Apologize for the shit writing, I'm a little worked up.

"NO!" on March 20

Been a long time.

Today marks the beginning of my Quixotic campaign to defeat the "green fee" that will be imposed by referendum March 20. The issue that motivates my advocacy is not "global warming denial" or "hating the planet" but rather a love of freedom and skepticism of bureaucracy. The fee would create a new environmental office and a "green endowment" in addition to retrofitting academic buildings and residence halls with energy monitoring tools. I do not believe that a school as deeply in financial uncertainty as ours needs a new bureaucracy. I do not believe that any endowment, green or otherwise, should be funded by mandatory student fees. This is only the beginning of my criticism; more will follow in the coming days.

I will now criticize the arguments the proponents expound in presenting their tax as inoffensive:

1. The fee is 1% of the mandatory student fee: This statistic is true. However, there is no guarantee that the fee, once created, will not increase. It seems from the proponents' own website that, at least in the beginning, there will be some unfunded proposals. This seems to suggest that there will be a revenue shortfall: in the present financial situation of the College, this suggests that the fee will only grow. The proposal is counting on the "green endowment" covering the shortfall. This counts on a critical uncertainty; namely, that governments will, in a time of economic recession and possible stagflation, continue to subsidize environmentalist projects to the degree they do at present. This seems unlikely, as calls for immediate relief would drown out calls for "sustainability." These subsidies are the lifeblood of the environmental firms in which the endowment would presumably invest: if they cease, the firms will cease, and the cover of the shortfall will cease.
2. There is massive support: Also true. However, there is currently no one willing to stand in dissent, for "Who hates the planet?" There is only one side of the debate that has spoken, and that side has defined terms, so it makes sense that a vast majority would support such fees. However, tyranny of the majority is tyranny all the same. Add in the 800-pound gorilla of SEAC, and, well, maybe it's garden-variety tyranny after all. Unfortunately, some organizations that might stand up to such clear earmarking and (student) government waste seem to be content to stand silent.

Again, this is not to say that if the SA or the administration belives that recycling or energy efficiency (on campus) can be improved by their action that they should do nothing. Both of these are noble goals, but nothing is free. In addition to nothing being free, things tend to cost more when implemented than when estimated. I would much rather see the administration doing its job than the students compelled to surrender their wallets at a referendum. Let the people in charge set the fees, not the students.

Oh, and if the referendum does fail, I will demand a recount (apologies to the late William F. Buckley).