Blogcritics Author: Selwyn Duke

Why John Edwards' Affair Matters

Selwyn Duke — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:42:26 EDT

No, politicians don�t have private lives like you or me, because they�re not private citizens.
It has become a stereotypical pattern with men. A lad with a salad-days libido has a girl in every port, plays fast and loose with feelings and breaks hearts. Then he gets older, marries, has a daughter, and becomes very protective. He doesn’t want her dating guys who are just like he was.What this tells us is that when it’s our ox...

The War on Boys: Where Feminists and Men's Rights Activists Go Wrong

Selwyn Duke — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:54:16 EDT

Many talk about boys� academic woes, but few understand the real problem or can identify the solution.
One problem with one-issue activists, it seems, is that they often view matters from only one dimension. This has always been one of the characteristics of feminists. Men get blame for being history's conquerors and killers, for instance, but no credit for being its innovators and healers. We will hear about how women "create life" while men...

Hoisted on Their Politically-Correct Petards

Selwyn Duke — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:46:29 EST

When the Clintons got caught up in that recent racial controversy, they were only reaping what they've sown.
What goes around certainly does come around. The first black president's wife isn't black enough to be immune from charges of bigotry.Isn't it delicious?I am, of course, speaking of the recent Democrat race war. Now, let's be fair. When Hillary Clinton praised Lyndon Johnson for signing the Civil Rights Act, she wasn't subordinating Martin Luther...

Satire: Al Gore Opens Mouth, Increases Carbon Footprint

Selwyn Duke — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:46:29 EST

Al Gore speaks about some unknown consequences of US inaction on global warming.
Speaking today to COOL-IT (Communists for Only Onerous and Lofty Industrial Taxation) in Nome, Alaska, former Vice-President Al Gore criticized US failure to adequately address climate change. Mr. Gore warned of future consequences of inaction while emphasizing that we have already felt the effects of a lamentably low suicide rate. Gore mentioned...

He's Gonna Find Out Who's Naughty or Nice ... or Stupid

Selwyn Duke — Mon, 3 Dec 2007 10:40:00 EST

Santa is no longer politically correct and is under attack. Is Rudolph next because his nose uses too much energy?
Sometimes I could believe I was living in the Matrix. Only, I can’t imagine sentient programs creating a world as irrational as ours. We’ve come to expect the usual Christmastime attacks upon tradition in the name of the mythical “separation of church and state”; the nativity scene on public property and school Christmas...

Michael Savage: The Battle Between Taquiya and Talk Radio

Selwyn Duke — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:27:19 EST

CAIR targets those who dare criticize Islamism for destruction, and now it has set its sights on Michael Savage
You will have to forgive me, but I have a difficult time taking the war against Moslem extremists seriously. No, I haven't become the latest in a line of anti-American quislings who say the war is "all about oil" or that Islamism is not a threat. It's just that I have trouble mustering enthusiasm for overseas ventures when we allow the enemy's...

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

Homo-expect-us: Imposing Values on Christians

Selwyn Duke — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 04:21:06 EDT

There is a maelstrom brewing around High Point Church in Arlington, Texas. Church officials had offered to host a funeral for a homosexual man, Cecil Sinclair, even going so far as to agree to feed 100 guests and create an elaborate photo presentation about the man's life. However, the family neglected to inform the church that Mr. Sinclair's homosexuality would be featured prominently, with pictures containing obvious homosexual content on display. Understandably, the church would not be party to the exhibition of sin, and its offer was rescinded.The family is mad, some of the media is mad, and I'm mad too. What irks me, though, is an invidious double-standard: Homosexuals and their sympathizers often expect a special dispensation from rules that apply to everyone else, while Christians are expected to dispense with their rules.I'll first echo a point church officials have made, only my example will be different. It's understandable that Christians may offer their services to known homosexuals, as we're all sinners; however, most of us sinners don't expect our characteristic sins to be on display in a church service held on our behalf. Why, if a man had been a compulsive philanderer, would we expect that a church shouldn't have a problem displaying sexually suggestive photographs of him with gaggles of gals? It's absurd. If this would be readily understood if the individual in question were a fornicator, why not when he is a homosexual? Do they want to be treated like everyone else or don't they?This situation reminds me of the case of Rev. Eugene Robinson, the cleric who declared his homosexuality and was then was elected bishop by some Episcopagans. It was such a grand victory for inclusiveness, such a bold show of tolerance, allowing the Brave New Worlders to puff up their chests and boldly go where no half-man had gone before. Seldom pointed out, however, was that Rev. Robinson had left his wife and children upon receiving his netherworld epiphany. If a normal man had done so to be with another woman, would he be exalted and elected bishop? No, the attitude would be quite different, as he just might be labeled unfaithful and irresponsible - if not a pig. Rev. Robinson, though, well, was "brave." I guess being a homosexual means never having to say you're sorry.Getting back to the church - the one that can still be called Christian - it's time for some perspective. Let's say that a mosque had agreed to host a service for a family but balked upon learning that the party would insist on including roast pork and bacon in its food selection. In our politically correct climate, I can't imagine too many journalistic Jacobins placing the onus on the Moslems. Multicultural imperatives would hold sway, and the poseurs would disgorge platitudes about respecting differences and Islamic sensitivities. For that matter, would anyone find it anything but laughable if someone expected Moslems to brook homosexual displays? So, why are the religious convictions of Christians not similarly respected?Then, you'll have to forgive my lack of benevolence toward the bereaved, but just how dull are these people? Even if you're a confirmed secularist, shouldn't you at least suspect that a Christian church just might have a problem with overt displays of homosexuality? What are we to think of their failure to mention such a thing? After all, I can't imagine there would be any expectation that Moslems should make a concession simply because you pleaded ignorance about their prohibition against pork. On the contrary, I think you'd be told to expand your cultural horizons.Thus, who, if anyone, should be offended? A teacher is thought insensitive and offensive if he brings a crucifix and Bible into a public school and relates a religious message (although, homosexual content seems to be just fine); after all, it is said, some of the students may be of another faith and may take offense. Well, what are we to say about the act of bringing images into a church that will likely evoke the same reaction?But I suspect that a sort of cultural ignorance is the issue, along with a certain kind of provincialism. Many people are so awash in relativism nowadays that they just can't imagine anyone who embraces authentic Christian doctrine; that is, not anyone with whom they could possibly consort. Why, those snake-handlers may exist in some backwoods region of stills, spells, unkempt hair, rotting teeth and home-birthing, but the evolved people modernists such as themselves encounter would never subscribe to antiquated notions like sin or Truth. Of course they'd espouse the tenets of the times. Doesn't everybody?It's funny, though, our askew conception of rights and responsibilities. I can hear it now, "Oh, those intolerant Christians! Always imposing their values on others." So, before this refrain is regurgitated once more, let me say something. If the Christians entered the family's house or business and insisted that photographs with homosexual content be taken down, they might be guilty of imposition of values (I would say "morals"). In this case, though, who was invading what with whose values?The issue here really is what fashions dictate is the greatest value: Broad-mindedness. Many people treat prejudice as if it's the first and last Deadly Sin, and through their impugnment of their age's unpalatable variety convince themselves of their sanctified state. Prejudices, though, are funny things; being a reflection of the bearer's deepest, most ingrained feelings, they often are noticed by him no more than a blind man sees his own blemishes. And the prejudices that will truly influence one are seldom those everyone warns of, but those constituting dark shades that remain unseen by a color-blind world that's afraid of the light.One prejudice nowadays that characterizes those on the left involves a certain assumption. It is the idea that anything they choose to remove from the closet must be accepted by all, and no objection to the disposition of the junk is to be respected. In their philosophical chauvinism, however, a very important principle eludes them. You have a legal right to empty out your closet as much as you want. This right ends, though, where my property line begins.

Selwyn Duke is a columnist, public speaker and Internet entrepreneur whose work has been published widely online and also in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show, has a regular column in Christian Music Perspective Magazine and does commentary on the award-winning Michael Savage Show.

Race-baiting Politician Attacks Michael Savage

Selwyn Duke — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:28:18 EDT

Patriotism might at one time have been the last refuge of a scoundrel, but methinks this is no longer true. With modern America being characterized more by political correctness than patriotism, screams of "racism" may now be that last refuge. And joining the ranks of scoundrels, populated by reverends sans congregations and other assorted guttersnipes, is one Gerardo Sandoval, San Francisco Supervisor. What has earned Sandoval his yellow stripes is his introduction of a government resolution condemning radio talk show host Michael Savage for what Sandoval calls "defamatory language . . . against immigrants." Here is what happened. In response to a week-long fast embarked upon by 35 students and illegal aliens who were burning a few calories for amnesty, Savage quipped, "I would say, let them fast until they starve to death, then that solves the problem." Now, I'm not sure why Sandoval latched onto this particular comment - maybe his immigration lobby masters called in a favor - but it certainly got his dander up. He responded by saying, "The intolerant and racist comments of Michael Savage demand a strong condemnation"; he then labeled them "symbolic of racism and hatred" in his resolution.One might first note the calculated imprecision of Sandoval's terminology, for at issue here are not immigrants, but illegal immigrants. More to the point, there was no racial component in Savage's statement. Perhaps Sandoval wishes to imply otherwise, but illegal immigrants hail from a variety of different nations and ethnic groups, and I should also mention that some of the abstemious activists were probably white native Americans. Thus, it wasn't any kind of consanguinity that united them, but only stupidity and perhaps a desire to shed some pounds. Then, I just may know a wee bit about asceticism, and I have never known the practice of fasting to be peculiar to a given race. As for hatred, I think it is love of country that inspires one to risk reputation and limb to defend his nation. On the other hand, it's not a stretch to say that advocating policies threatening our culture, sovereignty, freedom and prosperity just might be motivated by hatred of everything for which America stands. But accusations of racism are curious things. They're much like charges of heresy under a corrupt regime in a religious land: True or not, they're a great way to demonize opponents. In our time, the religion of the nation is defined by the irreligious dogmas of the dull, otherwise known as leftist orthodoxy, and transgressing against its tenets is a mortal sin. This reveals what really bothers the Sandovals of the world: Michael Savage has been in the vanguard of the resistance, the effort to, as Savage would say, protect our "borders, language and culture." To an illegal alien apologist such as Sandoval, this is intolerable; this is why he has pulled the race card. It is the first and last ploy of the intellectually vacuous and irredeemably venal. And it just may be projection, since in the area of race Sandoval seems to have the credibility of Al Sharpton. According to H. Brown at the San Francisco Call, Sandoval characterized the San Francisco Fire Department as being like "a Dublin phone book" (let's be fair, though, I'm sure Sandoval wouldn't have minded if those of Irish descent weren't white). Then, Ilene Lelchuk at sfgate.com tells us that,"Speaking to the Harvey Milk Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Democratic Club in 2001, he [Sandoval] urged San Franciscans upset about big businesses suing the city over its payroll tax to picket 'at their houses in Tiburon and at their bar mitzvahs.'"I'll also point out that Sandoval sat on the board of directors of La Raza Centro Legal and was the Scholarship Chair of the group's lawyers' association. And, as you may know, La Raza means "The Race." (Interestingly, that Sandoval was in bed with the race-based organization isn't mentioned in his biography on his website. Que pasa, Gerardo?)Returning to Sandoval's comments, their content isn't as damning as his hypocrisy, because he exhibits the typical leftist penchant for playing the race card. Perhaps Mr. Sandoval never learned that bigots in glass hoods shouldn't throw stones. And how do you explain this contradiction? First, understand that bigotry - certainly the politically correct version if not the actual variety - doesn't bother the Sandovals of the world. No, to such people, protestations about racism are never social activism, but strategy. It's much like a devastating weapon a warrior employs on the battlefield; don't be fooled when he complains about how his adversary has used same to destroy his holdings. He loves the weapon; he just doesn't want it used against him.Thus, Sandoval is no different from any propagandist in any age who subordinated ethics to expediency. Why, if he had held office in Alabama in 1956, he might have accused opponents of being "nigger lovers."Then, Sandoval stated that he just couldn't understand why there isn't "more media outrage to what Michael Savage said." Well, let's talk about something truly outrageous, and this is the pi�ce de résistance. On February 15, 2005, Sandoval appeared on Hannity & Colmes and actually stated, get this, that the United States "should not have a military." I know, it had to be a joke, right? Well, Alan Colmes, the liberal on the show, was incredulous and pressed Sandoval on the matter with both questions and statements 11 times, giving the stupidvisor ample opportunity to amend his position. Sanity, however, was to be elusive, and the best Sandoval could muster were retorts such as "Welcome to San Francisco."Believe me, you can't make this stuff up. Sandoval is, clinically speaking, a loon. He belongs in a room with rubber wallpaper, attired in the morning/afternoon/evening wear that comes five sizes too small. But there's a bigger issue here than Sandoval and his misfiring neurons. Crazy or not, he is a foot soldier in a burgeoning effort to stifle politically incorrect dissent through social pressure, ostracism, reputation and career destruction, the threat of legal action and, ultimately, hate-speech laws. As for such laws, Sandovals in other nations have already enacted them, and their fascistic ilk here have designs on our first amendment. And this is why this issue matters; any time a public official uses the levers of government to chill political, social and religious commentary - the very type of expression the First Amendment was designed to protect - it's time to form a vigilance committee. Let's ensure the separation of media and state. This is why we should support the beleaguered Michael Savage. I agree with Savage, but it's not a matter of whether you love, hate or are indifferent about what he said, for you don't have to value a man's speech to value free speech for men. In most parts of the world - Western Europe, Canada and Australia, just to name a few - Savage and many others would be criminally charged for expressing their opinions. We are treading the same path, and if our government ever succeeded in silencing Savage, who would be next? Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity? Who then? Who would be next in the food chain? So, those who cheer for the muzzling of defiant voices should take heed, as there is certainly one exception to the adage, "It is easier to destroy than create": The tools of big government tyranny. The Sandovals of the world may conjure up the demon who will burn their opponents' tongues from their mouths, but they'll soon learn that his ambition is not to be servant, but master. Of course, the government is just a reflection of us. A demon can only reign over a land when erstwhile hallowed ground has been desecrated by collective vice. I have savaged Sandoval, but he is just like every other coward who embraces the fashionable passions of his age. If his ilk ever carries the day, it won't be because their passions were so powerful. It will be because our indifference was so profound.

The Anti-Islamist Manifesto

Selwyn Duke — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:29:11 EDT

Perhaps some of you have seen the document titled, “Manifesto: Together Facing a New Totalitarianism,” which is being disseminated widely on the Web. Originally published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, of Mohammed cartoon fame, it’s a vow to resist Islamism signed by 12 individuals hailed as “brave intellectuals.” I read it, and while I have no idea whether or not the signatories are brave, their musings certainly illustrate why modern intellectuals are sorely lacking in intellectualism. The proclamation’s primary flaw is evident in the first two sentences:“After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism. We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.” [emphasis mine] Our first move should not be to judge their values, but to ask what they are. After all, the ideologies they implicitly condemn involve secular values. (It’s interesting to note that while they mention both Naziism and fascism, they would cite only Stalinism, not communism. Is it because they believe it has not been overcome? Or is there another reason?) As for Stalinism, the decidedly more Christian United States condemned it as godless. Yet, I don’t know of anyone at the time who proclaimed the goal to be one of religious values for all. Nor would I have supported such an aim.My point is not that religious values are necessarily bad, that secular values are necessarily bad, or even that they’re necessarily different. It is that “secular” and “religious” are not creeds but categories. As such, they tell us nothing about quality, only type. It’s much like announcing that you want drugs for all; drugs can be legal or illegal, can cure or corrupt. Thus, if no specificity is forthcoming, I’ll have to do some profiling to discern what is being peddled. Is the purveyor Pfizer or the Cali Cartel?As far as these brave intellectuals go, they’re more Pablo Escobar than Pablo Alvaro. They have not only imbibed the Kool-Aid of the West’s secular academy but also mixed it, making me wonder. Of what secular values do they speak? Are they the ones whose ascendancy seems nigh? After all, to wax Churchillian, from Saskatchewan to Stockholm, an iron curtain has been dropped across the tongue, with hate speech laws muzzling mouths like burkas cover women. Increasingly in the West, people are being punished – and sometimes even imprisoned – by secular authorities for criticizing homosexuality, using politically incorrect terms, engaging in frank discussion about legitimate group differences, or even just expressing pro-life or creationist beliefs. So since these brave intellectuals also vowed to fight “totalitarianism” and “obscurantism” (the resistance to the increase and spread of knowledge) and said that “we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people,” I wonder if they will oppose the secular values that contravene these very goals?If you think my stridency a bit disproportionate, understand that the manifesto and its authors represent the very philosophy that imperiled us in the first place, the one that even now is tearing down the walls of western civilization. They state:“We reject cultural relativism, which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions.” The above sentence contains a serious philosophical contradiction. The “cultural relativism” the writers bemoan is a corollary of “moral relativism,” and both are corollaries of the secularism they extol. Let’s start from the top. Secularism involves the idea that there is no God and, therefore, no moral Truth (something above man that determines right and wrong). This makes man the author of morality, reducing it to a reflection of consensus opinion, which makes morals relative (for a more comprehensive explanation, read my piece The Nature of Right and Wrong). Now, if values are a product of opinion, it cannot rightly be said that some are better than others; the most we can say is some find favor with us while others don’t. If this is the case, it follows that the different values espoused by different cultures cannot render one superior to another, just different in terms of “tastes.” And this position, my friends, is cultural relativism.The secularism of these “intellectuals” is a philosophy that collapses upon itself. Its adherents would use it as a rallying cry to fight jihad, seemingly oblivious to the fact that its relativism draws a moral equivalence between militants and missionaries. It is the very spiritual disease that has made us see everything as shades of gray, blinding us to darkness and light so that we neither defend the latter nor fight the former. How likely is it that you’ll recognize evil after embracing a philosophy stating it doesn’t exist? And why would you fight what you don’t recognize? Moreover, secularism’s relativism has blinded scores of millions of westerners to the superiority of their own culture and to the threat posed by the introduction of incongruous and hostile cultural elements. At the same time, motivated by its antipathy for the West’s formative faith, Christianity, it has demonized the West to a point where many consider it the bane of man. And why would you take pains to preserve that which you think worthless if not destructive?To anyone protesting my indictment of secularism, I will point out that it isn’t authentic Christians who created the “Hey, hey, ho, ho, western culture’s gotta go” mentality. No, that’s the handiwork of secularists in colleges, the media, popular culture and leftist organizations. Make no mistake, this manifesto is as ideologically and philosophically chauvinistic as any jihadist screed. And if you took the document and replaced “secular” and “secularism” with “Christian” and “Christianity,” something similar is exactly what you’d be accused of. Lest I be misunderstood, I wouldn’t shrink from condemning the Dark Faith, but I also don’t relish the prospect of helping one dragon swallow another and grow bigger and more menacing through digestion. And that’s the point. I write this for those in my camp, my traditional brethren who share my concern for our civilization. Know that these people are not our friends. Sure, we may use them when possible to fight the Dark Faith, as warfare makes even stranger bedfellows than politics. After all, anyone who remembers WWII knows it wouldn’t be the first time we allied ourselves with leftists to fight a common enemy. But never forget that while they may puff up their chests at times and mouth some fashionable platitudes about combating tyranny, they are still Islam’s fifth column in our midst. Their Dark Philosophy has more in common with the Dark Faith than with anything we hold dear; for instance, both endeavor to destroy Christianity and the West. Of course, one difference is that the secularists suicidal tendencies aren’t as rational as the Islamists’, as they don’t believe in an afterlife, and, even if they did, it’s virtually impossible to find 72 virgins among secular women. Another commonality they share is that both stifle dissent contradicting their world view in nations under their dominion, punishing those who speak against their dogma. Another difference is that the Islamists don’t yet have us under their dominion; the secularists do. They are the ones stilling our tongues.In case you’re still unconvinced about the secularists’ tyrannical nature and facilitation of Islamism, I’ll make one more point. When Canadian Mark Harding (and there have been other such victims) was punished for criticizing Islam, how could his plight have been best characterized? It was secular authorities punishing Christian dissent in deference to Islamist sensitivities. Need I say more? It’s ironic that while the manifesto’s writers ask that a “critical spirit” be “exercised” against all “dogmas,” they also make that call for “secular values for all.” My response is to quote G.K. Chesterton:“In truth, there are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” I have no interest in secular dogmas. I will never expend one solitary drop of blood, sweat or ink, at home or abroad, to make the world safe for them. My battles concern two things secularists fancy antiquated notions. That is, I fight for good and against evil, nothing more, nothing less.You know, after suffering the vacuous musings of this deficient dozen, I know why Jesus didn’t choose twelve scholars. No, only the fools of modernity elevate intellectuals above wise men.

Free Speech From the Mouths of Babes?

Selwyn Duke — Mon, 2 Jul 2007 00:53:19 EDT

Last week the Supreme court handed down three free speech rulings that find favor with conservatives. One of them is Morse et al. v. Frederick, a case involving the free speech rights of students. At issue is a five year old incident wherein a Juneau-Douglas High School senior named Joe Frederick raised a 14-foot banner stating "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" and was subsequently suspended for "drug speech" by then school principal Deborah Morse. Writing for the majority in a five to four decision in favor of the school, Chief Justice John Roberts reasoned that the First Amendment should not be applied in this case because the student was encouraging drug use. While I agree with the principal's actions and take solace in the knowledge that educators' hands won't be further tied, the Supreme Court's ruling does nothing to address what is the underlying problem. In fact, with the convoluted logic displayed by virtually all members of the court, it's hard to find much to applaud in this judgment.The real issue here extends far beyond this one case and harks back to a precedent set in 1969 in the Tinker v. Des Moines ruling, which divined from the Constitution a right to free speech in schools. Upon issuance of that decision the court stated,"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."Really? What can hardly be argued is that the donning of a black robe confers intelligence, wisdom or even much useful knowledge upon the wearer.The truth here can be found in one of the few bright spots in this case. Writing in his concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas drove to the heart of the matter in saying,". . . it cannot seriously be suggested that the First Amendment 'freedom of speech' encompasses a student's right to speak in public schools."Leftists can argue till they're blue in the face, but the truth is that students do not have freedom of speech in school. Why, we can spew profanity at others on the street - in fact, some people where I grew up in NYC consider it a pastime - but a student may be punished if he directs same at a teacher or peer. I also have to wonder if the left's highly principled stand in defense of free speech would be maintained in the face of a student given to Nazi and white supremacist rhetoric. The fact is that we don't ascribe to minors an adult set of rights. Minors may not buy alcohol or cigarettes, drive before a certain age, join the military, get married or enter into other kinds of legal contracts. Most tellingly, while enshrined in the Constitution is, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," there isn't much clamor to extend this right to minors. In ignoring this, the more conservative members of the court are guilty of the same reasoning, if not the same sanctimony, as the left. Virtually no one supports granting "free speech" to students; that is, free speech properly understood. As I've said before, freedom of speech is but a facade unless the guarantee protects even the most odious, most offensive, most unpopular speech of all. Popular sentiments require no legal protection, as their popularity is protection enough. Thus, to draw the distinctions we already have - oh, such as proscribing "hate speech" on school grounds (remember, we may spew whatever hatred we wish, even the faux variety the thought police hate so much) - is to tacitly acknowledge that there is no free speech in that arena. (Note: This isn't a violation of the Constitution because the original intent of its framers is what rightly governs the document's application, and it's unreasonable to believe these 18th century men would have granted children the right to be sassy brats.) Schools also are not alone as governmental institutions that prohibit free speech. Most obviously, military personnel are quite limited in the use of the tongue, and police departments come to mind as well. In fact, with sexual harassment and hate speech codes becoming the stuff of bureaucratic rubric, it may be hard to find an American governmental entity that affords its workers that most important American freedom. And while I definitely dislike the way this principle of censorship is applied by our Orwellian puppeteers, the principle itself is sound. Only the most delusional egalitarian fails to understand that for a society to function properly, just hierarchies must be operative and respected. Thus, when the Black Robes turn around and speak of protecting what does not exist, students' "right to free speech," they illustrate their philosophical bankruptcy. A mature approach begins with the understanding that it isn't a question of whether students will be muzzled, but only what kind of filter that muzzle will be fitted with. This begs the next question: Who should make this judgment? Parents should, through their local school boards; as with obscenity, local community standards should apply. After all, who should be the arbiter of the rules governing your schools, you or some Black Robes in Washington?The degree of irrationality exhibited by the court becomes truly evident when you consider that after accepting the supposition that the First Amendment applies to students, it turns about and states that this constitutional protection doesn't apply to their advocacy of drug use. But why not? After all, many among us encourage drug use - with the protection of the First Amendment. Are there two first amendments, one for schools and another for everyone else? What this boils down to is that, after all the intellectual contortions and philoso-babble, the court is saying something very simple: Students shouldn't be allowed to say certain things. It's just that most of our jurists are too dull to realize this.The truth is that the Black Robes are once again casting themselves as men for all seasons, not just as those well versed in the law but as experts in the area of everything. They are anything but, however, and this is evident in their own lack of consensus; not only was the high court divided in this matter, the ninth circuit court of appeals had previously ruled contrarily. Then there is the fact that the court upheld students' "right" to religious and political expression. Okay, then, what if Master Frederick had claimed that his message was not pro-drug but anti-religion? In point of fact, what he did claim was that he was just trying to raise a ruckus. Principal Morse certainly didn't accept this explanation, and maybe she was right, maybe she was wrong, but is the court better suited to discern such things? Could they say definitively that the message wasn't designed to create a ruckus when it was certainly controversial or that it wasn't a religious statement despite the use of Jesus' name? Our courts have come to define hubris; in the past they told us some religious symbols aren't religious in nature; will they now tell us that some religious motivations are not? Ah, the Black Robes, they aren't just constitutional scholars (if only), they're also theologians and authorities on ruckuses. What's so tragic about this manifestation of judicial imperialism is that it's part and parcel of a destructive, wider problem: The undermining of just hierarchies and discipline through an incremental neutering of authority figures. Our troops in Iraq are handcuffed by ridiculously stringent rules of engagement and must worry about criminal prosecution if they run afoul of them; our police are in a similar predicament. Parents hands are partially tied by a government that tells them how they may discipline their children, and the threat of social services intrusion looms large. And teachers are rendered impotent by lawsuit-loving parents and legal prohibitions. Understand, though, that power stripped from the people doesn't disappear into a black hole of permissiveness; like wealth, it's transferred. In this case it's placed in the imperious hands of the Black Robes, those higher authorities that fancy themselves to be the highest authority. You know, when I sniff the air downwind of the Black Robes, I sense the stench of ego. For they aren't content to be governmental umpires. Flushed with power and illusions about their own intellectualism and infallibility, many judges' master status follows a certain evolutionary path: Jurist, social activist, social-engineer, demigod . . . you can finish the progression. But I wonder if the people's obeisance is as boundless as Black Robes may fancy. For how long will we continue to respect the rule of law when that law is handed down by those who believe in the law of their rule? After all, when Black Robes cease abiding by the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, we are then governed not by the rule of law but the rule of lawyers.So, I have a word of caution for the Black Robes. One day you will go to the well once too often, and then maybe, just perhaps, people will recognize what surrounds you as more miasma than mystique. Perhaps then, realizing our law has become a mere toy of judges who would be kings and that bearing the title "Your Honor" doesn't confer honor, citizens will echo the 150 year old sentiments of President Andrew Jackson. Knowing the court was as bereft of coercive power as it was of the intellectual variety, his response to an unfavorable court ruling was simple: "They have made the decision, now let them enforce it."