Campus Rights, Or Lack Thereof

It is a sad fact that many Connecticut schools do nothing to protect, or even recognize, student rights.  Dissenting opinions and thoughts are not allowed; you are expected to "toe the line".  Any questioning of school officials is regarded as "defiance" and considered "insubordination". (1)  This "insubordination" frequently brings about harsh penalties, even to the extent of student expulsion.  

Those that doubt my statements need only look as far as their particular school's rules.  As an example, let's look at some of the policies outlined in the Fairfield Warde High School Student Handbook.  

On page fifteen, we find a section dealing with "general conduct".  Among things that are considered to be "serious infractions of school rules" are:

• "Abusive language", including language that is "insulting" or "harassing"

• Speech and/or clothing that is "inappropriate or degrading"

• Any other remarks and/or clothing that "otherwise detracts from (the) educational environment" (1) (2)

Obviously, this section of the school guidelines is very broad in its scope.  

For example, under these rules, a student could be punished for wearing a hat that says "keep America great" (or perhaps "Trump 2020").  The only thing that school administration would need to say is that the hat "detracts from (the) educational environment".  In the event of such a ruling, the student would have no choice but to stop wearing the hat; that is, if said student expected to graduate.  Also, the student would have no avenue of appeal available, because "that's just the way it is".  

For their part, school officials in Connecticut frequently say that they are "committed to the rights of all students".  To them, I say that actions speak louder than words.  If you are truly committed to campus rights, don't just talk about it; prove it.  "How can we do this", do you ask? I have a simple proposition for you; adopt a version of the "Chicago Statement" (a policy of the University of Chicago which states, in part, that students have the right to express their opinions as they see fit to). (3)  

Over sixty-five schools and institutions have already done this; why aren't any Connecticut schools among them? (Full disclosure: my attempts to discuss this issue with top officials at Warde have, so far, met with failure)

Every American has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as explained in the Declaration of Independence. (4)  These rights, which include the right to free expression, are not given up "at the schoolhouse door", so to speak.  They apply to everyone, everywhere in this nation; the argument regarding "time, place, and manner" is one of nonsense.  

It's high time that school administrators started to recognize campus rights.  To them, I say this; if you're going to "talk the talk", be willing to "walk the walk".  

Get It Over With (Or, "The Cowardly Democrats")

We're now two years into the Lamont Administration; the highway tolling issue was raised in the first year or so of Dan Malloy's second term.  Doing the math, that works out to about six years of talk on this issue alone.  Nevertheless, we are today no closer to any decision than we were six years ago.  Indeed, the Democrats controlling the General Assembly have just "pumped the brakes" again (a vote was scheduled for Thursday, then quickly canceled). (1)

Let me get to the heart of this matter.  Why do you think it is that Democrats schedule the votes, only to say "wait a second, we're not voting after all" mere minutes after they call for such votes (I say "votes" because these postponements have happened on multiple occasions)? (1)  To me, the explanation is quite simple; it's because they are cowards, and terrified of losing control.  If this wasn't the case, then maybe our elected representatives would answer their office telephones, and respond to being called out in the press (but no...I'm looking at you, Representative McCarthy-Vahey)

Now, Democrats keep telling us that they are "confident" that they have enough votes to pass the associated bill. (1)  To them, I say this; if you're so certain that you will be successful, then why continue to defer action? Yeah, I said it; you have proven yourself to be COWARDS.  There's nothing brave or heroic about refusing to take a stand "at times of challenge and controversy" (Martin Luther King, Jr.). (2)  If you think in these terms, you are deluding yourself.  

A final point here, addressed to the Democrats in Hartford.  Many of your constituents, such as myself, are getting tired of wondering where we'll live next month.  "We the people" deserve a definitive and final answer to that question.  It's time to end this "era of uncertainty" that Connecticut has been going through for six years.  If you think that you'll be able to pass the toll bill to the governor, then let's get this over with; hold a vote.  At least then, the citizens of this state will finally know where they stand.  

(Author's note: I find it appropriate to add a small epilogue to this post.  I've expressed my desire for a final result.  However, in the back of my mind, I am reminded of the phrase "be careful what you wish for; you just might get it") (3)

An Open Letter To State Assemblywoman Cristin McCarthy-Vahey

Ms. McCarthy-Vahey,

Last May, over two thousand citizens (official estimate of the Capitol Police) gathered at the Capitol, and stood in protest against any sort of highway tolls. (1)(2)  In November, politicians supporting tolls were soundly defeated, on a state-wide basis.  More recently, opponents of tolls filled a Capitol Building hearing room to near capacity. (3)  The message from the people of Connecticut is clear; we do not want tolls of any kind.  

Time and time again, the citizens of Connecticut have said "absolutely not" to the question of if they want tolls. (3)  Nevertheless, you are still on record as supporting tolling proposals; it seems you cannot be moved from this position.  As I do not understand why this is so, I ask you to please explain your stance to me.

To be frank, I wonder if I'm missing something.  Why is it that you (and many of your Democratic colleagues) are not listening to the people of this state? Is it because you think we don't matter, or are stupid? Perhaps you think you know better than the everyday "Nutmegger" does? The residents of the one hundred and thirty-third district (of which I am one) elected you to be their voice in Hartford, not to totally ignore their voice.  I hope you will not forget that your job is to represent "we the people".

I would appreciate a reply to this letter (in whatever form it may take) as soon as possible.

-- Mr. Matt Boland
Fairfield, CT

Political Rebuttal (Part I)

A recent article (attributed to filmmaker Ron Howard) (1) attempts to explain the rationale behind "being a liberal".  Reading this, I feel the need to respond to the relevant arguments. 

The entry begins,

“I'm a liberal, but that doesn't mean what a lot of you apparently think it does.  Let's break it down, shall we?  Because (note 1) quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of being told what I believe and what I stand for.  Spoiler alert: not every liberal is the same, though the majority of liberals I know think along roughly these same lines:

1.  I believe a country should take care of its weakest members.  A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected.  PERIOD.

2. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege.  Somehow that's interpreted as "I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all."  This is not the case.  I'm fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it's impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes "let people die because they can't afford healthcare" a better alternative.  (note 2)  I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it.  And no, I'm not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen"

I'll break my arguments up into a couple of sections, starting here.  

First, what I call the "preamble" to this article says that the author is getting "tired of being told what (he believes)".  I can relate to this very legitimate concern, which appears to be bi-partisan in nature.  Having said this, let's look at a recent case involving one Pete Buttigieg.  

It has been pointed out that the current Democratic platform condemns pro-life members of that party.  At a public forum, the presidential candidate was asked whether he would support removal of that platform plank.  Buttigieg's response (although indirect) was to defend the platform's current language, and at least imply that there is no place for "pro-life Democrats".  (2)  If this isn't intolerance of other opinions, I don't know what exactly is.  Perhaps the author should consider this before rushing to defend liberalism.  

Second, the writer advocated higher taxes to pay for healthcare.  I'm not sure how we should pay for these expenses.  However, I offer that those who want higher taxes aren't really thinking that clearly.  Why in the world would you want to have LESS money in your pocket, as opposed to more? This fails what I call the "logic test".  

Continuing:

 "3. I believe education should be affordable.  It doesn't necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I'm mystified as to why it can't work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt.

4. I don't believe your money should be taken from you and given to people who don't want to work.  I have literally never encountered anyone who believes this.  Ever.  I just have a massive moral problem with a society where a handful of people can possess the majority of the wealth while there are people literally starving to death, freezing to death, or dying because they can't afford to go to the doctor.  Fair wages, lower housing costs, universal healthcare, affordable education, and the wealthy actually paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this.  Somehow believing that makes me a communist"

Regarding section three, I share the belief that "education should be affordable".  Nevertheless, I am opposed to the idea of "free" college education.  If you don't charge students at least a little money, then how are you going to pay for all the textbooks used, along with other educational materials? And what of salaries for teachers and other staff? There are many teachers who use the occupation to put food on their plates; some aren't in the job for their health, so to speak.  

I find myself somewhat agreeing with the author as to section four.  There are those who would rather sit on their behinds eating Fritos than try to make something of themselves.  These are the people that I oppose giving anything other than the most basic funding to.  Captain John Smith, one of the original American settlers (he helped to found settlements in Virginia circa 1607) said it best; "if you don't work, then you don't eat". (3)  Don't get me wrong; I have no problem giving money to those unable to work.  However, if you are able but unwilling to work, you shouldn't be getting large government checks every month.  

Now, let me address the second part of section four.  According to the author, he has "a massive moral problem" with the fact that some are wealthier than others.  This is the nature of our capitalist system; some will have less money, and some will have more.  Seeing as that is the case, how then do you acquire more wealth? The answer is simple; you work for it, and get "more" via ingenuity and knowledge.  By the way, there's nothing wrong (as I see it) with wanting to have money, live a long life, and have a high standard of living.  That is called "the American way".  

The other "way" is to have the government determine everything, right down to what you are allowed to eat and drink (sound familiar, Bill DeBlasio?).  It is the idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (to clarify, if the government finds that you are able to give something, you give it....if they find that you need something, it is given to you based on what the government thinks you need of it....and you have no choice in the matter, or right to object).  

This is a system that we call "communism"; it is in direct opposition to "the American way", and the idea of "natural rights" (indeed, you have no rights in such a system).  That brings us to the definition of "communist"; that is, someone who believes in and advocates for this system.  Being that the author professes to be of this opinion, he may rightly be called a "communist".  (3)

I'll write more on this later; this has turned out to be a lot longer of a rebuttal than I thought it would be.  

Note 1: As a self-proclaimed "grammar guy", I'd be remiss (that is, careless in the performance of my duty) to not point out certain errors.  It is generally regarded as bad form to start a sentence with the word "because", as is done here.  

Note 2: Continuing my grammar critique, this is one of several run-on sentences in the original article.  

Blame Where It Belongs (or "The One About The New York Knicks")

(Author's note: The writer is a long-time fan of the Knicks.)  

With the NFL season complete, and some time left before Spring Training starts, the sports focus now shifts to basketball.  It's been "hard times" lately for fans of the New York Knicks; they're suffering through another "lean year".  This is as it was last season, and the season before that.  

Year after year, the Knicks find themselves at (or near) the bottom of the Eastern Conference.  It doesn't matter who their coach is, or who they get in the draft; the Knicks always stink.  What makes this quite unfortunate is that they have every opportunity for excellence.  

The Knicks play in America's largest market, and at the "world's most famous arena" of Madison Square Garden.  There's a lot of tradition behind the franchise; names like Ewing, Frazier, DeBusschere, and Bradley come to mind.  And the New York fan base, among the most loyal of any, would be practically rabid for a good Knicks team (the 1994 season is proof of this).  The Knicks should be one of the best teams in the NBA, but they aren't.  

Examining this, I'll cast the blame where it belongs; on the shoulders of James Dolan.  It is obvious to me that Dolan, who (along with his family) is the principal owner of the Knicks, cares more about making money than winning titles.  Let's look at some of the facts behind his "reign of terror".  

• The Knicks have not made the playoffs since the 2010-11 season (they will likely miss the playoffs this season as well).  

• Those within the Knicks organization who criticize ownership are fired, as a matter of routine.  An example of this is (longtime broadcaster) Marv Albert's firing in 2004 (Albert had frequently criticized the team).  (1)

• Team management often mistreats (some would even say "abuse") fans; there is more than one example of this.  (Note 1) (1)(2)

• Ownership inherently refuses to invest in badly needed roster upgrades, despite having numerous opportunities to do so.  (Note 2) (3)

These points are not merely opinions, but well-documented facts.  Thus, one wonders how the Knicks have any fans to speak of.  

Nevertheless, Mr. Dolan will not or cannot address these issues.  If he is not committed to making the Knicks better, then he should "cut his losses", and sell the team.  The fans of New York deserve to have a winning franchise.  This means a team that contends for a championship every year, not once every twenty years (or thereabouts).  

It is as I have said many times before; as long as Mr. Dolan owns the Knicks, they will never come anywhere close to an NBA title.  You can take this, seemingly, to the bank.  Knicks fans deserve better than constant mediocrity.   

Note 1: In 2019, after hearing a passing fan saying "sell the team", Dolan threatened to ban said fan from Madison Square Garden.  In 2015, a fan who had written a letter to Dolan (critical of his management) was told (by Dolan) to "root for the Nets, because the Knicks don't want you" (as well as insulted).  (1)(2)

Note 2: Among others, the Knicks have missed out on LeBron James, Kevin Durant, and Kyrie Irving because of making non-competitive offers (and in the cases of Durant and Irving, not making any offers at all).  (3)

Random Emotional Thoughts

Just a few thoughts today, apparently at random.

Every now and then, I wake up in weird moods, which can range from anger to sadness.  Indeed, it's not always easy to be me.  Today, I find myself in one of my "blue moods", so to speak.  I think some of this has to do with feelings of loneliness.

Without re-hashing the situation (I've written about it several times before), I'll offer this.  The French have a phrase in that language that seems particularly relevant to me; it is "raison d'être", which means "reason for being" (think of it as the reason that one is alive).  For me, a certain woman exemplifies (1) the meaning of that phrase.  I believe that she is the main reason why I'm alive right now; if not for meeting her, I'm sure I would've gone "six feet under" a while ago.

Nevertheless, I have found that a relationship with this woman is impossible, as my feelings for her are not reciprocated (2).  To quote the rock band Def Leppard, this seemingly is "a game I just can't win".  Perhaps this is where a lot of my sadness comes from.  It's hard to see others happily married, and not think about what could've been for me.

I'm thirty-eight years old, and have basically given up on ever finding "that certain someone"...because for me, she's already been found.  I think James Doohan (Captain Montgomery "Scotty" Scott on "Star Trek") said it best; once you fall head over heels for someone, "you don't ever love (a woman) quite like that again".

And so it goes.