"Those who stifle true freedom in the name of ending insensitivity don't stand for freedom at all. They stand for hearing what they like to hear."
- Jon Wisniewski
I want to begin by first responding to the letter submitted in response to my column last week by Mr. Adam Pulver. Let me remind Mr. Pulver that I write in the Viewpoints section of this paper. Furthermore, the column was highly satirical. Maybe it was simply too highbrow for Mr. Pulver, which explains his interpretation. Besides the aforementioned, let me also point out that I reside in the United States where I am entitled to freedom of speech. So, Mr. Pulver... spare me.
Moving on to yet another example of an attempted suppression of constitutional rights: I was disgusted to hear that posters advertising a general interest meeting for Tufts Right to Arms were ripped down and also that a member of the group was verbally assaulted. I did not expect much of a response, but I was both surprised and pleased to see the administration issue a statement in this paper condemning the actions. Obviously these actions were perpetrated by radicals.
Let me be clear, I am annoyed by all radicals. I do not discriminate. Like Fox News, I am fair and balanced. For example, I think that conservative televangelist Pat Robertson should be sent to one of the numerous CIA detention facilities in Eastern Europe, tortured for a period of four to five months and then permanently incarcerated somewhere in northern Mongolia for the rest of his miserable life.
But Pat Robertson has not said anything especially obnoxious lately. However, Mike Snyder of the Tufts Observer has. I have read several of his columns, including "The Importance of Idealism," and can no longer contain my fury. It's not that I mean to pick on Mike, as he certainly is not the only radical on campus. In one of his most recent columns, Mike asks the question, "What are the factors that make us lose idealism as we age?"
Well Mike, I'm just going to assume you still consider yourself an "idealist," which means you are out of touch with reality and have not yet recognized that you are in fact a radical liberal. So I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. For now, I am just going to answer your question. In order to do this, let me share some history regarding my own transition from idealism to realism. Hopefully you can learn something about this process and begin your own transition.
I realized at the age of, I don't know, probably about four that people are mostly concerned with pursuing their own self-interest. This realization came one Sunday afternoon when my older brother ripped the remote control from my hands and changed the channel from Power Rangers to X-Men. So, let us recap what we should have learned from this helpful exercise:
1. People do not lose their idealism, they simply face reality.
2. Some people just face reality later in lives. Till then, they just live in denial.
3. A loss of idealism is not only inevitable, but completely necessary to functioning in this world as a normal human being... except at Tufts, of course.
These three components remaining true, all hope is not lost. Yes Mike, I actually agree with you on an issue. We as a civilization can and should work toward common goals: The eradication of AIDS, eliminating poverty and deposing brutal dictators that torture their people (oh wait, that's what you were protesting last year, so lets disregard this one).
Notice that these goals are shared by both liberals and conservatives and are also, more importantly, feasible. We do not have to just strive to attain these goals, as they are actually within reach. However, we need real solutions in order to solve these problems, not idealistic rhetoric. Associating yourself and others protesting the war with some sort of "ideal" in this context is inappropriate.
Withdrawing from Iraq is not a goal shared by conservatives and liberals. There will always be war, but there doesn't always have to be AIDS and poverty. Are you seeing the difference? You should not be associating the three, because "withdrawal from Iraq" is not a universally accepted "ideal," and you imply that it is with comments like "Boston Common should have been packed that afternoon [for the rally]."
Herein lies the reason that you are a liberal radical, Mike. You are unaware of the fact that you add in radical liberal ideals with "ideals" that have relatively little political connotation and are widely accepted. You fail to recognize this important distinction in your column.
So Mike, please stop writing columns that are supposedly about "idealism," because these articles are not about idealism. Your columns are about promoting your specific brand of liberal propaganda by blanketing action that you have taken with a word that has a traditionally benign meaning. In other words, you have hijacked the word "idealism" to serve your own political purposes. When you advocate "idealism" you really mean radical liberal idealism.
Preview for next week: I take on the Greek System and hazing...
