brett florio

“You should always try to make friends, but there are certain things about religion that can’t be tolerated,” Gress said. “Basically, the intolerance of religion can’t be tolerated.”

Atheist student groups flower on college campuses (AP)

The above quote illustrates perfectly why socially and politically active college students are so easy to dismiss en masse. They really are that naïve, and their opinions and arguments generally aren’t well formed or even coherent. In their zeal they often lose sight of logic, and give themselves over to extremism without even listening to the words coming from their mouths.

This happens with atheist, religious, and political groups all the same. And while it’s tempting to ignore all college-aged activists, it’s also very important to note that they can generally afford to be more radical and more easily mobilized. Whether that’s to fight a war, elect a president, join a cult, or overthrow a government, it’s important to understand the power of a group with very little to lose but their own lives. Pair that with a sense of invincibility and you have a force capable of altering history. You also have a force capable of making paradoxical arguments without even realizing it, and without advancing to more productive discussions such as tolerating hypocrisy, how intolerance and civil liberties combine, or a government’s role in a pluralistic society.

(As always, I will categorically deny being any different from the average college student, both now and in the past. These are only my thoughts on the matter, and isn’t a critique of any specific worldview.)

I should probably stop being surprised by the legal and ethical transgressions of our elected officials, just as I should stop being surprised by the transgressor’s colleagues defending him. Sometimes, however, the method used to skirt responsibility amuses me, such as Charles B. Rangel’s claim of ignorance with regard to his most recent ethics committee investigation.

The panel did not find that Rangel knew about the sponsorship, only his staff did, but it concluded Rangel should have known about it. On Friday, the panel released documents showing that Rangel’s aides wrote memos to the congressman, indicating that corporate sponsors were footing the bill. But Rangel denied seeing any of them.

“It said he did not knowingly violate House rules, so that gives him some comfort,” Pelosi said.

Next time I get pulled over by a policeman perhaps I should just explain that I had my eyes closed, so I cannot be held responsible. Or if the IRS informs me that I’ve miscalculated my taxes I can (completely honestly) claim ignorance. I’ll post back here how successful a politician’s defense is when used by the average citizen.

At least I’m not surprised by Rangel’s response, in which “the New York Democrat berated the panel’s leaders on the House floor.” It’s good to know that being indignant and prideful in the face of one’s own misdeeds is still the preferred damage control method of our political elites:

Rangel snapped at reporters: “Why don’t you ask me if I’m going to stay chairman of the committee in light of the fact that we’re expecting heavy snow in New York?”

In a statement later, Rangel was defiant and unrepentant. He called the committee’s report “ill-considered, unprecedented, unfair to Congressman Rangel, and wrong on the facts and the law.”

New York Daily News

On the upside, at least the United States of America has multiple parties, each motivations to expose the others; President Obama has abandoned his support of Rangel; and the freedom of the press to report on political scandals without fear of assassination is obviously a tremendous boon to the freedoms that we do enjoy.