Harvard Law embraces a racist attack on civil liberties

Note: I sent this to the dean of Harvard Law school on May 14.

I am deeply disappointed to read that Harvard Law School has decided to terminate its first black faculty dean because that dean is representing an accused criminal. This has serious implications for academic freedom, civil liberties, free speech and due process. Worst of all, it reinforces a racist paradigm that we should have moved past generations ago.

A basic function of our criminal justice system is that every accused criminal has the right to counsel – a right enumerated in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of these United States. Our founders knew that it was critical to our liberty to have effective representation, and that a basic principle of our system is that it is better for a guilty man to go free than for an innocent man to go to prison. We have seen horrible injustices when innocent people are convicted, from the Central Park Five to Bernard Baran and Christopher Clugston.

Continue reading

Revisiting the simplistic “all or nothing” mentality

One of the worst things about politics is the simplistic “all or nothing” mentality that says “you are either 100% on my side or you are evil.” This has become more prominent with Donald Trump as the Republican Party’s leader, but goes back farther than that. I have criticized that mentality among Republicans several times, and the purpose of this post is to point out that some Democrats are just as bad.

Obviously, I fully understand that Trump is a deeply flawed man, especially in his personal life. Even as a political leader, he is far too sensitive and thin-skinned, with the urge to use the political flamethrower against anyone who criticizes him without any sense of proportion. In some ways, watching Trump act this way is like looking in the mirror, which is not a good reflection of me. Anyway, I committed to supporting Trump when he is right, and opposing when he is wrong. I have done that.

Continue reading

Some vaccinations should be mandatory

I am a philosophical libertarian, so my basic philosophy is this: Unless what you do harms another person, then you should be allowed to do or not do what you please. I also believe parents’ rights should be respected by the state. The authority to raise children resides naturally with the parents, not the civil magistrate.

However, I do not believe these rights are unlimited. I am not an anarchist.

Continue reading

Abortion and exceptions for the hard cases

Last week at Slate, an article purported to explain “why the anti-abortion movement stopped making allowances for rape and incest.” Let me clear something up: I have been active in the anti-abortion movement for 22 years. The movement itself has never made exceptions for rape and incest. Certain politicians have, but the movement does not. The mainstream anti-abortion organizations such as National Right to Life and the American Life League oppose these exceptions and have opposed them for decades.

What Slate is doing is conflating the compromise of politicians with the stance of the anti-abortion movement itself. This is an understandable mistake (the politicians are the ones passing the laws, after all) but it is nonetheless an inaccurate representation of the anti-abortion movement.

Continue reading

Sidewalk counseling and an egomaniac politician

A state representative in Pennsylvania filmed himself harassing and threatening pro-life advocates outside a Planned Parenthood, posting the video online. Since this was an egotistical effort to virtue signal for attention, I will not name the state representative. He does not deserve the fame he seeks. I will instead refer to him as “Self-Righteous Hypocrite Stalker,” or SRHS for short.

SRHS immediately started berating a woman for picketing, engaging in the same behavior he was accusing her of committing. The sidewalk counselor was “shaming” people for doing something they have a constitutional right to do, SRHS said. Of course, abortion is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, but free speech is explicitly protected, so SRHS was attacking and shaming someone for exercising her constitutional rights.

Continue reading