DC’s PC Commissars Lose Touch With Common Sense
show comments
  • “With George Washington and Alexander Hamilton we believe in a federal government that is active and strong enough to secure the general welfare.”

    Quite a few Tea Partiers and other populist conservatives would agree with you. The question, though, is where the line of “enough” is drawn. But I think we can all agree that OCR’s actions not only cross that line, but shatter it. I’d love to see this challenged on 14th amendment grounds.

  • Corlyss

    Maybe we should let the DoJ OCR handle the sexual harassment policy for DoD.

  • Before you know it we may have to go back to single sex colleges!

  • BrianFrankie

    “This is not a Tea Party blog and there are no pictures of Ayn Rand in our boardroom.”

    Maybe this is your problem. I’m a “radical right winger” according to friends and relations, although personally I have always considered myself quite moderate. But the result is that anything I may say is discounted.

    What we need are moderate left wingers like VM to stand up for common sense and traditional values. Unfortunately, the moderate left wing seems to have mostly disappeared, subsumed by the Sean Penn wing, which seems to drive most of the US government most of the time. Perhaps if the moderate left wing would focus more on the real issues threatening America, rather than throwing snide comments around and demonising the Tea Party, we could actually make some progress.

    I mean, come on – did this post on Federal Government intrusiveness and political correctness run amok truly need to throw in a line disparaging the Tea Party? Why did you feel the need to do that? Rather than saying: “We’re not crazy like the Tea Party” can’t you simply say: “We agree with the Tea Party on this issue.” Is that really so very, very hard? Or are you afraid if you say that once, next thing you know, you’ll be standing in front of the Capitol wearing a three cornered hat?

  • Tea Party folks believe in Constitutionally limited government. This is not “weak” government. In fact, government exceeding its legitimate mandate is not “strong” but ham-fisted, expensive and ineffectual at the same time. It is, in Francis Fukuyama’s parlance, the distinction between scope and scale — strength and effectiveness within a delimited scope is the goal.

    On the codes themselves, there seems to be a profit making opportunity. Someone should set up a dating service for undergraduate females to meet recent grads of college or professional school. The men would not be subject to the codes, and the young women would be meeting a more mature and accomplished group of men.

    • D’oh.

      Fukuyama talked about strength and scope.

      Scale and scope was Alfred Chandler.

      The idea is a government that is strong within limited scope.

  • Kaehurowing

    Laws that are left to the be determined by a subjective, rather than objective, standard, are generally considered to be unlawful, because enforcement will likely be selective, arbitrary and capricious, rather than uniform. Such laws raise serious due process concerns as well as the fear of unconstitutionally chilling protected speech and conduct. I suspect those results are intentional here.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.