Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!

The following is an article about the University of Michigan’s plan to eviscerate the First Amendment right to free speech on its campus (this article is reproduced with the consent of Michael O’Brien, Editor-in-Chief of The Michigan Review):

The College of Literature, Science, and the Art’s Facilities and Operations Department is considering adopting regulations that could seriously affect the ability of student publications to distribute their products on campus, according to various interviews and documents obtained by The Michigan Review. (A copy of the draft policy can be found by clicking here.)

According to preliminary drafts of the proposed policies, distribution of publications would be limited to those governed by the Board of Student Publications (which includes The Michigan Daily and humor magazine The Gargoyle) and student organizations approved by the Michigan Student Assembly. The policy also forbids distribution of materials between April 14 and September 15. The Michigan Daily currently distributes a weekly summer issue on campus.

Robert Johnston, the Director of Facilities and Operations for LSA, said that this policy has been under consideration for the last two years, and is intended to minimize the amount of clutter and litter associated with publications being scattered around LSA buildings. The policy additionally seeks to limit access to outside publications, specifically commercial publications distributed in University facilities.

“We want to provide a place that publications can be distributed from, and still allow them to attain access,” said Johnston, adding that LSA is considering constructing what he called “nodes,” similar to the cubbies in the Michigan Union, for publications.

According to the draft policy, to gain access to these nodes, publications would have to apply on a “first-come, first-serve” basis. To accommodate all publications, though, the policy says, “LSA reserves the right to limit the number of times per academic term and/or per year in which a recognized student organization will be granted permission to distribute publications in LSA facilities.”

“What we need to do is determine which publications are distributed in which buildings,” said Johnston, “because we can’t accommodate everyone everywhere.”

The latest draft was presented to the Board of Student Publications Monday, raising the concern of some in attendance. Samuel Offen, the Student Publications General Manager, said he had concerns about the policy when it was first introduced.

“I just don’t like that they can decide who gets to distribute and who doesn’t get to distribute,” said Offen. “Even though I understand their need regards safety or security or financial-having to pay for additional custodial work-anytime anyone determines who gets to distribute publications, I think that’s a concern.”

Maya Kobersy, the Assistant General Counsel for the University, said the regulations are permissible as “time, place, and manner” restrictions under the First Amendment. Kobersy, who helped develop the distribution policy, said the University is “concern[ed] about the disruption to the educational nature and character” of its facilities posed by extraneous materials in LSA buildings.

LSA buildings, she asserted, are not “public” venues under the Constitution, and the entire facility– even the hallways and commons areas accessible after-hours– are encompassed by that policy. She concluded that the regulations pass muster.

“We are limiting things only in terms of there being so many racks,” said Kobersy. “That addresses the clutter issue.”

“I don’t have any knowledge of an intent to change the policy,” said Kobersy, when asked if the University will back off of this policy which could be challenged on legal grounds.

There could be other significant constitutional issues associated with the proposed guidelines, Adam Goldstein, an Attorney Advocate with the Student Media Law Center said.

“On rational basis, the amount of approvals [for distribution] given is not at all related to how many issues are handed out,” said Goldstein. “It doesn’t even address the problem. It does not approach the level of First Amendment compliance required of any state in the country.”

Though there are a few schemes where pre-approval can limit free speech, Goldstein said that this is not one of those cases for the University.

The process regarding violations to this policy gives power to the LSA Facilities as well as the Michigan Student Assembly (MSA) to assess violations. The policy states that organizations in violation “may be denied future opportunities to distribute or display publications in LSA facilities, or may be subject to other disciplinary action.”

Central Student Judiciary Chief Justice Alex Edelson said that he has not been informed of the policy.

“We have not been made aware but that’s not something that is offensive. It may be standard operating procedure,” said Edelson. Edelson said that CSJ has been given new powers by the administration during his tenure. ”

CSJ has evolved a lot over the last few years. It has just developed its source of power. There are moredetails we are still trying to work out regarding where CSJ fits into dispute resolution on campus,” said Edelson.

Edelson said CSJ’s purpose is to review violations to the MSA Constitution and to the Student Code of Conduct. University officials can choose to enlarge CSJ’s power. While Edelson did not comment directly upon the proposed policy, he said that CSJ involvement in similar issues only arises when a compliant is brought before CSJ.

“If you wanted to challenge the policy, that might require that you go to someone higher up in the administration,” said Edelson.

While CSJ had not been informed about the development of the policy, Jennifer Garfinkle, the business manager for The Gargoyle Humor Magazine, said her organization had been made aware of the policy. Garfinkle said that Cynthia Alexander, an LSA Facilities Manager, informed her of the policy proposal when she requested information about placing new stands on campus. Garfinkle expressed concerns about the policy’s impact on publicity.

“One of the main problems we have is recognition on campus, having a limited amount of time to have our publications in racks will severely limit the exposure that we do have on campus,” said Garfinkle. While Garfinkle said the policy would negatively impact The Gargoyle, she could not see how The Michigan Daily could follow the policy.

“Basically, just from the two week limitation at the start and the end of the semester, The Daily prints on the first day of the semester and on the day the semester ends and so it does not make sense for them” said Garfinkle.

Garfinkle, who was not aware of an updated proposal that enlarged the role of the Board of Student Publications, also criticized the role of MSA.

“My only real concern with MSA is if they had to approve materials that get put into racks,” said Garfinkle. She also said that The Gargoyle has scheduled meetings through Offen to provide input on this policy.

According to incoming Michigan Daily Editor in Chief Andrew Grossman, the Michigan Daily also has plans to meet with university administrators.

“We’re going to sit down with someone from LSA and talk about the policy, but I think its wrong to restrict publications,” Grossman said. Grossman continued that the Michigan Daily has always been an avodacte of first amendment rights.

“The first ammendment supports our right to distribute our publication, and we fully support the right of aohter publication to distribute theirs,” said Grossman

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) issued a statement Thursday blasting the proposal.

“Restricting student speech by excessively tight control on distribution of printed material is a dangerous step for a public university to take,” said Will Creeley. Creeley, an Associate Director for Legal and Public Advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, held that while the policy under consideration by the University may pass constitutional muster, it seems “strikingly harsh.”

In e-mail correspondence, Creeley took issue with the need for publications to apply, the regulation of display stands, the limitations on the number of distributions per term, and the possibility of internal judicial sanction. Creeley said that, while attempts by universities to regulate the distribution of student-produced print materials are not new, U-Ms proposal goes to greater lengths than most.

“Indeed, the University seeks here to institute a far more labyrinth process for distribution than FIRE normally sees, particularly at public universities,” said Creely.

Goldstein echoed Creely’s sentiment.

“This is either insincere or a monumentally ineffective way to do this,” said Goldstein. “Generally speaking, employees of the state are more sophisticated than this.”

It’s been a while since we’ve discussed light rail here on GOP3 or even locally. Maybe that’s because so little evidence has come forth to support it, aside from the demand of the local monopoly paper’s staff that a light rail line be established to ferret them to and from the airport.

The Phoenix area is considering building a light rail system, and the Goldwater Institute has published “A Ticket to Nowhere: 12 Myths About Light Rail”. It’s worth reading for comparison to the Milwaukee proposals given that the same myths are used to justify the need for light rail in Milwaukee:

If voters approve the half-cent sales tax continuation proposed by the Maricopa Association of Governments, close to 14 percent of revenues–$2.2 billion–will pay for the construction of light rail in the Valley. With so much at stake, voters deserve to know about the myths and realities of light rail.

Myth #1 Light rail will reduce traffic congestion in the Valley.

Most voters know that they will almost never ride light rail, other than once a year to a baseball game. But many support light rail because they hope that other people will ride light rail. As Tempe Mayor Neil Giuliano told a reporter, “Even some people who might not use it themselves will support it to get the people in front of them on the freeway out of their cars.”

Reality: You’re probably not going to ride light rail, and almost no one else will, either. According to Valley Metro’s projections, light rail will remove less than one car in a thousand from traffic, and transit as a whole will make up only one percent of vehicle-miles traveled in the Valley over the next 20 years. Since 1980, transit’s share of travel in the region has never hit even one percent, and Valley Metro projects that light rail ridership will reach only 0.04 percent of passenger-miles traveled. At the same time, the loss of roadway capacity due to light rail tracks occupying street lanes leads Valley Metro to project that traffic congestion will actually increase by 0.45 percent if light rail is built.

Read more »

Most Viewed Posts

2007 was a great year on Gop3.com, we had well over 120,000 unique visitors and, more importantly, I very involved community that shared their ideas in an average of ten comments per post. Here are the top ten most popular posts this year:

1. 1. Support Our Troops - Remember Me by Lizzie Palmer
2. 2. Banned By Digg for Aiding and Abetting the Conservative Cause
3. 3. Gores Mansion vs Eco Friendly Bush Home
4. 4. New Poll: Who Would You Vote for in the Republican Primary
5. 5. Hillary Clinton Communist Quotes Quiz
6. 6. Who is Former Senator, Possibly President, Fred Thompson?
7. 7. The Right Brothers: Solid Conservative Rock
8. 8. Be Very Scared Liberals
9. 9. 4 Steps to More Conservative Influence Through Digg
10. 10. MY Bumpersticker Message

Author Distribution

Here is the breakdown of posts on Gop3.com by author in 2007.

Top Ten Cities in Wisconsin by Visitors

This is a quick breakdown of the ten cities in Wisconsin that you visited from this year. The grey slice is all the rest of Wisconsin.

Most Emailed Posts

Here are the posts you emailed to your friends the most this year (well there are 2 from 2006, see if you can pick them out):

1. Saturday at the Wisconsin Federation of College Republicans Convention
2. Links to each of the Simul-Liveblog Posts for the WICR State Convention
3. An Uphill Battle for Ziegler
4. New Poll: Who would you vote for in the Republican primary?
5. I hate to be the one to say this
6. A look into WICRs
7. An Activist No Doubt
8. Gates and Buffett Form Largest Philanthropic Foundation
9. Be Very Scared, Liberals
10. Marquette University Basketball Coaches Rollin’ in Hummers

Top Ten States by Visitors

This is a quick breakdown of the ten states that we got the most traffic from this year. The grey slice is all the other states not listed, combined. The orange slice is … Canada? Puerto Rico? I have no idea, they were unresolvable.

Favorites in the Categories

Our categories here at Gop3.com are anything but standard, these posts are the favorites of people browsing through the categories:

1. Video of Professor McAdams on Glenn Beck
2. Operation Red, White and Blue a Success!
3. Newt Gingrich as the next Barry Goldwater?
4. Apathy: The Only Barrier to Student Turnout
5. A New Reformation: The Church of the Talents
6. Gop3.com The Forum: Georgetown vs Marquette, Dominic James going pro?
7. Gop3.com To Liveblog the Wisconsin College Republicans State Convention
8. Wednesday Hero: Lance Cpl. Cory Jamieson
9. Wednesday Hero: Cpl. Jordan M. Moehnle
10. Live Blogging Sen. Sam Brownback at the GOP Wisconsin Convention

Final Thoughts

This year was up and down for Republicans, we had our small victories within Wisconsin and on the national level but, we all are hoping (an blogging) for the best in 2008. We at Gop3.com work hard “Fighting Like Warriors and Thinking Right. Systematically Debunking Liberal Rhetoric” from the unique perspective of college students and recent graduates. We appreciate your readership and are proud of the active community we have helped to create here. Each of us would like to thank you personally for reading in 2007 and we look forward to your comments in 2008.

We hope you had a Merry Christmas and wish you the best in 2008!

We here at Gop3.com get a ton of press releases in the info@gop3.com mailbox everyday, many are on things we are already blogging about and others are not necessarily in line with what our blog is about. Every now and then we get a gem that really should be highlighted post-haste. This is the case with State Representative Vos’ (R-Caledonia) latest release on the ridiculous new “More tax forms, Fewer jobs” legislation the Democrats are looking to push through.

Here is an excerpt from the release:

Madison…As if supporting an economy-crippling $18 billion tax hike in the Senate Budget proposal wasn’t enough for Senate Democrats, now they want to go one step further to hurt Wisconsin businesses, said Rep. Robin Vos (R-Caledonia). According to Vos, a bill introduced by Senator Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay) today will have staggering negative effects on businesses and jobs in Wisconsin.

Hansen held a press conference in the State Capitol this morning to unveil a plan he calls a “Corporate Tax Accountability Act” that will require corporations to file forms with the state to illustrate the legal methods they use to file their taxes every year.

“Hansen’s plan to require businesses to fill out another form wrapped in bureaucratic red tape is ludicrous and unnecessary,” said Vos.

Wisconsin currently has one of the best tax transparency and disclosure policies in the country. In fact, it’s the only state in which anyone can find out how much each company pays in taxes.
…
“This plan is a step in the wrong direction,” said Vos, “While the Department of Commerce is working to lure businesses to Wisconsin, Hansen and Democrats in the Legislature are essentially telling businesses to stay away. As a result, Wisconsin residents will pay the price as higher-paying jobs are created elsewhere.”

As an employee in the state of Wisconsin and a young professional who would like to as many good jobs in this state as possible, I couldn’t be more against this sort of tom-foolery. Taxes in this state are some of the highest in the nation, businesses spend huge amounts of money just to file them and now you want them to fill out forms about how they filled out the forms (in accordance with the laws the legislature made that spawned the forms)? This is ridiculous and should not be tolerated by the residents of Wisconsin or the legislature that represents us.

I am posting these two videos from Freedom’s Watch that NBC recently refused to air for two reasons:
1. I believe they need to be seen regardless of whether NBC disagrees with Freedom’s Watch
2. I think it’s great that any organization would spend money to air “Thank You”s to our troops like these and despicable for a network such as NBC to refuse to play them.

You would think that these videos would have to be from a radical group like MoveOn.org from them to be censored but no, they are from a group that describes their organization on their website with this statement:

Freedom’s Watch believes in limited government, low taxes, less regulation, free enterprise, and more personal responsibility.

Abominable stuff if you ask me…..

HT: Power Line, Instapundit, The American Mind

From WTMJ:

Come Rain, Sleet or Snow, the Postal Service says it will get your mail to you. But in Milwaukee, the USPS says crime may stop some people’s mail, at least temporarily.

The Postal Service confirms it has sent postcards to addresses in high crime areas. The postcards say:

“Happy Holidays! The United States Postal Service needs your help. Crime makes it difficult for your letter carrier to safely deliver mail to your address. Please report any criminal activity in your neighborhood including property damage or suspicious activity to your local police or the U.S. Postal Inspection Service at 1-877-876-2455. Your help will prevent your mail from being stolen and prevent your letter carrier from being harmed.

If crime goes unchecked, we may have to stop delivering mail to your address until the immediate danger is resolved. If this happens, you can pick up your mail at your local post office until it is safe to resume delivery.

If you have reason to believe this is the case, please call 1-800-ASK-USPS.

Thank you for your help and understanding.”

We’ve called the postal service for comment. We are told someone will return our call.

Milwaukee Police are at a loss to explain the postcards. Spokeswoman Anne E. Schwartz says one of the areas where the postcards were sent, 14th and State is not a crime hotspot. Schwartz adds, “it’s very disturbing to hear that the postal service is describing the area as such.” The postcards were not sent with the blessing of the police department.

Just another reason to privatize mail delivery.

(HT: The General)

There is a rumor being perpetuated on UW-M message boards about something Tom Crean is alleged to have said immediately after the game to some UW-M officials. Somehow, a rumor so dramatically nasty managed not to make it to public fora until a full 72 hours following the UW-M game.

An absolutely implausible rumor in and of itself would not be worth my blogging about, but UW-M fans took it to the next level yesterday when they decided to launch a discussion of it on local sports radio stations. The rumor is so beneath the dignity of anyone associated with Marquette that I will not justify it by linking to the UW-M boards.

If nothing else, the earnest perpetuation of this vicious lie about HC Tom Crean — a basketball coach I’ve never felt apprehensive about criticizing — demonstrates that UW-M and its fan base is beneath the dignity of Marquette University and warrants dismissal of the rest of the series. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from it.

As sure as night follows the day, one could predict before the game what the media and UW-M’s reaction to the game would be: as I stated, it was a lose-lose-lose scenario. So in the 96 hours or so since game time, you’ve had the Journal Sentinel write up a hit-piece based on reading-into comments from Rob Jeter and now this vicious, nasty rumor.

The UW-M fan base, it’s beat writers, and its Administration will do nothing to quell such rumors. In fact, based on the past behavior of Buddy Haidet, you can guarantee that each will stoke the flames of new, ginned up controversies. Again: there is nothing to be gained from continuing this series with immature brats like those who perpetuate outrageous rumors.

Marquette will be well within its rights to say, “Look, we tried. We gave UW-M what they wanted: a game. If this type of media assault on our program is all we can expect in return, we’re just not going to dignify this by scheduling another game.”

*******

One last thing: it isn’t “running up the score in the last 5 minutes” when you have the same lead, 35 points, at the 5:10 to go mark as you do when the last buzzer sounds.

Ok, I know that could be a title of half the stuff we post on this blog.

But you could just see today’s utterly nausiating anti-MU hit piece from the Journal Sentinel after yesterday’s game coming a mile away. This is exactly why Marquette didn’t want to play UW-M in the first place.

It’s so predictable, and so full of hyperbole that I’m going go to through the entire piece and bold the hyperbole ala James Taranto’s “Hyperbole Watch” and comment on the piece. Enjoy.

Read more »

A week after the King of Spain told Hugo Chavez to put a sock in it (video) at a summit of Spanish speaking countries in Chile, Venezuela’s self-important president is already back at proving that would be impossible for him to do.

This time Chavez is at the OPEC summit giving a preemptive warning to the United States just in case it should do anything to harm his friend Ahmadinejad in Iran. (The two of them paired up to make a few bold statements on the floor of the UN, including Chavez’s declaration that George Bush is “the devil.”)

This isn’t the first instance this week in which Chavez has made economic threats to powerful nations; he has threatened Spanish investment in his country if King Juan Carlos does not offer an apology for telling him to shut up.

I suspect the King merely vocalized the feelings of a large part of the world when he went after Chavez last weekend, but part of me feels it´d be pretty entertaining if this guy bounced from one summit to another every weekend, if only to see what else he might suggest. Endless office for himself? Nuclear power for Venezuela? Keep an eye on him…

I have had an idea for a book for some time, titled “Alchemists” and subtitled “How the Liberal Movement Rejects Science and Adopts Age-Old Myths of Human Civilization.” (Note to those out in pundit-land: feel free to pick up this idea and run with it if suits you).

Rick Esenberg’s post about a UW bioethicist and stem-cell research reminded me of this, in this instance regarding stem-cell research. Conservatives need to begin stating the obvious: it is not they who are anti-science, it is liberals who are anti-science.

This can be revealed through nearly every public policy issue, but let’s take a moment, first, stem cell research. With all the vast resources of American universities and the health care industry, scientists have yet to come up with cures based on embryonic stem cell-based cures while adult stem cell research has come up with dozens of cures.

So why do liberals persist, constantly, in pushing for embryonic stem cell research? Frankly, your guess is as good as mine, though it wouldn’t take much of a cynic to guess. Liberals worry that if the “scientific value” of adult over embryonic stem cells takes precendence, you could see a slippery slope about human life issues.

Or take racial issues. Those equality rhetoric-obsessed Democrats have an odd way of achieving equality: Democrats persist, decades after MLK’s “content of their character” speech to treat minorities as somehow inferior human beings in need of a handout (take welfare, employment, or education). There is no degradation of minorities Democrats won’t champion if important political clientele are at stake.

Here in the 21st century, Republicans have pushed and prodded for decades towards a colorblind society. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Democrats sanction handout after handout to keep their dependent political clientele at bay. No liberators are they, the Democrats. How many more decades do we need to give the Great Society before asking whether any of it made sense?

How about international racism? Not only do Democrats think that American minorities are a bit helpless, they seem to think that international societes across the world are incapable of governing themselves. Regardless of whether we should or should not have liberated Iraq, I have been astonished at Democrat talking points about the Iraqi people and their ability to self-govern.

How many times do we need to hear - about the Iraqis or anyone else - that they aren’t capable of democracy, and that it isn’t right for us to “impose” our “way of life” on foreign nations? Watch for Hillary to slash aid to democracy groups worldwide when she becomes President. We already know what happened the last time Democrats thought a democracy movement needed to be undercut.

Speaking of the world, the global warming quasi-religion is an anti-science movement for all time. Yesterday, it was global cooling. Today, it is global warming. Tomorrow is anyone’s guess. The problem with the global warming phenomena, like most liberal-speak, isn’t that it isn’t entirely false, but that it is presented in such radical form as to be entirely unbelievable.

Liberals can’t go a week without putting out contradicting talking points on the effects of global warming. Take, for instance, the ocean sea water story from a while back. Unfortunately, global warming hysteria has almost nothing to do with preserving the environment. Look at the California fires and ask, “Why wasn’t there tree thining in these forests?” and you will know what I mean.

I can’t even think about liberal economic policy without launching into Eric Lombardi-style rants. We’re on something like the 8th decade of the New Deal and for those keeping score at home, socialism has yet to create that utopian society that liberals have promised year after year. Social security, Medicare, etc all going down the tubes fiscally but nary a word from Democrats.

The liberal myths (fears) about economics are endless: more taxes equals more revenue, more centralization equals more efficiency, fewer choices equals less confusion. Etc etc. As a student of economics, the liberal fear of the study of economics - the math and the stats of it especially - screams to me that liberals oppose science. Their preference for the emotion-based nature of sociological over economic explanations for human behavior confirms this.

I could go on and on and on. Liberalism is not scientifically based; it is truly the alchemy of our time.