EC blog: liberal fishbowl

December 2016,  Nicholas Kristof, a concerned liberal, wrote an article on "The Dangers of Echo Chambers on Campus" He describes the "echo chambers of campus" as the constant liberal propaganda being shouted at universities. 

The quote that I believe best sums up his report is "we liberals are adept at pointing out the hypocrisies of Trump, but we should also address our own hypocrisy in the terrain we govern, such as most universities: Too often, we embrace diversities of all kinds except for ideological."

These very often progressive campuses will accept anyone who does not look like them- as long as they think like them. I appreciate that a proclaimed liberal took the liberty of pointing this out. Finally, someone who decides to practice what they preach by saying we need more diversity, not just physically, but mentally. 

Echoed thought and no clash of ideologies can easily lead to liberal hysteria such as: attacking Trump supporters, closing a bakery for not making a wedding cake for a gay couple, and boycotting what they believed to be a "racist" shop owner simply because he had reason to think a black man attempted to shoplift his store.

Not only does this fishbowl of a single ideology promote hysteria, it also encourages hypocrisy. This opens the door for people getting angry at Trump for saying "grab 'em by the..." you know... When Jay-Z, an incredibly sexist rapper, performs at a Hillary Clinton rally. Trump apologizes profusely for what he's said, but, of course, Jay-Z does not. 



After Nicholas Kristof published his article, an uncategorized blogger, wrote an article titled "An Open Letter and Invitation to Nicholas Kristof". His claim is that Kristof is not depicting college campuses accurately, stating "More than a third (of students) were over 25, and a quarter were over 30". What he means by this is that ideologies are generational, and older generations tend to be more conservative than their younger counterparts. 

Whose to say that people 25 and above are to be considered old? Of, course, this is a matter of perspective, but I would consider 25-30 rather young in regards to liberal ideologies. 

Suppose that this blogger is right. These younger students only account for a little over half of the college attendees. Granted, this is the majority. Assume for a moment that republicans do account for the majority of the student population. Extreme liberalism would still prevail if you take into account Kristof's article because these liberal are closed-minded when it comes to conservative ideas.



This is not to say that Republicans are incapable of being narrow-
minded as well as Democrats. However, it is more typical to see cases of extreme liberalism rather than harmful republicanism; especially when one take into account the liberal news media. 

"Settled Science"

President-elect Trump has selected Oklahoma attorney general, Scott Pruitt, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. The Washington Post's immediate response clearly states that "a man who rejects settled science on climate change should not lead the EPA".  Allow me to elaborate on why this statement is questionable.

I'm not denying that climate change could be a legitimate issue. NASA's research suggests that "human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet". There are, however, different aspects of scientific analysis and false news to take into consideration.

Climate change can be defined simply as a change in global patterns caused by the increased amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is immanent; it is where the blame is placed that concerns me.

In theory, several factors can contribute to climate change, meaning anything that releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  This includes (but is not limited to) fossil fuels, volcanic eruptions, variability in solar activity, ocean- atmosphere exchange, and plant and animal respiration. 


Did you catch the odd one out? Bingo! Fossil fuels; AKA the ultimate global warming buzz word, Why do fossil fuels stand out and why do they get such a bad wrap? They are the only non-natural culprits of climate change listed. This is where blame can easily be placed because it is not 'mother nature's' fault, but ours.

Since the industrial revolution in 1750, man's activities have contributed greatly to the addition of heat- trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I have come to terms with this concept but what still irritates me the way people choose to approach this issue.

The majority of those concerned about the environment think human life is a disease that plagues the earth, making it a horrible place to live in. The truth is, the earth was made for us to temporarily reside in and if we can not make that work, that is pathetic.

A substantial amount of people fail to live by that of the Creation Mandate: a command God has given us in Genesis to practice proper dominion over the earth. Everyone needs to be taught that we need to treat the earth with a high regard out of respect for it's creator. Just as you would leave your guest room in an orderly fashion, you should leave your temporary home as a better place than it was before.

So, instead of casting blame on everyone but ourselves, how should we get out of this mess as a whole? Instead of worrying about melting icecaps in the arctic, you can actually make a change by recycling, re-purposing items, only driving when necessary, using high-efficiency appliances, insulating your home, and planting a tree which will soak up carbon from the atmosphere. Another thing worth your time is researching and implementing renewable energy sources that will work for your home.

What the heck does this have to do with Scott Pruitt being head of the EPA? It all boils down to an issue in the hearts of all people, not particularly the environment. We choose to incriminate individuals, such as Pruitt, who question the legitimacy of climate change. Instead, we should realize we all play a huge role in environmental protection and simply because his beliefs differ from ours, does not give us right to condemn him; but rather, let this provide us with the epiphany that we need to all start making individual, environmentally friendly changes.


The reason I am weary of the Washington Post's take on the subject is their use of the term "settled science" Science is, by definition, always changing because new studies are constantly being conducted. Please make it a point to approach all articles claiming their theories are 'set in stone' with a high level of skepticism because to completely disregard any different viewpoints on a topic is often a clear sign ignorance.

Remember that the characters who tell you climate change is '100% settled' are the same type of people that mocked Christopher Columbus for thinking the earth is round, punished citizens of ancient Greece for theorizing that the earth was made up of more than four elements, and laughed at anyone who suggested Hillary would lose the 2016 election. Never let anyone bring your curiosity to a close.

Good Grief

Many reactions have followed Trump being elected as president this year and full acceptance certainly is not one of them... yet. There are several  news reports written on the grief that is following the election from sites such as HuffingtonPost, USAToday, and CNN. 

In order for our country to function properly, we need to come to terms with Trump as our president.  As Abraham Lincoln adequately put it: "a house divided against itself cannot stand". As a nation, it is crucial to heal the wounds of division resulting in this heated election in order to move on and focus on America as a whole. 

Stage One: Denial 

In the early stages of the post-election results, republicans and democrats alike were shocked, to say the least. Before the results, I asked people their opinions of the election, to which many replied: "we all know who is going to win- Hillary". 

Unexpectedly enough, Trump came out the victor, although, some have denied the facts. Immediately after election results, I recall viewing crowds of millennials shouting the popular phrase "Not my president!". 

Stage Two: Anger

There is no denying the violence taking place in anti-Trump protests. I have already discussed in my previous blog, The Doggerel of Desecration, that violence is a poor way to express oneself and an even worse way to try and make a change in what you may see as less than ideal. 

Stage Three: Bargaining 

This is where the 2016 recounts come into play. A change in the outcome of the election is merely a desperate act of denial that simply will not come to pass. The only chance of a possible change in results of the election would be if the electoral college decides to make Clinton president instead of Trump. Although this is a probability, it is highly unlikely. 

Stage Four: Depression

All hate and anger stem from wounds. For example, the LGBT community (primarily anti-Trump) may feel that with Donald as president, they will lose their right to marriage. I highly doubt that Trump will change the same-sex marriage law, but he may appoint judges who will oppose it. regardless, cases such as these worry some people to the point where they feel they need a "safe space".

Stage Five: Acceptance

I understand you may not like Trump. He is not my first choice, either. He is, however, the president of the United States. Despite your political party, interest group, ethnicity or gender;  if you are a citizen of America, Donald J. Trump is your president. 

According to Gallup, 84% of Americans accept Donald Trump as their president, including three-fourths of which that have voted for Hillary Clinton. 

After reading several news reports and blogs, it is seen as apparent that a very small amount of citizens were happy about our options for this year- that is on us. This is our fault as a whole. 

Are you unhappy with our president? Vote for those who have America's interests at heart, not their own. Search for the candidates longing to improve our economy, not strain it. Stay informed! Do not riot in the street, fight on your ballot!

(warning: one curse word at the end, heaven forbid.)

Not Racist, Just Republican

You've heard of Trump and Pence plenty. Now it is time to talk about Stephen K. Bannon. Bannon is a businessman, media executive and, most important as of now, Trump's campaign chairman. When I search "Steve Bannon" into Google, almost every article has the same popular leftist label: "racist".



How is this dogmatic label able to be repeated over and over without question? Upon plenty of research, the only substantial negative reports  (substantial, meaning they are well-researched and backed with facts, not opinions) I have found on Bannon have the same exact quote from an old film colleague of his, Julia Jones.

Julia Jones told The New York Times that Bannon "had once said that voting rights should be limited to those who own property, as was the case in the early years of the United States." Ms. Jones continued to say "That would exclude a lot of African-Americans," to which Steve replied, "maybe that’s not such a bad thing."

Before we drive into an explanation on the apparent racism, allow me to elaborate on America's history and it's correlation of property ownership and the right to vote. This occurrence in history is generally frowned upon because it is seen as a practice that does not deliver freedom to everyone.

Douglas V. Gibbs, a historian, and talk show host wrote an informed and intriguing analysis on this topic stating "the real reasons for limiting the voting to property owners are actually very different from the collectivist viewpoint, and in truth, was designed in the way it was in order to preserve liberty, not limit it."

Gibbs further explains that "Since there was no direct tax on income, the taxpayers were primarily those that paid property taxes." Understanding this, it is important to note that those who paid taxes are directly influenced by politician's actions. 

At that time, the majority of those who did not own property had little interest in political policy and remained uninformed. However, non-property owners who did want to get involved in politics were encouraged to work diligently to reach "the upper echelon of society". 

Eventually, congress has decided that voting rights must adhere to the will of all people, including those who do not own property. This was agreed upon as long as voters reached a minimum age requirement and remained well informed so politicians could not take advantage of them.

Equal rights for all is a beautiful concept! Alas, human nature has left us with uninformed voters that care less about our country, and vote based on who will continue to issue them free college, food stamps, and health care. 






I believe Bannon is not trying to show hate for African-Americans, but rather, display a fatigue in voters that, instead of looking out for the interest of their country, look for handouts. 

In conclusion, Douglass Gibbs quoted Alexander Tytler who stated, "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."