"Redacted" - and the Liberal value on being "Provacative"

Honestly, I've come to believe - from news stories and current events - that today's liberals or progressives or whatever they want to call themselves - have become deranged. (Derange - defined by Webster as "to disturb the operation of" or "to become insane". Either works for me.) They're lost. Misguided. Their moral and intellectual compass completely skewed. Let's look at three quick examples: First example: I was listening to a radio program regarding the re-emergence of disgraced University of Colarado professor Ward Churchill. Churchill, you may recall disgraced himself and his University after 9/11 by implying that the victims of the attack deserved it in a sense because they were all "little Eichman's" contributing to oppressing others. A truly off the charts insane comment, by a professor who is teaching your children. The University went through a long protracted effort to fire him, and really only succeeded by proving that the good professor had engaged in plagarisim as well. It's tough to fire a bad professor, but they did it - to their credit. So, why is the professor back in the news? Well, it seems like some students on campus - believing that Churchill had been done wrong, have invited him to continue teaching his class on campus as an invited guest. A guest speaker of sorts. The particular hapless skull-full-of-mush college student who was the spokesman interviewed that day on the radio to defend Churchill opined thusly: he believed that our First Amendment freedoms were gravely damaged by Churchill's firing and that the good professor was only doing the main job of University professor's - being "provocative" to make the students think. I have two main problems with the student's opinion: 1. The First Amendment is not under fire in this case. Students often totally misstate their "freedom of speech", which they apparently see as all-encompassing and a complete get-out-of-jail-free card to say anything they want with no consequences. For the record: the First Amendment only proscribes the Federal Government from censoring speech - mostly political speech. What part of "Congress shall make no law...." does the student not understand. The University of Colorado is not Congress, and is free to fire professors for incompetent performance, including making outlandish and eggregious statements as part of their duties. 2. The University's main job is not to be provactive, but to provide a quality education for which you the consumer are paying. It is absolutely their role to have competent professors in the classroom, and when a professor demonstrates his incompetence with raw gibberish like the "little Eichman's" claim it is their obligation to the consumer (the student) to remove him from his teaching duties. Period. Second example: The University of Delaware's Delaware's Office of Residence Life Diversity Facilitation Training contained, until caught by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a training document for University housing residents which reads in part: "A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities or acts of discrimination. " Really? All white people are racists? People of color cannot be? This is the quality of a University education in America now, after decades of dominance by liberals. Again, the token student trotted out to defend the document opined that the University was just doing it's job to be "provacative" and that our First Amendment rights were under fire if this training was revoked. Idiots. What do these idiot college students, under the tutelage of an overwhelming liberal faculty value? Facts? No. Balance? No. A competent education? No. They value being "provocative" over all else. And, to top it off, they think their freedom's are under fire if there are any consequences for outrageous incompetence. It's truly dispiriting. As a third example, let's look at the Hollywood movie released this week - amid a flurry of Hollywood anti-war screeds - called "Redacted", by Director Brian De Palma and financed by billionaire Mark Cuban. There are literally thousands of stories to be told about the Iraq War, and about the U.S. military troops that are fighting it. Positive stories about our troops and negative ones, and arguably more positive than negative by far. Which story you choose to focus on tells me more about you than about the troops. De Palma chose to tell the absolute worst story there is to tell about U.S. troops. It is a true story, the criminal action of one squad of soldiers who raped a young Iraqi girl and killed her family to cover it up. Awful. The worst of the worst. The army has dealt with those soldiers and they are behind bars where they deserve to be. Now, thanks to DePalma, that awful story is up on the big screen for the whole world to see and to judge our troops by. Not the best of our military, but the absolute worst. It will hurt our troops, who are still in harm's way in combat, this movie. Especially since not many in America will choose to see it and the producer's will have to recoup their investment with foreign DVD sales. This movie will hurt our country. So why did Brian De Palma make it? And why did Mark Cuban finance it? Because they are liberals, and they value being "provacative" over all else. Despicable. By making this movie, Mr. De Palma and Mr. Cuban tell us how they see our military - in the worst possible way. Just for the record, I would never in a million years pay money to see our military portrayed in the worst possible light, especially while we are still at war. Their movie will tank, and they won't understand why. Be ready for Mr. De Palma and Mr. Cuban to cry foul for their First Amendment rights if there is any backlash over their despicable product. Again, the First Amendment doesn't apply to poor box office. The U.S. Government is not preventing it's showing. Please, America. Show that you are not deranged. Lost. Morally askew. Do not under any circumstances reward Mr. De Palma and Mr. Cuban's assualt on our troops with your box office dollar. Only your contemp.