You don't ask a blind man to point out the color blue, and you don't ask Mr. Ryan Chapman to provide a thoughtful column. Every Wednesday, our resident Conservative reproduces some illogical banter supporting Conservative talking points, though his analysis never reveals a hint of original or complex thought.
Proof: his regurgitation of the phrase "liberal activism." A nice phrase. Probably coined by the Limbaugh Right as a way to mischaracterize their "enemies'" position and baffle stupid people using clever syntax that, in the end, doesn't mean anything. How is NOT making a subjective moral law judicial activism? Especially when this morality is not shared by most people in this country (last I read nearly 60 percent of U.S. citizens support Roe v. Wade). To me, it sounds like Conservatives are calling for judicial activism and mischaracterizing something that is the exact opposite of action.
Not that Chapman is the only Conservative missing this point, but his column reads like he cut and pasted text from an anti-abortion advocacy Web site, and we get nothing but tired arguments and strong assertions supported by weak analysis. How is Roe v. Wade "liberal activism," Chapman? What is "liberal"? What is "activism"?
I wholeheartedly support Chapman's columns, and not for some touchy-feely reason like my admiration of free speech. His weak arguments and ridiculous assertions strengthen discourse on the side of the thoughtful and against weak-minded ideologues, like Chapman. But this brings me to my real point for writing: is this sort of two-dollar analysis honestly something the Collegian condones? I've enjoyed the semi-conservative commentary of Jake Blumberg and Tyler Wittman. Those gentlemen provide well-executed thoughts that are more or less their own. Perhaps it is the Collegian editorial staff that is blind. As a Collegian reader, I demand better analysis from page four. Chapman's columns aren't even worth lining pet cages.