This book is a joy to read. The key to understanding it however is to learn to read it as more of a sermon on social issues than an intellectual lecture full of well-supported postulating. The reason for this is that he basically glides from point to point without pausing to indulge us in much "evidence." This sounds more dubious from an outsider's perspective than it actually is in fact. You have to maintain the understanding that we are in an age where statistics seem to rule all in the world of policy, specifically on the left. While the right has only just begun to dabble in research and statistics (what with the emergence of pseudo-scientific institutions such as the Family Research Council), the left has seemingly abandoned the trumpet-call of values based purely on a belief structure, for cold, hard, facts.
While I don't necessarily prefer one over the other, I learned to love West's evangelistic approach as one sorely missing from the Progressive side of debate in this country. We've stopped claiming that we should fight poverty simply because it's the right and just thing to do, and instead started quoting figures about how much crime it creates or how much of a city's worth it destroys. West prefers the former approach, and if you're looking for more inspiration in your struggles than perspiration, this is the perfect choice for today's world.
"The Supreme Court endorses terrorists' rights, flag burning... There is a word for this: tyranny."
I'm confused. First off, when does protecting human rights (the constitution makes no exceptions to this, or freedom of expression (the Constitution makes no exceptions to this, either) have anything to do with tyranny? And when does saying something isn't Constitutional the same as "endorsing" it? If Mr. Levin is such a law expert then why is it he doesn't understand that the Supreme Court is not the same as an elected official: they do not make policy based on the will of the people. At all. They merely interpret law based on what is written in the U.S. Constitution. If the people believe so strongly that their interpretations are wrong, then they should make an amendment that clarifies things. That's what we've always done in the past, right and wrong.
Secondly, isn't it actually a contradiction to state that when someone or something takes action to protect the rights of people, that's that is tyranny? It's actually quite the exact opposite of tyranny. This troll needs to stop aimlessly throwing rocks and go back to his cave, pronto.
Report Inappropriate Content