In which we bloviate on the new rezzes

I’ve been so wrapped up in the Tiggers that I missed completely that new topics were in the offing.

LD’s free speech in colleges is an interesting subject, and the 7 novices in the country who will actually study and debate the resolution will learn a lot about one of the most interesting discussions going on today. It ranges as far as being cited as one of the causes of Hillary’s loss of the election, i.e., the resentment of certain people over the “special” treatment of other people. Hillary appealed to all the special people, while Trump appealed the those who resented them. I’m not saying that’s true or not true, but it’s certainly out there. In any case, high school students will be going to college soon enough, and the troops are already on the ground there fighting about what can and can’t and should and shouldn’t be said in an educational environment. Regardless of how well this debates, it is worthy of study. I like that in a resolution. (Also, when you tear into it, it’s a classic free speech topic that could have been debated roughly as is twenty years ago. I also like that in an LD resolution.)

PF, of course, is not about whether more money should be spent on the military. The real issue in the rez is whether the US ought to be better responding to international conflicts. The conditional phrase, if you will. Needless to say, our future Bankrupter-in-Chief appears (as compared to is, because although Trumpie appears to be all sorts of things, what he is is questionable at the best of times) to be strongly isolationist. If the US goes more isolationist, it won’t be responding to international conflicts, and if that’s the point of the military—well, you get the picture. Of course, a lot of students will simply look at how much moolah we toss at the military (that "we toss" excluding Trumpie, of course, since he doesn’t have any skin in the game since unlike the rest of us, he doesn’t pay taxes) and argue about that. It will be interesting to see how it plays out side-wise. Offhand, I see no benefit to either side on face, and to be honest, I predict messy, uninteresting rounds mostly concentrating on military spending per se and not the reason for that spending. I could be wrong. I hope so.

That said, it’s off to Princeton. Bags packed, hatches battened down, damn the torpedoes, off we go. I’d say I’ll see you there, but that would indicate that, A) you will be there, B) I will not be barricaded in the tab room banging my head against the wall wondering why people can’t press the Start button when the round, uh, starts.

Excelsior!

///