Posted 3:30 PM by Floyd

About once a year the typical big-city liberal newspaper will run an article on the prospects for an increase in student activism. Of course what is meant is really liberal activism, but then one of the perks of being a journalist is the power to ignore political opinions you don't like.

This article in the San Jose Mercury News is a typical example of the genre. In fact it is more than typical; it is so bland and recycled that the words "terror" and "Al Qaeda" do not appear at all.

The reporter, Becky Bartindale, is either biased or extremely lazy. She happily transmits activist's lame excuses for student disinterest, but never considers that the reason students may not participate in activism is that they consider it mistaken. Here are some of the reasons given why students do not rally:

One of the biggest obstacles to organizing is the time crunch students face.

As opposed to students in the 1960's, who never had to take tests or do homework. (I guess some subject matter was easier back then. In the 60's there were only 103 elements; now there are 114.)

The United States has been in conflict with Iraq for nearly all of Curtis Abbott's 19 years. ``I don't feel I can make a difference by protesting,'' the Santa Clara University student said. ``I just feel it's an inevitable thing.''

If you were a 19-year-old student protester in the year 1971, then the US would have been in conflict with Vietnamese Communists for ... nearly all of your 19 years.