Knowledge is a despotic entity that rules absolutely and exiles any who dare challenge its precepts.

Though shah-like, its supremacy is not quite so oppressive as the reign of more corporeal potentates. Reason, the progeny of fact and honest questioning, can demand no slavish obeisance and makes no secret covenants. All who chose to follow its tenets must enter into a compact of their own accord and in full public view.

This system, the American ideal, is the height of morality, and as such, should prevail in all societal interactions.

Unfortunately, a culture of institutional-aggrandizement has risen to challenge the authority of individual ownership of knowledge. This is the academic feudal state that lords its advanced degrees and peer-reviewed papers over simple villeins and serfs, whose lack of formal indoctrination excludes them from the upper echelons of true intelligence.

This, truly, is the reign of Plato’s “philosopher kings,” who, with their own specially cultivated and endemic brand of thought, benevolently apportion out justice to the ignorant. And it is criminal.

There is an innate hierarchy to knowledge. But its imperviousness is underlain by a populist strain, for its tiers are defined by the extent of an individual’s volitional will to seek out and live within the bounds of empirical truth. But it can only exist when the individual is sovereign. True knowledge comes from examining the duality of ideas — the positive value and its relationship to its antithesis. If this honest questioning is dissuaded and ridiculed by institutionalized elites who claim some sort of superiority merely because of the prominence of their position, this atrophies and dies.

This system does not exclude academics from the pursuit of knowledge, but prevents them from being the exclusive proprietors.

Undeniably, certain scientific pursuits require a broader base of comprehension of certain facts. But, in no case, does it benefit any level of society if only those who have studied it exclusively are allowed to discuss the intricacies of a subject. Freedom of thought includes the ability to make deleterious decisions in matters regarding the self.

And honest brokerage, which can only be promoted through a free and open exchange of ideas, will promote true knowledge regardless of what the truly uninformed or perversely minded advocate.

Shays’ Rebellion, a minor uprising in Massachusetts, was the impetus behind the Constitutional Convention. The Federalists, who claimed federal power was too weak, exploited the fact that no national militia could be raised to fight the rebels, to usurp political power, and through duplicitous means, create a new government even though the situation was resolved quite effectively through private means.

This is an example of intellectual protectionism. Deceit and rashness precipitated political change and prevented any real judgment regarding the merits of the Articles of Confederation to ever really be made. Were the Articles flawed? Certainly, but so is the Constitution.

By doing this, a select group of elites, with some pretended special insight subverted the justice of the marketplace of ideas. By hoarding facts and lying to their constituents, they sold them into a state of ideological slavery from which they could not possibly hope to free themselves. They also circumvented ideological justice in regards to the merits of weaker national government, thus weakening their own position. No one can know whether a loose association of states is politically unsound, and this is a travesty to honest theorists.

The myriad consequences to this kind of ideological protectionism and elitism are clearly outlined in this real-life example. Logic bears out the notion that, because of the absolutist nature of merit, the lessons to be learned from this context are universally applicable. All that remains to be done is to turn words, ideas in this case, to deeds.

There is perhaps no fury quite like an inconvenienced journalist’s. The prevalence of stories regarding the seemingly primitive hotel accommodations in Sochi — more scathing and numerous than reports on recent evidence of possible government corruption — only demonstrate this notion’s veracity.

Yet, if there’s reason to look critically on any aspect of Russia’s hosting of the 2014 Winter Olympics, it’s the honor and validation given to a nation whose appalling human rights record should preclude it from any such international recognition.

The Olympics bring merit to a global scale — the best compete against the best for international glory and personal recognition.

The Soviet Union represented the complete antithesis of this. Collectivistic sentiment brutally repressed the hopes and dreams of untold millions and termed individual interest the enemy of some mythological national consolidation of soul. This kind of forced altruism, codified in the constitution with the tawdry platitude of “From each according to his need, to each according to his ability,” made a profane sacrifice of human spirit which is written in large, bloody letters in the annals of history.

Could anything be more contrary to the meritocracy embodied by the Olympics?

Modern Russia obviously isn’t accountable for the sins of the past. This kind of thinking is reprehensible for exactly the same reason as communism — it assigns blanket guilt en masse, without regard to actual contextual differences.

But ideas are incredibly resistant to eradication as Russian President Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev, the prime minister, who persist in their flagrant disregard for individual rights, continue to demonstrate. Only last year, they unilaterally assumed each other’s positions.

As cameras record the Olympic opening ceremony, media coverage of Russia’s ongoing repression of protesters in the Ukraine is virtually nonexistent.

More alarmingly, the receding of communist regimes has softened the world’s outrage at the horrors of its epistemology. During a report on the opening ceremonies in Sochi, NBC, while showing the infamous hammer and sickle logo of the Communist Party, termed the Red Revolution a “pivotal experiment.”

By some estimates, 94 million people were killed by communist regimes during the 20th century. The best way to serve those unfortunate souls who met their deaths at the hands of such monsters as Stalin and Mao is to never allow another such system to actualize. To do anything else is to denigrate their memories.

But this is exactly what has happened. In Cuba and Venezuela, dictators oppress dissidents. And in America, once a refuge for those displaced by violent despotism, 11 percent of respondents to a 2011 Rasmussen poll thought communism was a better system than republicanism.

Modernity has betrayed the ghosts of the millions murdered by totalitarian and centralized governments. Collectively, of course, guilt cannot be assigned to every living being. But Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who fell victim to Hitler’s national socialism, famously said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

This sentiment should be in the forefront of every mind that participates, passively or actively, in the winter Olympics.

Right about this point of the semester, the doldrums of winter really begin to show their teeth. Gray, snowy days roll monotonously on and make travel and many activities impractical.

Fortunately, Student Entertainment exists to combat this tedium. Recently, the group announced a partnership with Waterfront Concerts, a booking agent based in Old Town, which is owned by Alex Gray, who says two-thirds of his employees are University of Maine graduates.

Before, Student Entertainment used a booking agent based in Boston. This mean all discussions about upcoming events involved a long journey to Massachusetts. And audio and production equipment had to be transported from Boston, which was expensive and time consuming.

Now, not only is all production equipment kept at Waterfront Concerts’ facilities, which benefits the local economy, but it has other advantages as well.

At a recent performance at the Waterfront Pavilion in Bangor, 134 discounted student tickets were sold to The Band Perry’s concert. And Patrick Fortier-Brown, vice president of Student Entertainment, expects this kind of benefit to only grow in future collaborations.

In the past, Student Entertainment has sponsored events that have not been well received. Working with a booking agent whose employees are mostly recent college graduates will doubtlessly eliminate the chance of this happening again as they are more tuned in to the entertainment preferences of students.

Fortier-Brown also announced that, in the future, tickets will be sold through Ticketmaster, which will allow Student Entertainment to track who purchased tickets for what price. This logistical information will provide feedback as to what is popular among the student body. It will be a learning process that can only benefit attendees of sponsored events.

And, now that interstate travel is not part of planning events, Student Entertainment anticipates being able to produce more entertainment. Previously, Student Entertainment has sponsored only one large concert per semester. Now, with amenities, including those already mentioned possibly providing transport for attendees of off-campus events, they anticipate raising more revenue and being able to hold smaller events with more frequency.

UMaine is a fairly large state school. Logistics alone make it nearly impossible for the campus community to be well connected on a day-to-day basis. Great variety of interests, in academic disciplines and extracurricular fields, also create division within the student body.

Aside from rooting on university sports teams, there are few opportunities for the student body to unite as one community. Concerts and other university-sponsored events help facilitate this atmosphere. Gray states that he and Student Entertainment have discussed bringing more events to more on-campus venues, such as the Collins Center for the Arts. This can only enhance the relationship between different groups within the student body.

Student Entertainment’s decision to utilize the resources found in the local community helps create ties between the campus and surrounding areas. The facilities on UMaine’s campus don’t just serve the needs of students. They are also amenities for individuals who live nearby and are affected by campus goings on. It makes sense that this becomes a reciprocal relationship.

On Wednesday, the Toomey-Manchin background check amendment failed to garner the 60 votes needed to advance in the Senate. A very angry President Barack Obama used a press conference as an opportunity to try to shame and belittle those who dared exercise their right to cast their vote according to their conscience, accusing them of willful lying in the name of fomenting false outrage and fear among Second Amendment supporters.

Because, apparently, conservatives are so stupid that they can’t realize the difference between legitimate threats to the Constitution and fearmongering by special interests. And no one but conservatives would misrepresent the truth in order to manipulate the emotions of voters, right Mr. President? Wrong. The reaction by Obama and his gun-control cronies was utterly filled with outright lies, hypocrisies and straw-man arguments. Let’s examine them:

Hypocrisy No. 1

The Senate somehow distorted the rules in the vote. Cloture is a process that is used all the time. Since 1975, all cloture votes require a three-fifths majority, or 60 votes, in order to pass. The vote was 54-46. It failed by six votes: end of story. No distortion, no manipulation. If the president is so concerned with violation of Senate voting rules, perhaps he should direct his attention towards the number of procedural laws broken by voting on a bill that hasn’t been written.

Hypocrisy No. 2

Ninety percent of Americans supported the legislation. The results of a public opinion poll should not be extrapolated and assumed to be indicative of the entire American voting public. This is so wholly fallacious it barely merits mentioning. Besides, as I recall, President Obama, at the time of passage of your health care bill, a majority of the American people — 75 percent — opposed it. I don’t remember you or your supporters stopping and voting with the American people. This is not a democracy; mob rule does not decide public policy.

Hypocrisy No. 3

After the vote, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg warned that opponents of gun control are “not powerful enough to withstand the money” he’s going to “throw” at their districts. Wait a minute, aren’t liberals opposed to Citizens United specifically because they don’t like the idea that wealthy private individuals could influence politics? The National Rifle Association — which has millions of dues-paying members — is nothing more than an evil cabal; but Bloomberg cares about people, so it’s okay for him to openly try and manipulate local politics. Oh, sorry. I forgot lobbying — otherwise known as speaking out for your interests — is only evil when right wingers do it.

Hypocrisy No. 4

The idea that “nothing but politics” influenced this vote, that no one who is opposed to gun control legislation has a rational, meaningful argument, is utterly offensive. How dare you try to put parameters around how I think? You who are always lecturing about how important diversity and acceptance is. This is not a monarchy, and dissidence is not treason. Differing opinions, by merit of being different from the majority party’s, ought not be demonized. The presidency is not a bully pulpit.

Besides, several other amendments — including one that would have expanded the criminal background check system, which was supported by the NRA and sponsored by Ted Cruz no less — failed to pass. Why is there no outrage over this or the other amendments that didn’t pass and had bipartisan support? Could it be because they don’t fit into the narrative where Republicans only care about special interests and not dead children? Or maybe it’s because that might expose the Obama administration’s failure to prosecute people who have broken the current gun laws?

This notion that some sweeping piece of legislation will be worth it if it saves “even one life” is inherently un-American. Emotionalism is not meant to be the basis of policy, hence the existence of the legislative process. Security is not guaranteed by the federal government. As Thomas Jefferson so wisely said, “A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither.”

Katherine Revello is a second-year journalism and political science student.

Last week saw the passing of England’s ferocious Iron Lady, former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher was the last of the Cold War’s triumvirate leaders, tremendously bold world leaders, who stood against the spread of Soviet-style communism.

While some stopped to reflect on the virtue of one of history’s greatest champions of individualist philosophy, others felt it was appropriate to actually dance in the streets at the news of her death. Yes, the same people who champion tolerance actually felt it appropriate to revel in someone’s death.

This vitriol, which has also been directed toward the late president Reagan and the late Pope John Paul II in the past, is a testament to their greatness. Winston Churchill once said, “You have enemies? Good. That means you stood up for something, sometime in your life.” And stand they did.

It’s hard to imagine the Iron Curtain lifting without a united front of peaceful yet strong resistance the three presented. Reagan’s unrelenting condemnation of “the evil empire,” and its philosophy is of course as much a fabric of the American culture as baseball. Who can view images of the Berlin Wall toppling without hearing Reagan’s command to Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev? Similarly, Thatcher stood against collectivist philosophy, ridding England of crippling socialist economic policies and providing a fiery example of individual strength — particularly for women. And, as the leader of the world’s largest church, John Paul II’s words of hope and encouragement to those suffering under the oppression of the Western bloc regimes were instrumental in emboldening dissidents, particularly in his home country of Poland.

However, their anti-communist stance isn’t the reason why Reagan, Thatcher and John Paul II were so important; it is because they had the courage to stand strong during a crucial moment in history. It would have been easy, certainly for Reagan and Thatcher, to have adopted an isolationist attitude and turn a blind eye to the anguish of the policies of the Soviet bloc. This a great temptation in today’s political correctness and hypersensitivity, which had given rise to equivocation and fecklessness of individuals whose concern is sensitivity rather than truth.

If Reagan, Thatcher or John Paul II had given merit to this way of thinking, imagine how much longer the reign of communism in Eastern Europe would have gone on. How many more people would have died from neglect and poverty, dying in the belief that no one in the world cared about their plight? Instead, three great leaders were advocates for them, providing a voice for the voiceless and letting millions know that there were people in the world who saw and cared about their fate. This is the legacy of Thatcher and her allies, whose actions provide a lasting example of the power of an individual voice when they dare to make a stand for right, regardless of what their opponents may say.

Sadly, the era that understood this value seems to have died with Thatcher. Millions around the world remain victims of oppressive communist regimes, but they have no voice in the free world to stand up for them. Rather their leaders are praised when they die. Public figures travel and cavort with brutal dictators, granting legitimacy to their despotic policies. The world powers turn a blind eye toward the world’s ills, even as they name themselves champions of justice and goodness. This is the greatest tragedy in Thatcher’s death. Her departure sees the setting of the bold individualist who stands unequivocally for the belief in absolute right.

Katherine Revello is a second-year journalism and political science student.

The Easter season is one that holds particular power. It is a time of reflection, as believers are reminded of Christ’s sacrifice. But potent as the images of the Passion are, they are indicative of so much more. Christ’s actions in death, as in life, are a parable that is particularly applicable to the individualism that dominates American philosophy, in private and public life.

Who was Christ, if not the preeminent individualist? He was a man who was aware of his inevitable fate, yet willingly went to it because he believed in its righteousness. His own moral convictions, not those of others, guided him. He hoped for the future. Because of this, he was able to bear the horrors of being persecuted and crucified.

How perfectly the heritage of America reflects this example. The Founding Fathers described the overreaching despotism of British judgment and declared their right to autonomy, particularly in determining and pursuing individual happiness. Openly entering into rebellion, they understood that, should they fail, they would be tried and condemned for treason. This did not deter them because they truly believed in the righteousness of their cause.

Consider the irrationality of a tiny, divided nation with few independent resources taking on the world’s military superpower — facing condemnation even from their own countrymen. How powerful is that iconic image of George Washington praying at Valley Forge during a harsh winter, made harsher by continuous defeat, aware that his ragtag army did not have the provisions to sustain themselves. What despair he must have felt. How easy resignation to defeat must have seemed. Yet, with everything against him, he persisted, as did the fight for liberty. What else but belief in the righteousness of their cause could have provided the impetus to move forward? This attitude is the inheritance of every American, and it strongly connotes that rugged individualism espoused by Christ.

This impulse to achieve autonomy extends beyond the private realm and into the public. Capitalism is a system in which relationships are entered into with the mutual understanding that each party is trading a reciprocally acceptable value. Money is prized because it represents an individual’s unique strength. People vote with their money, endorsing ideas that are representative of their own moral convictions. Interactions based on this principle are not driven by the compulsion of force.

Republican principles of government follow this theme: Each individual votes according to his or her conscience. When representatives violate the trust of their constituents, they are removed from office. In this system, the master answers to the servants.

When this system fails, as it inevitably must from time to time, these failings too are evocative of Biblical precedent. Pontius Pilate knew Christ was innocent, yet acquiesced to the people’s demands anyway, for fear of a revolt. What a stunning allegory for modern governance. How many elected representatives turn a blind eye to abuses of the law because they fear public pressure, more concerned with reelection than following their moral compass and justly upholding the law? And, in the wake of this failure, injustice reigns.

In the modern world, it is easy to push religion to the sidelines of daily life. After all, since theocracy is a quick path towards tyranny, it would be best leave religiosity in houses of worship. But, this attitude, too, is folly. True, Christ separates his demands from those of Caesar’s, which is a compelling argument for separation of church and state, but principles are not like an article of clothing that can be put on and discarded at will.

As Christ stood before his tormentors, he did not abandon his convictions. Neither should modern man, if he wishes to take on the world. This is not because religion declares certain values correct, but because self-determination reveals a set of values to be true and religion embraces them. After all, we are not omniscient; we can only determine right in his own context and strive to live in accordance with it. This is the example Christ sets. It is perhaps the most important lesson we can take from the Easter season.

Katherine Revello is a second-year journalism and political science student.

It’s been a long, depressing few years for conservatives. Sadly, conservative titan Ronald Reagan and his policies of trickle-down economics departed long ago and have since been replaced by defeat after crushing defeat in elections and policies. But good, old-fashioned conservative values aren’t dead — far from it. In fact, there appears to be a brightly burning star on the ascendency amidst the bleak darkness that is conservatism on a national level.

It takes the form of Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, of 13-hour filibuster fame, a move which will no doubt be written about in history books as the watershed moment in the rise of 21st century conservatism.

The simple fact is, the current political climate is highly evocative of what led to Reagan’s 1980 victory — a feat that would have been impossible, had it not been for conservative Barry Goldwater’s embarrassing 1964 presidential loss to Lyndon Johnson. Dissension within the party, following the election blowout, led to the rise of a new political class of young, passionate conservatives who swept Reagan into office.

Fast forward to 2012, when a supposedly neck-and-neck election ends in a stunning blowout for Barack Obama. Republicans were left bitter, divisive and terrified about their competitiveness at a national level. Rallying cries for moderation echo throughout the party, dissension inevitably erupts among the establishment GOP. This led to the young, diehard conservative wing that has recently become nationally prevalent: the Tea Partiers.

Doesn’t this sound like the post-1964 state of the Republican party? It should.

Enter Rand Paul and his filibuster of CIA nominee John Brennan in an attempt to make the Obama administration answer for their disturbingly vague position regarding their legal ability to carry out domestic drone strikes.

There are two indications of the resounding success of this epic soliloquy. The first indication came with the viciousness of the Congressional old guard — chiefly John McCain and Lindsey Graham — when they lashed out against Paul and his supporters, calling them “wacko birds” and “kooks.” Nothing screams political legitimacy like hysterical name calling. Second, is the supposed gimmick that actually forced Attorney General Eric Holder to clarify the administration’s position. Clearly, someone felt threatened. This was all around a decided win for Paul, who even received support from former green jobs czar and avowed communist Van Jones.

Since then, Paul hasn’t faded into obscurity but, rather, has risen from it. He gave a rousing speech at CPAC and released his own solution to the debt crisis — a five-year budget that not only balances in the same allotted time but axes several federal leviathans, like the Department of Education. If that wasn’t enough to make even the toughest conservative salivate, it completely overhauls the tax code, instituting a 17 percent flat tax.

What’s the next step for the libertarian hero? The presidency.

While 2016 may be a few years away, Rand Paul’s ascendancy has all the makings of a historical repeat of Ronald Reagan’s 1980 win, in character and political climate.

When Strom Thurmond filibustered the Civil Rights Bill in 1957 for 43 1/2 hours, he famously read his grandmother’s recipes. Paul made better use of the time, discussing the Constitution and the implication of 21st-century technology, such as the drone program, on civil liberties for the entire 13 hours; the man knows what he’s talking about. He’s soft spoken and respectful, but he’s passionate and has a quick wit, much like the Gipper. And, best of all, he doesn’t have the cringe-inducing tendency to nonsensically ramble about foreign policy, like his father. Paul has detractors who find him too obscure, too extreme. But let’s remember, Ronald Reagan was considered too kooky to ever win a national election. And after the successive losses of unattractive moderates, why not give an actual principled conservative a shot at the national office?

Women of America, relax. There’s no need to carry a gun for self-defense, not when you can vomit on your attacker. Vomiting on command not a skill you’ve cultivated? Never fear, just proceed to the nearest rape-free zone at the boundary of which your attacker will be forced to meekly retreat. If there’s no rape-free zone in your immediate vicinity, maybe passive resistance is your best option. Or, have you considered that you might be imagining the whole thing?

Is the above absurdly satirical? Well, yes and no. Apparently, if you’re a male Democratic politician in Colorado, this is perfectly sound logic.

This week, Colorado Democratic Congressman Joe Salazar suggested that women don’t need guns for self-defense. They may willy nilly shoot someone because their intuition can’t discern between a member of normal pedestrian traffic and a stalker. Instead, he argues, women should rest easy knowing that there are call boxes, rape whistles and safe zones. His colleague Paul Rosenthal suggested that instead of carrying a gun, women should rely on the buddy system for safety.

As if this weren’t asinine enough, the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs released a list of tips for rape prevention that included vomiting or urinating on the attacker. They also suggested that passive resistance, i.e., submitting, might be the best option. The list has since been scrubbed from their website with the excuse that it was taken out of context by popular media.

Then there’s the dazzling intellect of our honorable vice president and formerly unbeknownst firearms connoisseur Joe Biden, who informed the media this week that women shouldn’t use semi-automatic weapons like an AR-15 for defense because they’re too difficult for women to shoot. Instead, he suggested they arm themselves with double barrel shotguns and if threatened, fire warning shots out the front door.

Hey, Joe — your argument is malarkey.

First of all, randomly firing a gun on your property is illegal. The Castle Doctrine, which allows an individual to use deadly force in their home, is only applicable if there’s demonstrable evidence that someone is breaking in. It does not give the right to shoot haphazardly at noises in the night. Secondly, firing both rounds of a double barrel shotgun leaves that person utterly defenseless until they reload, and as the federal government has urgently been churning out propaganda to demonstrate, that’s the perfect time to take down a gunman. Obviously, semi-automatic rifles, which are more accurate and don’t have to be manually reloaded, are more effective defensive weapons.

Although this collection of statements by itself is a stunning exhibition of the collective idiocy that defines the modern politician, it is also patently offensive as it completely denigrates the mental and physical capabilities of women.

It is absolutely despicable that these men feel they can so condescendingly spew this politically incorrect drivel. They will never know how vulnerable a woman can feel, even when she’s in a public space, when approached by a stranger, and how terrifying it can be. Their supposed ideological sincerity is utterly feckless — these are the same people who brand anyone who dare voice a pro-life position as “anti-woman” and then turn around and say women are mentally and physically incapable of using judgment in matters concerning their own safety.

Apparently, the modern feminist attitude of self-empowerment is irrelevant when it comes to self-defense. Instead women should rely on the sage council of bureaucrats. Apparently it’s wrong to discriminate between gender-based physical and mental capacities in an active combat role, but when it comes to self-defense, it’s totally cogent.

A cacophony of logical fallacies hocked to the masses with a heightened sense of urgency in the name of inclusiveness and sensitivity, superficially weighed and deemed sensible by the masses, the hollow core exposed but unchallenged — this has become the kernel of public policy, as evidenced by the claptrap emanating from Colorado.

But this is just the latest instance in a string of similar episodes, the heredity of which can be traced to the election. Is this to be the death knell of rationality? Or is it part of the ebbs and flows that define the cycle of American politics? Hopefully it is the latter, but disquieting nonetheless.

Katherine Revello is a second-year journalism and political science student