Fair warning: This is likely to make you mad. If I offend you with this, I'm sorry! I guess I've been offended enough times lately that I was driven to write this.
I love each of you. Family, friends, coworkers, church members. I keep in contact with you because I want to know what is happening in your world. I am interested in you.
I want to hear about your kids being in sports. I want to see videos of their marching band performance or a hockey, soccer, or football goal. Tell me why you enjoyed your vacation, punctuated with interesting pictures of that trip. Post pictures of the wedding or family gathering. Let me know about your holiday plans. Keep me informed about those important things going on in your life that I may not know about because you happen to be in another part of the country. Let me in on the GOOD stuff! In short, I want to know how YOU are doing.
That being said, here's what I am really NOT interested in hearing about. ...Why the world is ganging up against you. ...How ticked off you are that your candidate lost. ...Squabbles within your family or your workplace, and why I should take your side of the issue. ...Those cute cat videos you found. (yeah, I can search for them, too, if I ever possibly wanted them) All of these, I'm sure, have their place, but I don't need to know about every one of them, thank you very much. I only mention these because I've see ALL of them.
I acknowledge, as you probably will also, that there are at least two, and often multiple, positions on any given issue, whether that issue is religious, financial, family, or political. I will happily grant each of you the freedom to hold your opinion on anything. That is the freedom of thought and speech granted to us by our constitution. Please have the courtesy of granting that I may hold an opinion, whether or not it is the same as yours.
However, vitriolic posts stating any opinion (of which I have seen many recently) are really disturbing to me. Many of those are framed and stated in such a way that I am embarrassed to even have them in my email or in my Facebook feed. Several of them use atrocious language or reference sites that use foul language or espouse extreme positions, whose sole purpose is to either put down or raise the ire of those who don't hold that opinion! Even if I might hold such a position, my Christian upbringing certainly would not allow me to state it in such a way as to lower myself to this so-called "sailor-speech." (No offense intended to my Navy friends!) Everyone should keep it clean. We still have polite, moral standards, even though they are swiftly going by the wayside in our society.
I'll tell you what. I will try not to post any inflammatory opinions on my position, (I guess this post may have to be considered an exception to that...) and I ask that you just consider doing the same. You know what they are, and you know it when you post them! None of those extreme posts will likely change my stand on any of those issues, so, unless posting them is somehow therapeutic for you, I don't really need them. In fact, many are so far-fetched that they are more likely to strengthen my views on whatever the issue is!
I won't drop any of you from my email list or Facebook friends list over this. If this is too extreme, and you choose to drop me, I guess that's your choice.
Remember, I love you...
Friday, December 02, 2016
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Protesting reality
The protest mentality playing out right now
I admit I have not given much of my time paying attention to the anti-Trump protests. But in those few pictures I've happened across, it looks like the age group is mostly 40 or younger.
That would speak volumes to me as a Boomer. This is the age of the 'everyone gets an award' and 'make everyone a winner' mentality. I can cite many personal examples of those who, despite their training in these matters, do in fact 'get it'. Others have, instead, become programmed to believe that there are no losers! This group is the ones I'm speaking about.
Then they enter real life, and it comes on them like a speeding train. Guess what. The real world has winners and losers! When this group is forced to actually face this reality, many have been given no training to cope with the situation. So all they can think of to do is get mad at something. Become the victim. Create havoc. Destroy something. Lash out at society. Do everything possible to show that you are a upset. Don't accept what has happened. And, sadly enough, many of them are not really sure of just what it is that they even want!
There are, unfortunately, enough people whose philosophical goal is to destabilize this fine country, and who see this as an opportunity to capitalize on this mentality. They 'feed the flame' so that they get the media attention to this 'injustice'. (I think the media is as much to blame as anyone, but that's for another day) They pay people to disrupt businesses and neighborhoods so that the 'normal' citizen is inconvenienced or even injured in the process.
How sad that this is going on in our country. Oh, that everyone would see that there is room for more than one opinion, more than one voice to be heard. And, yes, someone loses!
PS: I think the Bible has a description of these people, too.
“So then, some were shouting one thing and some another, for the assembly was in confusion, and the majority did not know for what reason they had come together.”
Acts 19:32 NASB
http://bible.com/100/act.19.32.nasb
Alan L. Buhler,
LtCol, USAF, Retired
I admit I have not given much of my time paying attention to the anti-Trump protests. But in those few pictures I've happened across, it looks like the age group is mostly 40 or younger.
That would speak volumes to me as a Boomer. This is the age of the 'everyone gets an award' and 'make everyone a winner' mentality. I can cite many personal examples of those who, despite their training in these matters, do in fact 'get it'. Others have, instead, become programmed to believe that there are no losers! This group is the ones I'm speaking about.
Then they enter real life, and it comes on them like a speeding train. Guess what. The real world has winners and losers! When this group is forced to actually face this reality, many have been given no training to cope with the situation. So all they can think of to do is get mad at something. Become the victim. Create havoc. Destroy something. Lash out at society. Do everything possible to show that you are a upset. Don't accept what has happened. And, sadly enough, many of them are not really sure of just what it is that they even want!
There are, unfortunately, enough people whose philosophical goal is to destabilize this fine country, and who see this as an opportunity to capitalize on this mentality. They 'feed the flame' so that they get the media attention to this 'injustice'. (I think the media is as much to blame as anyone, but that's for another day) They pay people to disrupt businesses and neighborhoods so that the 'normal' citizen is inconvenienced or even injured in the process.
How sad that this is going on in our country. Oh, that everyone would see that there is room for more than one opinion, more than one voice to be heard. And, yes, someone loses!
PS: I think the Bible has a description of these people, too.
“So then, some were shouting one thing and some another, for the assembly was in confusion, and the majority did not know for what reason they had come together.”
Acts 19:32 NASB
http://bible.com/100/act.19.32.nasb
Alan L. Buhler,
LtCol, USAF, Retired
Wednesday, November 09, 2016
the pot calling the kettle black
The pot calling the kettle black...
This is day one after the election. The electorate has spoken. Now, I am hearing a tremendous amount of people referring to President-elect Trump as a bigot. Here's the Merriam-Webster definition.
bigot
noun big·ot \ˈbi-gət\
Simple Definition of bigot
* : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
Because he has not performed any executive duties yet, no one knows how his administration will conduct itself. I've not yet seen a politician conform too closely to campaign rhetoric, and don't really expect that now. An awful lot of what is posted against him is a strong (dare I say vehement?) and unfair dislike for what people attribute to him as being his ideas, and it is coming from people who refuse to accept or acknowledge anyone who may have or do now support him. Many of these can only see Trump supporters as being part of some sub-intelligent group.
Be careful who you are calling a bigot. It might just reveal YOUR bigotry.
This is day one after the election. The electorate has spoken. Now, I am hearing a tremendous amount of people referring to President-elect Trump as a bigot. Here's the Merriam-Webster definition.
bigot
noun big·ot \ˈbi-gət\
Simple Definition of bigot
* : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
Because he has not performed any executive duties yet, no one knows how his administration will conduct itself. I've not yet seen a politician conform too closely to campaign rhetoric, and don't really expect that now. An awful lot of what is posted against him is a strong (dare I say vehement?) and unfair dislike for what people attribute to him as being his ideas, and it is coming from people who refuse to accept or acknowledge anyone who may have or do now support him. Many of these can only see Trump supporters as being part of some sub-intelligent group.
Be careful who you are calling a bigot. It might just reveal YOUR bigotry.
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
Let's be apolitical about this
Apoliticism is apathy or antipathy towards all political affiliations. The Collins Dictionary defines apolitical as "politically neutral; without political attitudes, content, or bias." Other definitions call it having no interest or involvement in political affairs.
I am of the strong opinion that there are two entities that MUST exist as apolitical bodies in order to maintain a strong, free country. One of those is sometimes called the fourth estate - the media. The other is the Supreme Court. If either one becomes politicized, then freedom, majority rule, and free thought mean little. Unfortunately, both of these have been coopted by political leanings and ideology to the extent that their purpose changes dramatically. Both of these no longer serve the constituency, but instead uses it's position to influence society toward their ideology.
Take first the media. As a product of the 1950's and 1960's, I well remember when news reporters gave you what happened. That was it. They rarely had panels of experts to interpret the news, but instead gave the facts and expected the viewers to be intelligent enough to determine how that affected them. The likes of Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, and Walter Cronkite stood firm in the fact that their personal opinion should not enter into the discussion. It was essentially irrelevant.
Plus, the news programs happened once a day - not this round-the-clock constant stream of opinion pieces interspersed with snippets of things that fit the agenda. The shift in emphasis happened, in my opinion, with the advent of the 24 hour channels - CNN being the first of note. With that amount of available airtime, and not enough happenings to report, it was necessary to create filler. That filler has evolved over time to be spin, indoctrination, with much of it questionable as far as truth and believability.
So, my call is that the media has ceased to be apolitical. Whomever you listen to is grinding an axe for one side or the other. The is no more reporting - just more and more filler.
The score now stands at politics 1, freedom 0.
That leaves the Supreme Court. Of any governmental body, this is the one that should shun political leanings totally. That is the ONLY way that a pure justice system can happen. It is, to my thinking, clearly the way the founding fathers envisioned it to be. They, like an umpire, must look at the rule book - in this case, the Constitution - and decide if the "play" is legal or not.
Sadly, this is not the case. Each team has now provided it's own umpires, and they are more about arguing over the rules than they are with watching the game. If one can get more umpires from their team, then they can rest assured that they get their way, regardless of the rules. These umpires - the judges - think they are the winners or losers, when in fact freedom and justice are the ultimate losers.
Politics 2, freedom zero.
Unless the American people wake up and demand that this change, we are in for rough times. They must vote into office those who think country over politics, and "vote with their wallets" for impartial media reporting. Only then will we rebalance the government, and reestablish a free society.
Freedom wins...
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Define the terms and control the conversation
One thing that the progressive movement has done well is to learn how to get the "rules" to favor their side. They have done an exceptional job at creating definitions that favor their point of view and agenda. By defining the terms, and co-opting the media, they clearly have a controlling voice in current society.
I think my first introduction to that was in one of my - shall I call it a "Social conscience"class - in my first or second year of college. We got into a discussion over "choice" and it's impact. I took offense that they chose such a benign sounding word for such a horrible act. (Yes, I am pro life!). As I recall, I was the only one who spoke up about it, too. I explained I supported "choice" as a Democratic concept, but not how they defined it. I was not the star of the class that day.
Ok. I get it, now. New definition to an existing word. The term was effectively hijacked, and used to support a political agenda.
As that concept became more common place, and acceptable, new definitions crept into the vernacular. Another example is the new use of pride. It is a basic human desire to be proud of who one is or of what you have done, but that term has also been taken over to the extent that it no longer carries the meaning it once did for society. It "means" now that it encompasses everything the LGBT wants it to. Please understand I am not saying anything against them here-I am only using them as an example of driving the conversation by taking over a term.
This is not isolated to such groups or concepts. A while back I read of a resolution, voted on and passed by a majority, that included the word "unanimous" in the title. ( I understannd this is not an uncommon ploy. ) The casual reader would read that as supported by each one rather than a majority. So, again, define the term and control the conversation.
How about the term "affordable?" Yes, currently made famous in Home Affordable refinance program (HARP) and Affordable Care Act. Clue here. When you have to put that in the title, you know it's gonna cost you! Each of these government programs carries a heavy tax burden, and it would be a real stretch to "afford" either of these.
So, what is the point? I guess we need to be discriminating readers - and voters - when we come up against terms like these. We must realize how they can be manipulated to easily muddy the waters so you don't see the bottom - you only see what "they" want you to see.
Consume carefully. Vote your conscience. Know where you stand, and use your Super powers (your heart and your brain...) to make sense of what you hear. Act accordingly!
I think my first introduction to that was in one of my - shall I call it a "Social conscience"class - in my first or second year of college. We got into a discussion over "choice" and it's impact. I took offense that they chose such a benign sounding word for such a horrible act. (Yes, I am pro life!). As I recall, I was the only one who spoke up about it, too. I explained I supported "choice" as a Democratic concept, but not how they defined it. I was not the star of the class that day.
Ok. I get it, now. New definition to an existing word. The term was effectively hijacked, and used to support a political agenda.
As that concept became more common place, and acceptable, new definitions crept into the vernacular. Another example is the new use of pride. It is a basic human desire to be proud of who one is or of what you have done, but that term has also been taken over to the extent that it no longer carries the meaning it once did for society. It "means" now that it encompasses everything the LGBT wants it to. Please understand I am not saying anything against them here-I am only using them as an example of driving the conversation by taking over a term.
This is not isolated to such groups or concepts. A while back I read of a resolution, voted on and passed by a majority, that included the word "unanimous" in the title. ( I understannd this is not an uncommon ploy. ) The casual reader would read that as supported by each one rather than a majority. So, again, define the term and control the conversation.
How about the term "affordable?" Yes, currently made famous in Home Affordable refinance program (HARP) and Affordable Care Act. Clue here. When you have to put that in the title, you know it's gonna cost you! Each of these government programs carries a heavy tax burden, and it would be a real stretch to "afford" either of these.
So, what is the point? I guess we need to be discriminating readers - and voters - when we come up against terms like these. We must realize how they can be manipulated to easily muddy the waters so you don't see the bottom - you only see what "they" want you to see.
Consume carefully. Vote your conscience. Know where you stand, and use your Super powers (your heart and your brain...) to make sense of what you hear. Act accordingly!
Friday, June 24, 2016
Can we get another wagon, please?
How many of you will remember a theme that recurred over and over in the old Westerns about a "Doctor" selling a Magic Elixir that cured everything? This "Doctor" parked a wagon in some prominent place and started to gather a crowd. He would show an old man barely able to walk who would drink some of the elixir, then get up and do a dance. The crowd would be awestruck, and flock to the wagon to buy their share. Clearly, this was no "Doctor" and the Magic Elixir was nothing of the sort. It was likely 90% whiskey with some flavoring thrown in. A straight out misrepresentation of what it really was - or maybe a 10% truth???
And the wagon was an essential part of the plan. It made for a quick get away when the people found out the truth and ran them out of town!
Fast forward to today. We have our crowds worshipping at the feet of two Snake Oil Salesman. Each appears to be selling their brand of the stuff, but how can one be sure that either of the elixirs will do any good? I guess I would have to wonder about the percentage of truth that exists on either side these days.
No wagon this time. We built them a permanent residence for their time here in "town."
Each of these salesman is in it for profit, just like the salesmen in the old days. It's all about power and agenda. And likely neither of them is selling a complete cure that is "good for what ail's ya." Maybe we should take the two elixirs, mix them together, and see what we come up with! Now there's a thought.
If there is no (or little) truth in what they say, how can you choose?
Can we get another wagon, please?
And the wagon was an essential part of the plan. It made for a quick get away when the people found out the truth and ran them out of town!
Fast forward to today. We have our crowds worshipping at the feet of two Snake Oil Salesman. Each appears to be selling their brand of the stuff, but how can one be sure that either of the elixirs will do any good? I guess I would have to wonder about the percentage of truth that exists on either side these days.
No wagon this time. We built them a permanent residence for their time here in "town."
Each of these salesman is in it for profit, just like the salesmen in the old days. It's all about power and agenda. And likely neither of them is selling a complete cure that is "good for what ail's ya." Maybe we should take the two elixirs, mix them together, and see what we come up with! Now there's a thought.
If there is no (or little) truth in what they say, how can you choose?
Can we get another wagon, please?
Sunday, June 19, 2016
You can't have it both ways...
First off, this should NOT be considered an article in support of either Donald Trump or the GOP. Instead, it is about the "system" and how things seem to be just a little one sided. We selectively pursue or ignore laws when they do or do not support our political views.
This cites an article from Politicususa.com about Apple refusing to support the GOP convention in any way, shape, or form.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/06/18/apple-dumps-trump-refusing-provide-money-technology-gop-convention.html
A similar article on the matter is at the "Bipartisan Report".
http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/06/19/breaking-apple-drops-all-support-of-gop-convention-their-reason-is-incredible-video/
Let's think about this for a minute. Apple doesn't like Donald Trump or the GOP for supporting(?) him for the presidency. OK - that can be their opinion. They have that right. However, if Donald Trump or the GOP comes to them with a contract for technological support - a contractual, business arrangement - then Apple should be obligated to provide that service. That is the LAW of the land. If Apple is to be applauded for such a stance instead of taken to court, then shame on them - and shame on us for allowing it to happen.
IF - and this is a big IF - they are allowed to skate on this point, then the Christian business owner who is forced to or provide insurance coverage for contraceptives, or bake a cake, or provide flowers, or photograph, or sing at a ceremony for a same-sex couple, when they clearly do not agree with that type of union should similarly be applauded for their choice and stance on the matter.
Sadly, that's not the case. Apple is being held up on a pedestal for refusing to provide a service that they are in the business of providing. (That's being "politically correct" in the current environment.) In the other cases, the lawyers and civil libertarians and GLBT community take businesses to court to force them to provide services. (Here, refusing is NOT "politically correct" in the current environment.)
Get off the back of Chick Filet and Hobby Lobby and similar businesses that have taken stands because of their beliefs until you see the two-faced stance you are taking.
Oh, I was wrong - If you define the playing field, and the rules, I guess you CAN have it both ways...
This cites an article from Politicususa.com about Apple refusing to support the GOP convention in any way, shape, or form.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/06/18/apple-dumps-trump-refusing-provide-money-technology-gop-convention.html
A similar article on the matter is at the "Bipartisan Report".
http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/06/19/breaking-apple-drops-all-support-of-gop-convention-their-reason-is-incredible-video/
Let's think about this for a minute. Apple doesn't like Donald Trump or the GOP for supporting(?) him for the presidency. OK - that can be their opinion. They have that right. However, if Donald Trump or the GOP comes to them with a contract for technological support - a contractual, business arrangement - then Apple should be obligated to provide that service. That is the LAW of the land. If Apple is to be applauded for such a stance instead of taken to court, then shame on them - and shame on us for allowing it to happen.
IF - and this is a big IF - they are allowed to skate on this point, then the Christian business owner who is forced to or provide insurance coverage for contraceptives, or bake a cake, or provide flowers, or photograph, or sing at a ceremony for a same-sex couple, when they clearly do not agree with that type of union should similarly be applauded for their choice and stance on the matter.
Sadly, that's not the case. Apple is being held up on a pedestal for refusing to provide a service that they are in the business of providing. (That's being "politically correct" in the current environment.) In the other cases, the lawyers and civil libertarians and GLBT community take businesses to court to force them to provide services. (Here, refusing is NOT "politically correct" in the current environment.)
Get off the back of Chick Filet and Hobby Lobby and similar businesses that have taken stands because of their beliefs until you see the two-faced stance you are taking.
Oh, I was wrong - If you define the playing field, and the rules, I guess you CAN have it both ways...
Friday, May 06, 2016
Our God is Bigger that Lymphoma
Reflections on recent events - May 2016
Have you ever been to a church service and realized that the sermon was written just for YOU?? I got one of those last Sunday.
Here’s how it all fits together. Early in March, I went to the dentist, who discovered an abnormality in my upper palate. She sent me to a specialist who biopsied it and discovered it is follicular lymphoma, one of the rarer of the 76 types of Non Hodgkins Lymphomas. Next step - referral to Mayo clinic in Rochester, MN.
Late April saw a trip to Mayo to get some answers. We had some tests early in the week, but the last test could not be done until the following week. We elected to spend that time in Sioux Falls rather than driving back to Rapid City.
Sunday was, as always, church time. We went with our daughter to their church. Pastor Reed spoke on the theme of “Tough as Nails.” (Scripture references are James 1:2-4, 2 Cor 11:23-28, and 2 Tim 4:7.)
The theme of the sermon was that the purpose of a nail is to be hammered. A nail that’s soft will bend under the blow. A nail that’s properly made will withstand the blow and do it’s job well.
He emphasized two principles from the scripture:
- WHAT is in you will come out of you when the hammer falls.
- WHO is in you will come out of you when the hammer falls.
I really thought that was a good way to put things in one’s life into the proper perspective. We are strong or weak depending on what (and who) is in us.
Now, with that fresh in my head, we went back to Mayo for the last test - one that will tell how advanced the lymphoma is. As it turns out, it’s somewhat advanced, and typed at Stage IV-A. So that means that I will have to endure a regimen of 6 months or so of chemotherapy treatments.
What immediately came to mind was a voice in my head saying: “OK - I’ve got this. You don’t need to worry about it.”
I guess the “tough as nails” sermon was effective in putting the events into perspective for me.
OGIBTL - Our God is Bigger Than Lymphoma!
Saturday, March 26, 2016
Opportunity for learning? or big fiasco?
NOTE HERE: Since the original writing of this article, it became clear that this did NOT happen as was initially reported by SEVERAL authoritative news sources. Some of the RANT still applies, even if the exact circumstances are different...
First of all, this should BY NO MEANS be seen as an endorsement for any candidate (read that Trump.) It is, instead, using an incident concerning his campaign to illustrate a point.
Start, please, by noting the turmoil at Emory University when students had the audacity to advocate voting for Trump when that's not the established and agreed-upon position. There's a couple of links here (one Facebook, one a Google search) if you have not heard about the incident.
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=emory%20university%20chalk
http://bit.ly/1RujreI
Maybe looking at a couple of terms, with Buhler's commentary on them, might be a good place to start.
Democracy: Each individual has a vote, and may choose to vote for whomever he or she chooses, without fear of reprisal.
Freedom of Speech: Within ethical and legal limits, a person may hold and express his or her opinion on the discussion at hand. This is a guarantee and is fundamental to our way of life.
Higher education: This is where individuals go to learn a profession. It should NOT be a means for indoctrination by faculty or benefactors of said institution.
Back to the incident. A student, or maybe students, wrote "vote for Trump" in chalk on some sidewalks and other school property. Is that, technically, vandalism? Probably. OK. Just make the students remove it, take a demerit, and it all goes away. But here's where it gets interesting.
Students (how many??) started protesting because it was interpreted as "racist." Some were going to counselors because they "in pain" and "feared for their lives." Some "expected" shootings as a result. I'm sure some just took the opportunity to join the protest - whether or not they felt strongly about the issue.
This SHOULD HAVE been an opportunity for learning. It SHOULD HAVE been a Civics lesson in the democratic process. (I expect Emory University has a Civics department - most universities do!) It SHOULD HAVE been used as an example of how opposing views can co-exist in a country that was founded on that very principle. There were SO MANY positive outcomes that could have come out of this. Sadly that's not the case.
Instead, it appears, that the University played into all this, and even fed it, rather than calling it what it was - a political rally, supported, or at least allowed, by the University. The students, on both sides of this issue, are PAYING for an education. They education are GETTING is that you may no longer hold an opinion or express yourself unless that opinion is lock-step in line with the establishment. Democracy has been reduced to a society being ruled by the loudest person talking.
This is a sad state of affairs...
First of all, this should BY NO MEANS be seen as an endorsement for any candidate (read that Trump.) It is, instead, using an incident concerning his campaign to illustrate a point.
Start, please, by noting the turmoil at Emory University when students had the audacity to advocate voting for Trump when that's not the established and agreed-upon position. There's a couple of links here (one Facebook, one a Google search) if you have not heard about the incident.
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=emory%20university%20chalk
http://bit.ly/1RujreI
Maybe looking at a couple of terms, with Buhler's commentary on them, might be a good place to start.
Democracy: Each individual has a vote, and may choose to vote for whomever he or she chooses, without fear of reprisal.
Freedom of Speech: Within ethical and legal limits, a person may hold and express his or her opinion on the discussion at hand. This is a guarantee and is fundamental to our way of life.
Higher education: This is where individuals go to learn a profession. It should NOT be a means for indoctrination by faculty or benefactors of said institution.
Back to the incident. A student, or maybe students, wrote "vote for Trump" in chalk on some sidewalks and other school property. Is that, technically, vandalism? Probably. OK. Just make the students remove it, take a demerit, and it all goes away. But here's where it gets interesting.
Students (how many??) started protesting because it was interpreted as "racist." Some were going to counselors because they "in pain" and "feared for their lives." Some "expected" shootings as a result. I'm sure some just took the opportunity to join the protest - whether or not they felt strongly about the issue.
This SHOULD HAVE been an opportunity for learning. It SHOULD HAVE been a Civics lesson in the democratic process. (I expect Emory University has a Civics department - most universities do!) It SHOULD HAVE been used as an example of how opposing views can co-exist in a country that was founded on that very principle. There were SO MANY positive outcomes that could have come out of this. Sadly that's not the case.
Instead, it appears, that the University played into all this, and even fed it, rather than calling it what it was - a political rally, supported, or at least allowed, by the University. The students, on both sides of this issue, are PAYING for an education. They education are GETTING is that you may no longer hold an opinion or express yourself unless that opinion is lock-step in line with the establishment. Democracy has been reduced to a society being ruled by the loudest person talking.
This is a sad state of affairs...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
