THE RIGHT ANGLE: The Truth About College Republicans - Opinions
All of your life, you've been taught to never judge a book by its cover. And yet, you do it everyday without even thinking about it. Maybe you judge people by their physical appearance, maybe by their clothing, or maybe by things you've heard about them. Regardless of why you judge them, it's wrong, and you know it. Why then, do you continue to let hearsay dictate how you view certain groups around campus?
Today, I am going to introduce you to the UNCG College Republicans. I am well aware of the things they say about us, and so are most of you. The groups and individuals on campus that differ from us ideologically would have you believe that we are racist, sexist, and homophobic. I suppose these rumors are to be expected, but I have a suspicion that there are those of you who are capable of thinking for yourselves, and that is who I am speaking to right now.
According to our wonderful critics, the College Republicans are not interested in doing anything that is not controversial. They say we exist solely to cause trouble. These people have never bothered to listen to our side of an issue; they simply go by what they've heard and what they want to believe.
Last Wednesday, I attended a meeting of the College Republicans. If I were to believe everything I had heard about the group, I would have expected to do nothing all night but discuss how we could annoy the rest of the campus. But perhaps you'd be shocked to learn that we don't want to do that. During our hour long meeting, we discussed many things - food drives, community service, trips to Washington DC, fun group events - and yet, not once did I hear someone say, "Hey everyone, what are some fun, creative ways we can make the liberals on campus hate us even more?
I know for a fact that some people have avoided associating with the College Republicans because of our image around campus. I find it very unfortunate that so many of you blindly believe these rumors without even bothering to hear our side. Last year's Morals Week was not meant to promote bigotry, regardless of what you might have heard. It was actually meant to promote equality; had you opened your mind and looked at it from a different point of view for once, this would have been obvious.
Stop letting other people dictate your beliefs. Drop in on a College Republican meeting sometime and decide for yourself. I know from some of the emails I've received recently that there are more conservatives on UNCG's campus than one might think. It would be wonderful if their voice was louder on this campus.
Fellow conservatives, here is your opportunity to have fun with a group of people who share your views. This is also your chance to make a difference. Right now we are working hard to build our group up so that we can do great things for our community.
We welcome people of all backgrounds and belief. We may not all be "gun nuts", "Jesus freaks", or "rednecks" like you've heard, but we do welcome all kinds. Find out what we are REALLY all about. Stop by and join us on Wednesday nights at 7 in the Joyner Room of the EUC.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
John Who?
THE RIGHT ANGLE: John Who? - Opinions
A beautiful thing happened on November 2nd. People of all ages, all races, all backgrounds, put their differences aside and stood in line to cast their vote. And those Americans, or at least the informed ones, voted to keep George W. Bush in office for four more years.
My mother told me to be nice in my "victory" column. She reminded me that both Bush and Kerry were pressing for the healing of our nation. I considered it for almost an entire minute before I realized I couldn't be nice. I say this because not sixty seconds after I got off the phone with my mother, I walked past a young man who said to me, and I quote: "I should light you on fire for that," as he pointed to my Bush pin. I smiled in support of his right to free speech and suppressed mine in the name of dignity.
But he's not the only reason I can't be "nice" in this column. I'm still hearing people rant about how Bush stole the election, or how we have an idiot in the White House for another four years. In fact, all I'm hearing around campus is name-calling and excuses, and it's getting old. Because of this childishness and stupidity, this week's column is dedicated to all the sore losers out there.
First of all, anyone that has to refer to Bush as an "idiot" is clearly feeling insecure about their own intelligence level, and probably with good reason. Bush is a smart man, and there is no way he could have won re-election if he wasn't. Do you really think his supporters consist solely of rednecks and religious right-wingers? What about us average Americans who are just worried about losing too much of our hard-earned money to the government? Where do I fit in? Maybe you should try watching a news channel sometime; you'd be shocked to find that plenty of people who are probably better educated than you actually support Bush.
Oh, and then there's the people that say Bush "stole" the election. Okay, in 2000, I could understand the concern. Had the roles been flipped, I would have been just as angry as most of you were about the outcome. But to say he stole an election in which he won the popular vote AND the Electoral College? Not only did Bush win by 3.5 million votes, he won with the largest popular vote of any President in history!
Although I guess I really shouldn't be so harsh. After all, this must have been a huge let down. I mean, you guys had everyone on your side: MTV, the media, Hollywood, rock stars. But you forgot to court the people who really mattered. The average American really couldn't care less about who Jon Bon Jovi or Ben Affleck is voting for, and your average American young person was simply annoyed every time Puff Daddy interrupted "The Real World" to scare people into voting.
The movie stars and rockers made for a great show, but it was little more than that. Bruce Springsteen put on a concert for Kerry that drew a huge crowd, but as soon as he stepped aside to let the Democratic candidate speak, the concertgoers started leaving. It seemed that the large majority of America didn't care to mix their entertainment and politics.
So you guys went to all that hard work. You rallied together beautiful, talented people, you spammed the popular television networks, you threatened VOTE OR DIE! And it worked. It got the people out in masses. Record numbers all over the country turned out at the polls. And yet, Bush still won by 3.5 millions votes.
What does this tell us? It tells us that the Democratic Party is not the party of the average American. All over the country, average, hard-working Americans decided that national security, tax cuts, and strong values were much more important than anything Kerry or his beautiful band of Hollywood stars could offer. For the past few months, we have been told which issues we're supposed to care about. We've had gay marriage and stem cell research and abortion rights crammed down our throats for too long. Last Tuesday, we made known what are the most important issues in this country right now, and we were heard. We voted to keep our Republican president for four more years, and we voted to add more Republicans to the House and Senate. Last Tuesday, the Republican Party proved that it is indeed the party of the average American.
So I guess I can understand what all the bitterness is about. I just wish some of you would show a little maturity. I think if you're old enough to vote, you ought to be old enough not to throw a temper tantrum over the outcome. I think even I could have kept my composure had Kerry won by 3.5 million votes. And don't worry: in four more years, you'll all have a new hero, and even the most loyal of you will be saying, "John who?"
A beautiful thing happened on November 2nd. People of all ages, all races, all backgrounds, put their differences aside and stood in line to cast their vote. And those Americans, or at least the informed ones, voted to keep George W. Bush in office for four more years.
My mother told me to be nice in my "victory" column. She reminded me that both Bush and Kerry were pressing for the healing of our nation. I considered it for almost an entire minute before I realized I couldn't be nice. I say this because not sixty seconds after I got off the phone with my mother, I walked past a young man who said to me, and I quote: "I should light you on fire for that," as he pointed to my Bush pin. I smiled in support of his right to free speech and suppressed mine in the name of dignity.
But he's not the only reason I can't be "nice" in this column. I'm still hearing people rant about how Bush stole the election, or how we have an idiot in the White House for another four years. In fact, all I'm hearing around campus is name-calling and excuses, and it's getting old. Because of this childishness and stupidity, this week's column is dedicated to all the sore losers out there.
First of all, anyone that has to refer to Bush as an "idiot" is clearly feeling insecure about their own intelligence level, and probably with good reason. Bush is a smart man, and there is no way he could have won re-election if he wasn't. Do you really think his supporters consist solely of rednecks and religious right-wingers? What about us average Americans who are just worried about losing too much of our hard-earned money to the government? Where do I fit in? Maybe you should try watching a news channel sometime; you'd be shocked to find that plenty of people who are probably better educated than you actually support Bush.
Oh, and then there's the people that say Bush "stole" the election. Okay, in 2000, I could understand the concern. Had the roles been flipped, I would have been just as angry as most of you were about the outcome. But to say he stole an election in which he won the popular vote AND the Electoral College? Not only did Bush win by 3.5 million votes, he won with the largest popular vote of any President in history!
Although I guess I really shouldn't be so harsh. After all, this must have been a huge let down. I mean, you guys had everyone on your side: MTV, the media, Hollywood, rock stars. But you forgot to court the people who really mattered. The average American really couldn't care less about who Jon Bon Jovi or Ben Affleck is voting for, and your average American young person was simply annoyed every time Puff Daddy interrupted "The Real World" to scare people into voting.
The movie stars and rockers made for a great show, but it was little more than that. Bruce Springsteen put on a concert for Kerry that drew a huge crowd, but as soon as he stepped aside to let the Democratic candidate speak, the concertgoers started leaving. It seemed that the large majority of America didn't care to mix their entertainment and politics.
So you guys went to all that hard work. You rallied together beautiful, talented people, you spammed the popular television networks, you threatened VOTE OR DIE! And it worked. It got the people out in masses. Record numbers all over the country turned out at the polls. And yet, Bush still won by 3.5 millions votes.
What does this tell us? It tells us that the Democratic Party is not the party of the average American. All over the country, average, hard-working Americans decided that national security, tax cuts, and strong values were much more important than anything Kerry or his beautiful band of Hollywood stars could offer. For the past few months, we have been told which issues we're supposed to care about. We've had gay marriage and stem cell research and abortion rights crammed down our throats for too long. Last Tuesday, we made known what are the most important issues in this country right now, and we were heard. We voted to keep our Republican president for four more years, and we voted to add more Republicans to the House and Senate. Last Tuesday, the Republican Party proved that it is indeed the party of the average American.
So I guess I can understand what all the bitterness is about. I just wish some of you would show a little maturity. I think if you're old enough to vote, you ought to be old enough not to throw a temper tantrum over the outcome. I think even I could have kept my composure had Kerry won by 3.5 million votes. And don't worry: in four more years, you'll all have a new hero, and even the most loyal of you will be saying, "John who?"
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
God Bless America
THE RIGHT ANGLE: God Bless America - Opinions
There is one major downfall to writing for a weekly paper. As I sit here writing my column, it is October 27th. I am a week away from the elections, and most of you will not read this until after they are over. I could take a week off from politics, but with everything that is about to happen in the next week, how can this political science nerd think of anything else?
This election season has been incredibly exciting for me. I've worked as an intern at the Bush/Cheney campaign since July. I've attended speeches, debates, rallies, and protests. I've been give the opportunity to make my conservative views known to the UNCG community by way of this column. I was even given the chance to debate liberal columnist Okla Elliot at Solaris a couple of weeks ago.
In turn, I've been ridiculed for working for Bush. I've been verbally abused by little old ladies who support Kerry. I have received large amounts of hate e-mail in response to my columns, as well as angry comments in my online blog and on the Carolinian website. At the Solaris debate, I received jeers, obscene gestures, and rude comments every time I tried to speak.
And you know what the best part is? I honestly wouldn't have it any other way.?
Every time someone yells, "Bush sucks!" in response to my GOP gear, every time I read a letter to the editor about how wrong I am, every time someone calls me a name, I am reminded of how great America is.
It's exactly what our forefathers wanted for us. We can hate our leaders, work to get them kicked out of office, and even threaten mass suicide if re-election occurs. We can burn pictures of Bush, we can burn flags, we can burn crosses... and okay, we can't burn abortion clinics, but we can protest them until our faces turn blue.?
Imagine living in a country where you live in constant fear of your government. Imagine not being able to pray to your deity of choice or speak your mind. You very rarely see large protests against the leaders in countries with authoritarian dictators. You can compare Bush to Hitler all you want to, but I have a feeling if you had compared Hitler to another crazy leader back in Nazi Germany, you would have been tossed in a concentration camp.
Although no one can agree on the exact wording of it, everyone knows that Voltaire said it best: "I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I believe that with all my heart, and that's why I can despise Green Day's political views and still listen to their music religiously.
So go ahead, yell at me, call me names, tell me I'm stupid. If you see me on campus, tell me you think my column is the most closed-minded thing you've ever read in your life. I can't make you read it, and you can't make me change my mind, but we can all say what we want without fear that we'll get thrown in prison. It's the First Amendment that gives me hope even if Kerry is elected as president this week. It's my right to say how much I despise him and how I disagree with everything he does. And that, my friends, is why I love this country.
God bless America.
There is one major downfall to writing for a weekly paper. As I sit here writing my column, it is October 27th. I am a week away from the elections, and most of you will not read this until after they are over. I could take a week off from politics, but with everything that is about to happen in the next week, how can this political science nerd think of anything else?
This election season has been incredibly exciting for me. I've worked as an intern at the Bush/Cheney campaign since July. I've attended speeches, debates, rallies, and protests. I've been give the opportunity to make my conservative views known to the UNCG community by way of this column. I was even given the chance to debate liberal columnist Okla Elliot at Solaris a couple of weeks ago.
In turn, I've been ridiculed for working for Bush. I've been verbally abused by little old ladies who support Kerry. I have received large amounts of hate e-mail in response to my columns, as well as angry comments in my online blog and on the Carolinian website. At the Solaris debate, I received jeers, obscene gestures, and rude comments every time I tried to speak.
And you know what the best part is? I honestly wouldn't have it any other way.?
Every time someone yells, "Bush sucks!" in response to my GOP gear, every time I read a letter to the editor about how wrong I am, every time someone calls me a name, I am reminded of how great America is.
It's exactly what our forefathers wanted for us. We can hate our leaders, work to get them kicked out of office, and even threaten mass suicide if re-election occurs. We can burn pictures of Bush, we can burn flags, we can burn crosses... and okay, we can't burn abortion clinics, but we can protest them until our faces turn blue.?
Imagine living in a country where you live in constant fear of your government. Imagine not being able to pray to your deity of choice or speak your mind. You very rarely see large protests against the leaders in countries with authoritarian dictators. You can compare Bush to Hitler all you want to, but I have a feeling if you had compared Hitler to another crazy leader back in Nazi Germany, you would have been tossed in a concentration camp.
Although no one can agree on the exact wording of it, everyone knows that Voltaire said it best: "I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I believe that with all my heart, and that's why I can despise Green Day's political views and still listen to their music religiously.
So go ahead, yell at me, call me names, tell me I'm stupid. If you see me on campus, tell me you think my column is the most closed-minded thing you've ever read in your life. I can't make you read it, and you can't make me change my mind, but we can all say what we want without fear that we'll get thrown in prison. It's the First Amendment that gives me hope even if Kerry is elected as president this week. It's my right to say how much I despise him and how I disagree with everything he does. And that, my friends, is why I love this country.
God bless America.
Monday, October 25, 2004
Listening to Both Sides
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Listening to both sides - Opinions
A couple of weeks ago, I attended UNCG's final Debate Watch. As many of you know, the final presidential debate was a real snoozer. Let's face it: none of us watching the debate were expecting to learn anything new about the issues. We just wanted to see someone make an idiot out of themselves.
But I wasn't just a viewer at this Debate Watch. I had volunteered to be a discussion leader. This meant that after the debate was over, I had to engage a group of students in intelligent conversation about the issues. And throughout all of this, I had to be bipartisan.
Like most groups there, mine tended to lean toward the left. I sat there, gritting my teeth as I forced myself to not correct some of the participants' extremely misguided views. Luckily for them (and you!), I wrote down the question and answers, and I'm going to give you a little political lesson, because we all know how dangerous uninformed voting is!
THE QUESTION: What was discussed that you found irrelevant?
THEIR ANSWER: Bush's answer for everything was "education". More education will not help unemployment.
MY REPLY: I'm not sure about you, but there's a reason I'm in college: it's because I don't plan on being a waitress forever. Now, if you're in a major that is difficult to find a job in, well, that's not my problem. But for the most part, people go to college to make themselves more desirable to future employers. Bush's plan is one of the best I've heard: allow people whose jobs have been shipped overseas to go back to school. America is moving forward right now, and we're seeing a need for more and more jobs that require certain skills. Yes, we are losing some jobs, and even Kerry admitted there was nothing that could be done about that. But rather than sit around and cry about it, Bush wants to give these people the skills that they need to find a new job. How can anyone say that education is irrelevant here?
THE QUESTION: What is the most important issue in this election?
THEIR (FIRST) ANSWER: Iraq.
MY REPLY: Iraq is a big issue, and understandably so. We have thousands of American soldiers over there, bravely trying to make the world a safer place. And while I would love to see the troops come home as quickly as possible, I know that cannot happen immediately. My heart goes out to all the troops and their loved ones, but when I see antiwar protestors, I just want to scream at them and remind them that THERE WAS NOT A DRAFT. The soldiers in Iraq signed up for service, knowing that they could be called to duty at any time. When we first sent troops over to Iraq, the entire country was fairly certain that they posed an imminent threat to us. Now that we're there, we can't just pull out without regard to the Iraqis because of faulty intelligence, military scandals, or whiny antiwar protestors. I have faith that Bush will do the right thing in making sure Iraq's future is as secure as possible. I do not feel that Kerry has any right commanding our troops; the mindset that caused us to pull out of Vietnam prematurely and resulted in the massacre of over 3.5 million people is the same mindset that Kerry had then and still has today.
THE QUESTION: Most important issue?
THEIR (SECOND) ANSWER: We should make healthcare/higher education available to everyone.
MY REPLY: I know that everyone's basis for this theory is that Europe has universal healthcare. Well, yes, Europe does have universal healthcare and it works just fine for them. But the last time I checked, we are not a European nation. I love my country, but America has this way of screwing things up. Look at our public education system: it's not the greatest thing in the world. Do we really want our healthcare system to look like our public school system? For that matter, do we want our higher education to look like our public school system? Everything that works for Europe will not necessarily work over here. Besides, you can't complain about high taxes and then whine about not having universal healthcare, because no matter what Kerry tells you, you WILL be paying for that healthcare plan with your hard earned money. I'm not sure where he thinks money like that comes from. Perhaps he thinks we all had the good fortune of marrying a widowed millionaire?
So to make it simple for all you debate-watchers, what we have here are two distinct choices: we can vote for a man with several unspoken "plans", who does not take human life into consideration when ending a military conflict, and who thinks that you won't notice if he raises taxes to pay for his billion dollar, still unspoken "plans"; or we can re-elect the man who wants to improve your chances of getting a job, who cares about the welfare of people all over the globe, and who wants to give Americans the right to put more of their hard-earned money into their pockets. For lower taxes, compassion, common sense, and someone who knows where they stand at all times, re-elect George W. Bush in 2004.
A couple of weeks ago, I attended UNCG's final Debate Watch. As many of you know, the final presidential debate was a real snoozer. Let's face it: none of us watching the debate were expecting to learn anything new about the issues. We just wanted to see someone make an idiot out of themselves.
But I wasn't just a viewer at this Debate Watch. I had volunteered to be a discussion leader. This meant that after the debate was over, I had to engage a group of students in intelligent conversation about the issues. And throughout all of this, I had to be bipartisan.
Like most groups there, mine tended to lean toward the left. I sat there, gritting my teeth as I forced myself to not correct some of the participants' extremely misguided views. Luckily for them (and you!), I wrote down the question and answers, and I'm going to give you a little political lesson, because we all know how dangerous uninformed voting is!
THE QUESTION: What was discussed that you found irrelevant?
THEIR ANSWER: Bush's answer for everything was "education". More education will not help unemployment.
MY REPLY: I'm not sure about you, but there's a reason I'm in college: it's because I don't plan on being a waitress forever. Now, if you're in a major that is difficult to find a job in, well, that's not my problem. But for the most part, people go to college to make themselves more desirable to future employers. Bush's plan is one of the best I've heard: allow people whose jobs have been shipped overseas to go back to school. America is moving forward right now, and we're seeing a need for more and more jobs that require certain skills. Yes, we are losing some jobs, and even Kerry admitted there was nothing that could be done about that. But rather than sit around and cry about it, Bush wants to give these people the skills that they need to find a new job. How can anyone say that education is irrelevant here?
THE QUESTION: What is the most important issue in this election?
THEIR (FIRST) ANSWER: Iraq.
MY REPLY: Iraq is a big issue, and understandably so. We have thousands of American soldiers over there, bravely trying to make the world a safer place. And while I would love to see the troops come home as quickly as possible, I know that cannot happen immediately. My heart goes out to all the troops and their loved ones, but when I see antiwar protestors, I just want to scream at them and remind them that THERE WAS NOT A DRAFT. The soldiers in Iraq signed up for service, knowing that they could be called to duty at any time. When we first sent troops over to Iraq, the entire country was fairly certain that they posed an imminent threat to us. Now that we're there, we can't just pull out without regard to the Iraqis because of faulty intelligence, military scandals, or whiny antiwar protestors. I have faith that Bush will do the right thing in making sure Iraq's future is as secure as possible. I do not feel that Kerry has any right commanding our troops; the mindset that caused us to pull out of Vietnam prematurely and resulted in the massacre of over 3.5 million people is the same mindset that Kerry had then and still has today.
THE QUESTION: Most important issue?
THEIR (SECOND) ANSWER: We should make healthcare/higher education available to everyone.
MY REPLY: I know that everyone's basis for this theory is that Europe has universal healthcare. Well, yes, Europe does have universal healthcare and it works just fine for them. But the last time I checked, we are not a European nation. I love my country, but America has this way of screwing things up. Look at our public education system: it's not the greatest thing in the world. Do we really want our healthcare system to look like our public school system? For that matter, do we want our higher education to look like our public school system? Everything that works for Europe will not necessarily work over here. Besides, you can't complain about high taxes and then whine about not having universal healthcare, because no matter what Kerry tells you, you WILL be paying for that healthcare plan with your hard earned money. I'm not sure where he thinks money like that comes from. Perhaps he thinks we all had the good fortune of marrying a widowed millionaire?
So to make it simple for all you debate-watchers, what we have here are two distinct choices: we can vote for a man with several unspoken "plans", who does not take human life into consideration when ending a military conflict, and who thinks that you won't notice if he raises taxes to pay for his billion dollar, still unspoken "plans"; or we can re-elect the man who wants to improve your chances of getting a job, who cares about the welfare of people all over the globe, and who wants to give Americans the right to put more of their hard-earned money into their pockets. For lower taxes, compassion, common sense, and someone who knows where they stand at all times, re-elect George W. Bush in 2004.
Monday, October 18, 2004
A Tale of Two Men
The Right Angle : A Tale of Two Men - Opinions
All too often, people are elected based on what party they represent. I know people who vote Democrat simply because their parents did so. Whatever happened to voting on the issues, or voting on the person? Why is it Republicans are convinced Democrats are going to ruin the country, and liberals are convinced conservatives want to destroy the environment?
Today I'm going to force you to make a decision. I'm going to give you two candidates and ask you to chose which one you think would make a better leader. We're not going to go by names or parties, just issues and past experience.
Let's begin with Candidate A. Candidate A was born and raised in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. He attended a local university and began a career working for a local company. Candidate A worked hard for 17 years at the local company, with no dreams of political grandeur. He entered politics in 1994 when he realized that rising taxes were crushing North Carolina's businesses. His concern for the welfare of North Carolina families won him a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 1994 elections, and he spent the next few years fighting for fiscal responsibility and affordable healthcare for North Carolinians. Worried that he was not serving his home state as well as he could be, Candidate A decided to run for U.S. Senate in 2004.
Candidate B, the son of a wealthy politician, was born and raised in Greensboro, North Carolina. He attended a business school in New York, and after graduation, he worked at a financial firm in New York City. He did not return to North Carolina until his father ran for governor of the state in 1972. With the exception of working on his father's campaign, Candidate B had basically no political experience until 1992 when he became involved in a fundraiser for that year's presidential campaign. As a reward for his loyalty, Candidate B was appointed to head of the Small Business Administration in 1993, deputy Chief of Staff from 1994-1995, and Chief of Staff in 1996. In 1998, the administration he was serving under found itself in a compromisingly sticky situation, and Candidate B suddenly missed his home state of North Carolina and could not wait to leave Washington. However, he must have started missing D.C., because in 2002, he ran for U.S. Senate. His campaign failed, and he is once again running for U.S. Senate in 2004.
I had the privilege of attending a senatorial debate between Candidate A and B a few weeks ago. Halfway through the event, it was blindingly apparent who the real North Carolinian was. Candidate A showed genuine concern for his constituents as he discussed repealing unnecessary taxes, attracting jobs to the state, lowering health care premiums, and improving education. Candidate B sounded like a tape-recording every time he opened his mouth, except for the few times he tried unsuccessfully to make a joke. Although the jokes were few and far between, they were all painful, as Candidate B apparently found himself much more amusing than anyone else did. The only issue Candidate B could stick to was that, when elected, he would work with both parties in the Senate. He never said what they would work on, but he repeated that same phrase several times. I found this amusing since he lost the 2002 senatorial race because of his lack of bipartisanship.
As a North Carolinian, do you see the predicament I am faced with? Candidate A is a hard-working family man with our state's best interests in mind, while Candidate B is simply trying to gain political power. For me, the choice is a no-brainer: Richard Burr (aka "Candidate A") knows this state, and he knows what we need. I was lucky enough to meet him on two occasions: once when I was 13, and again a few weeks ago at the senatorial debate. He is a genuinely nice person, approachable and very easy to talk to. Meeting him at the age of 13 definitely helped inspire me to go into politics.
On the other hand, I find Candidate B (Erskine Bowles) to be just a little scary. I have a theory that he is robot designed by the Democratic Party. If you think Bowles cares about North Carolina, you're sadly mistaken. It's not a coincidence that he chose to leave the Clinton administration during the middle of the Lewinsky scandal; he didn't want to ruin his future political goals. And if he had really wanted to leave D.C. so badly, why is he suddenly trying to go back? Bowles is no different from John Edwards; he only wants to use this Senate seat as a stepping-stone. He has much higher aspirations.
Take it from me: I've heard the issues; I've met the men. This goes far beyond party loyalty. A vote for Richard Burr is a vote for North Carolina's future. Trust me, North Carolina: when November 2 rolls around, elect Richard Burr to U.S. Senate. You won't regret it.
All too often, people are elected based on what party they represent. I know people who vote Democrat simply because their parents did so. Whatever happened to voting on the issues, or voting on the person? Why is it Republicans are convinced Democrats are going to ruin the country, and liberals are convinced conservatives want to destroy the environment?
Today I'm going to force you to make a decision. I'm going to give you two candidates and ask you to chose which one you think would make a better leader. We're not going to go by names or parties, just issues and past experience.
Let's begin with Candidate A. Candidate A was born and raised in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. He attended a local university and began a career working for a local company. Candidate A worked hard for 17 years at the local company, with no dreams of political grandeur. He entered politics in 1994 when he realized that rising taxes were crushing North Carolina's businesses. His concern for the welfare of North Carolina families won him a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 1994 elections, and he spent the next few years fighting for fiscal responsibility and affordable healthcare for North Carolinians. Worried that he was not serving his home state as well as he could be, Candidate A decided to run for U.S. Senate in 2004.
Candidate B, the son of a wealthy politician, was born and raised in Greensboro, North Carolina. He attended a business school in New York, and after graduation, he worked at a financial firm in New York City. He did not return to North Carolina until his father ran for governor of the state in 1972. With the exception of working on his father's campaign, Candidate B had basically no political experience until 1992 when he became involved in a fundraiser for that year's presidential campaign. As a reward for his loyalty, Candidate B was appointed to head of the Small Business Administration in 1993, deputy Chief of Staff from 1994-1995, and Chief of Staff in 1996. In 1998, the administration he was serving under found itself in a compromisingly sticky situation, and Candidate B suddenly missed his home state of North Carolina and could not wait to leave Washington. However, he must have started missing D.C., because in 2002, he ran for U.S. Senate. His campaign failed, and he is once again running for U.S. Senate in 2004.
I had the privilege of attending a senatorial debate between Candidate A and B a few weeks ago. Halfway through the event, it was blindingly apparent who the real North Carolinian was. Candidate A showed genuine concern for his constituents as he discussed repealing unnecessary taxes, attracting jobs to the state, lowering health care premiums, and improving education. Candidate B sounded like a tape-recording every time he opened his mouth, except for the few times he tried unsuccessfully to make a joke. Although the jokes were few and far between, they were all painful, as Candidate B apparently found himself much more amusing than anyone else did. The only issue Candidate B could stick to was that, when elected, he would work with both parties in the Senate. He never said what they would work on, but he repeated that same phrase several times. I found this amusing since he lost the 2002 senatorial race because of his lack of bipartisanship.
As a North Carolinian, do you see the predicament I am faced with? Candidate A is a hard-working family man with our state's best interests in mind, while Candidate B is simply trying to gain political power. For me, the choice is a no-brainer: Richard Burr (aka "Candidate A") knows this state, and he knows what we need. I was lucky enough to meet him on two occasions: once when I was 13, and again a few weeks ago at the senatorial debate. He is a genuinely nice person, approachable and very easy to talk to. Meeting him at the age of 13 definitely helped inspire me to go into politics.
On the other hand, I find Candidate B (Erskine Bowles) to be just a little scary. I have a theory that he is robot designed by the Democratic Party. If you think Bowles cares about North Carolina, you're sadly mistaken. It's not a coincidence that he chose to leave the Clinton administration during the middle of the Lewinsky scandal; he didn't want to ruin his future political goals. And if he had really wanted to leave D.C. so badly, why is he suddenly trying to go back? Bowles is no different from John Edwards; he only wants to use this Senate seat as a stepping-stone. He has much higher aspirations.
Take it from me: I've heard the issues; I've met the men. This goes far beyond party loyalty. A vote for Richard Burr is a vote for North Carolina's future. Trust me, North Carolina: when November 2 rolls around, elect Richard Burr to U.S. Senate. You won't regret it.
Monday, October 04, 2004
Vote for my Daddy, He's Rich!
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Vote for My Daddy, He's Rich! - Opinions
Last week, Cate Edwards, John Edwards' daughter visited UNCG to talk about her father's campaign. Now, if you're like me, you probably saw fliers around campus announcing her arrival and thought, "Who is Cate Edwards?" And then you kept reading the flier, which eventually answered your question: Nobody.
When it comes down to it, Cate Edwards is little more than a spoiled little rich girl living off Daddy's money. Why was she going around answering questions about her father's campaign? Another good question! NO ONE KNOWS! My father is an accountant, but I don't travel around lecturing people on how to correctly do their tax returns.
After attending her speech, I found myself rather disappointed that I had missed my political science class for such fluff. Online columns that I looked up later lamented the fact that Cate was only invited to three North Carolina Universities, but the truth is, maybe they wanted to give their time and money to something better. Something that's maybe, I don't know, interesting and/or educational? Maybe something that would fill the entire auditorium? Don't let the TV clips fool you: they were frantically jamming kids in front of the news cameras so Cate and the College Democrats wouldn't look bad.
Ben Byrd, the president of the College Democrats, introduced Cate, touting her many "accomplishments" such as graduating from Princeton and being involved in her sorority, Pi Beta Phi. After listening to her speech, I lost all respect for a Princeton degree. I hope that everyone who scoffs at Bush's Yale degree was in our EUC listening to Princeton's finest last Monday, because it was quite painful listening to her stumble over big words like "convention."
Cate spoke to us about why we should vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket in 2004, but in her attacks against Bush, she left out some interesting facts. She told us about how many people had lost their jobs during the past four years, but failed to mention that our current president inherited this economy from President Clinton, the Democrat's golden boy. You'd think that someone with a degree in Political Economics would know this and would also know that, thanks to the Bush administration, the economy has been rising in more recent times. I'm disappointed that she forgot to tell us this. She also mentioned that health care premiums had risen, but failed to remind us that, as a trial lawyer, her father had a HUGE hand in causing those premiums to rise. I wonder if "hypocrite" has any meaning to her.
My favorite part was the question/answer session. The first two people to stand up didn't seem to understand the meaning of the word "question" and instead preached at the crowd. The first woman ranted about Bush trying to reinstate the draft but neglected to inform the audience that the draft legislation making its way through Congress had been proposed by two Democratic senators, both of whom are staunch Kerry supporters. The second "question" was a rant about health care premiums going up, and I was once again disappointed in Cate for not setting the man straight.
But then the real questions began, and Cate got a chance to let her intelligence really shine. One person asked if she was discouraged by Bush's lead in the polls, and she stated her distrust in polls, which is understandable. She talked about how Bush had gotten a nice lead due to his convention, but some of the more recent polls she had seen had put Kerry in the lead. I spent an hour looking up different polls later that day, and not a one of them showed Kerry in the lead. Looks like Daddy's money can't buy everything.
Another person asked what she thought her father's most popular speaking point was, and after hmming and uhhing for a minute, she replied, "I don't have all of my father's talking points memorized." Are you kidding me? Okay, you're traveling around to different universities trying to rally votes for the Democratic ticket, and you don't even know your father's platform? Could you not just SAY something??
Cate, please do the world a favor and end your political career here and now. You're obviously not able to think on the spot. Every time you were asked a question, you'd pause and cock your head to the side. I mean, that's adorable when my puppy does it, but scary when someone I'm supposed to be taking political advice from does it. Let's face the facts: Daddy's money might buy you some nice things, including that pretty little Princeton degree, but it's obvious from your "speech" that money can't buy miracles. Next time, if he's that hard up for votes, let Daddy do his own campaigning. You can sit behind him and smile; that's really what you do best.
Last week, Cate Edwards, John Edwards' daughter visited UNCG to talk about her father's campaign. Now, if you're like me, you probably saw fliers around campus announcing her arrival and thought, "Who is Cate Edwards?" And then you kept reading the flier, which eventually answered your question: Nobody.
When it comes down to it, Cate Edwards is little more than a spoiled little rich girl living off Daddy's money. Why was she going around answering questions about her father's campaign? Another good question! NO ONE KNOWS! My father is an accountant, but I don't travel around lecturing people on how to correctly do their tax returns.
After attending her speech, I found myself rather disappointed that I had missed my political science class for such fluff. Online columns that I looked up later lamented the fact that Cate was only invited to three North Carolina Universities, but the truth is, maybe they wanted to give their time and money to something better. Something that's maybe, I don't know, interesting and/or educational? Maybe something that would fill the entire auditorium? Don't let the TV clips fool you: they were frantically jamming kids in front of the news cameras so Cate and the College Democrats wouldn't look bad.
Ben Byrd, the president of the College Democrats, introduced Cate, touting her many "accomplishments" such as graduating from Princeton and being involved in her sorority, Pi Beta Phi. After listening to her speech, I lost all respect for a Princeton degree. I hope that everyone who scoffs at Bush's Yale degree was in our EUC listening to Princeton's finest last Monday, because it was quite painful listening to her stumble over big words like "convention."
Cate spoke to us about why we should vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket in 2004, but in her attacks against Bush, she left out some interesting facts. She told us about how many people had lost their jobs during the past four years, but failed to mention that our current president inherited this economy from President Clinton, the Democrat's golden boy. You'd think that someone with a degree in Political Economics would know this and would also know that, thanks to the Bush administration, the economy has been rising in more recent times. I'm disappointed that she forgot to tell us this. She also mentioned that health care premiums had risen, but failed to remind us that, as a trial lawyer, her father had a HUGE hand in causing those premiums to rise. I wonder if "hypocrite" has any meaning to her.
My favorite part was the question/answer session. The first two people to stand up didn't seem to understand the meaning of the word "question" and instead preached at the crowd. The first woman ranted about Bush trying to reinstate the draft but neglected to inform the audience that the draft legislation making its way through Congress had been proposed by two Democratic senators, both of whom are staunch Kerry supporters. The second "question" was a rant about health care premiums going up, and I was once again disappointed in Cate for not setting the man straight.
But then the real questions began, and Cate got a chance to let her intelligence really shine. One person asked if she was discouraged by Bush's lead in the polls, and she stated her distrust in polls, which is understandable. She talked about how Bush had gotten a nice lead due to his convention, but some of the more recent polls she had seen had put Kerry in the lead. I spent an hour looking up different polls later that day, and not a one of them showed Kerry in the lead. Looks like Daddy's money can't buy everything.
Another person asked what she thought her father's most popular speaking point was, and after hmming and uhhing for a minute, she replied, "I don't have all of my father's talking points memorized." Are you kidding me? Okay, you're traveling around to different universities trying to rally votes for the Democratic ticket, and you don't even know your father's platform? Could you not just SAY something??
Cate, please do the world a favor and end your political career here and now. You're obviously not able to think on the spot. Every time you were asked a question, you'd pause and cock your head to the side. I mean, that's adorable when my puppy does it, but scary when someone I'm supposed to be taking political advice from does it. Let's face the facts: Daddy's money might buy you some nice things, including that pretty little Princeton degree, but it's obvious from your "speech" that money can't buy miracles. Next time, if he's that hard up for votes, let Daddy do his own campaigning. You can sit behind him and smile; that's really what you do best.
Monday, September 20, 2004
The New Feminism
THE RIGHT ANGLE: The New Feminism - Opinions
Being the poster child for conservatism on a college campus isn't easy. I'm routinely accused of being a "traitor" to the Women's Movement, when in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. For years, I've considered myself a feminist. I complain about sexist traditions (from wives taking their husbands' names to men having to pay for their dates), I'm upset by the lack of women's history in regular history classes, and I absolutely despise it when men who don't know me call me "sweetheart."
I thought that would be enough, but according to my fellow feminists, it's not. However, I've started to realize that the problem isn't me, but the ever-changing definition of feminism. Apparently, in order to be a feminist these days, one must believe that a woman's rights exceed those of a man.
Affirmative action is only one example of this. As a self-proclaimed feminist, I find it personally offensive that the government thinks I need their help in getting a job. A true feminist would take the term "a man's world" as a challenge and fight tooth and nail to make it to the top. She would not enlist government help, nor would she cry (as an article in Cosmopolitan once suggested). The fact that both the government and Cosmopolitan think I need their help is quite insulting.
Another reason I am apparently not allowed to be a feminist is because I am pro-life. People frequently accuse me of wanting to deny women the right to choose what happens to their own bodies. On the contrary, I think women should have the right to choose, and they make that choice once they decide to have sex. I also believe that if they make that decision, they should have to deal with the consequences. When did feminism become little more than fighting for the ability to kill an innocent human being?
I also firmly believe that this same modern form of feminism that has cursed us with affirmative action and abortion is responsible for the recent demise of morality. The idea that a woman should be able to do anything she wants with her own body, while basically true, has been taken to a new level. Abstinence didn't used to be such a crazy notion. Now, women are EXPECTED to have sex with men before marriage, with several different partners.
By itself, this may not sound that bad. However, by making promiscuous sex mainstream, we have developed several new STD's and made abortion much more acceptable. One night stands and multiple partners are shown on network television without a second thought. But before you shrug your shoulders and say, "That's life," I urge you to visit your local middle school. Count the number of pregnant students. Ask around and find out how many of the students have had sex, had abortions, or even had children. You might be shocked. These children are 11 and 12, and they're having sex. Where do we draw the line?
The feminist in me believes in equality at school and at work, the ability to take responsibility for one's actions, and the right to abstain without being pressured by friends, boyfriends, and the media. You can tell me I'm not a "real" feminist, but if that means cheating to get ahead, murdering for the sake of "choice", and being a slut, then I don't want to live by your definition of feminism. I guess I have a little more decency than that.
This article received several response columns and letters to the editor in the following weeks, and a weekly columnist responded to it in January 2007; a response column from me was published the next week.
Being the poster child for conservatism on a college campus isn't easy. I'm routinely accused of being a "traitor" to the Women's Movement, when in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. For years, I've considered myself a feminist. I complain about sexist traditions (from wives taking their husbands' names to men having to pay for their dates), I'm upset by the lack of women's history in regular history classes, and I absolutely despise it when men who don't know me call me "sweetheart."
I thought that would be enough, but according to my fellow feminists, it's not. However, I've started to realize that the problem isn't me, but the ever-changing definition of feminism. Apparently, in order to be a feminist these days, one must believe that a woman's rights exceed those of a man.
Affirmative action is only one example of this. As a self-proclaimed feminist, I find it personally offensive that the government thinks I need their help in getting a job. A true feminist would take the term "a man's world" as a challenge and fight tooth and nail to make it to the top. She would not enlist government help, nor would she cry (as an article in Cosmopolitan once suggested). The fact that both the government and Cosmopolitan think I need their help is quite insulting.
Another reason I am apparently not allowed to be a feminist is because I am pro-life. People frequently accuse me of wanting to deny women the right to choose what happens to their own bodies. On the contrary, I think women should have the right to choose, and they make that choice once they decide to have sex. I also believe that if they make that decision, they should have to deal with the consequences. When did feminism become little more than fighting for the ability to kill an innocent human being?
I also firmly believe that this same modern form of feminism that has cursed us with affirmative action and abortion is responsible for the recent demise of morality. The idea that a woman should be able to do anything she wants with her own body, while basically true, has been taken to a new level. Abstinence didn't used to be such a crazy notion. Now, women are EXPECTED to have sex with men before marriage, with several different partners.
By itself, this may not sound that bad. However, by making promiscuous sex mainstream, we have developed several new STD's and made abortion much more acceptable. One night stands and multiple partners are shown on network television without a second thought. But before you shrug your shoulders and say, "That's life," I urge you to visit your local middle school. Count the number of pregnant students. Ask around and find out how many of the students have had sex, had abortions, or even had children. You might be shocked. These children are 11 and 12, and they're having sex. Where do we draw the line?
The feminist in me believes in equality at school and at work, the ability to take responsibility for one's actions, and the right to abstain without being pressured by friends, boyfriends, and the media. You can tell me I'm not a "real" feminist, but if that means cheating to get ahead, murdering for the sake of "choice", and being a slut, then I don't want to live by your definition of feminism. I guess I have a little more decency than that.
This article received several response columns and letters to the editor in the following weeks, and a weekly columnist responded to it in January 2007; a response column from me was published the next week.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Protesting for Dummies
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Protesting for Dummies - Opinions
Some people skip class to sleep in. Some people skip class to have fun with their friends. I, on the other hand, skip class to stand in the pouring rain for three hours and be harassed by strangers.
A sick fascination with political protesters prompted me to do a very stupid thing the other day. In an attempt to understand what drives these brave activists, I donned my Bush/Cheney visor, my Republican Woman shirt, and a huge sign on which I scrawled, "GIVE TERRORISM A CHANCE! VOTE KERRY!" and headed down to the old train station where Kerry was speaking.
Looking back on the incident, this was not one of my better ideas. I might have been safer if I had disguised myself as a sandwich and locked myself in a room with Michael Moore... wait, on second thought, I was definitely safer at the protest.
But aside from masochism, the real reason I went was to gain perspective on what it is that drives protesters to do what they do. I did, in fact, survive, and now I'm going tell you how YOU TOO can be a successful protester in these four easy steps!
1. BE FLEXIBLE. Protesting takes time, and these people obviously had lots of it. My fellow Republicans and I nervously checked our watches and lamented over how much work/school we were missing; I don't think I heard anyone else worrying over such frivolous matters. Also, as a side note, when the protester in question is a Kerry supporter, the phrase "be flexible" takes on a whole new meaning, since they have to change their positions every week or so.
2. BE LOUD. You don't necessarily have to be intelligent to be a protester. Just very, VERY loud. Pick one point that you want to get across, and stick with it. One man at the protest decided the point he wanted to get across was "Bush sucks." Every time a reporter would try to interview me or one of my fellow Bush supporters this man would shout "Bush sucks!" about three feet away from us. He would then wait about ten seconds, and repeat this intelligent argument. "Bush sucks!" It doesn't matter how ridiculous you sound, as long as you're loud. I'm sure he converted several people who were going to vote Republican this year.
3. BE OBNOXIOUS. Once again, you don't have to be intelligent. Hell, you don't even have to have a real point. I had an old woman follow me around the entire three hours I was there ranting things like, "God forgive her, for she knows not what she does." She also tried to cover up my sign with her umbrella. I would just like to say, in my defense, that under normal circumstances I am AGAINST pummeling old people with their own canes.
4. BE A BITCH. Just remember, you're the protester and you're ALWAYS right, no matter what anyone else says! Apparently, I'm a racist, a slut, a bigot, a nazi, a sexist, AND my father is a drunk (I wasn't quite sure where that one came from, I think it's the middle-aged version of "Yo' Mamma!"). Just keep an endless supply of offensive names and hurtful phrases on hand at all times, and you're good to go!
That's all there is to it! Now, pick up your signs, throw on your Kerry gear, quit your job, and don't forget to stay up to date on Kerry's ever-changing views!
Some people skip class to sleep in. Some people skip class to have fun with their friends. I, on the other hand, skip class to stand in the pouring rain for three hours and be harassed by strangers.
A sick fascination with political protesters prompted me to do a very stupid thing the other day. In an attempt to understand what drives these brave activists, I donned my Bush/Cheney visor, my Republican Woman shirt, and a huge sign on which I scrawled, "GIVE TERRORISM A CHANCE! VOTE KERRY!" and headed down to the old train station where Kerry was speaking.
Looking back on the incident, this was not one of my better ideas. I might have been safer if I had disguised myself as a sandwich and locked myself in a room with Michael Moore... wait, on second thought, I was definitely safer at the protest.
But aside from masochism, the real reason I went was to gain perspective on what it is that drives protesters to do what they do. I did, in fact, survive, and now I'm going tell you how YOU TOO can be a successful protester in these four easy steps!
1. BE FLEXIBLE. Protesting takes time, and these people obviously had lots of it. My fellow Republicans and I nervously checked our watches and lamented over how much work/school we were missing; I don't think I heard anyone else worrying over such frivolous matters. Also, as a side note, when the protester in question is a Kerry supporter, the phrase "be flexible" takes on a whole new meaning, since they have to change their positions every week or so.
2. BE LOUD. You don't necessarily have to be intelligent to be a protester. Just very, VERY loud. Pick one point that you want to get across, and stick with it. One man at the protest decided the point he wanted to get across was "Bush sucks." Every time a reporter would try to interview me or one of my fellow Bush supporters this man would shout "Bush sucks!" about three feet away from us. He would then wait about ten seconds, and repeat this intelligent argument. "Bush sucks!" It doesn't matter how ridiculous you sound, as long as you're loud. I'm sure he converted several people who were going to vote Republican this year.
3. BE OBNOXIOUS. Once again, you don't have to be intelligent. Hell, you don't even have to have a real point. I had an old woman follow me around the entire three hours I was there ranting things like, "God forgive her, for she knows not what she does." She also tried to cover up my sign with her umbrella. I would just like to say, in my defense, that under normal circumstances I am AGAINST pummeling old people with their own canes.
4. BE A BITCH. Just remember, you're the protester and you're ALWAYS right, no matter what anyone else says! Apparently, I'm a racist, a slut, a bigot, a nazi, a sexist, AND my father is a drunk (I wasn't quite sure where that one came from, I think it's the middle-aged version of "Yo' Mamma!"). Just keep an endless supply of offensive names and hurtful phrases on hand at all times, and you're good to go!
That's all there is to it! Now, pick up your signs, throw on your Kerry gear, quit your job, and don't forget to stay up to date on Kerry's ever-changing views!
Monday, September 13, 2004
Oh No! A Republican!
Guest Column: Oh No! A Republican! - Letters to the Editor
I am a rarity on UNCG's campus. My binder is covered in (gasp) Pro-Bush bumper stickers. I have your basic Bush/Cheney stickers, some anti-Kerry stickers, and even a few stickers supporting Republicans in local elections.
I'm merely stating my opinions, something other students do everyday, something we have been encouraged to do for as long as I can remember, but apparently my opinions are WRONG. I know this by some of the looks and comments I have received. I had one student get in my face and call me a "white racist bitch." Until that moment, I was unaware that political affiliation determined whether or not you were racist.
I understand that there are people out there who feel that Bush has personally attacked them in one way or another. In the past year, I've been accused of being racist, homophobic, and closed-minded.
But in reality, which of us is more closed-minded? None of these people actually asked me about my views. They don't know that I don't support Bush's marriage amendment, or that I was rooting for John McCain in the 2000 primaries. The only thing they know for sure is that they don't like my binder.
In a lot of ways, I feel that my political affiliation is no different than race and/or sexual orientation. Honestly, I WISH I were a liberal at times. I've tried to get into that kind of mindset, but I just can't do it. This is how I am, and you are judging me for something I have no control over.
I want to take this moment to thank the few people who have commented positively on my Bush gear. Thank you for being different, for respecting and sharing my views. Thank you for letting me know that I'm not alone.
I also want to thank the people who don't necessarily agree with my views, but who commented on my "bravery". Even though you don't share my point of view, it's nice to hear words of encouragement every now and then.
Maybe you've seen my binder, my pins, or my Bush visor. Maybe you have an opinion on them, maybe you don't. Maybe you've wanted to tell me that you share my support, but you're too shy. If you agree with me, please let me know. Tell me you like my pins, ask me where I got my stickers, anything.
If you disagree with me, let me know that you support my right to freedom of speech. Tell me that you think it takes guts to tote my right-wing propaganda around this campus. Tell me why you disagree with Bush's policies, and ask me what I think of the controversial issues.
And if you really hate me with a passion the second you see my Bush gear, please try to keep it in. Yelling obscenities at me will not make me change my mind, and calling me hurtful names will only make me NOT want to support whomever you do.
I'm not trying to convert you. I just want a little respect.
I am a rarity on UNCG's campus. My binder is covered in (gasp) Pro-Bush bumper stickers. I have your basic Bush/Cheney stickers, some anti-Kerry stickers, and even a few stickers supporting Republicans in local elections.
I'm merely stating my opinions, something other students do everyday, something we have been encouraged to do for as long as I can remember, but apparently my opinions are WRONG. I know this by some of the looks and comments I have received. I had one student get in my face and call me a "white racist bitch." Until that moment, I was unaware that political affiliation determined whether or not you were racist.
I understand that there are people out there who feel that Bush has personally attacked them in one way or another. In the past year, I've been accused of being racist, homophobic, and closed-minded.
But in reality, which of us is more closed-minded? None of these people actually asked me about my views. They don't know that I don't support Bush's marriage amendment, or that I was rooting for John McCain in the 2000 primaries. The only thing they know for sure is that they don't like my binder.
In a lot of ways, I feel that my political affiliation is no different than race and/or sexual orientation. Honestly, I WISH I were a liberal at times. I've tried to get into that kind of mindset, but I just can't do it. This is how I am, and you are judging me for something I have no control over.
I want to take this moment to thank the few people who have commented positively on my Bush gear. Thank you for being different, for respecting and sharing my views. Thank you for letting me know that I'm not alone.
I also want to thank the people who don't necessarily agree with my views, but who commented on my "bravery". Even though you don't share my point of view, it's nice to hear words of encouragement every now and then.
Maybe you've seen my binder, my pins, or my Bush visor. Maybe you have an opinion on them, maybe you don't. Maybe you've wanted to tell me that you share my support, but you're too shy. If you agree with me, please let me know. Tell me you like my pins, ask me where I got my stickers, anything.
If you disagree with me, let me know that you support my right to freedom of speech. Tell me that you think it takes guts to tote my right-wing propaganda around this campus. Tell me why you disagree with Bush's policies, and ask me what I think of the controversial issues.
And if you really hate me with a passion the second you see my Bush gear, please try to keep it in. Yelling obscenities at me will not make me change my mind, and calling me hurtful names will only make me NOT want to support whomever you do.
I'm not trying to convert you. I just want a little respect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
