THE RIGHT ANGLE: Breaking the party line - Opinions
Last week, UNCG's PRIDE group held its annual PRIDE Week, a celebration of the GLBT movement in America. They featured a different event each night, including concerts, discussions, and special speakers. Although I was unable to attend all of the events, I did make it to a few of them, including Tuesday night's "LGBT Politics Panel" and Thursday night's "GLBTQQSA� Huh?!" both of which were extremely interesting and enlightening events.
Now here is where everyone gets confused. I did not attend these events to protest the so-called "homosexual agenda" or to cause any sort of trouble. I went because I support the GLBT movement, and I consider myself a straight ally. For many young Republicans looking to someday break into the world of real politics, you might think this is career suicide, but I don't see it that way. The times are changing, and the political parties are too.
A couple years ago, I worked for the Republican Party during the 2004 elections. I spent a great deal of my time volunteering with people who were about my age, and whose views, like my own, seemed a little more socially permissive than the average Republican's. However, whenever an older person would ask them how they felt about allowing gay marriage, they would always answer more conservatively than they had when they were around their peers. My answer never changed, however, and I like to think that I was respected, by both groups, for being firm in my beliefs.
I believe then as I believe now that marriage, of any sort, should not be defined by the government. Marriage is a religious sacrament, and by allowing the government to define and control it, we are violating the separation of church and state. Many people will tell you they oppose gay marriage because of religious reasons, but with so many religions now openly allowing gays and lesbians to participate in marriage ceremonies, how do we pick and choose which religion (or more appropriately, which denomination) to mandate the norm?
I certainly don't want the government telling churches what they can and cannot preach and practice, and along those same lines, I don't want the church to control the government. I realize that this nation was founded by Christian beliefs, but it was also founded by people who wanted the government to stay out of religion. But when you have an issue like that of marriage which is clearly a legal and religious conglomeration, you're going to have people getting pretty upset when the government suggests changing anything about it.
There's a solution here, and although it may not be simple, it makes sense. Take marriage out of the government's realm and keep it in the churches (synagogues, mosques, etc) where it belongs. In its place, the government should legalize civil unions for all couples consisting of two consenting adults. This way, each church can decide how it chooses to define marriage, and "married" couples can still receive legal benefits.
And if America refuses to take my idea seriously (President Bush rarely gives any feedback on my weekly columns), then people should at least open their eyes and realize that change is coming. This issue, like many others throughout history, seems to be generational, as I saw in my dealings with young Republicans in 2004. Our parents' generation may be vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage or even homosexuality in the same way that THEIR parents' generation was opposed to interracial marriage or feminist movements. The truth is, social norms and traditions change with each generation. Only forty years ago, there were still laws banning interracial marriages; do we really think gay marriage will never be a legal reality?
In a column last July, I wrote about how many gay Republicans I seem to come across, and since then, that number has grown. Former PRIDE President Chris Wood is not only openly gay, he's openly Republican, and religious as well. Wood recently told me about a local Catholic priest who referred to the New Testament as "the greatest love story of all time." Wood then stated that, "It's hard for me to believe these fundamentalists who are using [this] to justify hate and oppression."
And he's right. People use the Bible to both defend and attack homosexuality, but every passage used can be turned into a question of translation or historical connotation. However, the message of "love your neighbor" radiates loud and clear throughout the entire New Testament with little question as to perspective.
Even young conservatives who continue to oppose gay marriage seem to agree that civil unions (where homosexual couples are given similar rights as heterosexual married couples) are an acceptable alternative. And while this may not be true equality, it's much more than the current national parties are willing to give, and further proof that the times are changing.
There is no doubt in my mind that gay marriage will be legalized within our lifetimes. The question is how long will we continue to let the government hold us to certain (and possibly misconceived) religious standards? And how long will we continue to treat an entire group of people like second-class citizens?
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
No Hablo Espanol: Thanks to a Lack of Concern, English Speakers May Soon Find Themselves in the Minority in
The Right Angle: No Hablo Espanol - Opinions
You could call North Carolina an overachiever, of sorts. A report released on July 26th done by the Pew Hispanic Center reported that six Southern states had Hispanic populations growing at twice the rate of the entire country. Not only was North Carolina one of those six states, it had the dubious honor of being THE state with the fastest growth in the entire country.
The report went on to mention that three out of four immigrants to the South were born in Mexico and that a large majority do not speak English - not that many North Carolinians needed a report to tell them that bit of information.
This report comes conveniently just a few weeks after the Winston Salem Journal published a study showing increased immigrant births across the state. The Journal reported that in Forsyth County alone, immigrant births increased from 3% to 25% of all births in a ten year span. It also estimated that over 14% of all births are to illegal immigrants.
Sure, this is fairly old news. For years people have been complaining about illegal immigrants, but no one really cares enough to do anything. On the contrary, many Americans are actually catering to the Hispanic population. Several businesses run ads in English and Spanish, and even more advertise that they speak Spanish. In many places, you can walk in and simply say, "Hablas Espanol?" and within minutes you'll be greeted in Spanish by someone willing and eager to help you.
Rather than discourage immigrants from illegally entering the country, North Carolina is making itself more hospitable. It is becoming increasingly easier to obtain licenses in this state, and the schools gladly create entire classes geared towards students who speak Spanish. North Carolina citizens are often urged to learn Spanish in order to better help their neighbors. With so many people bending over backward like that, who WOULDN'T want to come to North Carolina?
All this has really done is give the illegals a sense of entitlement. Many illegal Mexicans have no interest in even trying to learn English. A good friend of mine who works in a Greensboro pharmacy estimates that over 90% of all her Hispanic customers do not understand a word of English. Many do not even try to understand what she is asking them, answering her questions of, "May I have your date of birth?" with blank stares and the occasional, "Hablas Espanol?"
I cannot fathom going to live in a foreign country in which I do not speak the majority language, and I would certainly not expect the people in that country to change for me. But these growing numbers show that they're still coming in illegally, still not speaking English, and still taking American jobs.
For years now, those in the political correctness realm have claimed that immigrants are not actually taking American jobs, but taking the jobs Americans don't want. Another study published in the News and Record in the past few weeks shows that this is no longer the case. In recent years, Mexican immigrants have begun taking jobs traditionally held by American teenagers. Employers favor these immigrants over teenage workers because they work longer hours and do not have to mold their schedules around school. So now, we are not only encouraging illegal immigrants to invade our country, but we are encouraging lower-class teenagers to drop out of school.
This is an issue we've dealt with for a long time, but thanks to political correctness, it is not an issue that has any simple answers. We cannot point out that these immigrants need to learn English, because that might be "offensive" to their culture. We cannot question the authenticity of their citizenship because that would be "racial profiling". All we really can do in this situation, apparently, is give them our own hard-earned tax dollars and learn their language.
The last thing we need right now is political correctness. What we really need is a national language to bind us all together and a President who doesn't think amnesty is the answer. With no foreseeable change in the near future, things could get a lot more confusing before they ever get any better. That's if they ever do, of course.
You could call North Carolina an overachiever, of sorts. A report released on July 26th done by the Pew Hispanic Center reported that six Southern states had Hispanic populations growing at twice the rate of the entire country. Not only was North Carolina one of those six states, it had the dubious honor of being THE state with the fastest growth in the entire country.
The report went on to mention that three out of four immigrants to the South were born in Mexico and that a large majority do not speak English - not that many North Carolinians needed a report to tell them that bit of information.
This report comes conveniently just a few weeks after the Winston Salem Journal published a study showing increased immigrant births across the state. The Journal reported that in Forsyth County alone, immigrant births increased from 3% to 25% of all births in a ten year span. It also estimated that over 14% of all births are to illegal immigrants.
Sure, this is fairly old news. For years people have been complaining about illegal immigrants, but no one really cares enough to do anything. On the contrary, many Americans are actually catering to the Hispanic population. Several businesses run ads in English and Spanish, and even more advertise that they speak Spanish. In many places, you can walk in and simply say, "Hablas Espanol?" and within minutes you'll be greeted in Spanish by someone willing and eager to help you.
Rather than discourage immigrants from illegally entering the country, North Carolina is making itself more hospitable. It is becoming increasingly easier to obtain licenses in this state, and the schools gladly create entire classes geared towards students who speak Spanish. North Carolina citizens are often urged to learn Spanish in order to better help their neighbors. With so many people bending over backward like that, who WOULDN'T want to come to North Carolina?
All this has really done is give the illegals a sense of entitlement. Many illegal Mexicans have no interest in even trying to learn English. A good friend of mine who works in a Greensboro pharmacy estimates that over 90% of all her Hispanic customers do not understand a word of English. Many do not even try to understand what she is asking them, answering her questions of, "May I have your date of birth?" with blank stares and the occasional, "Hablas Espanol?"
I cannot fathom going to live in a foreign country in which I do not speak the majority language, and I would certainly not expect the people in that country to change for me. But these growing numbers show that they're still coming in illegally, still not speaking English, and still taking American jobs.
For years now, those in the political correctness realm have claimed that immigrants are not actually taking American jobs, but taking the jobs Americans don't want. Another study published in the News and Record in the past few weeks shows that this is no longer the case. In recent years, Mexican immigrants have begun taking jobs traditionally held by American teenagers. Employers favor these immigrants over teenage workers because they work longer hours and do not have to mold their schedules around school. So now, we are not only encouraging illegal immigrants to invade our country, but we are encouraging lower-class teenagers to drop out of school.
This is an issue we've dealt with for a long time, but thanks to political correctness, it is not an issue that has any simple answers. We cannot point out that these immigrants need to learn English, because that might be "offensive" to their culture. We cannot question the authenticity of their citizenship because that would be "racial profiling". All we really can do in this situation, apparently, is give them our own hard-earned tax dollars and learn their language.
The last thing we need right now is political correctness. What we really need is a national language to bind us all together and a President who doesn't think amnesty is the answer. With no foreseeable change in the near future, things could get a lot more confusing before they ever get any better. That's if they ever do, of course.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Dear George: An Open Letter to the President on Judicial Diversity
The Right Angle: Dear George - Opinions
Dear George W. Bush:
First of all, I want to thank you and Laura for the lovely Christmas card you sent several months ago. It was very nice of you to remember me, and I would have mentioned it sooner, but I'm a very busy person. Well, you know how that is, I suppose.
I'm writing to you in regards to your pick for the newest position on the Supreme Court. While I'm sure Mr. Roberts is a good, safe, conservative choice, I'm not so sure he's the BEST choice. After all, don't forget that you're losing a very intelligent moderately conservative woman. Do you really feel you should replace her with ANOTHER white male?
Now, don't get me wrong, Mr. President, I am very much against affirmative action, believe it or not. I do not think people should be chosen for a job based on their race and gender rather than their qualifications. But you see, sir, this is a very different and more delicate situation. In order for our courts to be as objective and fair as possible, we need different types of people. Females endure different types of prejudice than men do, just as blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and homosexuals all suffer through different types of prejudices. Going through these separate and different tests of discrimination gives each person a different point of view. This is the type of education that you cannot receive from a Harvard law degree.
That's not to say the Harvard law degree isn't important. I would never ask you to sacrifice intelligence and standards for race and gender in this type of situation. But you simply cannot tell me that there were absolutely no women in America who have lived up to the same standard as Mr. Roberts. I refuse to believe he is THE absolute best choice out of everyone in the United States.
I'm sure there were several other factors to your decision. Maybe Laura was being a bit too bossy that day, and you felt the need to add more testosterone to the Supreme Court. I know your home life has pretty much surrounded you by women, and you can't fathom why the country's largest court would need any more of them.
The fact is, Mr. President, I am worried. With the loss of Sandra Day O'Connor, there is only one female left on the Supreme Court. And, well, to be honest with you, I'm not even sure Ruth Ginsburg counts as a female. What we need is not another conservative white male. We need a conservative female.
Last year, I spent several hundred hours of my own personal time devoted to your re-election campaign. Why? Because I trust you to make the right decisions in times like this. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you couldn't find a conservative female who was willing to take the position. After all, it is a huge burden, and not a responsibility that should be taken lightly.
With that in mind, Mr. President, I would like to remind you that I am, in fact, an intelligent, moderately-conservative female. I have all sorts of opinions about how this country should be run, and because of that, I think I would make a great addition to the Supreme Court. I know I'm still fairly young, but I think that would only help bring diversity to the court.
I know it is huge responsibility, but I'm willing to take it for the sake of America. Please let me know your decision at least two weeks in advance, so I will have ample time to request off from my waitressing job. Oh, and don't worry about Roberts. I'm sure we can find an illegal nanny somewhere in his past.
I look forward to working with you and interpreting the Constitution!
Sincerely,
Melissa B.Westmoreland
PS - I am also very good at public speaking! Perhaps you and I could get together on a Saturday afternoon to go over some pronunciation. Just a suggestion.
Dear George W. Bush:
First of all, I want to thank you and Laura for the lovely Christmas card you sent several months ago. It was very nice of you to remember me, and I would have mentioned it sooner, but I'm a very busy person. Well, you know how that is, I suppose.
I'm writing to you in regards to your pick for the newest position on the Supreme Court. While I'm sure Mr. Roberts is a good, safe, conservative choice, I'm not so sure he's the BEST choice. After all, don't forget that you're losing a very intelligent moderately conservative woman. Do you really feel you should replace her with ANOTHER white male?
Now, don't get me wrong, Mr. President, I am very much against affirmative action, believe it or not. I do not think people should be chosen for a job based on their race and gender rather than their qualifications. But you see, sir, this is a very different and more delicate situation. In order for our courts to be as objective and fair as possible, we need different types of people. Females endure different types of prejudice than men do, just as blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and homosexuals all suffer through different types of prejudices. Going through these separate and different tests of discrimination gives each person a different point of view. This is the type of education that you cannot receive from a Harvard law degree.
That's not to say the Harvard law degree isn't important. I would never ask you to sacrifice intelligence and standards for race and gender in this type of situation. But you simply cannot tell me that there were absolutely no women in America who have lived up to the same standard as Mr. Roberts. I refuse to believe he is THE absolute best choice out of everyone in the United States.
I'm sure there were several other factors to your decision. Maybe Laura was being a bit too bossy that day, and you felt the need to add more testosterone to the Supreme Court. I know your home life has pretty much surrounded you by women, and you can't fathom why the country's largest court would need any more of them.
The fact is, Mr. President, I am worried. With the loss of Sandra Day O'Connor, there is only one female left on the Supreme Court. And, well, to be honest with you, I'm not even sure Ruth Ginsburg counts as a female. What we need is not another conservative white male. We need a conservative female.
Last year, I spent several hundred hours of my own personal time devoted to your re-election campaign. Why? Because I trust you to make the right decisions in times like this. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you couldn't find a conservative female who was willing to take the position. After all, it is a huge burden, and not a responsibility that should be taken lightly.
With that in mind, Mr. President, I would like to remind you that I am, in fact, an intelligent, moderately-conservative female. I have all sorts of opinions about how this country should be run, and because of that, I think I would make a great addition to the Supreme Court. I know I'm still fairly young, but I think that would only help bring diversity to the court.
I know it is huge responsibility, but I'm willing to take it for the sake of America. Please let me know your decision at least two weeks in advance, so I will have ample time to request off from my waitressing job. Oh, and don't worry about Roberts. I'm sure we can find an illegal nanny somewhere in his past.
I look forward to working with you and interpreting the Constitution!
Sincerely,
Melissa B.Westmoreland
PS - I am also very good at public speaking! Perhaps you and I could get together on a Saturday afternoon to go over some pronunciation. Just a suggestion.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Republican Oxymorons
Republican Oxymorons - Opinions
A black female, a gay man, and a Jewish rabbi walk into a polling place. They all vote for George W. Bush.
Funny? It shouldn't be. It happens a lot more often than the Democratic Party would have you believe. For years now, they've been making the Republican Party seem like the party that is against diversity of any kind. If you're not a straight white male and you're a Republican, you must be some kind of freak.
Even as a white female, I've picked up all kinds of grief from liberals about my political affiliation. I've been told that by taking a pro-life stance, the Republican Party is trying to keep women pregnant to cut down on the percentage of females in the workforce. Being pro-life, I found this theory amusing, especially since I am all for getting MORE women in the workforce.
I have recently stumbled onto a group of people that make the Democrats tremble in fear: gay Republicans. Throughout the past few months, I have encountered more openly homosexual men that describe themselves as Republicans than I ever have before. To the Democrats, these people are an urban myth. In their naive, misguided world of tunnel vision, gay Republicans are an oxymoron. I mean, after all, Republicans are "anti-gay", right?
Leonard Pitts Jr, a liberal columnist for the Miami Herald, writes a good percentage of his columns on why it is ridiculous for homosexuals and African-Americans to align themselves with the Republican Party. Most of his reasoning comes from the stereotype that all Republicans are anti-gay racists. Like him, many Democrats have fallen into the belief that all Republicans think exactly alike on every single issue. By their line of reasoning, gays, blacks, and women are fighting against their own personal freedoms by voting Republican.
The reason Democrats refuse to believe these people can be Republicans is that they refuse to let go of their stereotype that all Republicans are hardcore right-wing religious nut bags. But both of America's major political parties are just as diverse as the country itself. Within the Republican Party, there are people who are pro-choice, anti-war, and even pro-gay marriage.
So why do these people continue to support the Republican Party? What people often forget is that there is more to politics than just these few issues. Suppose a gay man would really like to see the Social Security system replaced with personal savings accounts. What should we expect him to do? Float around between parties? Very few Republicans or Democrats agree with their party 100% on all issues, and yet you very rarely see people running to third parties that may be a better match for their beliefs.
A lot of people within the Republican Party find themselves agreeing with many aspects of the Libertarian Party. The reason they don't switch is because they realize America is, for the most part, a two-party system. There is a much better chance of changing the world through the Republican or Democratic Party than through a third party. Republicans who do not agree with their party on every single issue should then work within the party to create change.
And yes, there are racists and sexists and bigots in the Republican Party. But I dare say there are just as many in the Democratic Party. Some of the most homophobic men I've ever met in my life were extremely liberal. People fear what they do not understand, and both parties have their share of ignorant members.
Several of these gay men I've talked to say they voted for Bush because they trusted him more with our national security, even if they didn't like his stance on gay marriages. Even John Kerry was in favor of civil unions rather than gay marriage. The way these men see it, why sacrifice one thing you believe in for something that might or might not end up going in your favor?
The battle for equality is far from over in America. Homosexuals, minorities, and women still battle bigotry every day. But when you try to characterize someone based on their political party, well, you're no better than those sexist, racist, ignorant bigots you claim to hate.
A black female, a gay man, and a Jewish rabbi walk into a polling place. They all vote for George W. Bush.
Funny? It shouldn't be. It happens a lot more often than the Democratic Party would have you believe. For years now, they've been making the Republican Party seem like the party that is against diversity of any kind. If you're not a straight white male and you're a Republican, you must be some kind of freak.
Even as a white female, I've picked up all kinds of grief from liberals about my political affiliation. I've been told that by taking a pro-life stance, the Republican Party is trying to keep women pregnant to cut down on the percentage of females in the workforce. Being pro-life, I found this theory amusing, especially since I am all for getting MORE women in the workforce.
I have recently stumbled onto a group of people that make the Democrats tremble in fear: gay Republicans. Throughout the past few months, I have encountered more openly homosexual men that describe themselves as Republicans than I ever have before. To the Democrats, these people are an urban myth. In their naive, misguided world of tunnel vision, gay Republicans are an oxymoron. I mean, after all, Republicans are "anti-gay", right?
Leonard Pitts Jr, a liberal columnist for the Miami Herald, writes a good percentage of his columns on why it is ridiculous for homosexuals and African-Americans to align themselves with the Republican Party. Most of his reasoning comes from the stereotype that all Republicans are anti-gay racists. Like him, many Democrats have fallen into the belief that all Republicans think exactly alike on every single issue. By their line of reasoning, gays, blacks, and women are fighting against their own personal freedoms by voting Republican.
The reason Democrats refuse to believe these people can be Republicans is that they refuse to let go of their stereotype that all Republicans are hardcore right-wing religious nut bags. But both of America's major political parties are just as diverse as the country itself. Within the Republican Party, there are people who are pro-choice, anti-war, and even pro-gay marriage.
So why do these people continue to support the Republican Party? What people often forget is that there is more to politics than just these few issues. Suppose a gay man would really like to see the Social Security system replaced with personal savings accounts. What should we expect him to do? Float around between parties? Very few Republicans or Democrats agree with their party 100% on all issues, and yet you very rarely see people running to third parties that may be a better match for their beliefs.
A lot of people within the Republican Party find themselves agreeing with many aspects of the Libertarian Party. The reason they don't switch is because they realize America is, for the most part, a two-party system. There is a much better chance of changing the world through the Republican or Democratic Party than through a third party. Republicans who do not agree with their party on every single issue should then work within the party to create change.
And yes, there are racists and sexists and bigots in the Republican Party. But I dare say there are just as many in the Democratic Party. Some of the most homophobic men I've ever met in my life were extremely liberal. People fear what they do not understand, and both parties have their share of ignorant members.
Several of these gay men I've talked to say they voted for Bush because they trusted him more with our national security, even if they didn't like his stance on gay marriages. Even John Kerry was in favor of civil unions rather than gay marriage. The way these men see it, why sacrifice one thing you believe in for something that might or might not end up going in your favor?
The battle for equality is far from over in America. Homosexuals, minorities, and women still battle bigotry every day. But when you try to characterize someone based on their political party, well, you're no better than those sexist, racist, ignorant bigots you claim to hate.
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, 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)
