THE RIGHT ANGLE: Refuting accusations of racism - Opinions
I have come to realize that my last column has generated a great deal of controversy, and I would like to take this time, if I may, to explain myself in greater detail.
I have been approached by several students in the last week saying that they found the views expressed in my previous column to be racist. I would like to apologize to anyone who took them in that way. My column was not intended to be racist, and had I known it would be taken that way, I would not have written it. My overall objective was to express my disapproval with Angela Davis as the school's choice for a MLK Day speaker. It was my opinion that a more fitting speaker could have been chosen, and I stand by that opinion.
I have received a lot of emails asking me what I meant specifically when I used the word "sheep" in my last column. A lot of students took that to mean that I was referring to the entire audience, which was predominantly African-American. I was actually referring to the many people who seemed to be deeply engrossed in the socialist propaganda that had been handed out at the entrance to the event. I apologize profusely to anyone who thought I was making a racist comment with that statement. I tend to use the word "sheep" to represent anyone who adheres to the socialist ideals, whether they be white, black, or purple with yellow polka dots, and I saw audience members of ALL backgrounds reading the newsletter.
Some people have also accused me of saying that racism is not a problem in America today. On the contrary, I realize that racism IS a problem in America, but I feel that Angela Davis used that racism to promote socialism. The race issue is a touchy one, and I don't know for sure if it will ever be solved, but I do not think that socialism would eradicate racism, as I think Davis tried to imply.
The reason I felt the need to write out this apology is because I know I would not want to feel that my race or gender had been targeted by a student columnist. As a woman, I myself am from a historically disadvantaged group, and if a male columnist had made statements that I found to be sexist, I'm sure I would be angry as well as hurt. I never wanted to put anyone through that, and I'm very sorry if I did.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
An Evening With Angela Davis
THE RIGHT ANGLE: An evening with Angela Davis - Opinions
In last week's column, I suggested that Angela Davis might not be the best choice for a Martin Luther King Day speaker. While many people agreed with me, there were also those who tried to tell me that a person did not have to necessarily emulate Dr. King in order to speak in honor of him. I decided to give them all the benefit of the doubt and attended the event.
I arrived at Aycock Auditorium early Tuesday evening with about eight friends of mine. We were greeted at the door not by ushers, but by socialists handing out anti-Bush fliers, signaling what kind of event this would prove to be. Although we thought we were early, the auditorium was already packed, and we were forced to find seating in the balcony. As we settled into a row that could accommodate all of us, I looked around to get a glimpse of my fellow audience members. I found myself completely surrounded by hundreds of people who seemed to be deeply engrossed in reading the socialists' "Impeach Bush" flier. That's about the time I realized I would be spending the next two hours with a couple thousand sheep.
Angela Davis opened her speech with some thoughts on Dr. King: some background on his work, the hardships he faced in his career, some of his beliefs, and so on. I was shocked, yet relieved, to hear her actually speak on what she was supposed to be speaking on. Of course, it didn't last. Within a matter of minutes, Davis had not-so-subtly changed the entire mood of her speech from "Let's Honor Dr. King" to "Let's Impeach Bush NOW."
For the remainder of her time on stage, Angela Davis preached a message of hate to her audience. She spent a good deal of time making jokes about famous black conservatives such as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Clarence Thomas. Apparently, according to her logic (and judging by the supportive applause from a good majority of the audience), African-Americans who become successful are no longer considered to be "really" black. Or maybe that only applies to conservative African-Americans. Davis never really specified, nor gave any reason for the apparent race change that occurs somewhere along the way.
And then of course there was the obligatory blaming of George W. Bush for Hurricane Katrina. Davis' conclusion on the issue? Kanye was right: George Bush does indeed hate poor black people. In fact, he spends so much time hating them, that I can't believe he has time for anything else. The way Davis painted President Bush, he apparently spends his every waking moment playing golf and dreaming up new ways to get rid of all black Americans.
Around this time in her rant, several audience members left the auditorium, including three of the people I was sitting with (who later told me they had better things to do with their time). Among the students leaving in disgust was a fellow College Republican who had actually been looking forward to hearing Davis speak. This student's uncle was one of the twelve miners that recently died in the Sago mine disaster only a few weeks ago, and she understandably had a serious issue with Davis blaming the Katrina debacle on racism. As she stood up to leave, she whispered to me, "Those people were left in that mine for hours while everyone just sat around wondering what to do. People called them rednecks and 'backwoods faggots,' but [Davis] doesn't want to mention that."
And she made a good point. Angela Davis seemed to be pushing the message that racism is the root of all evil in this country, but at least her tunnel vision was apparent to a few of us. If you're going to point to the African-Americans who have been hurt by an inefficient system, why not at least mention the whites who have suffered as well? Maybe racism isn't the problem in the Katrina disaster - maybe the problem is that humans make mistakes, and people suffer as a result, regardless of ethnic background.
Angela Davis ended her speech, not with some deep thoughts on how to bring about change in racist America, but by screaming, "Let's impeach Bush now!" After the cheering died down, Davis took questions from the audience. The very first came from a student who expressed disappointment over the fact that Davis had spent two hours telling us all what to be angry about, but not what to do about it. He asked her, "What can I do?" Davis' cowardly reply was that it was not her place to tell him what to do. Rather, she told the student, "You should be telling me what I can do."
This cop out of an answer shows the real problem in America. Everywhere, people are willing and ready to complain about the state of things, but no one is really interested in doing anything to bring about change. People like Angela Davis spend their lives telling people about how wrong and evil everything is, and yet they expect someone else to fix it for them. Davis needs to realize that nothing will ever get accomplished if everyone stands around blaming everyone else for their problems - just like I was forced to realize that I'll never get those wasted two hours of my life back.
In last week's column, I suggested that Angela Davis might not be the best choice for a Martin Luther King Day speaker. While many people agreed with me, there were also those who tried to tell me that a person did not have to necessarily emulate Dr. King in order to speak in honor of him. I decided to give them all the benefit of the doubt and attended the event.
I arrived at Aycock Auditorium early Tuesday evening with about eight friends of mine. We were greeted at the door not by ushers, but by socialists handing out anti-Bush fliers, signaling what kind of event this would prove to be. Although we thought we were early, the auditorium was already packed, and we were forced to find seating in the balcony. As we settled into a row that could accommodate all of us, I looked around to get a glimpse of my fellow audience members. I found myself completely surrounded by hundreds of people who seemed to be deeply engrossed in reading the socialists' "Impeach Bush" flier. That's about the time I realized I would be spending the next two hours with a couple thousand sheep.
Angela Davis opened her speech with some thoughts on Dr. King: some background on his work, the hardships he faced in his career, some of his beliefs, and so on. I was shocked, yet relieved, to hear her actually speak on what she was supposed to be speaking on. Of course, it didn't last. Within a matter of minutes, Davis had not-so-subtly changed the entire mood of her speech from "Let's Honor Dr. King" to "Let's Impeach Bush NOW."
For the remainder of her time on stage, Angela Davis preached a message of hate to her audience. She spent a good deal of time making jokes about famous black conservatives such as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Clarence Thomas. Apparently, according to her logic (and judging by the supportive applause from a good majority of the audience), African-Americans who become successful are no longer considered to be "really" black. Or maybe that only applies to conservative African-Americans. Davis never really specified, nor gave any reason for the apparent race change that occurs somewhere along the way.
And then of course there was the obligatory blaming of George W. Bush for Hurricane Katrina. Davis' conclusion on the issue? Kanye was right: George Bush does indeed hate poor black people. In fact, he spends so much time hating them, that I can't believe he has time for anything else. The way Davis painted President Bush, he apparently spends his every waking moment playing golf and dreaming up new ways to get rid of all black Americans.
Around this time in her rant, several audience members left the auditorium, including three of the people I was sitting with (who later told me they had better things to do with their time). Among the students leaving in disgust was a fellow College Republican who had actually been looking forward to hearing Davis speak. This student's uncle was one of the twelve miners that recently died in the Sago mine disaster only a few weeks ago, and she understandably had a serious issue with Davis blaming the Katrina debacle on racism. As she stood up to leave, she whispered to me, "Those people were left in that mine for hours while everyone just sat around wondering what to do. People called them rednecks and 'backwoods faggots,' but [Davis] doesn't want to mention that."
And she made a good point. Angela Davis seemed to be pushing the message that racism is the root of all evil in this country, but at least her tunnel vision was apparent to a few of us. If you're going to point to the African-Americans who have been hurt by an inefficient system, why not at least mention the whites who have suffered as well? Maybe racism isn't the problem in the Katrina disaster - maybe the problem is that humans make mistakes, and people suffer as a result, regardless of ethnic background.
Angela Davis ended her speech, not with some deep thoughts on how to bring about change in racist America, but by screaming, "Let's impeach Bush now!" After the cheering died down, Davis took questions from the audience. The very first came from a student who expressed disappointment over the fact that Davis had spent two hours telling us all what to be angry about, but not what to do about it. He asked her, "What can I do?" Davis' cowardly reply was that it was not her place to tell him what to do. Rather, she told the student, "You should be telling me what I can do."
This cop out of an answer shows the real problem in America. Everywhere, people are willing and ready to complain about the state of things, but no one is really interested in doing anything to bring about change. People like Angela Davis spend their lives telling people about how wrong and evil everything is, and yet they expect someone else to fix it for them. Davis needs to realize that nothing will ever get accomplished if everyone stands around blaming everyone else for their problems - just like I was forced to realize that I'll never get those wasted two hours of my life back.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
UNCG Ignores Martin Luther King's Legacy
THE RIGHT ANGLE: UNCG ignores Martin Luther King's legacy - Opinions
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great man, and there are very few people who will dispute that. Around this time of year, Americans remember Dr. King for his wisdom and courage in striving to bring about racial harmony in a peaceful, non-violent manner during such a tumultuous time in history.
On Tuesday, January 17, UNCG will hold a celebration in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The keynote speaker for this event will be Angela Davis. Sean Olson from University Relations has described her as being "one of the biggest names in black feminism" in a University News article found on UNCG's website. In that same article, Audrey Daniel, director of the Office of Multicultural Affairs, stated, "The significance of Angela Davis to Martin Luther King's legacy is the fact that she challenged and continues to challenge social inequality in our society."
Angela Davis has been quite the controversial character in civil rights history. A member of both the Communist Party and the Black Panther Party, Davis fell in love with George Jackson, a fellow Black Panther serving time in prison for theft and murder, in 1970. In several letters written to Jackson, Davis promised to dedicate her life to freeing him using whatever means necessary. That August, Jackson's 17-year-old brother, Jonathan, attempted to free him by interrupting a trial with an automatic weapon, freeing three prisoners (and giving them guns as well), and taking a judge hostage in exchange for the release of George. The judge was killed, as well as two of the prisoners, and several other members of the courtroom were injured. The weapons used during this raid all belonged to Angela Davis, who suspiciously fled to New York three hours after the event.
The shotgun that killed the judge was registered to Davis, and under California law, abetting a killer before the act is guilty of murder as well. After living as a fugitive for two months, Davis was arrested and taken back to California, where the incident had occurred. Her 1972 trial proved to be one of much publicity and debate, with many people claiming she was no more than a political prisoner. She was acquitted of all charges, regardless of the fact that the prosecution had submitted 201 exhibits and called 95 witnesses. Because Davis claims she suffered for 18 months in prison unjustly, she has dedicated herself to the abolition of America's prison system.
How can anyone read the above story and think, "This is the kind of woman that I'd like to speak at my university in honor of MLK Day?" Regardless of whether or not she's guilty of murder, her involvement in the violent Black Panthers alone should prove that she is clearly not an advocate of peace, as Dr. King so firmly was. Her almost undeniable involvement in the killing of the California judge certainly underlines the fact that she is not the kind of woman you want as a role model. Why are we honoring her as one?
On top of everything else, Angela Davis is a hypocrite. In Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Warning to the West, the author describes how, after Davis' acquittal and release from prison, she was urged by a group of Czech dissidents to stand up for the Czechs being imprisoned for opposing Communism. Davis' reply was a cold, "They deserve what they get. Let them remain in prison." Her logic is a bit confusing. After all, she supports the abolition of prisons in America, which I would suppose means she doesn't want our murderers, thieves, and rapists locked up, and yet, she was fine with the imprisonment of the Czech rebels. Nevermind the fact that Davis herself was considered a "political prisoner;" apparently, those who dissent against Communism "deserve what they get."
I support Davis' freedom to rage against the "prison industrial complex" in America. I support her right to preach the wonders of Communism. What I do not support is UNCG's decision to have her speak in honor of Martin Luther King Day. It is a travesty to compare that woman to the greatest peace-loving civil rights leader of all time. I am also fairly certain that Dr. King would not want a Black Panther speaking in remembrance of him.
It is true that we still have a long way to go as far as racial equality is concerned in America, but it is also true that was have come a long way from the segregated schools, water fountains, and lunch counters. Dr. King did a great deal to advance the civil rights movement in this country; the same cannot be said for Angela Davis.
Some information for this column was taken from William Manchester's The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative history of the United States 1932-1972.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great man, and there are very few people who will dispute that. Around this time of year, Americans remember Dr. King for his wisdom and courage in striving to bring about racial harmony in a peaceful, non-violent manner during such a tumultuous time in history.
On Tuesday, January 17, UNCG will hold a celebration in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The keynote speaker for this event will be Angela Davis. Sean Olson from University Relations has described her as being "one of the biggest names in black feminism" in a University News article found on UNCG's website. In that same article, Audrey Daniel, director of the Office of Multicultural Affairs, stated, "The significance of Angela Davis to Martin Luther King's legacy is the fact that she challenged and continues to challenge social inequality in our society."
Angela Davis has been quite the controversial character in civil rights history. A member of both the Communist Party and the Black Panther Party, Davis fell in love with George Jackson, a fellow Black Panther serving time in prison for theft and murder, in 1970. In several letters written to Jackson, Davis promised to dedicate her life to freeing him using whatever means necessary. That August, Jackson's 17-year-old brother, Jonathan, attempted to free him by interrupting a trial with an automatic weapon, freeing three prisoners (and giving them guns as well), and taking a judge hostage in exchange for the release of George. The judge was killed, as well as two of the prisoners, and several other members of the courtroom were injured. The weapons used during this raid all belonged to Angela Davis, who suspiciously fled to New York three hours after the event.
The shotgun that killed the judge was registered to Davis, and under California law, abetting a killer before the act is guilty of murder as well. After living as a fugitive for two months, Davis was arrested and taken back to California, where the incident had occurred. Her 1972 trial proved to be one of much publicity and debate, with many people claiming she was no more than a political prisoner. She was acquitted of all charges, regardless of the fact that the prosecution had submitted 201 exhibits and called 95 witnesses. Because Davis claims she suffered for 18 months in prison unjustly, she has dedicated herself to the abolition of America's prison system.
How can anyone read the above story and think, "This is the kind of woman that I'd like to speak at my university in honor of MLK Day?" Regardless of whether or not she's guilty of murder, her involvement in the violent Black Panthers alone should prove that she is clearly not an advocate of peace, as Dr. King so firmly was. Her almost undeniable involvement in the killing of the California judge certainly underlines the fact that she is not the kind of woman you want as a role model. Why are we honoring her as one?
On top of everything else, Angela Davis is a hypocrite. In Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Warning to the West, the author describes how, after Davis' acquittal and release from prison, she was urged by a group of Czech dissidents to stand up for the Czechs being imprisoned for opposing Communism. Davis' reply was a cold, "They deserve what they get. Let them remain in prison." Her logic is a bit confusing. After all, she supports the abolition of prisons in America, which I would suppose means she doesn't want our murderers, thieves, and rapists locked up, and yet, she was fine with the imprisonment of the Czech rebels. Nevermind the fact that Davis herself was considered a "political prisoner;" apparently, those who dissent against Communism "deserve what they get."
I support Davis' freedom to rage against the "prison industrial complex" in America. I support her right to preach the wonders of Communism. What I do not support is UNCG's decision to have her speak in honor of Martin Luther King Day. It is a travesty to compare that woman to the greatest peace-loving civil rights leader of all time. I am also fairly certain that Dr. King would not want a Black Panther speaking in remembrance of him.
It is true that we still have a long way to go as far as racial equality is concerned in America, but it is also true that was have come a long way from the segregated schools, water fountains, and lunch counters. Dr. King did a great deal to advance the civil rights movement in this country; the same cannot be said for Angela Davis.
Some information for this column was taken from William Manchester's The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative history of the United States 1932-1972.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Turning the Tables: Liberals Want End to Separation of Church and State
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Turning the tables: Liberals want end to separation of church and state - Opinions
Once upon a time, the ACLU wasn't just a big joke. I don't know a whole lot about that, because that was obviously long before I was born, and you should only write what you know. So I'm going to write about the ACLU being a big joke.
A few months ago, Michelle McCusker became pregnant, and as a result, lost her job. The ACLU says the institution that fired McCusker practices gender discrimination and that her rights have been infringed. In most cases, I'd be inclined to agree. The catch? McCusker was an unmarried teacher at a Catholic school.
In case you missed the significance of that statement, Catholics don't believe in premarital sex, something that's pretty much a prerequisite to McCusker's situation. Therefore, allowing this woman to teach small children about the Catholic religion might not be the best idea. These parents are paying to send their kids to a school where, ideally, they will receive a good, religious-based education, and not end up in Ms. McCusker's predicament. But it's hard to achieve that goal when one of the teachers is walking around pregnant, unwed, and refusing to get married.
I support any woman's right to not get married, and even their right to have children outside of wedlock. But this is different. This school's handbook warns that all teachers must "convey the teachings of the Catholic faith by his or her words and actions." When McCusker took this job, she was aware that she would have to abide by the handbook and its restrictions on virtually everything that goes against the Church's teachings.
Enter - surprise, surprise - the ACLU. They make the argument that this policy discriminates against women, because men can't get pregnant. I find their argument laughable, and I'm just waiting for the day when the ACLU tries to sue some sort of God-figure for placing the burden of child-bearing upon women.
Their main argument is that male teachers could still practice premarital sex and get away with it, while female teachers risk getting pregnant and losing their jobs. The school responded by claiming that they would fire a male teacher if they found out he had gotten a woman pregnant out of wedlock. But the ACLU's assertion is that the woman's sin is much more visible, therefore, the rule discriminates against women.
To which I intelligently reply: DUH. It's the Catholic Church, people. It's been a patriarchy since Day One. I know that, and most of the rest of the world knows that. And even though the ACLU is suing the actual school for having discriminating policies, what they're doing in affect is suing the Catholic Church for having these policies. And forgive me if I'm mistaken, but is the government now allowed to tell churches what they can and cannot preach?
It just seems to me that this reeks of a breech of the separation of Church and State that everyone likes to scream about. Funny how every time someone on the Right wants the government to be more moral, the Left cries out, "Separation of Church and State!" but look at what happens when the roles are reversed.
This could create some potentially harmful precedents if the ACLU wins the case. Which church teachings are next on the list? Does the teaching of salvation discriminate because it preaches that atheists are going to hell? Maybe God needs to check with the ACLU before He publishes any more controversial material. We don't want to offend anyone, you know.
If you ask me, this woman is just looking for someone to blame. That's what our society does, it teaches you that nothing is ever your own fault. In this case, it's teaching Ms. McCusker that it's not her fault she chose to not obey the school's handbook - it's the institutions fault for just being so darn strict!
If McCusker really wanted to avoid all of this trouble, perhaps she should have called on the ACLU earlier. You know, to sue the Catholic Church for not allowing her to use birth control while having her forbidden premarital sex, and not allowing her to have an abortion. Or maybe, if she's going to work for a religious institution, she needs to stop picking and choosing which of the Church's laws she follows.
Once upon a time, the ACLU wasn't just a big joke. I don't know a whole lot about that, because that was obviously long before I was born, and you should only write what you know. So I'm going to write about the ACLU being a big joke.
A few months ago, Michelle McCusker became pregnant, and as a result, lost her job. The ACLU says the institution that fired McCusker practices gender discrimination and that her rights have been infringed. In most cases, I'd be inclined to agree. The catch? McCusker was an unmarried teacher at a Catholic school.
In case you missed the significance of that statement, Catholics don't believe in premarital sex, something that's pretty much a prerequisite to McCusker's situation. Therefore, allowing this woman to teach small children about the Catholic religion might not be the best idea. These parents are paying to send their kids to a school where, ideally, they will receive a good, religious-based education, and not end up in Ms. McCusker's predicament. But it's hard to achieve that goal when one of the teachers is walking around pregnant, unwed, and refusing to get married.
I support any woman's right to not get married, and even their right to have children outside of wedlock. But this is different. This school's handbook warns that all teachers must "convey the teachings of the Catholic faith by his or her words and actions." When McCusker took this job, she was aware that she would have to abide by the handbook and its restrictions on virtually everything that goes against the Church's teachings.
Enter - surprise, surprise - the ACLU. They make the argument that this policy discriminates against women, because men can't get pregnant. I find their argument laughable, and I'm just waiting for the day when the ACLU tries to sue some sort of God-figure for placing the burden of child-bearing upon women.
Their main argument is that male teachers could still practice premarital sex and get away with it, while female teachers risk getting pregnant and losing their jobs. The school responded by claiming that they would fire a male teacher if they found out he had gotten a woman pregnant out of wedlock. But the ACLU's assertion is that the woman's sin is much more visible, therefore, the rule discriminates against women.
To which I intelligently reply: DUH. It's the Catholic Church, people. It's been a patriarchy since Day One. I know that, and most of the rest of the world knows that. And even though the ACLU is suing the actual school for having discriminating policies, what they're doing in affect is suing the Catholic Church for having these policies. And forgive me if I'm mistaken, but is the government now allowed to tell churches what they can and cannot preach?
It just seems to me that this reeks of a breech of the separation of Church and State that everyone likes to scream about. Funny how every time someone on the Right wants the government to be more moral, the Left cries out, "Separation of Church and State!" but look at what happens when the roles are reversed.
This could create some potentially harmful precedents if the ACLU wins the case. Which church teachings are next on the list? Does the teaching of salvation discriminate because it preaches that atheists are going to hell? Maybe God needs to check with the ACLU before He publishes any more controversial material. We don't want to offend anyone, you know.
If you ask me, this woman is just looking for someone to blame. That's what our society does, it teaches you that nothing is ever your own fault. In this case, it's teaching Ms. McCusker that it's not her fault she chose to not obey the school's handbook - it's the institutions fault for just being so darn strict!
If McCusker really wanted to avoid all of this trouble, perhaps she should have called on the ACLU earlier. You know, to sue the Catholic Church for not allowing her to use birth control while having her forbidden premarital sex, and not allowing her to have an abortion. Or maybe, if she's going to work for a religious institution, she needs to stop picking and choosing which of the Church's laws she follows.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Have a Happy Christmakwanzikuh
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Have a happy Christmakwanzikuh - Opinions
Last Thursday kicked off the official beginning to the holiday season. You know, there's nothing like Thanksgiving to put you in that holiday spirit. Of course, by noon, my sister was already hiding to avoid helping with dinner, my father was glued to the television, I had already gotten into the Thanksgiving wine, and my mother was swearing this was the last year we were ever going to celebrate this holiday. Just like last year and the year before that.
But aside from those few hectic family dinners, I've always seen the holiday season as a sort of vacation from the rest of the year. When I think of this time of year, I always picture myself seated around a decorated tree with friends and loved ones, sipping coffee and hot cocoa. And for once, we're not discussing whose politics are better for this country, we're just sharing silly gossip, and maybe spilling a few secrets after a little too much eggnog. In my mind, Christmas time is a break from the stupid, insignificant arguments the rest of the year brings.
Unfortunately, America refuses to let me escape from its own pettiness. No, those silly family squablings that bless the home during this season pale in comparison to some of the other arguments that occur during this time. Political correctness has everyone so up in arms that I'm now afraid to wish strangers a "Merry Christmas" for fear they'll be offended at my choice of holiday greeting. Now, I don't begrudge anyone the right to celebrate whatever holiday they want, whether it be Christmas, Channukah or Kwanza, but I would also hope that they do the same favor for me. Sadly, there are still many people in this country who refuse to shop at stores which don't represent their holiday of choice, and even some who boycott stores that have resorted to the generic term of "holidays" in order to include all religious groups in their seasonal celebration.
And then last year, in an equally petty move, Target Corporations refused to allow Salvation Army bell ringers to stand outside their stores. Why? According to Target, it is because they have a strict no-solicitation policy which encompasses the familiar red kettle bell-ringers. But that's not the rumor that's been circulating for over a year now. Fundamentalist Christian groups have accused the giant retailer of discriminating against the Salvation Army because of its stance against homosexuality. As a result, some religious groups are refusing to shop at Target because of its supposed pro-gay stance. However, a visit to the Salvation Army website shows that even though the group's religious beliefs preach against homosexuality, their charity is "available to all who qualify, without regard to sexual orientation." Of course, all this really proves is that Target's actions are entirely selfish and that their only goal is to keep bell-ringers from "harassing" their customers.
Since I was a little girl, I was taught to never pass by a kettle without at least putting in a few cents. That's stuck with me throughout the years, and if I ever have children I'll teach them the same thing. For over a century now, the Salvation Army has been helping the less fortunate in America through their red kettle campaigns, regardless of race, religion, or political orientation. And while I do hope that Target suffers because of the boycotts, I also hope those boycotting are not doing so out of hate for their fellow humans.
So don't try to justify Target's actions by turning this into a political battle. And while you're at it, try not to be so picky about what your holiday is referred to as. Whether you're Christian, Jewish, or agnostic, try to see this season for what it is - a chance to help your fellow man and an excuse for togetherness. Call me crazy, but there's something about this time of year that turns me into an optimist. Maybe it's all the songs about peace on earth. Or maybe, just maybe, I've had far too much eggnog.
Last Thursday kicked off the official beginning to the holiday season. You know, there's nothing like Thanksgiving to put you in that holiday spirit. Of course, by noon, my sister was already hiding to avoid helping with dinner, my father was glued to the television, I had already gotten into the Thanksgiving wine, and my mother was swearing this was the last year we were ever going to celebrate this holiday. Just like last year and the year before that.
But aside from those few hectic family dinners, I've always seen the holiday season as a sort of vacation from the rest of the year. When I think of this time of year, I always picture myself seated around a decorated tree with friends and loved ones, sipping coffee and hot cocoa. And for once, we're not discussing whose politics are better for this country, we're just sharing silly gossip, and maybe spilling a few secrets after a little too much eggnog. In my mind, Christmas time is a break from the stupid, insignificant arguments the rest of the year brings.
Unfortunately, America refuses to let me escape from its own pettiness. No, those silly family squablings that bless the home during this season pale in comparison to some of the other arguments that occur during this time. Political correctness has everyone so up in arms that I'm now afraid to wish strangers a "Merry Christmas" for fear they'll be offended at my choice of holiday greeting. Now, I don't begrudge anyone the right to celebrate whatever holiday they want, whether it be Christmas, Channukah or Kwanza, but I would also hope that they do the same favor for me. Sadly, there are still many people in this country who refuse to shop at stores which don't represent their holiday of choice, and even some who boycott stores that have resorted to the generic term of "holidays" in order to include all religious groups in their seasonal celebration.
And then last year, in an equally petty move, Target Corporations refused to allow Salvation Army bell ringers to stand outside their stores. Why? According to Target, it is because they have a strict no-solicitation policy which encompasses the familiar red kettle bell-ringers. But that's not the rumor that's been circulating for over a year now. Fundamentalist Christian groups have accused the giant retailer of discriminating against the Salvation Army because of its stance against homosexuality. As a result, some religious groups are refusing to shop at Target because of its supposed pro-gay stance. However, a visit to the Salvation Army website shows that even though the group's religious beliefs preach against homosexuality, their charity is "available to all who qualify, without regard to sexual orientation." Of course, all this really proves is that Target's actions are entirely selfish and that their only goal is to keep bell-ringers from "harassing" their customers.
Since I was a little girl, I was taught to never pass by a kettle without at least putting in a few cents. That's stuck with me throughout the years, and if I ever have children I'll teach them the same thing. For over a century now, the Salvation Army has been helping the less fortunate in America through their red kettle campaigns, regardless of race, religion, or political orientation. And while I do hope that Target suffers because of the boycotts, I also hope those boycotting are not doing so out of hate for their fellow humans.
So don't try to justify Target's actions by turning this into a political battle. And while you're at it, try not to be so picky about what your holiday is referred to as. Whether you're Christian, Jewish, or agnostic, try to see this season for what it is - a chance to help your fellow man and an excuse for togetherness. Call me crazy, but there's something about this time of year that turns me into an optimist. Maybe it's all the songs about peace on earth. Or maybe, just maybe, I've had far too much eggnog.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Students First? Not Anymore
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Students First? Not anymore - Opinions
When I first arrived at UNCG as a freshman in Fall 2002, the university motto was "Students First." Sure, it was the butt of a few jokes, but it served its purpose in expressing that UNCG felt a rightful obligation to its own students. I'm not aware of when the switch occurred, but at some point, UNCG discreetly changed its motto to the very vague "Service." It sounds nice, but as a student who often feels her needs are forgotten in the midst of a large bureaucracy, sometimes I have to wonder: "Service" to whom?
I started thinking about this last week while frantically trying to finish the several papers that had piled up on me while I was sick. Thanks to my technological illiteracy, I have managed to accidentally delete Microsoft Office from my home computer, which means I rely completely on UNCG's computer labs. I planned to spend most of the night in the Bryan Lab because it doesn't close until 3am, and I figured I'd have plenty of time to finish my papers. Unfortunately, the lab consultant working at that time was paid a visit by three of his friends, and they spent the next 45 minutes talking above the normal speaking level, in a place where students go to do homework. This isn't the first time I've had this happen to me, and it makes me wonder if maybe UNCG is unable to hire people who can do their jobs.
UNCG's disservice to their students doesn't stop there. Anyone who has ever lived on campus knows how wonderful it is to be forced to buy a campus meal plan. For those of you who have never known this pleasure, I'll go over the basics. Meal plans are required for anyone living on UNCG's campus (they think that if we don't eat on campus, we'll just forget to eat all together and starve to death). Freshmen are given one choice for a meal plan, and that is a plan that includes only the Caf. As you become a sophomore and so on, they allow you to choose meal plans with a little more flexibility.
The main problem with this is that UNCG is taking our money under the guise of allowing us to eat all semester, but not really treating us as paying customers. The Caf has horrible hours of operation. Also, if you happen to make it in right before they close, you're not likely to find much to eat, and some Caf workers will even complain vociferously about students that come in late. If workers at a restaurant kept the same attitudes that people working at UNCG's dining facilities have, the restaurant wouldn't stay open very long. But UNCG knows they have a captive audience for their food services, so they really couldn't care less.
In response to the abuse many students undergo at the Caf and other dining places on campus, some students are taking action. Matt Hill, a student who is very active on campus, was disrespected by two Caf workers, and upon complaining to the manager on duty, was actually threatened by one of the workers, who attempted to start a physical fight with him right there in the middle of the dining area. The entire experience has left this student feeling intimidated about dining in the Caf for fear that the worker might try to start another fight. Because Matt realizes that he is not alone (I myself have had several problems with Dining Service employees, including the manager of Spencers), he has started a website entitled "This $#!+ Has Got To Stop Campaign" (http://www.matthillnc.com/diningcomplaints). He is using this site to compile stories about similar abuse by UNCG Dining Service employees which will eventually lead to an SGA resolution concerning the conduct of these employees.
In what might seem like an unrelated story, the UNCG College Republicans were asked to stop using their logo by University Relations. Why? The CR logo features the Republican elephant sharing the yellow and blue shield with Minerva, our school symbol. The CRs created and used the logo to illustrate their connection with the university, and yet the university has told them that they have no right to their own school's symbols. The symbol of Minerva represents UNCG and therefore represents their students, and as a student, I feel I should have a right to use this logo which represents me. These ridiculous rules outlining how the image of Minerva may and may not be used are little more than just another example of how UNCG is trying to completely distance themselves from their students. It also makes one wonder if these people really have nothing better to do with their time than bust students for a simple graphic design.
It's fairly simple to understand why UNCG changed its motto to "Service." If it was still "Students First," they might have to make some serious changes, such as pretending to actually care about their students. But as they seem to be content with offering sub par lab services and even worse dining options, as well as restricting their own students' rights to show any sort of connection with the university through the Minerva logo, I doubt we'll ever see "Students First" again. In fact, maybe something more along the lines of "Shut Up, Give Us Your Money, and Enjoy Being Screwed Over for the Next Four Years" would be more appropriate.
When I first arrived at UNCG as a freshman in Fall 2002, the university motto was "Students First." Sure, it was the butt of a few jokes, but it served its purpose in expressing that UNCG felt a rightful obligation to its own students. I'm not aware of when the switch occurred, but at some point, UNCG discreetly changed its motto to the very vague "Service." It sounds nice, but as a student who often feels her needs are forgotten in the midst of a large bureaucracy, sometimes I have to wonder: "Service" to whom?
I started thinking about this last week while frantically trying to finish the several papers that had piled up on me while I was sick. Thanks to my technological illiteracy, I have managed to accidentally delete Microsoft Office from my home computer, which means I rely completely on UNCG's computer labs. I planned to spend most of the night in the Bryan Lab because it doesn't close until 3am, and I figured I'd have plenty of time to finish my papers. Unfortunately, the lab consultant working at that time was paid a visit by three of his friends, and they spent the next 45 minutes talking above the normal speaking level, in a place where students go to do homework. This isn't the first time I've had this happen to me, and it makes me wonder if maybe UNCG is unable to hire people who can do their jobs.
UNCG's disservice to their students doesn't stop there. Anyone who has ever lived on campus knows how wonderful it is to be forced to buy a campus meal plan. For those of you who have never known this pleasure, I'll go over the basics. Meal plans are required for anyone living on UNCG's campus (they think that if we don't eat on campus, we'll just forget to eat all together and starve to death). Freshmen are given one choice for a meal plan, and that is a plan that includes only the Caf. As you become a sophomore and so on, they allow you to choose meal plans with a little more flexibility.
The main problem with this is that UNCG is taking our money under the guise of allowing us to eat all semester, but not really treating us as paying customers. The Caf has horrible hours of operation. Also, if you happen to make it in right before they close, you're not likely to find much to eat, and some Caf workers will even complain vociferously about students that come in late. If workers at a restaurant kept the same attitudes that people working at UNCG's dining facilities have, the restaurant wouldn't stay open very long. But UNCG knows they have a captive audience for their food services, so they really couldn't care less.
In response to the abuse many students undergo at the Caf and other dining places on campus, some students are taking action. Matt Hill, a student who is very active on campus, was disrespected by two Caf workers, and upon complaining to the manager on duty, was actually threatened by one of the workers, who attempted to start a physical fight with him right there in the middle of the dining area. The entire experience has left this student feeling intimidated about dining in the Caf for fear that the worker might try to start another fight. Because Matt realizes that he is not alone (I myself have had several problems with Dining Service employees, including the manager of Spencers), he has started a website entitled "This $#!+ Has Got To Stop Campaign" (http://www.matthillnc.com/diningcomplaints). He is using this site to compile stories about similar abuse by UNCG Dining Service employees which will eventually lead to an SGA resolution concerning the conduct of these employees.
In what might seem like an unrelated story, the UNCG College Republicans were asked to stop using their logo by University Relations. Why? The CR logo features the Republican elephant sharing the yellow and blue shield with Minerva, our school symbol. The CRs created and used the logo to illustrate their connection with the university, and yet the university has told them that they have no right to their own school's symbols. The symbol of Minerva represents UNCG and therefore represents their students, and as a student, I feel I should have a right to use this logo which represents me. These ridiculous rules outlining how the image of Minerva may and may not be used are little more than just another example of how UNCG is trying to completely distance themselves from their students. It also makes one wonder if these people really have nothing better to do with their time than bust students for a simple graphic design.
It's fairly simple to understand why UNCG changed its motto to "Service." If it was still "Students First," they might have to make some serious changes, such as pretending to actually care about their students. But as they seem to be content with offering sub par lab services and even worse dining options, as well as restricting their own students' rights to show any sort of connection with the university through the Minerva logo, I doubt we'll ever see "Students First" again. In fact, maybe something more along the lines of "Shut Up, Give Us Your Money, and Enjoy Being Screwed Over for the Next Four Years" would be more appropriate.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Working Together for the Future of America
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Working together for the future of America - Opinions
I received a lot of good feedback on my article from a few weeks ago concerning bipartisanship. It seems as though everyone is in favor of seeing the two parties work together; apparently the national and state parties just haven't gotten the memo yet.
I'm not sure how many college students actually keep up with the North Carolina State Legislature's doings, but it's hilarious how juvenile these grown men (and a few women) can get when it comes to their political stance. Republicans refuse to compromise with Democrats (and vice versa), to the point that nothing ever gets accomplished. The state Democrats actually had to wait until one Republican was on his honeymoon and the other was out sick to get the lottery bill passed through. Some see this as dirty politics, but most just see it as necessary.
It gets even dirtier on the national level. When President Bush first nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, Republicans everywhere praised his good judgment. And then they realized that the Democrats liked her, so they had to find something wrong with her. Miers ended up withdrawing from her nomination, most likely due to criticism she was receiving within the Republican Party.
The only thing that gives me any hope for democracy is the new generation of political leaders. The only reason I haven't completely given up politics is the determination I have in me that I will be one of the people who changes the country for the better.
Think about it. Most of the people in power who refuse to compromise or even discuss change are of the older generation. The majority of young people that you ask aren't going to see any problem with gay marriage, but seeing as how we're not the majority in this country (at least, not when it comes to voting), we simply have to wait our turn.
Take for example, the College Republicans and the College Democrats at UNCG. Sure, this is politics on a much less significant scale, but politics nonetheless. Although both groups represent two complete opposites of the America public, they manage to get along just fine, even when it comes to political discussions. Sure, there are arguments about the basics - the War on Terror, Social Security, taxes - but nothing like the juvenile arguments that seem to go on in the state legislature, or in Congress.
Perhaps it has something to do with the idealistic nature of youth. Even those of us who consider ourselves to be Republican still tend to see the world through rose-colored glasses at some time or another. I personally refuse to let go of the belief that things are going to change in the future: those older politicians who refuse to bend to anything are going to give way to a new group of politicians, those who grew up listening to the ridiculous partisan arguments of both sides, and who are willing to work together to make this country a better place for everyone.
If you don't believe me, maybe you should see it for yourself. The College Republicans and the College Democrats, in a bi-partisan event sponsored by the Political Science Department and the Political Awareness Club, are going to be doing a series of debates during this academic year. The first one is a debate on foreign affairs, and will be held in Graham 212 at 7p.m. on Thursday, November 3. It's a good way for both sides to get their views out in a friendly manner, and it's also a good way for students to have their questions answered about what each party really thinks about the war in Iraq and other things of that nature.
I personally think it's great that both sides are working together for this event. I have enough faith in these two groups to believe that it will be a friendly debate, and that there will be very few fist-fights, unlike Congress. I'd encourage everyone at UNCG who is interested in politics, concerned about our position in Iraq, or just curious about where a debate between these two groups might lead, to attend. You just might learn something you didn't know, or maybe you'll change your mind about something you already believed. Or maybe you'll see me get punched. Either way, it's a good time.
I received a lot of good feedback on my article from a few weeks ago concerning bipartisanship. It seems as though everyone is in favor of seeing the two parties work together; apparently the national and state parties just haven't gotten the memo yet.
I'm not sure how many college students actually keep up with the North Carolina State Legislature's doings, but it's hilarious how juvenile these grown men (and a few women) can get when it comes to their political stance. Republicans refuse to compromise with Democrats (and vice versa), to the point that nothing ever gets accomplished. The state Democrats actually had to wait until one Republican was on his honeymoon and the other was out sick to get the lottery bill passed through. Some see this as dirty politics, but most just see it as necessary.
It gets even dirtier on the national level. When President Bush first nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, Republicans everywhere praised his good judgment. And then they realized that the Democrats liked her, so they had to find something wrong with her. Miers ended up withdrawing from her nomination, most likely due to criticism she was receiving within the Republican Party.
The only thing that gives me any hope for democracy is the new generation of political leaders. The only reason I haven't completely given up politics is the determination I have in me that I will be one of the people who changes the country for the better.
Think about it. Most of the people in power who refuse to compromise or even discuss change are of the older generation. The majority of young people that you ask aren't going to see any problem with gay marriage, but seeing as how we're not the majority in this country (at least, not when it comes to voting), we simply have to wait our turn.
Take for example, the College Republicans and the College Democrats at UNCG. Sure, this is politics on a much less significant scale, but politics nonetheless. Although both groups represent two complete opposites of the America public, they manage to get along just fine, even when it comes to political discussions. Sure, there are arguments about the basics - the War on Terror, Social Security, taxes - but nothing like the juvenile arguments that seem to go on in the state legislature, or in Congress.
Perhaps it has something to do with the idealistic nature of youth. Even those of us who consider ourselves to be Republican still tend to see the world through rose-colored glasses at some time or another. I personally refuse to let go of the belief that things are going to change in the future: those older politicians who refuse to bend to anything are going to give way to a new group of politicians, those who grew up listening to the ridiculous partisan arguments of both sides, and who are willing to work together to make this country a better place for everyone.
If you don't believe me, maybe you should see it for yourself. The College Republicans and the College Democrats, in a bi-partisan event sponsored by the Political Science Department and the Political Awareness Club, are going to be doing a series of debates during this academic year. The first one is a debate on foreign affairs, and will be held in Graham 212 at 7p.m. on Thursday, November 3. It's a good way for both sides to get their views out in a friendly manner, and it's also a good way for students to have their questions answered about what each party really thinks about the war in Iraq and other things of that nature.
I personally think it's great that both sides are working together for this event. I have enough faith in these two groups to believe that it will be a friendly debate, and that there will be very few fist-fights, unlike Congress. I'd encourage everyone at UNCG who is interested in politics, concerned about our position in Iraq, or just curious about where a debate between these two groups might lead, to attend. You just might learn something you didn't know, or maybe you'll change your mind about something you already believed. Or maybe you'll see me get punched. Either way, it's a good time.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Greensboro's Woods of Terror: Truly Frightening... Especially if You're Afraid of a Little Religious Speech
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Greensboro's Woods of Terror - Opinions
I want to begin this column by saying that I love Halloween, and I am incredibly glad that it falls on a weekday this year. The last time I was able to go to class dressed up like an idiot was Halloween my freshman year, and I didn't have the nerve to go through with it. You better bet I'll be walking around campus all day this year in my costume. Watch out.
Halloween is a great time of year. I've been a fan of horror movies and ghost stories since I was little, so of course I love a holiday that encourages these things. One of the things you must do, if you really want to appreciate Halloween, is do something, well, scary. There's no end to the number of haunted attractions to be found at this time of year. UNCG's own Mary Foust Residence College puts on a haunted house every year. It's conveniently located for the average student, and it's gotten some great reviews in the past.
But if you have a car and you don't mind a little 10-15 minute drive, there might be another attraction for you to check out. On Church Street, right outside of the Greensboro city limits, lies the Woods of Terror, an award-winning haunted trail attraction. According to their website (www.woodsofterror.com), the woods in which this trail lies is haunted by the spirits of those who perished during the Great Depression and were not given a proper burial.
After receiving high rankings from MSNBC, hauntedhouse.com, and Tourist Parks and Attractions, I finally decided to see what all the fuss was about. Some friends and I piled in a car and drove out to the Woods of Terror, looking for a scare. And boy did we find it. After being chased with chain saws, bumping into dead bodies, and taking the scariest hayride ever, my friends and I were all hoarse from screaming and laughing. Even I had to admit that I had been genuinely spooked by the haunted trail.
Aside from actually having the ability to frighten me, something else sets this Halloween attraction apart from all the others. After entering the Woods of Terror, you are immediately herded into a room with a television. A man (who turns out to be Eddie McLaurin, the owner of the Woods of Terror) appears on the screen and proceeds to tell everyone in the room about Jesus Christ. He doesn't preach or come off as "holier than thou," but he does explain how Christianity changed his life and how it can do the same for everyone in the room.
Of course, being in a crowd of college students, there were the obligatory cries of, "I'm offended!" and "He can't force his religion on us!" The irony in this is, of course, McLaurin isn't forcing his religion on anyone; he's offering it as an option to people entering HIS own private attraction. But most silly "open-minded" college students don't look at it that way.
Eddie McLaurin has been using his haunted trail to scare people since 1991. Although he had been raised as a Christian, he admits that he had fallen off the path sometime around his senior year of high school. Years later, after rededicating himself to God, McLaurin told me he realized (in reference to the haunted attraction), "God needed to be in it, and if it didn't glorify God, it wasn't right."
As he expected, McLaurin has received some bad feedback in the way he begins his haunted trail. Some Christians have chastised him for celebrating a traditionally "Satanic" holiday; however, in response, McLaurin states, "It's only the devil's holiday if we give it to him." He went on to say that Christians who refuse to celebrate Halloween should also refuse to have anything to do with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny on other major holidays. On the other end of the spectrum, non-Christians have criticized him for "forcing" his religion under false pretenses. But McLaurin has also received a great deal of feedback from people who were personally touched by his video, and who have changed their life the same way he changed his.
Eddie McLaurin is just another example of why I'm so proud to live in a free country where people can come up with ideas like this one. And sure, maybe there will be some people who don't attend his park because they don't want to have Christianity "forced" upon them, but they're the ones that are losing out. The video lasts all of two minutes, and doesn't make you feel like a bad person or a sinner if you don't chose to listen to it. And if anyone is really, truly offended by the video, I'm sure they'll have had it scared out of them by the end of the haunted trail. If you're looking for a good time this Halloween season, visit the Woods of Terror on Church Street. Or, you could just be a loser and sit at home if you're one of those people who are terrified by the concept of the First Amendment.
I want to begin this column by saying that I love Halloween, and I am incredibly glad that it falls on a weekday this year. The last time I was able to go to class dressed up like an idiot was Halloween my freshman year, and I didn't have the nerve to go through with it. You better bet I'll be walking around campus all day this year in my costume. Watch out.
Halloween is a great time of year. I've been a fan of horror movies and ghost stories since I was little, so of course I love a holiday that encourages these things. One of the things you must do, if you really want to appreciate Halloween, is do something, well, scary. There's no end to the number of haunted attractions to be found at this time of year. UNCG's own Mary Foust Residence College puts on a haunted house every year. It's conveniently located for the average student, and it's gotten some great reviews in the past.
But if you have a car and you don't mind a little 10-15 minute drive, there might be another attraction for you to check out. On Church Street, right outside of the Greensboro city limits, lies the Woods of Terror, an award-winning haunted trail attraction. According to their website (www.woodsofterror.com), the woods in which this trail lies is haunted by the spirits of those who perished during the Great Depression and were not given a proper burial.
After receiving high rankings from MSNBC, hauntedhouse.com, and Tourist Parks and Attractions, I finally decided to see what all the fuss was about. Some friends and I piled in a car and drove out to the Woods of Terror, looking for a scare. And boy did we find it. After being chased with chain saws, bumping into dead bodies, and taking the scariest hayride ever, my friends and I were all hoarse from screaming and laughing. Even I had to admit that I had been genuinely spooked by the haunted trail.
Aside from actually having the ability to frighten me, something else sets this Halloween attraction apart from all the others. After entering the Woods of Terror, you are immediately herded into a room with a television. A man (who turns out to be Eddie McLaurin, the owner of the Woods of Terror) appears on the screen and proceeds to tell everyone in the room about Jesus Christ. He doesn't preach or come off as "holier than thou," but he does explain how Christianity changed his life and how it can do the same for everyone in the room.
Of course, being in a crowd of college students, there were the obligatory cries of, "I'm offended!" and "He can't force his religion on us!" The irony in this is, of course, McLaurin isn't forcing his religion on anyone; he's offering it as an option to people entering HIS own private attraction. But most silly "open-minded" college students don't look at it that way.
Eddie McLaurin has been using his haunted trail to scare people since 1991. Although he had been raised as a Christian, he admits that he had fallen off the path sometime around his senior year of high school. Years later, after rededicating himself to God, McLaurin told me he realized (in reference to the haunted attraction), "God needed to be in it, and if it didn't glorify God, it wasn't right."
As he expected, McLaurin has received some bad feedback in the way he begins his haunted trail. Some Christians have chastised him for celebrating a traditionally "Satanic" holiday; however, in response, McLaurin states, "It's only the devil's holiday if we give it to him." He went on to say that Christians who refuse to celebrate Halloween should also refuse to have anything to do with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny on other major holidays. On the other end of the spectrum, non-Christians have criticized him for "forcing" his religion under false pretenses. But McLaurin has also received a great deal of feedback from people who were personally touched by his video, and who have changed their life the same way he changed his.
Eddie McLaurin is just another example of why I'm so proud to live in a free country where people can come up with ideas like this one. And sure, maybe there will be some people who don't attend his park because they don't want to have Christianity "forced" upon them, but they're the ones that are losing out. The video lasts all of two minutes, and doesn't make you feel like a bad person or a sinner if you don't chose to listen to it. And if anyone is really, truly offended by the video, I'm sure they'll have had it scared out of them by the end of the haunted trail. If you're looking for a good time this Halloween season, visit the Woods of Terror on Church Street. Or, you could just be a loser and sit at home if you're one of those people who are terrified by the concept of the First Amendment.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
The Conundrum of the Internet: The Framers of the Constitution REALLY Should Have Thought About Blogs...
THE RIGHT ANGLE: The conundrum of the Internet - Opinions
I am nothing if not a strong proponent of freedom of speech. I am thankful for the right to speak my mind every time I write a column, debate a professor, or attend a rally. As Republican as I may be, I am extremely glad this administration (or any, for that matter) does not have the power to throw me in jail for my political beliefs or for voicing them.
But First Amendment rights have always been highly contested, and I trust they will continue to cause legal problems for years to come. Some people want to protect everything under the First Amendment. Some have tried to protect child pornographers and exotic dancers under the shield of freedom of expression. It's widely held that one person's First Amendment rights end when they compromise another person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But where is that cut off line?
The Internet adds a great deal of uncertainty to an already ambiguous constitutional right. Everyone and their brother has a blog or website and can write anything they want about anyone else. No one wants to infringe on anyone's right to speak their mind online, mostly because for so long the Internet has been regarded as untrustworthy in its information. But as it becomes more accessible and more influential (such as the bloggers that brought Dan Rather's media reign to an end), maybe boundaries are becoming more necessary.
Yes, I have Googled myself. If John Kerry can admit to it, so can I. With a name like mine, you don't tend to get too many hits that aren't me. The first time I Googled myself was during my sophomore year, and there wasn't much to write home about. After elections, the number grew by about a hundred, thanks to my blog and my column (and a fellow columnist's run in with Rush Limbaugh, which brought about a great deal of publicity for The Carolinian). There have been quite a few good sites and comments about me, but I found the amount of negative writings to be shocking. The types of people writing about me also surprised me. It wasn't just UNCG students: there were quite a few adults, including a Greensboro blogring that commented on all my media appearances within the last year. It's quite odd to see people you don't know writing things about you that may or may not be read as their opinion.
I never thought too much about it, until a fellow College Republican brought up a good point. It's painfully easy for people to conduct rudimentary background searches on the Internet. What happens if a future employer decides to check up on me and runs into some of these websites? For example, there is a mention of me on a pro-gay website in praise of tolerant Republicans. The fellow CR suggested that I might not be able to find work on a Republican campaign for which the candidate running was taking an anti-gay stance. While I don't see myself working for an openly homophobic candidate, I can see their point.
In writing a conservative column, owning a conservative blog, and participating in conservative rallies, I realize I am open to this sort of online publicity, for better or for worse. But a good friend of mine recently found herself on the slanderous side of the Internet for the first time. This friend's ex-boyfriend created a public group on the college website Facebook (www.facebook.com) proclaiming her to be a "psycho". A photoshopped picture was added for the finishing touch, which showed her with glowing red eyes, in case anyone doubted her psychotic state. While some could see this as a humorous end to a bad relationship, or maybe even a slightly pathetic attempt on the guy's end to save face, it was simply hurtful to a girl who I know for a fact to be less "psychotic" than many college girls. It's easy to shrug your shoulders and say "get over it," but life as a college student is hard enough without having to worry what your bitter ex-boyfriend is writing about you online.
It's easy to argue that freedom of speech allows all of these people to say whatever they want. And while I realize that the framers of the Constitution really had no way of envisioning something as huge as the Internet, I doubt they would be pleased with the way things are going. After all, these are the same people who invented the Electoral College because they thought the American public was too stupid to choose its own leader. And maybe they were right; maybe, rights to websites and blogs should come with not just an age limit, but an intelligence limit.
I am nothing if not a strong proponent of freedom of speech. I am thankful for the right to speak my mind every time I write a column, debate a professor, or attend a rally. As Republican as I may be, I am extremely glad this administration (or any, for that matter) does not have the power to throw me in jail for my political beliefs or for voicing them.
But First Amendment rights have always been highly contested, and I trust they will continue to cause legal problems for years to come. Some people want to protect everything under the First Amendment. Some have tried to protect child pornographers and exotic dancers under the shield of freedom of expression. It's widely held that one person's First Amendment rights end when they compromise another person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But where is that cut off line?
The Internet adds a great deal of uncertainty to an already ambiguous constitutional right. Everyone and their brother has a blog or website and can write anything they want about anyone else. No one wants to infringe on anyone's right to speak their mind online, mostly because for so long the Internet has been regarded as untrustworthy in its information. But as it becomes more accessible and more influential (such as the bloggers that brought Dan Rather's media reign to an end), maybe boundaries are becoming more necessary.
Yes, I have Googled myself. If John Kerry can admit to it, so can I. With a name like mine, you don't tend to get too many hits that aren't me. The first time I Googled myself was during my sophomore year, and there wasn't much to write home about. After elections, the number grew by about a hundred, thanks to my blog and my column (and a fellow columnist's run in with Rush Limbaugh, which brought about a great deal of publicity for The Carolinian). There have been quite a few good sites and comments about me, but I found the amount of negative writings to be shocking. The types of people writing about me also surprised me. It wasn't just UNCG students: there were quite a few adults, including a Greensboro blogring that commented on all my media appearances within the last year. It's quite odd to see people you don't know writing things about you that may or may not be read as their opinion.
I never thought too much about it, until a fellow College Republican brought up a good point. It's painfully easy for people to conduct rudimentary background searches on the Internet. What happens if a future employer decides to check up on me and runs into some of these websites? For example, there is a mention of me on a pro-gay website in praise of tolerant Republicans. The fellow CR suggested that I might not be able to find work on a Republican campaign for which the candidate running was taking an anti-gay stance. While I don't see myself working for an openly homophobic candidate, I can see their point.
In writing a conservative column, owning a conservative blog, and participating in conservative rallies, I realize I am open to this sort of online publicity, for better or for worse. But a good friend of mine recently found herself on the slanderous side of the Internet for the first time. This friend's ex-boyfriend created a public group on the college website Facebook (www.facebook.com) proclaiming her to be a "psycho". A photoshopped picture was added for the finishing touch, which showed her with glowing red eyes, in case anyone doubted her psychotic state. While some could see this as a humorous end to a bad relationship, or maybe even a slightly pathetic attempt on the guy's end to save face, it was simply hurtful to a girl who I know for a fact to be less "psychotic" than many college girls. It's easy to shrug your shoulders and say "get over it," but life as a college student is hard enough without having to worry what your bitter ex-boyfriend is writing about you online.
It's easy to argue that freedom of speech allows all of these people to say whatever they want. And while I realize that the framers of the Constitution really had no way of envisioning something as huge as the Internet, I doubt they would be pleased with the way things are going. After all, these are the same people who invented the Electoral College because they thought the American public was too stupid to choose its own leader. And maybe they were right; maybe, rights to websites and blogs should come with not just an age limit, but an intelligence limit.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Don't Fall Prey to the Partisan Monster
(I hope it's painfully obvious to everyone that I did NOT title this column... I'm guessing my editor is to blame for this gem.)
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Don't fall prey to the partisan monster - Opinions
Partisanship is ruining the world. There, I said it.
Some people may think that's an odd statement coming from me. After all, this is the token conservative column, and I am the president of the College Republicans. But I also think there is a fine line between party loyalty and stupidity.
I started really thinking about it this weekend while I was scanning through the UNCG Livejournal community once again. A student had posted an advertisement asking students to vote for him in the recent SGA Senate elections. Another student immediately responded, asking where they could find information about all the candidates, including their "political status".
I'm not sure why, but that immediately annoyed me. I could be wrong, but I just don't think SGA is going to be taking a vote to do away with Social Security any time soon. What possible advantage could knowing a student's political affiliation have? Should we have all students running for SGA offices list their preferred political party next to their name? Do we need to start offering students a "straight ticket" voting option?
What goes on inside partisan group meetings is one thing, but it's another thing completely to bring it out into the open. There are actually members of other campus organizations that refuse to talk to me, or openly glare at me around campus, simply because I am a well-known College Republican.
Ironically enough, on the few occasions that someone from a more liberal group will actually TALK to me, they end up telling me that I'm not quite the "monster" everyone claims I am (and yes, that term has been used). These same people are often shocked to find that I can talk about things other than politics, and that even while discussing politics, I'm very laid-back about it all. This is because I don't take my politics to extremes. I like to see both sides of an issue and decide for myself what's right. Anyone that reads this column knows that I would not be considered a "good" Republican by any means. After all, I don't let the Republican Party tell me what I do and don't believe in. And I would certainly never refuse to be friendly to someone just because of their political preference.
And honestly, we're in college. Yes, this is supposed to be preparing us for the real world, but everything doesn't have to be a life or death situation. I personally enjoy debating politics with someone, and then going out for a beer with that same person afterwards. So what if I think we should privatize Social Security and they think the government should handle everything? Doesn't mean we can't talk about something much more important later, like baseball, or who's going to win American Idol this season.
I know I seem to be contradicting myself, because I've always wanted people to be more politically aware, but aware doesn't necessarily mean "blindly loyal". In last November's elections, I voted for a couple Democrats as well as several Libertarians. Actually being aware of the candidates and the issues can help you make informed decisions - straight-ticket voting just elects a party platform, not necessarily a good politician.
Stereotypes are just all-around bad, whether you attach them to races, genders, or members of a political party. When it all comes down to it, does it really matter what my voter registration card says I am? After all, it's far more probable I'll dislike you for being a Boston Red Sox fan than for being a Democrat.
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Don't fall prey to the partisan monster - Opinions
Partisanship is ruining the world. There, I said it.
Some people may think that's an odd statement coming from me. After all, this is the token conservative column, and I am the president of the College Republicans. But I also think there is a fine line between party loyalty and stupidity.
I started really thinking about it this weekend while I was scanning through the UNCG Livejournal community once again. A student had posted an advertisement asking students to vote for him in the recent SGA Senate elections. Another student immediately responded, asking where they could find information about all the candidates, including their "political status".
I'm not sure why, but that immediately annoyed me. I could be wrong, but I just don't think SGA is going to be taking a vote to do away with Social Security any time soon. What possible advantage could knowing a student's political affiliation have? Should we have all students running for SGA offices list their preferred political party next to their name? Do we need to start offering students a "straight ticket" voting option?
What goes on inside partisan group meetings is one thing, but it's another thing completely to bring it out into the open. There are actually members of other campus organizations that refuse to talk to me, or openly glare at me around campus, simply because I am a well-known College Republican.
Ironically enough, on the few occasions that someone from a more liberal group will actually TALK to me, they end up telling me that I'm not quite the "monster" everyone claims I am (and yes, that term has been used). These same people are often shocked to find that I can talk about things other than politics, and that even while discussing politics, I'm very laid-back about it all. This is because I don't take my politics to extremes. I like to see both sides of an issue and decide for myself what's right. Anyone that reads this column knows that I would not be considered a "good" Republican by any means. After all, I don't let the Republican Party tell me what I do and don't believe in. And I would certainly never refuse to be friendly to someone just because of their political preference.
And honestly, we're in college. Yes, this is supposed to be preparing us for the real world, but everything doesn't have to be a life or death situation. I personally enjoy debating politics with someone, and then going out for a beer with that same person afterwards. So what if I think we should privatize Social Security and they think the government should handle everything? Doesn't mean we can't talk about something much more important later, like baseball, or who's going to win American Idol this season.
I know I seem to be contradicting myself, because I've always wanted people to be more politically aware, but aware doesn't necessarily mean "blindly loyal". In last November's elections, I voted for a couple Democrats as well as several Libertarians. Actually being aware of the candidates and the issues can help you make informed decisions - straight-ticket voting just elects a party platform, not necessarily a good politician.
Stereotypes are just all-around bad, whether you attach them to races, genders, or members of a political party. When it all comes down to it, does it really matter what my voter registration card says I am? After all, it's far more probable I'll dislike you for being a Boston Red Sox fan than for being a Democrat.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
A Little Divine Intervention
THE RIGHT ANGLE: A little divine intervention - Opinions
The average student's vocabulary, whether they realize it or not, is regularly infused with religious jargon. Some students "pray" for help on an exam, or claim a "miracle" would be needed to pass a certain class. And who hasn't exclaimed, "Thank GOD!" after receiving an A on a particularly hard paper?
A good number of students will never literally pray for a good grade, nor will they even realize that they are using terms such as these. But every now and then, something so coincidental and convenient happens that it can only be chalked up to divine intervention.
I learned this for myself last week. I had a paper due on a Thursday and, as is typical of me, I waited until the night before to start it. I already had a general idea of what I was going to focus on, so all I really needed to do was actually type the paper. Of course, I assumed that I had all the books I needed to complete the paper. And as luck would have it, I was wrong.
The majority of my paper focused on women in Biblical times, and I had planned to use several examples from the New Testament.
Unfortunately, I realized a little too late, that I did not have a Bible. Most people wouldn't see this as a real problem, as there are numerous online Bible sites that make it simple to find any verse on any subject in any part of the Bible. But I'm different. While I do have the ability to waste hours upon hours of my life reading blogs and other junk, I find it nearly impossible to read the Bible while on a computer monitor. Perhaps it has to do with my preference for the King James Version, which was clearly not written for the online age.
I struggled with an online Bible for hours before finally giving up. I decided that the next morning, I would wake up early, go to the library, and hope I had enough time to find a real Bible and finish the paper.
On my way to the library the next morning, an amazing thing happened: I ran into a Gideon. Now I know you've all seen them around campus at one time or another. They position themselves at high-traffic areas and hand out pocket-sized Bibles which conveniently contain the New Testament. As I was handed a Bible at 8am, I was still too asleep to realize what had just occurred. I continued walking to the library, went to the computer lab, sat down, and signed on before I actually realized what had happened. After spending several hours wishing for a Bible the previous night, I had simply been handed one on my way to finish the paper.
Now, when you're not a very religious person and you suddenly realize that there really MUST be someone out there watching out for you, it's a bit of an odd feeling. In fact, I spent the rest of the day with a sensation very similar to paranoia hanging over my head. But even more than that, I felt awe over what had happened to me. I am 100% sure that what happened to me was nothing short of divine intervention.
After turning my paper in, I walked around campus and thanked all of the Gideons for simply doing what they do. I was amazed at how many of them told me they had been treated badly simply for standing around handing out Bibles. The fact that anyone would berate a missionary for no good reason just sickens me.
I do not necessarily subscribe to the belief that UNCG needs preachers on every corner trying to save the souls of lost students, but that's not what these guys are doing. They're simply offering religious books for those interested. They do not force anyone to take these Bibles (I myself have turned them down several times over my four years at this school). They do not give you dirty looks for not taking their Bibles. As far as I can tell, they're criticized for giving religious literature to people who want them.
I admire the Gideons for putting up with this abuse for so long. They realize that every time they visit UNCG, they're going to be cursed and yelled at, yet they continue to come. Why? Because they realize that this could be the day they are able to reach out to just a few more people. Or maybe it's because they knew that one single college student had a need for some divine intervention.
The average student's vocabulary, whether they realize it or not, is regularly infused with religious jargon. Some students "pray" for help on an exam, or claim a "miracle" would be needed to pass a certain class. And who hasn't exclaimed, "Thank GOD!" after receiving an A on a particularly hard paper?
A good number of students will never literally pray for a good grade, nor will they even realize that they are using terms such as these. But every now and then, something so coincidental and convenient happens that it can only be chalked up to divine intervention.
I learned this for myself last week. I had a paper due on a Thursday and, as is typical of me, I waited until the night before to start it. I already had a general idea of what I was going to focus on, so all I really needed to do was actually type the paper. Of course, I assumed that I had all the books I needed to complete the paper. And as luck would have it, I was wrong.
The majority of my paper focused on women in Biblical times, and I had planned to use several examples from the New Testament.
Unfortunately, I realized a little too late, that I did not have a Bible. Most people wouldn't see this as a real problem, as there are numerous online Bible sites that make it simple to find any verse on any subject in any part of the Bible. But I'm different. While I do have the ability to waste hours upon hours of my life reading blogs and other junk, I find it nearly impossible to read the Bible while on a computer monitor. Perhaps it has to do with my preference for the King James Version, which was clearly not written for the online age.
I struggled with an online Bible for hours before finally giving up. I decided that the next morning, I would wake up early, go to the library, and hope I had enough time to find a real Bible and finish the paper.
On my way to the library the next morning, an amazing thing happened: I ran into a Gideon. Now I know you've all seen them around campus at one time or another. They position themselves at high-traffic areas and hand out pocket-sized Bibles which conveniently contain the New Testament. As I was handed a Bible at 8am, I was still too asleep to realize what had just occurred. I continued walking to the library, went to the computer lab, sat down, and signed on before I actually realized what had happened. After spending several hours wishing for a Bible the previous night, I had simply been handed one on my way to finish the paper.
Now, when you're not a very religious person and you suddenly realize that there really MUST be someone out there watching out for you, it's a bit of an odd feeling. In fact, I spent the rest of the day with a sensation very similar to paranoia hanging over my head. But even more than that, I felt awe over what had happened to me. I am 100% sure that what happened to me was nothing short of divine intervention.
After turning my paper in, I walked around campus and thanked all of the Gideons for simply doing what they do. I was amazed at how many of them told me they had been treated badly simply for standing around handing out Bibles. The fact that anyone would berate a missionary for no good reason just sickens me.
I do not necessarily subscribe to the belief that UNCG needs preachers on every corner trying to save the souls of lost students, but that's not what these guys are doing. They're simply offering religious books for those interested. They do not force anyone to take these Bibles (I myself have turned them down several times over my four years at this school). They do not give you dirty looks for not taking their Bibles. As far as I can tell, they're criticized for giving religious literature to people who want them.
I admire the Gideons for putting up with this abuse for so long. They realize that every time they visit UNCG, they're going to be cursed and yelled at, yet they continue to come. Why? Because they realize that this could be the day they are able to reach out to just a few more people. Or maybe it's because they knew that one single college student had a need for some divine intervention.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Politi-chic: Pretending to Care is the New Fad
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Politi-chic - Opinions
I recently attended a Coldplay concert in Raleigh, and judging by the number of t-shirts I've seen around campus, a good portion of UNCG was there with me. Now, anyone who knows me can tell you that I absolutely can't stand entertainers who feel the need to share their political rants. I think Barbara Streisand, Celine Dion, and Kanye West are all very talented performers, but they need to stop with the politics and stick with what they really know. Call me snobby, but if the most intelligent political statement you can make is "George Bush hates black people," then maybe you shouldn't be talking politics.
I turned down Incubus tickets AND Green Day tickets last year because there was no way I was going to sit through angry political rock-starish rants just weeks before the election. But I decided that Coldplay couldn't be too overly political, at least not at this time of the year.
For the most part, I was right. Aside from a lyrical song reference to New Orleans and lead singer Chris Martin's familiar faux-hand tattoo, politics stayed out of the spotlight. But it was still there, and it was all around me. For a long time, I had just assumed that the parallel lines on Martin's hand symbolized gay equality. That night, thanks to numerous fliers littering the ground and booths around the venue, I learned that he was actually advocating fair trade.
But aside from the band itself, there was the audience. Everyone around me was proudly sporting at least three of those ridiculous rubber bracelets. You know the ones I'm talking about - those stupid, annoyingly trendy bracelets. They pretty much have one for every cause you can dream up - all the cancers, AIDS, political affiliations, sports heroes, anti-war, pro-choice, impeach Bush, save the speckle-nosed grasshoppers, etc. Yeah, I know they've been around for a while, and I see them all the time, but never have I seen so many in one place. No exaggeration, the kids in front of me each had at least eight different bracelets apiece.
It's not seeing the bracelets that bothers me so much - seeing guys in pink polos with the collar popped disturbs me MUCH more - it's what they really stand for. While I do realize that every now and then, some of these people will buy one of these bracelets in order to stand up for something they really believe in, I do know that a lot of people get them because it's the cool new trend.
If every UNCG student that wore one of these bracelets actually got involved in something around campus, we'd have more activists than we'd know what to do with. But these bracelet-zombies aren't like that. They don't really want to do anything to save the whales; they just want to look like they care. After all, everyone else is doing it.
As I left the concert that night, there was a long line at the Fair Trade booth. Apparently, for a dollar donation, you could get a white rubber bracelet to symbolize your support of free trade! Wow, not only can you add another trendy bracelet to your collection, you too can be just like your favorite band!
I don't begrudge Chris Martin his support of fair trade, as it's obviously something he's very passionate about. But I'm fairly certain that 99% of the kids at that booth fighting for a bracelet couldn't tell you what "fair trade" even refers to. And that's probably what Martin and all the other politically-aware entertainers are counting on.
Making political causes trendy isn't really helping anyone, it's just annoying real activists like myself. So for our sakes, put the fashion away, roll up your sleeves, and actually try to make some changes in the world. After all, apathy was SO fifteen minutes ago.
I recently attended a Coldplay concert in Raleigh, and judging by the number of t-shirts I've seen around campus, a good portion of UNCG was there with me. Now, anyone who knows me can tell you that I absolutely can't stand entertainers who feel the need to share their political rants. I think Barbara Streisand, Celine Dion, and Kanye West are all very talented performers, but they need to stop with the politics and stick with what they really know. Call me snobby, but if the most intelligent political statement you can make is "George Bush hates black people," then maybe you shouldn't be talking politics.
I turned down Incubus tickets AND Green Day tickets last year because there was no way I was going to sit through angry political rock-starish rants just weeks before the election. But I decided that Coldplay couldn't be too overly political, at least not at this time of the year.
For the most part, I was right. Aside from a lyrical song reference to New Orleans and lead singer Chris Martin's familiar faux-hand tattoo, politics stayed out of the spotlight. But it was still there, and it was all around me. For a long time, I had just assumed that the parallel lines on Martin's hand symbolized gay equality. That night, thanks to numerous fliers littering the ground and booths around the venue, I learned that he was actually advocating fair trade.
But aside from the band itself, there was the audience. Everyone around me was proudly sporting at least three of those ridiculous rubber bracelets. You know the ones I'm talking about - those stupid, annoyingly trendy bracelets. They pretty much have one for every cause you can dream up - all the cancers, AIDS, political affiliations, sports heroes, anti-war, pro-choice, impeach Bush, save the speckle-nosed grasshoppers, etc. Yeah, I know they've been around for a while, and I see them all the time, but never have I seen so many in one place. No exaggeration, the kids in front of me each had at least eight different bracelets apiece.
It's not seeing the bracelets that bothers me so much - seeing guys in pink polos with the collar popped disturbs me MUCH more - it's what they really stand for. While I do realize that every now and then, some of these people will buy one of these bracelets in order to stand up for something they really believe in, I do know that a lot of people get them because it's the cool new trend.
If every UNCG student that wore one of these bracelets actually got involved in something around campus, we'd have more activists than we'd know what to do with. But these bracelet-zombies aren't like that. They don't really want to do anything to save the whales; they just want to look like they care. After all, everyone else is doing it.
As I left the concert that night, there was a long line at the Fair Trade booth. Apparently, for a dollar donation, you could get a white rubber bracelet to symbolize your support of free trade! Wow, not only can you add another trendy bracelet to your collection, you too can be just like your favorite band!
I don't begrudge Chris Martin his support of fair trade, as it's obviously something he's very passionate about. But I'm fairly certain that 99% of the kids at that booth fighting for a bracelet couldn't tell you what "fair trade" even refers to. And that's probably what Martin and all the other politically-aware entertainers are counting on.
Making political causes trendy isn't really helping anyone, it's just annoying real activists like myself. So for our sakes, put the fashion away, roll up your sleeves, and actually try to make some changes in the world. After all, apathy was SO fifteen minutes ago.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
The Anti-War Coalition Identity Crisis
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Anti-War Coalition Identity Crisis - Opinions
Someone up there has a really screwed-up sense of humor. And no, I'm not referring to heaven when I say "up there." I'm referring to the Office of Student Life.
Those of you that keep up with my online blog (link below) may have been shocked at a picture I posted a few weeks ago. I have actually been approached by students on campus asking if it was a joke, or an altered photo. Unfortunately the picture is one I snapped myself, and it is nothing more than a photo of the sign outside cubicle 225M in the EUC. Two campus organizations share an office here as of about a month ago: the College Republicans and the Anti-War Coalition.
I have this mental image of people in OSL getting bored over the summer and thinking this up. "Hey, know what we should do? Make the College Republicans share their office with the Anti-War Coalition! That'll be a good time..."
Since the College Republicans have occupied this space for years now, it is of course already decorated with American flags and Republican paraphernalia. For several weeks, no one heard or saw any sign of the Anti-War Coalition in 225M. And then one day, out of nowhere, a couple CRs found evidence of their cubicle-mates' existence: someone had tacked up a piece of paper that read, "This wall reserved for the AWC."
I had heard about this from several members, and finally went up to the office to check it out. A CR had cleared off the back wall that the other group had "reserved", and there was nothing but a "Bring Them Home" postcard hanging now. That is, of course, to be expected. I was fairly surprised, however, to find a pro-abortion flier taped to the top of the AWC's cabinet. The flier advertised an event being sponsored by the International Socialist Organization, although down at the bottom someone had scribbled, "Also sponsored by the Anti-War Coalition."
Now, THAT is interesting. I found myself wondering what war and abortion had in common, and why a group that was against one was very supportive of the other. I couldn't help but feel that the flier had been placed there to annoy the pro-life CRs. Why else would the Anti-War Coalition feel the need to co-sponsor an event on women's rights?
As I left the cubicle and started walking to the door, I glanced towards the Socialists' cubicle. Leaning half in and half out of their office was a large sign that read, "Join the Anti-War Coalition."
Last year, I met a girl that was in the AWC who got very annoyed when everyone just assumed she was a Socialist as well. But now I understand everyone's confusion - apparently, if you are anti-war, you must be anti-capitalism as well.
Now I'm torn, because I'm not sure what to believe. Either the AWC is just an offshoot of the ISO (who thought that maybe people wouldn't be quite as annoyed being harassed by them if they pretended to be two different groups), or they're proving my theory that liberals don't believe in a middle ground of any kind (i.e., if you're anti-war, you must subscribe to all other liberal theories as well). If that's the case, then no wonder the liberals think I'm crazy. After all, how can someone claim to be a Republican and still hold some of the liberal views that I do?
Then again, maybe the Socialists don't have such a bad idea. Maybe the College Republicans should start creating offshoot groups: the Pro-War Coalition, Students for Life, Second Amendment Supporters. Maybe then they'll have a chance to score extra office spaces as well.
Someone up there has a really screwed-up sense of humor. And no, I'm not referring to heaven when I say "up there." I'm referring to the Office of Student Life.
Those of you that keep up with my online blog (link below) may have been shocked at a picture I posted a few weeks ago. I have actually been approached by students on campus asking if it was a joke, or an altered photo. Unfortunately the picture is one I snapped myself, and it is nothing more than a photo of the sign outside cubicle 225M in the EUC. Two campus organizations share an office here as of about a month ago: the College Republicans and the Anti-War Coalition.
I have this mental image of people in OSL getting bored over the summer and thinking this up. "Hey, know what we should do? Make the College Republicans share their office with the Anti-War Coalition! That'll be a good time..."
Since the College Republicans have occupied this space for years now, it is of course already decorated with American flags and Republican paraphernalia. For several weeks, no one heard or saw any sign of the Anti-War Coalition in 225M. And then one day, out of nowhere, a couple CRs found evidence of their cubicle-mates' existence: someone had tacked up a piece of paper that read, "This wall reserved for the AWC."
I had heard about this from several members, and finally went up to the office to check it out. A CR had cleared off the back wall that the other group had "reserved", and there was nothing but a "Bring Them Home" postcard hanging now. That is, of course, to be expected. I was fairly surprised, however, to find a pro-abortion flier taped to the top of the AWC's cabinet. The flier advertised an event being sponsored by the International Socialist Organization, although down at the bottom someone had scribbled, "Also sponsored by the Anti-War Coalition."
Now, THAT is interesting. I found myself wondering what war and abortion had in common, and why a group that was against one was very supportive of the other. I couldn't help but feel that the flier had been placed there to annoy the pro-life CRs. Why else would the Anti-War Coalition feel the need to co-sponsor an event on women's rights?
As I left the cubicle and started walking to the door, I glanced towards the Socialists' cubicle. Leaning half in and half out of their office was a large sign that read, "Join the Anti-War Coalition."
Last year, I met a girl that was in the AWC who got very annoyed when everyone just assumed she was a Socialist as well. But now I understand everyone's confusion - apparently, if you are anti-war, you must be anti-capitalism as well.
Now I'm torn, because I'm not sure what to believe. Either the AWC is just an offshoot of the ISO (who thought that maybe people wouldn't be quite as annoyed being harassed by them if they pretended to be two different groups), or they're proving my theory that liberals don't believe in a middle ground of any kind (i.e., if you're anti-war, you must subscribe to all other liberal theories as well). If that's the case, then no wonder the liberals think I'm crazy. After all, how can someone claim to be a Republican and still hold some of the liberal views that I do?
Then again, maybe the Socialists don't have such a bad idea. Maybe the College Republicans should start creating offshoot groups: the Pro-War Coalition, Students for Life, Second Amendment Supporters. Maybe then they'll have a chance to score extra office spaces as well.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Getting More For Your Money
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Getting more for your money - Opinions
I'm a big girl. I can admit when I'm wrong - fortunately, now is not one of those times. No, this time I'm merely not 100% right. Let me explain: a week ago, I set out to prove that students who are paying their own way through college are more likely to want challenging classes than those whose parents were footing the bill. That theory was wrong. However, in realizing the flaws in my original theory, I eventually came to an even better conclusion.
Let me start at the beginning. In Spring 2005, I took an economics course. As a political science major, this course wasn't required, but I figured it would be applicable. Several people had joked that after taking an economics course I would quickly change my political affiliation. Eager to be a sheep like everyone else, I was excited at the prospect of joining the Democratic Party upon my completion of the course.
I never got that chance. In May, I left that class knowing just as much about economics as I had in January. Simply put, I was cheated out of an economics education by a teacher who just didn't care.
Had I realized how lax the professor was during the first week of school, I would have changed courses immediately. I never had a chance: that first Tuesday class lasted fifteen minutes and the professor was sick that Thursday.
As the semester wore on, I began to realize that I was learning very little, and it had nothing to do with me being a poor student. This professor spent a good 20-30 minutes a day talking about his personal life. I'll never forget the day he saw me putting on my iPod after class and remarked, "Hey, I hope you weren't listening to that during class." I smiled politely, but I really wanted to tell him that it probably wouldn't have made a difference.
Sometime last April, I ran into a girl who recognized me from that class. I lamented to her that I felt we had the worst professor in the department. She replied with a puzzled look and told me that she thought he was great because he was "so much fun in class."
Obviously, the same traits that caused me to despise this man are what made this fellow student love him. The only way I could rationalize this was by assuming that she was not paying for her own college tuition and therefore did not care that she was sacrificing her education for a "fun" teacher.
This led to my aforementioned theory. In order to test this theory, I signed on to the UNCG LiveJournal community and asked for volunteers. Technology is a beautiful thing, and within days I had dozens of students willing to take my survey. I asked several random questions, including a hypothetical situation involving a lenient and a hard professor, how they were paying for college, what (if anything) their parents were helping them pay for, and, just for good measure, how they leaned politically in regards to fiscal matters.
I surveyed several random volunteers, including my own suitemates (my own captive audience), making sure to get a good mixture of different types of students. The outcome was a disaster. There was absolutely no truth to my theory. Instead, half of all paying students chose the lenient professor, and half of all students living on their parents' dime also chose the lenient professor. So I was wrong. And even the one fraternity member that I was able to convince to take the survey crushed my theory that only rich kids "go Greek."
At second glance, however, I was able to find an interesting connection. With very few exceptions, the students who had chosen the harder professor leaned Republican when it came to fiscal matters, and vice versa. This gives all new meaning to my favorite bumper sticker: "Annoy a liberal, work hard and be happy."
Although it's not what I wanted to prove, it worked. Furthermore, upon asking why certain students chose the harder professor, I was relieved to receive answers such as "I want to be prepared for harder classes and graduate school," and "I don't expect to be spoon fed my entire life." These kids don't realize it, but they just renewed my faith in humankind.
As for the professor, the best I could do was to give him a bad evaluation. And as I recall, I wrote the equivalent of a short novel on his evaluation form. It obviously didn't help too much of anything - he's still teaching in the economics department. Meanwhile, I guess I'll never get those three course hours of my life back.
I'm a big girl. I can admit when I'm wrong - fortunately, now is not one of those times. No, this time I'm merely not 100% right. Let me explain: a week ago, I set out to prove that students who are paying their own way through college are more likely to want challenging classes than those whose parents were footing the bill. That theory was wrong. However, in realizing the flaws in my original theory, I eventually came to an even better conclusion.
Let me start at the beginning. In Spring 2005, I took an economics course. As a political science major, this course wasn't required, but I figured it would be applicable. Several people had joked that after taking an economics course I would quickly change my political affiliation. Eager to be a sheep like everyone else, I was excited at the prospect of joining the Democratic Party upon my completion of the course.
I never got that chance. In May, I left that class knowing just as much about economics as I had in January. Simply put, I was cheated out of an economics education by a teacher who just didn't care.
Had I realized how lax the professor was during the first week of school, I would have changed courses immediately. I never had a chance: that first Tuesday class lasted fifteen minutes and the professor was sick that Thursday.
As the semester wore on, I began to realize that I was learning very little, and it had nothing to do with me being a poor student. This professor spent a good 20-30 minutes a day talking about his personal life. I'll never forget the day he saw me putting on my iPod after class and remarked, "Hey, I hope you weren't listening to that during class." I smiled politely, but I really wanted to tell him that it probably wouldn't have made a difference.
Sometime last April, I ran into a girl who recognized me from that class. I lamented to her that I felt we had the worst professor in the department. She replied with a puzzled look and told me that she thought he was great because he was "so much fun in class."
Obviously, the same traits that caused me to despise this man are what made this fellow student love him. The only way I could rationalize this was by assuming that she was not paying for her own college tuition and therefore did not care that she was sacrificing her education for a "fun" teacher.
This led to my aforementioned theory. In order to test this theory, I signed on to the UNCG LiveJournal community and asked for volunteers. Technology is a beautiful thing, and within days I had dozens of students willing to take my survey. I asked several random questions, including a hypothetical situation involving a lenient and a hard professor, how they were paying for college, what (if anything) their parents were helping them pay for, and, just for good measure, how they leaned politically in regards to fiscal matters.
I surveyed several random volunteers, including my own suitemates (my own captive audience), making sure to get a good mixture of different types of students. The outcome was a disaster. There was absolutely no truth to my theory. Instead, half of all paying students chose the lenient professor, and half of all students living on their parents' dime also chose the lenient professor. So I was wrong. And even the one fraternity member that I was able to convince to take the survey crushed my theory that only rich kids "go Greek."
At second glance, however, I was able to find an interesting connection. With very few exceptions, the students who had chosen the harder professor leaned Republican when it came to fiscal matters, and vice versa. This gives all new meaning to my favorite bumper sticker: "Annoy a liberal, work hard and be happy."
Although it's not what I wanted to prove, it worked. Furthermore, upon asking why certain students chose the harder professor, I was relieved to receive answers such as "I want to be prepared for harder classes and graduate school," and "I don't expect to be spoon fed my entire life." These kids don't realize it, but they just renewed my faith in humankind.
As for the professor, the best I could do was to give him a bad evaluation. And as I recall, I wrote the equivalent of a short novel on his evaluation form. It obviously didn't help too much of anything - he's still teaching in the economics department. Meanwhile, I guess I'll never get those three course hours of my life back.
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, June 28, 2005
What Rights?: Apparently, the Right to Private Property Doesn't Exist. But What Rights Really Do?
What Rights? - Opinions
I met an interesting man last week at the restaurant where I work. Of course, when you spend your summer waitressing in a small Southern town, there is no limit to the "interesting" people you might meet. But this man was interesting in a "breath of fresh air" kind of way.
He was in his 40s or 50s, sitting alone, and seemed very eager to talk. Being such a slow day, I decided to stop and chat with him for a while. As it turns out, he's a history professor from Georgia who was just coming through town on business. Upon finding out I was a political science major, the topic naturally turned to politics. I was somewhat relieved to learn that this random history professor was a Republican, since liberals tend to be bad tippers.
He seemed just as relieved to find that there were indeed conservative college students such as myself at public universities. I told him about the trouble I've had with certain professors who don't appreciate my alternative stance on some classroom discussions. He said it was something that he had seen many times before. "Some people confuse their 'rights' with things that really aren't their rights at all. Many professors think they have the right to curtail their students' freedom of speech. But that's completely wrong. You have the right to say whatever you want in that classroom. They do not have the right to infringe upon your rights." He then went on to preach about how political correctness has spawned a whole new generation of people who claim their "rights" are being restricted, when really those rights never even existed.
He told me it was something I should do a column on, and I politely told him I might. Then, a strange thing happened. Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that local governments ultimately have the power to seize property from individuals for private land development that may prompt economic growth. And as I'm sitting here, wondering whatever happened to property rights, I'm taken back to the conversation with the Georgia professor. Do we really have a right to property? Or is it just something we made up because we thought we lived in the land of the free?
This fight isn't anything new. Decades ago, my great-grandparents were forced to give up their farm in Wayne County, NC, for the construction of a new four-lane highway that was supposed to go right through the farm. The highway was never built. To this day, that farmhouse still stands there, and has even been re-inhabited. My great-grandparents gave up everything they had worked so hard to acquire for a highway that would never even exist.
But the fact that this has been going on for years now doesn't make it any less shocking. The Supreme Court has actually come out and said that mall contractors have more right to land than the people who have been living there their entire lives. Hello Wal-Mart, goodbye property rights.
Another federal decision this week made me stop and listen in awe. Congress is well on its way to passing an amendment that would outlaw flag burning. Now, this is not something that I'm worried about for personal reasons. I could not fathom ever wanting to burn an American flag, and I will admit that it makes me sick to my stomach when I see people doing such a thing. The irony of such an act has always confused me: you protest our government by burning a flag, yet you have the freedom to protest by burning a flag. It is my guess that most flag-burners have taken that freedom for granted. But regardless of how I feel about it, I don't think I have the right to say what a person can or cannot do with their own flag.
By passing a constitutional amendment that bans flag-burning, we are taking away one's right to express themselves and placing restrictions on it. Today, you can't burn the American flag. What's next? No open criticism of the government whatsoever? Limited freedom of press? Who knows, maybe within a few years this column will be outlawed for daring to question the government's decision.
I've always been so proud of my rights as an American. I love having a political argument with someone and being able to remind them that they should consider themselves lucky to live in a nation that allows them to speak out against a president they hate. But when the Supreme Court chooses Big Business over individual rights and Congress slowly begins to restrict how we are able to express ourselves, I have to be concerned. Now is the time to enjoy your freedoms and your rights - while you still have them.
I met an interesting man last week at the restaurant where I work. Of course, when you spend your summer waitressing in a small Southern town, there is no limit to the "interesting" people you might meet. But this man was interesting in a "breath of fresh air" kind of way.
He was in his 40s or 50s, sitting alone, and seemed very eager to talk. Being such a slow day, I decided to stop and chat with him for a while. As it turns out, he's a history professor from Georgia who was just coming through town on business. Upon finding out I was a political science major, the topic naturally turned to politics. I was somewhat relieved to learn that this random history professor was a Republican, since liberals tend to be bad tippers.
He seemed just as relieved to find that there were indeed conservative college students such as myself at public universities. I told him about the trouble I've had with certain professors who don't appreciate my alternative stance on some classroom discussions. He said it was something that he had seen many times before. "Some people confuse their 'rights' with things that really aren't their rights at all. Many professors think they have the right to curtail their students' freedom of speech. But that's completely wrong. You have the right to say whatever you want in that classroom. They do not have the right to infringe upon your rights." He then went on to preach about how political correctness has spawned a whole new generation of people who claim their "rights" are being restricted, when really those rights never even existed.
He told me it was something I should do a column on, and I politely told him I might. Then, a strange thing happened. Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that local governments ultimately have the power to seize property from individuals for private land development that may prompt economic growth. And as I'm sitting here, wondering whatever happened to property rights, I'm taken back to the conversation with the Georgia professor. Do we really have a right to property? Or is it just something we made up because we thought we lived in the land of the free?
This fight isn't anything new. Decades ago, my great-grandparents were forced to give up their farm in Wayne County, NC, for the construction of a new four-lane highway that was supposed to go right through the farm. The highway was never built. To this day, that farmhouse still stands there, and has even been re-inhabited. My great-grandparents gave up everything they had worked so hard to acquire for a highway that would never even exist.
But the fact that this has been going on for years now doesn't make it any less shocking. The Supreme Court has actually come out and said that mall contractors have more right to land than the people who have been living there their entire lives. Hello Wal-Mart, goodbye property rights.
Another federal decision this week made me stop and listen in awe. Congress is well on its way to passing an amendment that would outlaw flag burning. Now, this is not something that I'm worried about for personal reasons. I could not fathom ever wanting to burn an American flag, and I will admit that it makes me sick to my stomach when I see people doing such a thing. The irony of such an act has always confused me: you protest our government by burning a flag, yet you have the freedom to protest by burning a flag. It is my guess that most flag-burners have taken that freedom for granted. But regardless of how I feel about it, I don't think I have the right to say what a person can or cannot do with their own flag.
By passing a constitutional amendment that bans flag-burning, we are taking away one's right to express themselves and placing restrictions on it. Today, you can't burn the American flag. What's next? No open criticism of the government whatsoever? Limited freedom of press? Who knows, maybe within a few years this column will be outlawed for daring to question the government's decision.
I've always been so proud of my rights as an American. I love having a political argument with someone and being able to remind them that they should consider themselves lucky to live in a nation that allows them to speak out against a president they hate. But when the Supreme Court chooses Big Business over individual rights and Congress slowly begins to restrict how we are able to express ourselves, I have to be concerned. Now is the time to enjoy your freedoms and your rights - while you still have them.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Farewell, Class of 2005: You're Now Entering the Real World... Please Don't Screw It Up
The Right Angle: Farewell, Class of '05 - Opinions
Graduation is both the worst and best time of the year for me. On one hand, I find myself being forced to let go of several friends I have made over the past three years. Sure, we say we'll keep in touch, but I remember saying the same thing at my high school graduation, and those promises are easily broken. On the other hand, I'm excited for the graduating class; they've been through a lot over the past four (five, six?) years, and they finally have a chance to take on the world armed with their new knowledge. As I sit back, staring at least another year in the face, I'm jealous of their newfound freedom.
So even though I can't give the graduating class any experienced words of wisdom about life after UNCG, I do believe I can find a few things to say that I hope you will take with you on your quickly approaching new life.
I have to start off with an excerpt from Ann Coulter's How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): "Historically, the best way to convert liberals is to have them move out of their parents' home, get a job, and start paying taxes." While Ann and I may have our disagreements, I don't believe truer words have ever been spoken.
Now before any of you go off on a rampage about how you do indeed live on your own and pay taxes, let me just say that I applaud you, and this system obviously does not work for everyone. In fact, in some cases, it may produce the opposite effect. I had the pleasure of meeting one young man last week who adheres to the socialist platform because his Republican parents refuse to pay his way through college. Some call this rebelling; I call it a failure of our public education system.
But in all seriousness, whether this year's graduates become card-carrying Republicans or screaming anarchists is not my major concern. I just want you all to do something.
There are tons of young people that take an active part in trying to change their world for the better. And then, there are those that just don't care. You know who I'm talking about. Those are the students that never know anything at all about current events. They shrug when you ask them who they support in a national election. Of course, you're usually lucky if you can get any sort of response out of them as these types of students are usually either completely caught up in a brainless sitcom or tragically addicted to Halo. They simply are so busy that they don't have the TIME for brainless drivel like politics or business.
I've often wondered if some sort of magic happens to them once they get their degree; perhaps they suddenly take an interest in the world and set out to cure cancer to make up for all the years they wasted in front of a television screen. But I highly doubt it. I have this fear that the majority of these unmotivated students grow up to be unmotivated graduates who become the subject material for stoner movies like "Dude, Where's My Car?"
Adults are often telling me how nice it is to see young people getting involved in and caring about politics. Sadly enough, I get the feeling that many of these people have given up on my generation accomplishing anything of great importance. The stereotypical college student has taken on the form of lazy couch potato who will go to great lengths to keep from having to move an inch.
And so I bid the Class of 2005 farewell with this parting message: Society may have lowered its standards for you, but not all of us have. I know that we all have some great purpose in life, and you're probably not going to find it while watching Friends reruns. So go out there and make a difference. Cure cancer, solve world hunger, bring peace to the Middle East, anything. It would be great to see a UNCG graduate in the White House someday. I expect great things from you. Don't let me down.
Graduation is both the worst and best time of the year for me. On one hand, I find myself being forced to let go of several friends I have made over the past three years. Sure, we say we'll keep in touch, but I remember saying the same thing at my high school graduation, and those promises are easily broken. On the other hand, I'm excited for the graduating class; they've been through a lot over the past four (five, six?) years, and they finally have a chance to take on the world armed with their new knowledge. As I sit back, staring at least another year in the face, I'm jealous of their newfound freedom.
So even though I can't give the graduating class any experienced words of wisdom about life after UNCG, I do believe I can find a few things to say that I hope you will take with you on your quickly approaching new life.
I have to start off with an excerpt from Ann Coulter's How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): "Historically, the best way to convert liberals is to have them move out of their parents' home, get a job, and start paying taxes." While Ann and I may have our disagreements, I don't believe truer words have ever been spoken.
Now before any of you go off on a rampage about how you do indeed live on your own and pay taxes, let me just say that I applaud you, and this system obviously does not work for everyone. In fact, in some cases, it may produce the opposite effect. I had the pleasure of meeting one young man last week who adheres to the socialist platform because his Republican parents refuse to pay his way through college. Some call this rebelling; I call it a failure of our public education system.
But in all seriousness, whether this year's graduates become card-carrying Republicans or screaming anarchists is not my major concern. I just want you all to do something.
There are tons of young people that take an active part in trying to change their world for the better. And then, there are those that just don't care. You know who I'm talking about. Those are the students that never know anything at all about current events. They shrug when you ask them who they support in a national election. Of course, you're usually lucky if you can get any sort of response out of them as these types of students are usually either completely caught up in a brainless sitcom or tragically addicted to Halo. They simply are so busy that they don't have the TIME for brainless drivel like politics or business.
I've often wondered if some sort of magic happens to them once they get their degree; perhaps they suddenly take an interest in the world and set out to cure cancer to make up for all the years they wasted in front of a television screen. But I highly doubt it. I have this fear that the majority of these unmotivated students grow up to be unmotivated graduates who become the subject material for stoner movies like "Dude, Where's My Car?"
Adults are often telling me how nice it is to see young people getting involved in and caring about politics. Sadly enough, I get the feeling that many of these people have given up on my generation accomplishing anything of great importance. The stereotypical college student has taken on the form of lazy couch potato who will go to great lengths to keep from having to move an inch.
And so I bid the Class of 2005 farewell with this parting message: Society may have lowered its standards for you, but not all of us have. I know that we all have some great purpose in life, and you're probably not going to find it while watching Friends reruns. So go out there and make a difference. Cure cancer, solve world hunger, bring peace to the Middle East, anything. It would be great to see a UNCG graduate in the White House someday. I expect great things from you. Don't let me down.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Socialists: Stuck Between Idiocy and Irrelevance -- Don't Let Them Fool You, Free Speech is Not on the ISO's Agenda
The Right Angle: Socialists: Stuck between Idiocy and Irrelevance - Opinions
It was a beautiful day in UNCG history. In perfect weather, two groups with completely opposite views were living in perfect harmony right next to each other. The College Republicans set up a pro-life table with facts about abortion and pregnancy, and the Voices for Planned Parenthood (VOX, Latin for "voice") set up a pro-choice table about ten feet away and handed out condoms.
Anyone can see the valid points that either of these groups were trying to make. The CRs were trying to convince students that fetuses are more than just a cluster of cells and should therefore have a right to live, and VOX wanted people to realize that women should have the right to choose whether or not they carry their pregnancy to full-term. Passer-bys had the choice of stopping by either of the tables or even flipping off one of the groups if they felt so inclined to do so (and apparently, some people did).
If you really can't figure out what side I was on by now, I'll give you a hint: it wasn't VOX. That doesn't mean I don't respect and understand their views. To be completely honest, in order to be as effective as possible in a situation like this, the two groups need each other in order to give students a choice.
It was a day that gave me hope for America. Here were two groups peacefully protesting each other without an argument in sight... until the socialists showed up.
Don't get me wrong here. You should all know by now that as a huge fan of the first amendment, I support anyone's right to speak their mind. But the second you try to suppress MY freedom of speech, we have a problem.
The International Socialist Organization, disturbed by the peaceful, harmonious freedom going on in front of the library, set up a table BETWEEN VOX and the CRs. Not content with simply handing out copies of "The Socialist Worker" (oh excuse me, SELLING "The Socialist Worker"... one day these kids will learn what socialism is and probably feel pretty stupid), they had to go one step further and start actually harassing the pro-life booth.
A couple latched on to me as I walked past them to bring lunch to the CRs. They screamed out angry, irrelevant questions such as, "WHY are you president of the College Republicans?" I am still perplexed by this one. I thought I was elected, but perhaps they think no Republican can hold office unless they "fix" the election.
Within moments, anti-first-amendment Socialists surrounded the pro-life table. The CRs calmly sat back and watched in amusement as the socialist argument went around in circles trying to explain itself.
I cannot stress this enough: regardless of your political affiliation, if you have any grasp of the English language whatsoever, you will win any argument with ISO. Give it a try the next time you see them around campus. I can guarantee you that the best thing they will come back at you with is, "Well, Europe does it, so we should too." They missed the history class where America declared independence from that wonderful continent.
Because they are aware that they'll never win an argument, the socialists have perfected the art of changing the subject in hopes that their opponents will become very confused and just give up. They began arguing with the CRs about women's rights, then moved to the war in Iraq, the death penalty, education, healthcare, and liberalism in public universities - all within three minutes. One socialist even tried to convince a proudly abstinent pro-lifer that she didn't know what she was missing by not having sex. Well, APPARENTLY, she's missing out on having an abortion, a vital part of any healthy sexual relationship!
For what seemed like an eternity, the CRs tried to convince the socialists that they were simply trying to educate students on abortion, not ban the use of it altogether. Many Republicans invoked the first amendment, but to no avail. The response was overwhelmingly, "All Republicans are liars, Bush stole the election from Gore and Kerry, and all conservatives are members of the KKK." You know, all the intelligent things we've come to expect from the ISO posters littering our campus.
Eventually, campus police showed up to insure that the groups respected each other's freedom of speech, although the CRs and VOX were already mature enough to handle that responsibility without police involvement. After about an hour of peace, the socialists had to leave; they were bored.
Anyone with any sense would realize that if the College Republicans' main goal for that day were to make abortion illegal, they would not have been demonstrating on the UNCG campus. The CRs tried to make it known that they were simply informing the students about abortion myths and such. Many people do not know about the consequences that may result from an abortion years later, because many pro-choicers want everyone to think that it is a perfectly normal and healthy procedure, and that is not always true.
So thumbs up to the socialists in respecting differing views from their own. Also, does anyone else find it ironic that these are some of the most prominent anti-war students on campus, and yet everything was completely peaceful until they showed up and attacked the Republicans? I can't wait until these kids grow up and realize how ridiculous they looked making these kinds of scenes. Who knows, maybe that will be the same day that they realize socialists should be the last people on earth selling their own propaganda for a buck a piece.
It was a beautiful day in UNCG history. In perfect weather, two groups with completely opposite views were living in perfect harmony right next to each other. The College Republicans set up a pro-life table with facts about abortion and pregnancy, and the Voices for Planned Parenthood (VOX, Latin for "voice") set up a pro-choice table about ten feet away and handed out condoms.
Anyone can see the valid points that either of these groups were trying to make. The CRs were trying to convince students that fetuses are more than just a cluster of cells and should therefore have a right to live, and VOX wanted people to realize that women should have the right to choose whether or not they carry their pregnancy to full-term. Passer-bys had the choice of stopping by either of the tables or even flipping off one of the groups if they felt so inclined to do so (and apparently, some people did).
If you really can't figure out what side I was on by now, I'll give you a hint: it wasn't VOX. That doesn't mean I don't respect and understand their views. To be completely honest, in order to be as effective as possible in a situation like this, the two groups need each other in order to give students a choice.
It was a day that gave me hope for America. Here were two groups peacefully protesting each other without an argument in sight... until the socialists showed up.
Don't get me wrong here. You should all know by now that as a huge fan of the first amendment, I support anyone's right to speak their mind. But the second you try to suppress MY freedom of speech, we have a problem.
The International Socialist Organization, disturbed by the peaceful, harmonious freedom going on in front of the library, set up a table BETWEEN VOX and the CRs. Not content with simply handing out copies of "The Socialist Worker" (oh excuse me, SELLING "The Socialist Worker"... one day these kids will learn what socialism is and probably feel pretty stupid), they had to go one step further and start actually harassing the pro-life booth.
A couple latched on to me as I walked past them to bring lunch to the CRs. They screamed out angry, irrelevant questions such as, "WHY are you president of the College Republicans?" I am still perplexed by this one. I thought I was elected, but perhaps they think no Republican can hold office unless they "fix" the election.
Within moments, anti-first-amendment Socialists surrounded the pro-life table. The CRs calmly sat back and watched in amusement as the socialist argument went around in circles trying to explain itself.
I cannot stress this enough: regardless of your political affiliation, if you have any grasp of the English language whatsoever, you will win any argument with ISO. Give it a try the next time you see them around campus. I can guarantee you that the best thing they will come back at you with is, "Well, Europe does it, so we should too." They missed the history class where America declared independence from that wonderful continent.
Because they are aware that they'll never win an argument, the socialists have perfected the art of changing the subject in hopes that their opponents will become very confused and just give up. They began arguing with the CRs about women's rights, then moved to the war in Iraq, the death penalty, education, healthcare, and liberalism in public universities - all within three minutes. One socialist even tried to convince a proudly abstinent pro-lifer that she didn't know what she was missing by not having sex. Well, APPARENTLY, she's missing out on having an abortion, a vital part of any healthy sexual relationship!
For what seemed like an eternity, the CRs tried to convince the socialists that they were simply trying to educate students on abortion, not ban the use of it altogether. Many Republicans invoked the first amendment, but to no avail. The response was overwhelmingly, "All Republicans are liars, Bush stole the election from Gore and Kerry, and all conservatives are members of the KKK." You know, all the intelligent things we've come to expect from the ISO posters littering our campus.
Eventually, campus police showed up to insure that the groups respected each other's freedom of speech, although the CRs and VOX were already mature enough to handle that responsibility without police involvement. After about an hour of peace, the socialists had to leave; they were bored.
Anyone with any sense would realize that if the College Republicans' main goal for that day were to make abortion illegal, they would not have been demonstrating on the UNCG campus. The CRs tried to make it known that they were simply informing the students about abortion myths and such. Many people do not know about the consequences that may result from an abortion years later, because many pro-choicers want everyone to think that it is a perfectly normal and healthy procedure, and that is not always true.
So thumbs up to the socialists in respecting differing views from their own. Also, does anyone else find it ironic that these are some of the most prominent anti-war students on campus, and yet everything was completely peaceful until they showed up and attacked the Republicans? I can't wait until these kids grow up and realize how ridiculous they looked making these kinds of scenes. Who knows, maybe that will be the same day that they realize socialists should be the last people on earth selling their own propaganda for a buck a piece.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
