I have often been accused of being a "single issue voter", as have family and friends.
Well I'm not. I think a more accurate term might be "deal breaker issue voter." I'll explain why and why there really is a problem with true single issue voters.
I won't vote for someone who supports abortion on demand. (AHA! You really ARE a single issue voter, you say?)
Well, I also won't vote for someone who is pro-slavery.
or believes in killing people who are not of their own religion.
or believes that citizens don't have the right to own guns.
or believes that the government owns my body.
or believes that rights are bestowed on citizens by government and not that power is delegated to government by citizens with rights bestowed upon them by God.
I could go on.
If you owned a business and were hiring someone to drive your delivery truck, would you hire someone who didn't know how to drive? No, knowing how to drive is a requirement for the position, but probably not the only one. What if your applicant has a valid license, a clean driver history, and happens to be a totally obnoxious jerk, or an axe-murder? More than one thing can be a deal breaker.
Which leads me back to single issue voters. A true single issue voter doesn't care if the delivery man is an axe murderer as long as he can drive.
Like this:
or this:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7320
The 2nd amendment guarantees all of the others. A citizenry without arms is one without the ability to preserve it's rights. If the early Americans didn't own firearms we would still be British subjects. Fighting the political battles to protect the right to self-defense is a very important thing, and something the NRA has done for a long time.
BUT
The whole point of preserving the right to bear arms is to prevent the rise of tyranny. By shmooozing with Harry Reid (they haven't decided if they will officially endorse him yet) and hopping on the government suppression of free speech bandwagon, the NRA seems to say tyranny is a-o-k...as long as we can keep some guns and the money keeps flowing into our coffers.
And that is the problem with single issue voters.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Not quite dead yet.
No the blog isn't dead. It's just been sleeping. I've got a couple of good posts ideas churning around in my head, but not quite ready to pop out of the oven. But in the interest of sating the appetites of all my ravenous blog readers, I thought I'd just post something weird I heard on the radio.
Everyone has heard about people getting in car crashes because they were texting and driving at the same time. Well according to the little news blurb on the radio, there is a new menace- people walking into each other because they are walking and texting at the same time! Horror of horrors. Don't worry though, the cellphone industry is hard at work researching groundbreaking technologies that will allow people to "speak their text" so that they can look where they are going while they walk.
Silly me, but I thought we already could communicate by speaking into our phone. It's called MAKING A PHONE CALL.
I am not making this stuff up.
Everyone has heard about people getting in car crashes because they were texting and driving at the same time. Well according to the little news blurb on the radio, there is a new menace- people walking into each other because they are walking and texting at the same time! Horror of horrors. Don't worry though, the cellphone industry is hard at work researching groundbreaking technologies that will allow people to "speak their text" so that they can look where they are going while they walk.
Silly me, but I thought we already could communicate by speaking into our phone. It's called MAKING A PHONE CALL.
I am not making this stuff up.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Losing is Winning. Failure is Success.
No this isn't a post about the dark Orwellian future Obama has planned for us. It's about baseball, specifically the Pittsburgh Pirates, whose ongoing on the field futility was recently brought back in the national sports consciousness due to their historic 20-0 defeat at the hands of the Brewers. For those of you who may have forgotten Pittsburgh has a baseball team...we do...kind of. The Pirates streak of 17 consecutive losing seasons (a "best" in all of sports) is still going strong. Come next year, a Pittsburgh kid old enough to vote will not have seen his local team break .500 in his lifetime.
Why?
Because the team isn't trying to win. That's not their goal, making money is.
Oh sure, I'd say most of the players are trying their best. The problem is most of the players over the past 17 seasons haven't been very good, and THAT is not an accident.
Striving for success is risking. Only one team wins it all each year. Lots of GOOD teams fail. It's easy to be a bad team though.
Here's the Pirate's business model:
1. Soak up revenue sharing dollars from all the other teams in the league.
2. Keep a fair amount of fans coming to the tax payer funded stadium by having bobbleheads, fireworks, and concerts (all cheap and risk free, barring any freak fireworks accidents of course)
3. Pay the minimum possible for a poor team of players. If by some mistake on your part you end up with a player who is actually good, trade him away. People with talent will expect to be paid accordingly and we can't have that.
4. Keep the fans happy (or at least short of violent revolt) by a continual propaganda campaign promising the future will be better and success is just a year or two away.
And guess what. That business model works for the Pirates. The owners make a profit by fielding a horrible team. The wonders of socialism.
Why?
Because the team isn't trying to win. That's not their goal, making money is.
Oh sure, I'd say most of the players are trying their best. The problem is most of the players over the past 17 seasons haven't been very good, and THAT is not an accident.
Striving for success is risking. Only one team wins it all each year. Lots of GOOD teams fail. It's easy to be a bad team though.
Here's the Pirate's business model:
1. Soak up revenue sharing dollars from all the other teams in the league.
2. Keep a fair amount of fans coming to the tax payer funded stadium by having bobbleheads, fireworks, and concerts (all cheap and risk free, barring any freak fireworks accidents of course)
3. Pay the minimum possible for a poor team of players. If by some mistake on your part you end up with a player who is actually good, trade him away. People with talent will expect to be paid accordingly and we can't have that.
4. Keep the fans happy (or at least short of violent revolt) by a continual propaganda campaign promising the future will be better and success is just a year or two away.
And guess what. That business model works for the Pirates. The owners make a profit by fielding a horrible team. The wonders of socialism.
How the NFL suspended Big Ben for doing what they told him (and you) to do
The NFL recently suspended Ben Roethlisberger for 6 (maybe more, maybe less) games. Here's some of what the commissioner said in his announcement:
Simply put, that's a lie.
If the NFL did not find anything different than the local prosecutor, than Roethlisberger's actions are perfectly consistent with the values of the league.
First let's look at what the Georgia prosecutor said, because it was quite revealing. They didn't say, we are not going to charge Ben because we don't have enough to convict him. They didn't say simply that we are not going to charge him and leave it at that. Here's what he said:
A set of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has probably been committed and this person probably did it.
That's not a lot.
So what the DA said is that either (A) the facts show that a crime may have been committed but Ben probably did NOT it or (B) there probably wasn't any crime committed by anyone at all.
That's a far cry from how most of the media has reported it.
So if there's no crime, what did Roethlisberger do? He was at a bar, so it might be reasonable to think he was drinking. Ben hasn't confirmed or denied it, but for the sake of argument lets say he had relations with the alleged victim. So he was drinking beer and having sex. In other words he was following NFL policy to a T.
A guy goes into a bar with his buddies, gets hammered and hooks up with a coed.
That could be e teaser for anyone of the so-called "sit-coms" that the NFL advertises during broadcasts of their games.
The league has been metaphorically pouring beer down the throats of its fans since before Bud-bowl was an original idea.
What's that you say? You can't hold the NFL accountable for the broadcast network's advertising decisions? Ok, lets look at the league itself.
Tom Brady wasn't suspended for abandoning his pregnant model girlfriend to be with another non-pregnant model girlfriend. So, out of wedlock sex, even if it causes some sort of scandal (at least as far as our society scandalizes anyone for out of wedlock sex anymore) is NOT grounds for suspension in the NFL.
Surely drinking beer isn't ground for suspension.
Oh, Ben demeaned and objectified women, particularly young women? Surely that would be grounds for suspension.
One word. Cheerleaders.
26 of the 32 NFL teams suit up young women in less clothes than the natives wear in National Geographic hand have them prance up and down the field every game day. Why? Because the league wants its fans to imagine have sex with these ladies.
So like I said, IF Roethlisberger ended up having sex with a drunken college coed in a bar, it seems he did exactly what the NFL has been telling people to do for years. That's why the commissioner's moralizing about suspending Ben for Ben's own good and sending him off to reeducation training ring hollow.
Here's what the Commish could have said:
That at least would have been honest.
"I recognize that the allegations in Georgia were disputed and that they did not result in criminal charges being filed against you," Goodell wrote in a letter to Roethlisberger, according to the NFL's announcement. "My decision today is not based on a finding that you violated Georgia law, or on a conclusion that differs from that of the local prosecutor. That said, you are held to a higher standard as an NFL player, and there is nothing about your conduct in Milledgeville that can remotely be described as admirable, responsible, or consistent with either the values of the league or the expectations of our fans"
Simply put, that's a lie.
If the NFL did not find anything different than the local prosecutor, than Roethlisberger's actions are perfectly consistent with the values of the league.
First let's look at what the Georgia prosecutor said, because it was quite revealing. They didn't say, we are not going to charge Ben because we don't have enough to convict him. They didn't say simply that we are not going to charge him and leave it at that. Here's what he said:
The allegations "cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt," Bright said during an afternoon press conference. "Therefore there will be no arrest made nor criminal prosecution against Mr. Roethelisberger."
Bright said "significant questions ... persist" about what happened between Roethlisberger and the alleged victim, but there just isn't enough evidence for him to bring charges. "We don't even have for probable cause," Bright said.That last part- we don't even have for probable cause- is far more revealing than pretty much anyone has reported. To convict someone, you need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a pretty high burden. Often times a prosecutor might have enough to charge, but not enough to convict, so they don't charge. But that's not the case here. You need probable cause to charge, and they didn't have it. So what's probable cause:
A set of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has probably been committed and this person probably did it.
That's not a lot.
So what the DA said is that either (A) the facts show that a crime may have been committed but Ben probably did NOT it or (B) there probably wasn't any crime committed by anyone at all.
That's a far cry from how most of the media has reported it.
So if there's no crime, what did Roethlisberger do? He was at a bar, so it might be reasonable to think he was drinking. Ben hasn't confirmed or denied it, but for the sake of argument lets say he had relations with the alleged victim. So he was drinking beer and having sex. In other words he was following NFL policy to a T.
A guy goes into a bar with his buddies, gets hammered and hooks up with a coed.
That could be e teaser for anyone of the so-called "sit-coms" that the NFL advertises during broadcasts of their games.
The league has been metaphorically pouring beer down the throats of its fans since before Bud-bowl was an original idea.
What's that you say? You can't hold the NFL accountable for the broadcast network's advertising decisions? Ok, lets look at the league itself.
Tom Brady wasn't suspended for abandoning his pregnant model girlfriend to be with another non-pregnant model girlfriend. So, out of wedlock sex, even if it causes some sort of scandal (at least as far as our society scandalizes anyone for out of wedlock sex anymore) is NOT grounds for suspension in the NFL.
Surely drinking beer isn't ground for suspension.
Oh, Ben demeaned and objectified women, particularly young women? Surely that would be grounds for suspension.
One word. Cheerleaders.
26 of the 32 NFL teams suit up young women in less clothes than the natives wear in National Geographic hand have them prance up and down the field every game day. Why? Because the league wants its fans to imagine have sex with these ladies.
So like I said, IF Roethlisberger ended up having sex with a drunken college coed in a bar, it seems he did exactly what the NFL has been telling people to do for years. That's why the commissioner's moralizing about suspending Ben for Ben's own good and sending him off to reeducation training ring hollow.
Here's what the Commish could have said:
I am suspending Mr. Roethlisberger for the first 6 games of the upcoming season, because the league's PR and marketing executives have advised me that failure to issue such a suspension could result in a decrease in revenues.
That at least would have been honest.
Monday, April 12, 2010
The problem with Republicans
Thus far on my blog I've been fairly critical of "the left". So in the interest of being "Fair and Balanced", I'll take some time today to point out the two main problems I have with Republican politicians.
1) They're politicians.
2) They're Republicans.
The first, is a question of human nature and the temptation of those with power to do what they can to keep it and get more. Politicians, Democrat, Republican, or any other kind, like to get reelected. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that. Where the "wrong with that" part comes in is where they decide to put getting reelected ahead of doing the right thing.
The second problem with Republicans is that they're Republicans. I'm being serious. Now, I'm not talking about all registered members. I'm talking about those who are "party men" (or women). These are generally those who have hitched their wagon to the horse that is the party machine- GOP party bureaucrats from the local to national level, a large number of professional "conservative" commentators and think tank thinkers, and the vast majority of elected office holders. They are Republicans first and foremost, and that is a huge problem.
Why? Because there are no qualifications to be a Republican. Sure the party platform says it's pro-life, pro-gun, fiscally conservative, and generally in favor of that thing called the Constitution. But do you actually have to believe that to be a party member? HAH! You don't even have to pretend to believe it many cases.
So you're a pro-abortion, big-spending, big government "conservative"? Hey you can be the Republican governor of California.
So you're in favor of rewarding illegal immigration, think a pro-abortion Democrat would make a great VP, and you're landmark piece of legislation is a whole-sale attack on Freedom of Speech...come on down..you're GOP Presidential nominee John McCain!
Oh, you're a real Maverick, not a fake one like McCain, you just happened to be running with him, not that you supported his policies or anything, you know it's time for real change, the type of change that can only be brought about by....campaigning to reelect John McCain! You're professional political "Maverick" Sarah Palin!
You're a pro-life to the core Republican senator. The other senator from your state is also in the GOP- except he's a gun grabbing, big spending, pro-abortion liberal. Oh, and he's facing a tight primary challenge from an actual conservative. What do you do? Back the conservative would seem to be the obvious choice. Hmmmm, maybe stay on the sidelines at least publicly out of professional courtesy (cowardice). Naaaa. You back the pro-abort, anti-gun, socialist simply because he has (R) next to his name when they show it on TV. You're former PA Senator Rick Santorum!
One more.
You think Obama and Pelosi will be the death of this country. You can't stand how they are trampling on the constitution. Everyone knows that this massive government expansion into health care is a horrible idea, and the slush fund bailouts aren't any better. Oh wait. Except that you voted for a massive expansion of Government run health care a few years back and you voted for massive slush fund bailouts too. Well, that was different, because, well, you see, things were more constitutional back then...because Republicans were in charge. You're most of the Republicans in the congress and former President G.W. BUSH!!!!!
Oh yeah- you support unconstitutional, undeclared wars as well as the travesty that is the Patriot Act. Lets not forget about those.
All this is why the "principled" stand the GOP is making against Obama right now doesn't help their credibility at all. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't hurt it, but it doesn't help either. Right now their principles and their politics coincide. Railing against Obama is the right thing to do AND good politics for GOP politicians in an election year.
I could go on and on. The bottom line is this:
The GOP and the Democratic party both want to take this country to the same destination, and where we're headed isn't pretty. A society dominated by a massive federal government with unchecked powers that regulates every area of your life, where the Constitution is a quaint historical oddity. BOTH parties want to take us there. That's not me talking crazy talk. That's me putting more stock in what Republicans have actually done while in power then what they say on the campaign trail. The only difference between the parties is that Republicans want to take longer to fully implement this new order. The Dems want to increase spending 15%? The "conservatives" in congress will draw a hard line....and only vote to increase it 12%.
Just so you know that I know what I'm talking about and don't dismiss me as some stealth Leftist trying to sew discontent among the GOP faithful:
1) I'm a registered Republican.
2) I'm an Iraq War vet.
3) I voted for Bush twice.
4) I'm a fully recovered G.W. Bush zombie.
I've woken up. I hope lots of other people do too.
This post is meant to educate and persuade, not to push anyone over the cliff into the chasm of despair, because while I know it looks bad (because it is), there's alway hope. I'll get more into who I do like politically (hint one guy starts with Ron and ends with aul) in the future. For now, I'll just say pray, work hard, trust in the Lord. Believe what someone does over what they say. Say what you mean. Do what you say.
1) They're politicians.
2) They're Republicans.
The first, is a question of human nature and the temptation of those with power to do what they can to keep it and get more. Politicians, Democrat, Republican, or any other kind, like to get reelected. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that. Where the "wrong with that" part comes in is where they decide to put getting reelected ahead of doing the right thing.
The second problem with Republicans is that they're Republicans. I'm being serious. Now, I'm not talking about all registered members. I'm talking about those who are "party men" (or women). These are generally those who have hitched their wagon to the horse that is the party machine- GOP party bureaucrats from the local to national level, a large number of professional "conservative" commentators and think tank thinkers, and the vast majority of elected office holders. They are Republicans first and foremost, and that is a huge problem.
Why? Because there are no qualifications to be a Republican. Sure the party platform says it's pro-life, pro-gun, fiscally conservative, and generally in favor of that thing called the Constitution. But do you actually have to believe that to be a party member? HAH! You don't even have to pretend to believe it many cases.
So you're a pro-abortion, big-spending, big government "conservative"? Hey you can be the Republican governor of California.
So you're in favor of rewarding illegal immigration, think a pro-abortion Democrat would make a great VP, and you're landmark piece of legislation is a whole-sale attack on Freedom of Speech...come on down..you're GOP Presidential nominee John McCain!
Oh, you're a real Maverick, not a fake one like McCain, you just happened to be running with him, not that you supported his policies or anything, you know it's time for real change, the type of change that can only be brought about by....campaigning to reelect John McCain! You're professional political "Maverick" Sarah Palin!
You're a pro-life to the core Republican senator. The other senator from your state is also in the GOP- except he's a gun grabbing, big spending, pro-abortion liberal. Oh, and he's facing a tight primary challenge from an actual conservative. What do you do? Back the conservative would seem to be the obvious choice. Hmmmm, maybe stay on the sidelines at least publicly out of professional courtesy (cowardice). Naaaa. You back the pro-abort, anti-gun, socialist simply because he has (R) next to his name when they show it on TV. You're former PA Senator Rick Santorum!
One more.
You think Obama and Pelosi will be the death of this country. You can't stand how they are trampling on the constitution. Everyone knows that this massive government expansion into health care is a horrible idea, and the slush fund bailouts aren't any better. Oh wait. Except that you voted for a massive expansion of Government run health care a few years back and you voted for massive slush fund bailouts too. Well, that was different, because, well, you see, things were more constitutional back then...because Republicans were in charge. You're most of the Republicans in the congress and former President G.W. BUSH!!!!!
Oh yeah- you support unconstitutional, undeclared wars as well as the travesty that is the Patriot Act. Lets not forget about those.
All this is why the "principled" stand the GOP is making against Obama right now doesn't help their credibility at all. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't hurt it, but it doesn't help either. Right now their principles and their politics coincide. Railing against Obama is the right thing to do AND good politics for GOP politicians in an election year.
I could go on and on. The bottom line is this:
The GOP and the Democratic party both want to take this country to the same destination, and where we're headed isn't pretty. A society dominated by a massive federal government with unchecked powers that regulates every area of your life, where the Constitution is a quaint historical oddity. BOTH parties want to take us there. That's not me talking crazy talk. That's me putting more stock in what Republicans have actually done while in power then what they say on the campaign trail. The only difference between the parties is that Republicans want to take longer to fully implement this new order. The Dems want to increase spending 15%? The "conservatives" in congress will draw a hard line....and only vote to increase it 12%.
Just so you know that I know what I'm talking about and don't dismiss me as some stealth Leftist trying to sew discontent among the GOP faithful:
1) I'm a registered Republican.
2) I'm an Iraq War vet.
3) I voted for Bush twice.
4) I'm a fully recovered G.W. Bush zombie.
I've woken up. I hope lots of other people do too.
This post is meant to educate and persuade, not to push anyone over the cliff into the chasm of despair, because while I know it looks bad (because it is), there's alway hope. I'll get more into who I do like politically (hint one guy starts with Ron and ends with aul) in the future. For now, I'll just say pray, work hard, trust in the Lord. Believe what someone does over what they say. Say what you mean. Do what you say.
Monday, April 5, 2010
The Collapse of Western Civ 101
Grover, for those of you not in the know is more than a muppet. A Grover is also a student or alum of Grove City College in Grove City PA. I'm a Grover, and as a Grover, I must ask that someone please pass the soapbox, because I most certainly must get up on one.
What made Grove City great, and the reason I went there, was that it dared to be different. The school is unapologetically Christian. Men and women students lived separately. Booze was prohibited on campus. Violation of either the alcoholic consumption or male-female fraternization policies was grounds for serious disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal. The day before graduation, several members of my class got booted for cheating. And horror of horrors, you not only had to take a class on the Bible, but you had to go to Chapel and listen to people talk about Jesus!
I think that whole paragraph would fall into the category of hate crimes at most colleges.
But alas, not even Grove City is safe from the foul stench of "modernization".
First to go, were Saturday morning classes, we wouldn't want to tax the poor students too much. (as an aside, 8am Saturday classes were probably one of the best enforcement mechanisms against drinking)
Then I got a call from a perky student making fundraising calls for the college. She informed me of the incredible wonders of the new on campus-off campus co-ed apartment housing. She further informed me that she'd like some of my money. I declined.
Then I heard that they held Graduation on the quad. It's hard to explain this to a non-Grover, but I'll try. You can't (or at least couldn't it seems) go on the quad. You walked on the sidewalks or faced tortures worse than being locked in a utility closet with Jack Bauer and a craftsman tool set. Perhaps, a truly daring student would take a quick sprint across a small corner of the quad the week before graduation in an effort to stick it to the man and then quickly look around to make sure no one actually saw him. Needless to say, the news that graduation was held on the quad came as a shock.
And
Now
THIS!
From wikipedia:
LIGHT ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES!?!?!? What exactly does that mean? Well I know what that means. Frisbee....ON THE QUAD!
Even more disturbing than the actual walking on the grass, is how this revolution took place- the Student Government voted on it. THE SGA. As a Grover, I can faithfully attest that the SGA is completely unable at doing anything other than passing out cookies and holding meetings, and it struggles with those. A college is not a democracy, and at least when I went there Grove City College would have told you as much. What next, the SGA votes A's for everyone's report card? People join SGA for one of three reasons:
1. They're politically conniving weasels who think it will look great on their resume.
2. They're glory hounds who have become addicted to validation of their popularity through student government elections since their landslide victory as Mrs. Tubbs home room representative in 5th grade.
3. They like handing out cookies.
Not exactly the group of people who should be setting policy for a major institution of higher learning, don't you think? The inmates are running the asylum and the administration is a bunch of cowards for hiding behind "the will of the people".
It's a sad day for Grovers everywhere. At least for the Grovers who went there back when it was a real bastion of conservative Christian thought. When men were men, and they didn't live with girls, sleep in on Saturdays, or walk on the grass.
Here's your soap box back.
What made Grove City great, and the reason I went there, was that it dared to be different. The school is unapologetically Christian. Men and women students lived separately. Booze was prohibited on campus. Violation of either the alcoholic consumption or male-female fraternization policies was grounds for serious disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal. The day before graduation, several members of my class got booted for cheating. And horror of horrors, you not only had to take a class on the Bible, but you had to go to Chapel and listen to people talk about Jesus!
I think that whole paragraph would fall into the category of hate crimes at most colleges.
But alas, not even Grove City is safe from the foul stench of "modernization".
First to go, were Saturday morning classes, we wouldn't want to tax the poor students too much. (as an aside, 8am Saturday classes were probably one of the best enforcement mechanisms against drinking)
Then I got a call from a perky student making fundraising calls for the college. She informed me of the incredible wonders of the new on campus-off campus co-ed apartment housing. She further informed me that she'd like some of my money. I declined.
Then I heard that they held Graduation on the quad. It's hard to explain this to a non-Grover, but I'll try. You can't (or at least couldn't it seems) go on the quad. You walked on the sidewalks or faced tortures worse than being locked in a utility closet with Jack Bauer and a craftsman tool set. Perhaps, a truly daring student would take a quick sprint across a small corner of the quad the week before graduation in an effort to stick it to the man and then quickly look around to make sure no one actually saw him. Needless to say, the news that graduation was held on the quad came as a shock.
And
Now
THIS!
From wikipedia:
Lying in the center of Grove City College Campus is the quadrangle, or "quad." Students have historically been prohibited by the administration from walking on the grass in this area. In recent years, restrictions have laxed, and the quad has been the subject of controversy among students and faculty. In the fall of 2005, the student government association voted to open the Upper Quad to "light athletic activities" and the administration established new policies for quad use. The Lower Quad remained off-limits - only used for such events as baccalaureate, commencement, and homecoming - until the fall of 2009, when it was also opened for use. Prior to the opening of the Quad, there was a long-standing legend on campus regarding the "Tower Sniper." Passed by word of mouth from upperclassmen to freshmen, the legend held that the Tower Sniper lived in the clock tower of Rockwell Hall and would shoot at anyone who walked across the quad.
LIGHT ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES!?!?!? What exactly does that mean? Well I know what that means. Frisbee....ON THE QUAD!
Even more disturbing than the actual walking on the grass, is how this revolution took place- the Student Government voted on it. THE SGA. As a Grover, I can faithfully attest that the SGA is completely unable at doing anything other than passing out cookies and holding meetings, and it struggles with those. A college is not a democracy, and at least when I went there Grove City College would have told you as much. What next, the SGA votes A's for everyone's report card? People join SGA for one of three reasons:
1. They're politically conniving weasels who think it will look great on their resume.
2. They're glory hounds who have become addicted to validation of their popularity through student government elections since their landslide victory as Mrs. Tubbs home room representative in 5th grade.
3. They like handing out cookies.
Not exactly the group of people who should be setting policy for a major institution of higher learning, don't you think? The inmates are running the asylum and the administration is a bunch of cowards for hiding behind "the will of the people".
It's a sad day for Grovers everywhere. At least for the Grovers who went there back when it was a real bastion of conservative Christian thought. When men were men, and they didn't live with girls, sleep in on Saturdays, or walk on the grass.
Here's your soap box back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)