When will we begin demanding that our leaders actually lead? That our representatives actually represent? When will demand that those in control of the corporations we do business with and the politicians we have elected get around to telling us the truth? How much longer until we put our collective foot down and require those in government actually govern? When will we, the people, demand that right is right and refuse to accept anything less?
I remember as a child when I first learned that the go-cart we had was limited to run below a certain speed by a governor; I learned the word govern meant to hold in check or limit/restrain. How is that those we send to Washington, DC cannot seem to hold themselves in check or limit themselves? They can't seem to restrain themselves from spending monies they don't have or fawning over special interest groups who have the money to pamper them with gifts and freebies. When will we wake up and demand what President Abraham Lincoln said: "Government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from this earth." Right now, the government of the United States is not acting like it is "of the people", it's certainly not working as if it's "by the people" and I can't recall the last time it was "for the people". We, the people, have come close to letting that style of government "perish" from the shores of this great nation.
Why do we allow the federal government of the United States of America to tell us that they have to cut domestic programs like defense while allowing them to not only send billions of our dollars to countries around the world, like Egypt, Syria and others, but to increase the amount of monies they're giving to people who hate us? Why do we continue to allow them to borrow 40¢ of every dollar that's spent to pay our national bills while they're giving away billions upon billions every year to nations that have declared themselves to be enemies of the United States?
Is it really the leaders of the government who have gone mad or is it truly we the people who have?
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Gun Control, Gun Tragedies & Rhetoric
I know about the very first school shooting in this country in which multiple people were killed. It was 1 August 1966 and it ushered in this insane era of what is now known as campus shootings. I remember the shooting at an elementary school in Southern California where a sniper from across the street murdered teachers and students alike. I remember the mass murder of patrons of McDonald's and the chaos that was the scene of the mass murder of dozens at the Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas on 16 October 1991. Many people, however, believe this current era of tragedy began at Columbine High School on 20 April 1999, even though that rampage occurred more than a generation after the era began. There were other school shootings before Columbine, but that one seemed to really shatter the illusion that our kids are safe at school.
It may be, however, that Columbine was the one that the anti-gun crowd seized on to try to strip away the 2nd Amendment rights of all Americans, despite the fact that if you take the number of those who have used firearms to commit these mass murders and total them up to compare against the total number of people in this country who own firearms, the percentage would be less than one-fifth of one percent (0.2%). Yes, there are far too many murders where just one or two people are killed where the murderer uses a firearm, but just as many murders are committed using knives, poison, blunt force trauma, strangulation, beatings, cars, and other means. I'm not a murderer so I truly can't think of all the devious ways people can think of to kill another person. But the fact remains that 99.8% of Americans who own firearms are law-abiding citizens who simply would not even think of killing someone using a firearm or by any other means.
Then, of course there are those who claim that even if the owner of the weapons wouldn't use them for murder, other people will steal those weapons in order to commit murder. While this is true, someone who is intent on murdering someone else will murder them in whatever means they can, even if they cannot get their hands on a firearm; they'll use a knife, a hatchet or whatever tool/weapon they can find. I'm using many words to convey the same message in the old cliché: guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Someone recently said to me that gun control advocates and 2nd Amendment advocates speak different languages, which is what makes coming to a compromise so very difficult. Those who want to ban all firearms simply do not understand the things said by 2nd Amendment people and vice versa. Personally, because I understand and can see both sides, I understand both side's languages, but that doesn't help me make it easier for one side to see the other side's point of view. And part of that problem is that neither side really wants to see the other side's point of view. Even if something makes sense to them about their opponents argument, they will refuse to allow themselves to understand or admit their understanding because then they would have to concede the other side has a valid argument, as well.
I, personally, take heat from both sides because I believe in points from both sides. While I believe in the 2nd Amendment and refuse to allow anyone to take away my 9 mm Luger, my .38 revolver or my .30-.30 rifle, I agree with the gun control crowd that there is absolutely no legitimate use for an AK-47, AR-15 or any other assault/military style firearm in the hands of the regular citizen. Those weapons are for one purpose and one purpose only: the killing of human beings. They were created for use by armies, not by hunters, etc. Same with these clips/magazines that hold 100 rounds. I do believe banning any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds is a bit extreme, but those that hold 50 or more rounds are used by the military for a reason: they're to kill as many of the enemy as possible before having to reload.
So, what is the answer? I wish I could convince both sides that allowing private ownership of handguns, shotguns and rifles is our fundamental right enshrined by the Constitution, but there is no valid purpose for private ownership of military style assault weapons or magazines for any firearm that holds 50 or more rounds of ammunition. It would require compromise on both sides of the issue to achieve that solution, and unfortunately, neither side is willing to compromise. Each side wants their own way and truly believe in their heart of hearts that they are right and the opposition is wrong.
Even using Britain as an example doesn't sway either side: Britain has banned all private ownership of firearms yet they still have murders. The death toll in the United States of America won't really be impacted by the banning of firearms, because just like in Britain those intent on using a firearm as a weapon of murder will still find a way to get their hands on one and use it. The difference will be that no one will be able to defend themselves or their loved ones, so maybe the death toll by firearms would actually increase by taking away the firearms of law-abiding citizens.
It may be, however, that Columbine was the one that the anti-gun crowd seized on to try to strip away the 2nd Amendment rights of all Americans, despite the fact that if you take the number of those who have used firearms to commit these mass murders and total them up to compare against the total number of people in this country who own firearms, the percentage would be less than one-fifth of one percent (0.2%). Yes, there are far too many murders where just one or two people are killed where the murderer uses a firearm, but just as many murders are committed using knives, poison, blunt force trauma, strangulation, beatings, cars, and other means. I'm not a murderer so I truly can't think of all the devious ways people can think of to kill another person. But the fact remains that 99.8% of Americans who own firearms are law-abiding citizens who simply would not even think of killing someone using a firearm or by any other means.
Then, of course there are those who claim that even if the owner of the weapons wouldn't use them for murder, other people will steal those weapons in order to commit murder. While this is true, someone who is intent on murdering someone else will murder them in whatever means they can, even if they cannot get their hands on a firearm; they'll use a knife, a hatchet or whatever tool/weapon they can find. I'm using many words to convey the same message in the old cliché: guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Someone recently said to me that gun control advocates and 2nd Amendment advocates speak different languages, which is what makes coming to a compromise so very difficult. Those who want to ban all firearms simply do not understand the things said by 2nd Amendment people and vice versa. Personally, because I understand and can see both sides, I understand both side's languages, but that doesn't help me make it easier for one side to see the other side's point of view. And part of that problem is that neither side really wants to see the other side's point of view. Even if something makes sense to them about their opponents argument, they will refuse to allow themselves to understand or admit their understanding because then they would have to concede the other side has a valid argument, as well.
I, personally, take heat from both sides because I believe in points from both sides. While I believe in the 2nd Amendment and refuse to allow anyone to take away my 9 mm Luger, my .38 revolver or my .30-.30 rifle, I agree with the gun control crowd that there is absolutely no legitimate use for an AK-47, AR-15 or any other assault/military style firearm in the hands of the regular citizen. Those weapons are for one purpose and one purpose only: the killing of human beings. They were created for use by armies, not by hunters, etc. Same with these clips/magazines that hold 100 rounds. I do believe banning any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds is a bit extreme, but those that hold 50 or more rounds are used by the military for a reason: they're to kill as many of the enemy as possible before having to reload.
So, what is the answer? I wish I could convince both sides that allowing private ownership of handguns, shotguns and rifles is our fundamental right enshrined by the Constitution, but there is no valid purpose for private ownership of military style assault weapons or magazines for any firearm that holds 50 or more rounds of ammunition. It would require compromise on both sides of the issue to achieve that solution, and unfortunately, neither side is willing to compromise. Each side wants their own way and truly believe in their heart of hearts that they are right and the opposition is wrong.
Even using Britain as an example doesn't sway either side: Britain has banned all private ownership of firearms yet they still have murders. The death toll in the United States of America won't really be impacted by the banning of firearms, because just like in Britain those intent on using a firearm as a weapon of murder will still find a way to get their hands on one and use it. The difference will be that no one will be able to defend themselves or their loved ones, so maybe the death toll by firearms would actually increase by taking away the firearms of law-abiding citizens.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Example To Follow For Christian Living
Paul told the first century church to emulate him as he emulated Christ; it was a his way of giving those first Christians an example on this earth of how to live a good Christian life. Two thousand years later, like the first century church, we often look for someone to emulate in our Christian walk and are sometimes discouraged when we see human frailty in our earthly guide. We tend to forget that even though they're a Christian, they're still human and therefore can still make mistakes and stumble, just like we do. Sometimes we ourselves can stumble because we see the humanity of those we have chosen to emulate.
The interesting thing is, God gave us another example that if we emulate, we will pretty much walk down the straight and narrow path without faltering and we'll miss the mark many fewer times than if we don't practice this emulation. I'll use the one I look to for guidance in order to describe the whole.
He loves without condition. Even if mistreated his love is unmarred and everlasting. He is meek to the point if I were to mistreat him in various ways, he would be without complaint and even coming to me and seeking to win back my good graces, almost immediately. He shows no difference toward others, treating the beggar the same way he treats the richest man on earth. He gives without expecting anything in return except love. When I'm sick, he sits by my side comforting me and just being with me. When I'm sad, he reassures me that he's still with me. When I'm happy he couldn't be happier. He always seeks good for me and tries to prevent anything bad from coming my way. I'm not speaking of anyone or anything supernatural, here, although I do believe the angels are always around us helping us and even guiding us at times, but the one I try my best to emulate isn't a spiritual body looming over me like a guardian angel. He is flesh and blood. He's my dog.
I know many people would find it strange, but just stop and think about it for a moment; every single thing I noted as an example above is true for almost all dogs, and is truly what we are taught in the Bible is the way we're supposed to walk through this world. Just another example of how God truly knew what we needed, so He created dog as man's best friend. Dogs are just another example of God's goodness and mercy and they behave the way Christ did and the way we're told to.
The interesting thing is, God gave us another example that if we emulate, we will pretty much walk down the straight and narrow path without faltering and we'll miss the mark many fewer times than if we don't practice this emulation. I'll use the one I look to for guidance in order to describe the whole.
He loves without condition. Even if mistreated his love is unmarred and everlasting. He is meek to the point if I were to mistreat him in various ways, he would be without complaint and even coming to me and seeking to win back my good graces, almost immediately. He shows no difference toward others, treating the beggar the same way he treats the richest man on earth. He gives without expecting anything in return except love. When I'm sick, he sits by my side comforting me and just being with me. When I'm sad, he reassures me that he's still with me. When I'm happy he couldn't be happier. He always seeks good for me and tries to prevent anything bad from coming my way. I'm not speaking of anyone or anything supernatural, here, although I do believe the angels are always around us helping us and even guiding us at times, but the one I try my best to emulate isn't a spiritual body looming over me like a guardian angel. He is flesh and blood. He's my dog.
I know many people would find it strange, but just stop and think about it for a moment; every single thing I noted as an example above is true for almost all dogs, and is truly what we are taught in the Bible is the way we're supposed to walk through this world. Just another example of how God truly knew what we needed, so He created dog as man's best friend. Dogs are just another example of God's goodness and mercy and they behave the way Christ did and the way we're told to.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Selfish? Stingy? Slighted?
I love the scripture that says it is better to give than to receive, and I love being able to give to others to meet their needs. I love to see the faces of someone who is at the end of their rope then see the hope burst into their eyes again when they receive something they desperately need. I'm even more honored when God uses me to meet the need of someone who has been praying. It's such an amazing thing to be a part of the miracle, even though it's just a minor, bit role in the grand scheme of things.
On the flip side, I'm no different than any other person on the planet; I do like to receive from others, at times, as well. I can't say birthdays are an example of receiving things because I rarely get anything for my birthday. But a few times a year I've been the recipient of a blessing from God via the vessel of someone here on earth. And it's still truly a miraculous thing. Even when it's not a miracle or a blessing from God's bosom, when someone thinks enough of me to present me with something, it's an amazing feeling I get knowing they love me enough and think highly enough of me to spend their money on me.
Now, all that being said, I have a poser to answer; couple people I know exchange gifts each year, but one of them is definitely giving much more than the other. This past Christmas, for example, Eli gave Bill, the following items for Christmas: a Remington Electric Razor and a 42" Vizio LCD TV. Bill gave Eli a used GPS for his car which required updating, which cost Eli $90. Of the two, Bill earns four times the income of Eli. Eli struggles each month, financially, but he works hard and is very frugal, in most instances and manages to pay his bills, etc. Bill, on the other hand, is very free-spending, eating out, going to the movies, buying all kinds of new and exciting gadgets, etc.
I've been asked if it's right for Eli to feel as if he's not really held in very high esteem by Bill, or if it's okay that he feels slighted and short-changed when, at Christmas each year he spends on Bill while Bill feels it's appropriate to give Eli used gifts, almost as an afterthought, like he forgot to buy Eli a gift so he just gives him something to say he gave something. Spiritually, I can't find any scripture that says Eli can't feel the way he feels, and I know that Eli is always a joyful giver when he buys and presents the presents to his brother. And I can empathize when Eli feels the way he does after Christmas when he speaks about the hurt knowing that he's spent so much on Bill and Bill presents him with something insignificant that he took out of his car to give Eli because he had received a brand new GPS unit from his sister.
This one is a quandary for me. And I certainly don't have any words of wisdom to give Eli nor any words of instruction to give to Bill. I can only continue to pray for the both of them.
On the flip side, I'm no different than any other person on the planet; I do like to receive from others, at times, as well. I can't say birthdays are an example of receiving things because I rarely get anything for my birthday. But a few times a year I've been the recipient of a blessing from God via the vessel of someone here on earth. And it's still truly a miraculous thing. Even when it's not a miracle or a blessing from God's bosom, when someone thinks enough of me to present me with something, it's an amazing feeling I get knowing they love me enough and think highly enough of me to spend their money on me.
Now, all that being said, I have a poser to answer; couple people I know exchange gifts each year, but one of them is definitely giving much more than the other. This past Christmas, for example, Eli gave Bill, the following items for Christmas: a Remington Electric Razor and a 42" Vizio LCD TV. Bill gave Eli a used GPS for his car which required updating, which cost Eli $90. Of the two, Bill earns four times the income of Eli. Eli struggles each month, financially, but he works hard and is very frugal, in most instances and manages to pay his bills, etc. Bill, on the other hand, is very free-spending, eating out, going to the movies, buying all kinds of new and exciting gadgets, etc.
I've been asked if it's right for Eli to feel as if he's not really held in very high esteem by Bill, or if it's okay that he feels slighted and short-changed when, at Christmas each year he spends on Bill while Bill feels it's appropriate to give Eli used gifts, almost as an afterthought, like he forgot to buy Eli a gift so he just gives him something to say he gave something. Spiritually, I can't find any scripture that says Eli can't feel the way he feels, and I know that Eli is always a joyful giver when he buys and presents the presents to his brother. And I can empathize when Eli feels the way he does after Christmas when he speaks about the hurt knowing that he's spent so much on Bill and Bill presents him with something insignificant that he took out of his car to give Eli because he had received a brand new GPS unit from his sister.
This one is a quandary for me. And I certainly don't have any words of wisdom to give Eli nor any words of instruction to give to Bill. I can only continue to pray for the both of them.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Petition Against Piers Morgan Is Wrong
Just read a news item about a White House petition to deport CNN's Piers Morgan for his aggressive stand on gun control. The petition was created by a Texas man who accused Mr. Morgan of engaging in a 'hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution' by targeting the Second Amendment. It demands he be deported immediately for 'exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.' We have a saying where I'm from for that: HOGWASH
First of all, this is the United States where everyone has freedom of speech. And please don't give me the tired old argument that it's only for US citizens or even as some quacks say, for natural, US born citizens. The US constantly demands that other nations give their citizens the right to free speech, naming it one of the inalienable rights of man and one of those God-given rights given to us at birth as human beings. Second, Mr. Morgan comes from a nation where firearms are banned, not just controlled. As such, he has an innate hatred and fear of firearms. From birth he has heard that firearms are responsible for murder. Of course, there are still murders in England, and yes, there are even still crimes committed with firearms, even handguns, however, in almost every crime that's committed with a handgun, murder is the result. I can completely understand his position of being against all firearms in the hands of the general population.
It's interesting this was in the news this morning, as I had a conversation with someone who is very close to me, last night, on this very subject. He's a member of the Republican party, a born-again Baptist preacher. He is, himself, the owner of several weapons and claims ownership of thousands of rounds of ammunition. He's just as passionate as Mr. Morgan is, although on the opposing side. He's even against the banning of assault weapons being owned by the general populace. He and I agree on the Second Amendment but we disagree on ownership and/or banning of assault/military style weapons.
I am, after all, one of the few who get angry comments from both sides of the issue. From the left I get condemned for standing for the rights of responsible ownership of firearms by Americans who are over the age of 18, have never been convicted of a felony, etc. From the right I'm condemned because I support the ban on military style assault weapons because I just do not feel there is a need for the general population to own those weapons as they're really not good for hunting and their sole purpose is for the killing of human beings in times of war. As for the magazines or clips that hold 30 or more rounds of ammunition, I'm just not sure; hunters do use them as well as those who want to murder very high numbers of their fellow citizens in acts of mass murder. I'm just not sure where to draw the line.
But, back to the deportation of Mr. Morgan. This is just plain silliness and to quote Mr. Morgan, in regards to the Texas man who started this petition: what an unbelievably stupid man.
First of all, this is the United States where everyone has freedom of speech. And please don't give me the tired old argument that it's only for US citizens or even as some quacks say, for natural, US born citizens. The US constantly demands that other nations give their citizens the right to free speech, naming it one of the inalienable rights of man and one of those God-given rights given to us at birth as human beings. Second, Mr. Morgan comes from a nation where firearms are banned, not just controlled. As such, he has an innate hatred and fear of firearms. From birth he has heard that firearms are responsible for murder. Of course, there are still murders in England, and yes, there are even still crimes committed with firearms, even handguns, however, in almost every crime that's committed with a handgun, murder is the result. I can completely understand his position of being against all firearms in the hands of the general population.
It's interesting this was in the news this morning, as I had a conversation with someone who is very close to me, last night, on this very subject. He's a member of the Republican party, a born-again Baptist preacher. He is, himself, the owner of several weapons and claims ownership of thousands of rounds of ammunition. He's just as passionate as Mr. Morgan is, although on the opposing side. He's even against the banning of assault weapons being owned by the general populace. He and I agree on the Second Amendment but we disagree on ownership and/or banning of assault/military style weapons.
I am, after all, one of the few who get angry comments from both sides of the issue. From the left I get condemned for standing for the rights of responsible ownership of firearms by Americans who are over the age of 18, have never been convicted of a felony, etc. From the right I'm condemned because I support the ban on military style assault weapons because I just do not feel there is a need for the general population to own those weapons as they're really not good for hunting and their sole purpose is for the killing of human beings in times of war. As for the magazines or clips that hold 30 or more rounds of ammunition, I'm just not sure; hunters do use them as well as those who want to murder very high numbers of their fellow citizens in acts of mass murder. I'm just not sure where to draw the line.
But, back to the deportation of Mr. Morgan. This is just plain silliness and to quote Mr. Morgan, in regards to the Texas man who started this petition: what an unbelievably stupid man.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Spell Check Isn't The End All for Proofing
I love the computer. I love the internet. I love being able to read news stories or entertainment bits and business news any time I want, when I'm ready to read them. I'm most definitely a child of the 70's who grew up just in time for computers to come into the mainstream. I remember when my High School installed its first six PC terminals in Mrs. Mason's typing classroom with fondness and nostalgia. Of course, this was before Windows operating system when everyone used DOS or MS DOS. And before anyone but military personnel had ever heard of the internet or world wide web.
I also remember when finding a mistake in a newspaper article or magazine was a rare thing and resulted in clipping said article for inclusion in a scrap book. When I was in school (both High School and college) I was constantly reminded by teachers and professors to proofread, proofread, proofread and when done proofreading, proofread again just to be certain. Now, I will admit that I have posted comments on Facebook or tweeted things that I didn't proofread which included misspelled words or doubled words or incorrect words and even synonyms which didn't quite fit with my intended thought, but I'm not paid to write for a news agency, newspaper or magazine. I've had numerous conversations with most of my friends and close relations about this topic, and they, too, are as confounded as I at the blatant errors to be found in nearly every news item or article found on the internet and especially in those articles produced for the AP or online magazines and newspapers.
I understand the ease of using F7 to check the spelling of the document you're working on, and even my computer offers basic grammar rules in the spell checker. I've copied and pasted certain text from online articles to a blank Word document and pressed F7 only to find that spell checker did find the same mistake I did, so I'm truly at a loss as to how some of these mistakes make it into print, as it were. So, not only does it seem the writers aren't proofreading, some of them aren't even using a very good spell checker! But even if the writer and their spell checker misses something in their article, don't these articles have to be read by an editor before they're posted online, published or printed? Are there not at least two or three people other than the author who read these things before they're released to the public?
I realize the state of education in this country isn't what it once it was, but these mistakes are simple, stupid and are things even a third grader would spot.
I also remember when finding a mistake in a newspaper article or magazine was a rare thing and resulted in clipping said article for inclusion in a scrap book. When I was in school (both High School and college) I was constantly reminded by teachers and professors to proofread, proofread, proofread and when done proofreading, proofread again just to be certain. Now, I will admit that I have posted comments on Facebook or tweeted things that I didn't proofread which included misspelled words or doubled words or incorrect words and even synonyms which didn't quite fit with my intended thought, but I'm not paid to write for a news agency, newspaper or magazine. I've had numerous conversations with most of my friends and close relations about this topic, and they, too, are as confounded as I at the blatant errors to be found in nearly every news item or article found on the internet and especially in those articles produced for the AP or online magazines and newspapers.
I understand the ease of using F7 to check the spelling of the document you're working on, and even my computer offers basic grammar rules in the spell checker. I've copied and pasted certain text from online articles to a blank Word document and pressed F7 only to find that spell checker did find the same mistake I did, so I'm truly at a loss as to how some of these mistakes make it into print, as it were. So, not only does it seem the writers aren't proofreading, some of them aren't even using a very good spell checker! But even if the writer and their spell checker misses something in their article, don't these articles have to be read by an editor before they're posted online, published or printed? Are there not at least two or three people other than the author who read these things before they're released to the public?
I realize the state of education in this country isn't what it once it was, but these mistakes are simple, stupid and are things even a third grader would spot.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Freedom of Speech: Whose Right Prevails?
I recently read an article about a Christian man who was complaining because he had made some comments regarding homosexuals which had resulted in him losing his job. He was angry that his employer had fired him for his comments and called his former employer several names. Among his complaints, he charged that the employer was promoting a homosexual agenda by firing him for his views, which he claimed he had the rights and freedom to express under the 1st Amendment.
Today I read about a petition to force a university to re-hire a coach whom they had fired despite the coaches winning season, citing the fact the coach did not reflect the values of the university and they wanted to find someone who "better represented" them. The student who started the petition didn't think it was fair that the university had terminated the coach based on his personal life and was upset that the university had the right to do so because they are in a right to work state where the employer does not have to show cause for termination.
In both of these instances, freedom of speech is the central issue, however, in both instances the "injured" party doesn't take into consideration the rights of the others involved. They want THEIR rights but they don't want to allow others to have, or exercise those same rights and privileges and freedoms.
So, where do our rights to freedom of speech and expression end and the rights of others to freedom of speech and expression begin? We all want the right to speak our minds, to have our say, without restriction. But in doing so, where do we draw the line in limiting what others have the right to say in opposition? Or in what situation do others have the right to limit or even prevent us from speaking our opinions freely? It is definitely a difficult question to answer and an even more difficult quandary to be in.
Many people feel that they are "right" so therefore they have the right to speak their mind without restriction. They fail to recognize those of the opposing opinion also believe themselves to be "right" and believe they have the same right to speak without restriction. With each side believing themselves to be right, neither is going to relinquish the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution. And even though both parties consider their opposition to be wrong, in some cases it could happen that neither side is actually wrong.
In the instances presented at the beginning of this blog, the gentleman who lost his job does, indeed, have the right to say what he feels is right and wrong according to his beliefs and morals, however his employer also has the right to limit what may be said in the workplace, therefore the termination of the employment would be legitimate. As for the coach losing his job, again, the university was within its rights to terminate that coach. No matter how the student feels, the university is located in a state where no cause is necessary for terminating an employee. If the person in charge of the hiring and firing of that coach didn't like the tie the coach was wearing that day or the way the coach parted his hair, they are allowed to fire the coach even for those silly little reasons in that state. We may believe it was fair, but that doesn't matter: they have the right.
The first amendment guarantees us the right to speak freely but we also have the responsibility to speak responsibly at the time and in the place that is appropriate.
Today I read about a petition to force a university to re-hire a coach whom they had fired despite the coaches winning season, citing the fact the coach did not reflect the values of the university and they wanted to find someone who "better represented" them. The student who started the petition didn't think it was fair that the university had terminated the coach based on his personal life and was upset that the university had the right to do so because they are in a right to work state where the employer does not have to show cause for termination.
In both of these instances, freedom of speech is the central issue, however, in both instances the "injured" party doesn't take into consideration the rights of the others involved. They want THEIR rights but they don't want to allow others to have, or exercise those same rights and privileges and freedoms.
So, where do our rights to freedom of speech and expression end and the rights of others to freedom of speech and expression begin? We all want the right to speak our minds, to have our say, without restriction. But in doing so, where do we draw the line in limiting what others have the right to say in opposition? Or in what situation do others have the right to limit or even prevent us from speaking our opinions freely? It is definitely a difficult question to answer and an even more difficult quandary to be in.
Many people feel that they are "right" so therefore they have the right to speak their mind without restriction. They fail to recognize those of the opposing opinion also believe themselves to be "right" and believe they have the same right to speak without restriction. With each side believing themselves to be right, neither is going to relinquish the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution. And even though both parties consider their opposition to be wrong, in some cases it could happen that neither side is actually wrong.
In the instances presented at the beginning of this blog, the gentleman who lost his job does, indeed, have the right to say what he feels is right and wrong according to his beliefs and morals, however his employer also has the right to limit what may be said in the workplace, therefore the termination of the employment would be legitimate. As for the coach losing his job, again, the university was within its rights to terminate that coach. No matter how the student feels, the university is located in a state where no cause is necessary for terminating an employee. If the person in charge of the hiring and firing of that coach didn't like the tie the coach was wearing that day or the way the coach parted his hair, they are allowed to fire the coach even for those silly little reasons in that state. We may believe it was fair, but that doesn't matter: they have the right.
The first amendment guarantees us the right to speak freely but we also have the responsibility to speak responsibly at the time and in the place that is appropriate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)