more comments...
« wmcdouglas wrote on Wednesday, Feb 27 at 02:14 PM »
I take a moment to reply to your editorial of February 27. I would like to challenge it a bit. “If they’re in love, they deserve to get married and enjoy the same benefits as straight couples, no big deal.” Assumes facts -- and quite a few of them -- not in evidence. Assumes that there are no paths to equal financial and legal rights outside of re-shaping what marriage has always meant. “Unfortunately, the more narrow-minded among us don’t agree.” If you disagree with us you are narrow minded. We have a very high opinion of our own opinions. If you hold to a religious set of beliefs you are wrong and therefore not allowed to give voice to your views or argue for them. If you hold a divergent political view from the Plainsman Editorial Staff you likewise are to excuse yourself from the public debate. The casually dismissed "American family" with all of its flaws is the core institution in which children are born, provided for, taught, protected, and which they use as a model for life beyond their own childhood. It is the institution which as it has suffered decay and compromise in the last 40 years has seen the rise of a plethora of ills which plague society. The break-up of families is more expensive -- just in terms of dollars -- than the 2008 Bank collapse and every hurricane and natural calamity and every war in which we are now engaged, put together. It is the fundamental bond that makes orderly and free life possible. Perhaps fundamentally changing the idea of marriage will not harm it. Perhaps it will. It seems a big and unnecessary risk -- trying to make our point the hard way as the saying is. Is there not another road to consider that will yield the stated goals sought by the Plainsman editorial board, (just back from Mt. Olympus in time to save us all.) G.K. Chesterton pointed out that one may free a tiger from his cage but to be careful not to free a tiger from his stripes -- you may find you have freed him from being a tiger. But let's not kid ourselves here -- the goal is actually something else. The real reason for the cheap thrill piece in the paper is to stick a finger in the eye of the imagined adult out there in responsibility land. There is such a thing as getting too much of what you ask for. A culture without foundational institutions will not be able to build fine universities and pay for children to attend them. William Douglas '75
« RussellT wrote on Tuesday, Feb 26 at 01:11 PM »
Could not agree more!
« AURealityCheck wrote on Tuesday, Feb 26 at 12:48 PM »
It’s also illegal to use intimidation and blackmail threats against other students if they showed support for a candidate. The “boys club” didn’t think a woman should be president, and tried to discourage Crooks from running. What she had to deal with is why very few women run for SGA president, and maybe that's why there have only been 2 women presidents in the history of SGA. Campaigns falsifying documents has been going on for years. – that’s why the “boys” knew what to look for. 750 votes were taken away from Crooks because a few students chose to wear campaign shirts after they had been told not to – something a campaign has little control over. Mills’ campaign was also found guilty of campaign violations but was only docked 20 votes. Equal application of justice? Hardly. This election was all about keeping the “boys” in power, and the only way they could do that was to weaken Crooks with the 750 vote deduction. This was proven when she received more than the minimum 40% of the vote Tuesday night before the votes were deducted; their candidate would have lost otherwise. The “boys club” acts as if their campaigns are squeaky clean and everyone knows they aren’t. To really see their arrogance, check out AuGreeksOnTop’s reply to the article Greek Gods of the SGA. And, their true character was shown by their childish behavior at Thursday night call outs. Unfortunately, the real losers of this election are the Auburn student body. This "election" was an embarrassment.