Dear Chuck Norton: A Reader’s Response
Posted by iusbvision on September 25, 2007
It is unfortunate that your “editorial” opened with commentary concerning an incident that was an attack on an unfortunate fellow male’s ego, (Who was this poor unfortunate fellow? You? Maybe?) by a decidedly “uncivil” act perpetrated by an obviously immature, poorly educated, ill mannered, egocentric, young “lady” ( “young” is an assumption, since I cannot imagine a mature women acting like this, and “lady” is used in deference to the over used description of a female dog usually embraced by these so-called ladies ).
Chuck you asked, “What is it with so many people today?” I guess maybe the answer is whether you only see the ones like the aforementioned young lady or the ones who unlike her go out of their way to be nice to their fellow human beings. I would prefer that we see and hear about those whom return smiles and have a nice thing to say to the clerks at the local super market, or to passersby on the sidewalks of campus. Then again that was not the intent of your editorial now was it? No your editorial became a rant against the so-called left-wing. A description used to label any person who is not in line with the ideologies of the right-wing activists.
You use the word “tolerant”, a blatant dig at those whom you call left-wing activists, when you make the claim that, “…the more “tolerant” among us repeatedly vandalized it.” “It” being the College Republican display board. You have made an assumption that only those with left leanings would “defile” the said board, the implication being that a “heavy” burden was put upon the College Republicans. I do not know what was done to the board but your “vandalism” may have been the perpetrator’s version of the “right to free speech”, a tenet of the U.S. Constitution the “Vision” rightfully spoke up about and defended in its first edition. I in no way condone vandalism of a destructive nature but if a specific branch of the so-called left-wing were to acquire their own display board I am sure they would have to put up with “extremists” of the right-wing “vandalizing” it.
Chuck you then spoke to us about the “hate mail” you receive that spews, “…a litany of warm and fuzzies…” and “…the myriad of colorful metaphors…” WAHH!! (read here’s your pacifier). I don’t want to read about your whining because people are sending you hate mail, if you continue to write exclusively right leaning dogma expect those who disagree with you to write emails full of vitriol back. What I care about is the infinite number of email that piles up in my “spam” file of Viagra ads, Nigerian scam lotteries and the like. Why doesn’t somebody filter these before they get into my email files? My Yahoo account does not seem to have a problem doing that? Oh, and by the way, isn’t suspending the posting privileges of any person to the Vision a form of restricting their right to free speech? (I know, I know I’m arguing semantics here.)
It was unfortunate that your editorial became a rant against the media and even though you did not come out and say it, the “liberal” media. Right, Chuck? I noted this at your displeasure of the awarding of a Pulitzer to the AP. You stated, that an AP reporter was only a few feet away from the murder of three Iraqi election workers by insurgents. Before I am willing to fully accept your version of the events described I would have like to know your source for the information that the AP was tipped off and were in complete safety. You imply that the AP reporter should have done something to prevent the atrocity, but you did not say what it was he should have done. Should they have alerted the U.S. military to the actions of the insurgents? As a journalist, are you saying if you were in that particular reporters position you would have alerted the military? Do we know the full story about the how’s and why’s the reporter did not tip off the military? You mentioned previously that newspapers, “argued in a lively manner as to why their point of view was correct and the other papers were wrong.” Resulting in the, “average citizen that was exposed to debate…with an applied critical thinking process…” Then you expect me to take at face value your displeasure of the actions of a AP reporter. Where’s the other side of the story?
Chuck and in an almost ironic twist, your last narrative is about a professor who was censured by Ashland University where he was employed because of his work, writings, etc. related to his research concerning objectivism. But yet you expound about the suspension of the posting privileges of a professor on this campus. (I know, I know we have already gone here.)
Chuck if you must rant about the “wonderful” life of the right-wing, do not couch it in an article supposedly about the incivility of society. Society is not uncivil albeit there are individuals within society whom are uncivil and as such do need to be reported, reprimanded, etc. by their fellow human beings and they must be reminded that we are a community of people and as such
“C’mon people now
Smile on your brother
Ev’rybody get together
Try to love one another right now Right now, right now.”
Or is that too liberal for ya?
For the record and in the interests of full disclosure there is no Rick Kiefer enrolled at IUSB this school year – IUSBVision