RE: The article “Play at SCC May Draw Protests,” about the Homo-sexual ex-Marine who opposes the Iraqi War (Feb. 10).
First of all I am not addressing the fact that he is a Homosexual. The courts have ruled that a person’s sexual preference is their choice. Those opposed to that preference also are entitled to their opinion, at least for now.
We still have the right to our personal opinions, unless we have the nerve and audacity to be opposed to the politically correct opinion on the subject, and then our opinions are deemed incorrect and invalid. It’s very interesting how that works.
I am addressing the side issues of the article.
So SCC has a “Gay and Straight Alliance Club.” How very trendy. It was quickly pointed out that the club is not funded by taxpayer money and is a “legitimate campus club as is a Christian club meeting the same night.”
Why the comparison? What could these two clubs possibly have in common?
As far as taxpayer dollars-this show was held on a public campus, in a public room, using public heat and electricity, public staff, public security and maintenance services. We the taxpayers did in fact indirectly pay for the show.
Would it not have been a better comparison for the article to have said, “The club is a legitimate campus club as is the “Straight Students Club??” We couldn’t have a “Straight Students Club” though, that would be non-Politically Correct and called a “Hate Club.” Not very trendy at all.
I’m also curious that since this is a “Gay-Straight Alliance” when will they bring a speaker in to speak on the subject of how Homosexuality is a life style choice and is psychological not physiological? This theory is supported by many legitimate objective scientific and psychological studies. You think there might be a little hypocrisy here?
The article really hinted that the prior protestors to this show were “bad guys.” I wonder if the speaker I referred to above was brought in how the protestors, and they would be there, would be referred to, “good guys or bad guys.”
This man volunteers to join the Marines knowing he is a Homosexual, an illegal act. Then he takes the term, “Be an Army of one,” literally and decides that he is being asked to fight an immoral and illegal war. He decides that his opinion is much more valid and knowledgeably than that of his comrades. Yet he still goes to Iraq to participate in that war. This says a lot about his character.
Now he is a civilian, after being kicked out of the Marines, and travels the country, in a time of war, being paid very well, to dishonor his comrades and his country. Sound familiar. Does the name Jon Kerry (he’s a war hero you know) come to mind.
Not that he is biased, that wouldn’t be trendy, but he makes statements like, “I would never kill an innocent person for oil,” and “I would never be asked again to take innocent lives for corporate gain.” I guess he’s saying that straight troops would.
He also states how he spent “ ... 13 years as a drunk undergraduate college student before joining the Marines at age 34.”
It should also be pointed out that he admitted his homosexuality to the Marines, without being asked, and requested to be discharged.
A little objective research, with an open mind, on this guy will reveal that he is not so much an “anti-Iraqi War proponent” but more of a “Homosexual Rights Advocate.”
Doesn’t anyone do research on these people before paying them to speak?
The main issue I find is the affect his show has on our troops still in Iraq. When will people like him and his hero, that great American Patriot and intellectual, Cindy Shehan, finally learn that the more they protest the more they will build up the morale and resolve of our enemies? This was proven in Korea and especially Vietnam. The more they protest, the more they show support for our enemies and the longer the war will last and the more of our troops and Iraqis will die.
As proof of this take North Vietnam General VO Nguyen Giap, who lead North Vietnam’s Guerrilla Operations (Viet Cong) during the war and is recognized as one of the greatest military minds of this era. In his book “How We Won the War” he states that after the Tet Offensive in 1968, (when less than 10,000 American troops had been killed) that the North Vietnam Army’s morale was the lowest it had ever been. He said that they were on their knees and were prepared to negotiate surrender to the United States.
He stated, after hearing the distorted American new reports about Tet being a victory for them and watching the American war protestors, they decided to continue fighting. “ ... they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day, week, month, eventually the protestors in America would help them to achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield.”
Read the above two paragraphs again and think about the additional 48,000 American troops and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese who died after Tet.
This is further proven by the fact that in Ho Chi City, Vietnam, there is a “War Heroes Museum.” A section of that museum is dedicated to American war protestors. It includes a great picture and tribute to John Kerry, showing him with the head of the Vietnam Communist Party (taken in 1991) and other American war protestors.
Grandpa used to say, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” In my simple country boy mind that means we should respect both sides of an issue. Not proclaim one side as being “Politically Correct” and correct and the opposing view as “hateful-biased-sexist-homophobic-non-diverse, non-tolerant,” or any of those other words Politically Correct Progressive Liberals love to use.
Yes, we all do have the absolute right to our opinions. However, we do not have the right to create our own facts about the issues while forming those opinions.
I think SCC is doing an outstanding job of providing an education to the people of our community. I also agree that part of that education should include “Diversity.” However, “Diversity” by its very definition means examining the many different aspects of an issue. My problem with SCC and most other colleges is who makes the decisions on which issues of diversity are presented to the students? Are all sides examined? To what degree will a college go to bring “selective” diversity to the students?