Yesterday, the Chicago Sun Times reported that some BYU faculty and students want to withdraw an invitation to Vice President Cheney to come speak on the campus because he does not measure up to the universities integrity policy. Read the article here.
Why I let this stuff get to me I don't know, but it is frustrating to me to see supposedly educated people with such a liberal thought convention. It may be their opinion that Cheney is a bad guy, fine- they can think what they want. But at least admit that it is by assumption and inference that they hold that opinion.
It is well known that faculty and students of higher education lean to the left in this country. Maybe this stems from the egoism that causes us to reject plain and simple truths. Specifically, that "it's just not possible that Iraq really was trying to acquire yellow cake uranium!" Why is this so inconceivable? Because it would force us to do something about it. It is so contradictory to me that the left is so adamant on the fact that Bush manipulated the intelligence for political purposes, but that nearly all the free world that thought the same thing, did not!
I guess what I am driving at is this; If we abandon the Iraq now, we are partially responsible for the outcome. If we stop seeking out and killing the terrorists, they will not just leave us alone- they will continue to plot and plan our destruction. Let's just face the fact that there is evil in this world that must be stopped. I heard a quote from some philosopher that goes something like, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
I believe Dick Cheney to be a good man who believes in stopping evil.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I have no response to that...see me later for in depth discussion...while I agree about all the war/politics of it, I'm not sure I fully understand or agree with your position on the BYU situation. We'll talk over Wicked tonight!
My opinion is this...Who are we to judge the integrity of the Vice President? The situation that he is/was a part of isn't as cut and dry as the Clinton Lewinski episode. We knew (at not risk to national security) what really happened. Therefore, I feel that moral judgemnt is acceptable, for those that feel the need to pass judement. Isn't it possible that Dick Cheney, the second most powerful man in the world (sorry Tony Blair and Kofi Annan, but it's true), might have known (and stills knows) something that we do not--and shouldn't? Isn't it possible that the President of the United States and his closest advisors are privy to information that Congress (yes, even you Nancy Pelosi) aren't and shouldn't be?
About the students at BYU. They have every right to protest. This country, thankfully, allows for freedom of speech. I just question their knowledge (and true understanding) of the subject of which they are protesting. How many of them know the "facts" and how many just want to stand out at a conservitive university? In this specific case, don't think it has to do with egotism (although I think that those that lean left think they are smarter than the rest of us "sheep"). Go ahead. Protest. You'll just look uneducated when reporters ask you specific questions about foreign and dometic policy.
Maybe Rob and I (and the handful of conservitives at Cornell) should have protested when President Clinton give the comencemnt speech the year Rob grautated. Do you think we would have the the national news?
By the way, I am Abby's sister-in-law. Married to Rob, James's brother. I guess I will meet you in a couple of weeks at graduation!
I was going to comment but first I need to check and see if any of my very close relatives might have been at that protest...if you know what I mean...
Right on, Sarah! See ya in a few weeks.
The peace protest was great. I wish you all could have been there...
The whole story of Cheney coming to BYU and the reason the protests got so much press is interesting. Cheney's office actually approached BYU first to ask if he could come. The University then in turn extended the invitation. I suppose there is a sense in the VP's office that he needs to be selective about his audiences right now. BYU and West Point were the only two places he was speaking this year. So when there were demonstrations to critique the VP's positions on campus, this naturally made for a good story in the national press.
From my sense of things, there are a whole range of problems some people have had with Cheney's visit. Some of these issues are personal and some are political; some are worth considering and others are petty. There are a number of us who feel that his visit was unfortunate in that it might be misconstrued among the general public (and especially to an international public) as the University’s (and for many this also means the LDS church’s) tacit endorsement of the VP's political positions. I personally don't believe this was the point of the invitation, but you can understand why others might not be willing to make that distinction. Unfortunately, this image of the University is combined with the fact that it does not have a particularly good track record of counterbalancing these kinds of visits with visits from individual representing different political points of view. In the university's defense, it might also be possible that many invitations extended to left-leaning politicians (like the one extended to Bill Clinton) are not accepted, because the speakers themselves know that this is one of the most politically conservative areas of the country. If the current presidential administration has taught us anything about PR, it would be that there is nothing quite like preaching to the choir.
As for my personal feelings about all of this, I have had political differences with Cheney since before his first term. Since this is your blog, I will spare you my personal laundry list of complaints (but would be glad to provide them upon request). Criticizing the personal morals of the VP is indeed a slippery slope that is probably best to avoid. Criticizing the morality of the policies and actions he advocates is not, and indeed these actions deserve intense and honest debate. I applaud BYU students and faculty who took the time to express their dissent with the VP’s policy’s and stated opinions not only because I agree with many of them, but also because it has been good to spark conversation and discussion helping everyone to become a bit more reflective about why they believe what they believe. I think that discussion and even protests are necessary for the intellectual life of any university. I wish I could say that the average BYU student in one of my classes was more thoughtful about the political opinions he or she holds. Whether someone wants to support Cheney or Nader is fine, but I would hope that in either case that individual is able to tell me why. All too often when I ask someone here about how they feel about Cheney’s positions on human rights and torture, they are completely uninformed and that is disturbing because as you said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
PS Did all the free world believe that Saddam had or was about to have WMD? Wasn’t it precisely the administration’s failure to adequately convince the rest of the world that forced the US to act unilaterally?
Post a Comment