“The blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.”
Guth was put on administrative leave.
In the following days, I read that some of the staff from UK was defending Guth’s freedom of speech, though they didn’t necessarily agree with what he said. I likewise agree on the concept of freedom of speech. However, along with it — he also has the right and obligation to take the responsibility and consequences that come along with saying something so blatantly inappropriate.
Today, I learned that Guth would not be returning this semester and is scheduled for a leave in Spring of 2014. I shed no tears. Remember that this was a man teaching “journalism”. The field that is supposed to investigate and report the truth to readers and viewers. Yet, this man is blaming the NRA for what happened in the Navy Yard? Apparently truth and accuracy passed over his head, in his bias against this particular organization.
The NRA (National Rifle Association) neither promotes nor defends gun violence. So why they are being held accountable whenever a shooting occurs, I have no idea. Well, maybe I do. It’s most likely an attempt to turn the nation on them and diminish their influence in the battle of more gun control vs enforcing the laws already in existence. It’s also possible that people aren’t paying attention and just coming up with crazy ideas from misinformation. It doesn’t matter.
For a teacher, especially of journalism, to blame an organization that was no way involved in the tragic shooting that cost the lives of 13 people, is bad enough. (So much for gathering the inconvenient little things called facts.) But to then wish their children to be the ones killed next? That’s way over the line and past inappropriate.
Shame on the NRA? No, Mr. Guth — shame on you! It’s the vile and cruel attitudes such as you presented that create hatred and intolerance. It’s your type of attitude that gives birth to the crazy idea that it is okay to provide misinformation and say whatever — when dealing with a person, place, thing or concept not agreed with. It leads to propaganda — not journalism. It is hatred and cruelty all bundled up in supposed indignation to indoctrinate and create a generation of zombies.
The NRA did not influence the Navy Yard shootings, but attitudes and words such as Mr. Guth’s might have.
Yesterday, I was quite ticked off because I truly don’t like people writing to me and suggesting that those who are somewhat like-minded with me are something I know for a fact they are not! Oh, that really ticks me off. Not that you would ever guess.
But… it didn’t begin there… nor does it end there.
Not long ago, I was suspended from a site. I received one thing that said I needed to agree not to do something anymore. Problem was… I hadn’t done it in the first place. And, for various reasons, I wasn’t about to confess to something I did not do. Like… if I had taken the easy way out just to get back on the site — it would have been on record that I said I wouldn’t do it anymore? Duh, the false confession could later be used against me with someone saying I had admitted to doing it prior, regardless of the fact I really hadn’t ever done the deed (in question) ever.
Let’s put it this way…
I would rather never be on that site again, than to say I did something I did not do!
Needless to say, I don’t believe in false confessions. Oh, did I say that already?
Nevertheless, I wrote to the site in question and they did let me back on, but it sounded as though they still thought I did whatever because their system supposedly said whatever it was it said. On the other hand, I wondered if they had gone and taken a “physical” look, which would have shown what I was saying was true. Maybe they even found out there is a flaw that the bad people figured out and used to their advantage to get rid of the opposition? (The latter being what I think actually happened – the radicals and silencers found the flaw & were using it to their advantage.)
Then we come to today. I started out the day finding I’m suspended from still another place. (I wish I could say who. Maybe later, I will.) Once again, I am at the mercy of a group that can’t (or won’t) tell me specifics, but can hold me accountable for what I have no ability to control, even if it did happen. But what if it didn’t… or what if it was a setup because I had ticked someone off? After all, I do write and I do tick off radical liberals quite often, don’t I?
Might they set me up for punishment?
Naw! They wouldn’t do something like that, would they?
The article, Why Does My “Invisible Friend” Bother You So Much, has resulted in a touch of frustration, entertainment of the day, and pure validation. Yes, validation. Validation of what so many of us have come to see as the new reality people are attempting to impose upon the masses. To suggest many of us are tired of it, is the understatement of the century. It’s old. It’s used up. It’s a game no longer selling with ease, as the boycott membership swiftly grows.
Why Does My “Invisible Friend” Bother You So Much was dealing with the need of SOME to get rid of anything and everything that suggests Christianity, while either supporting, or ignoring, rude & lewd behavior in public (possibly in front of children). And, let’s not forget the Mosque/Islamic “exception” and demand for tolerance not afforded the Christian churches, though they (the Muslims), too, have an “Invisible Friend”.
Rather than deal with the topic at hand, the reaction was an attempt to slide the discussion elsewhere and totally away from the point.
I did not ask why people didn’t simply believe in God. I asked why it bothered them so much that they had to remove any sign of my “Invisible Friend” from view, while demanding tolerance for the Muslims and their “Invisible Friend”? What did (and do) they fear that they can’t simply let Christian believers believe? What did (do) they fear that made, and makes, it necessary to demand removal and exclusion of anything thing that resembles Christianity, while often promoting (with a passion) anything that is non-Christian or blatantly against Christianity?
A person tried to get into a conversation about the wrongful things that happened in the guise of Christianity, but… that wasn’t the topic.
I kept trying to remind the person what the topic was. It was useless.
It was suggested that I am delusional. I was asked if I was stupid. Well, most readers know the drill and how the conversation went – ‘cause it was like they always go. It was also suggested that I made it all up. Straw man illusion, if you will. No one was actually trying to take away anything and everything that might suggest a Christian theme. So, I presented an article dealing with a Christmas tree ban.
Needless to say, but I will…
The person, at times throughout the conversation, responded by repeating a particularly offensive word over and over. (Now there’s an intelligent argument.)
Likewise, the person said that I had failed to address all that he/she presented about Christianity, but I had dared to bring up a Christmas tree ban. Then there was the laughing and so forth as he attempted to mock me. EXCEPT… things such as a Christmas tree ban was the major point of the particular article. Yes, In regard to the article, Why Does My “Invisible Friend” Bother You So Much — Christmas tree banning was quite relevant to the issue presented.
Straw man illusion? Wouldn’t that apply to someone pretending to be rational, while trying to commandeer a discussion and ignoring the actual question presented? And yes… wouldn’t that apply to that same someone who was suggesting no one is trying to remove signs of Christianity except maybe from schools? Oh, and wouldn’t that apply to that same person who was trying to tell me the point of the article? You know, the article I personally thought up and wrote all on my own without his input or guidance? (Somehow, I think I am the most qualified to know what point I was trying to make. Whether I made it or not, is an entirely different issue.)
My question again with the examples spelled out for the little mocker types, who deny even the obvious when it doesn’t fit their agenda…
Why Does My “Invisible Friend” Bother You So Much that there is a problem with having a Christmas tree or saying something so simple as, “Merry Christmas”? What is it that is feared? What is it that you fear — that makes all these things so dangerous to you that you can’t just let them be? Why is it necessary to remove and destroy anything you feel is even remotely related to my “Invisible Friend”, while promoting tolerance for the Muslims or the rude and the lewd?
That is the question. No commandeering invited or allowed.
Surprise! Surprise! Teacher is confused or missed required history classes in her pursuit of a teaching degree and compares Romney/Ryan to KKK? Or, perhaps it is just a sign of the times. Radical Islam to be tolerated. Christianity not so much so. Koran good. Bible bad. Liberalism = perfectionalism. Conservatism = acceptable focus of insult & intolerance.
According to Lee Brodie’s article, “Teacher Ridicules Student for Romney T-Shirt” (CNBC – Yahoo.com):
Many Republicans can’t help but wonder if a student wearing a pro-Obama T-Shirt in a Philadelphia school would have been subject to the kind of humiliation that Samantha Pawlucy was forced to endure.
The 16-year old sophomore, who attends Charles Carroll High School, told CNBC’s Larry Kudlow, that she was humiliated by a teacher for wearing a T-shirt in support of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
She said the teacher compared her to the worst racists in history — the Ku Klux Klan.
How ridiculous is this?
The KKK was not founded by the conservatives. It is a product of the Democrats. Yes, the Democrats — the very same people that fought civil rights and provided and fought for the murder of thousands of babies from the Black community via Planned Parenthood. So, where did this confused teacher get the idea that a Romney/Ryan t-shirt is equal to the Ku Klux Klan?
Where oh where does any liberal idea come from? Nobody knows. It was just there one day and becomes fact, even if it isn’t and no matter how many history classes confirm the error of thought.
Yes, indeed, it appears this teacher must have missed history classes and went to the “Blame Bush” class instead, where transference becomes a virtue as long as that transference is being placed upon the Conservative or anything not considered PC that day.