Liberals are so predictable
No one allowed in their clubhouse without a pass.- A Maine public relations firm has been tapped to assist a grassroots effort aimed at stopping George W. Bush's presidential library, museum and think tank from being built at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.
The Rev. Andrew Weaver, an SMU graduate from New York, says P&S Associates of Maine LLC has been hired to design ads and to coordinate the effort.
Posts
6 comments:
I have no objections to a library and museum, but I'm having a giggle over the notion of a GWB think tank.
Norma, you're misleading your readers by not researching and providing the full context of this story. In truth of fact, what's really at stake here transcends divides between conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats. What's at stake is a moral matter, an ethical issue, and a legal one as well. The Articles of Incorporation that govern Southern Methodist University expressly prohibit the school from leasing land to an outside entity (the Bush Library Foundation, in this case) for anything other than educational and religious purposes. This rules out the politically partisan policy center. President Bush has backed SMU into a corner by demanding that the school dovetail a partisan policy institute into the library and museum complex, by insisting that his offer is "all or nothing", "take it or leave it"--while knowing full well the predicament that SMU is in. Does it automatically make one a "liberal" to stand in protest of SMU bending under pressure, even pressure from the president of the U.S.? Does it automatically make one a "liberal" to stand in protest of SMU breaking the law in order to obtain something it covets? Does it make one a "liberal" to object to seeing a university set a bad example for students who will be our nation's leaders tomorrow? I happen to be a born-again evangelical Christian; if you want to caricature me as a "liberal" for standing in protest of actions that breach civil and moral law, then so be it. Would it not be better for parties on both sides to agree to a wn-win scenario: build the presidential library and museum on the SMU campus, and build the politically partisan policy center in the city of Dallas. What do you think, Norma?
Wow, the leftists are now the moralists. Where were they when the previous president was breaking his marriage vows?
I certainly feel that the covenant of marriage is as inviolable as SMU's articles of incorporation, or bylaws which can be changed by a committee meeting.
However it is difficult to make the argument that a presidential library is not an academic pursuit even if it does have a 'policy institute’ to suggest that the study of a presidential administration and its policies is not an educational pursuit is laughable.
mdoneil: Please be courteous and respectful enough, as well as enough of a careful reader, to refrain from outright misconstruing what other people say, as you did in my case. A presidential library/museum is appropriate under SMU's Articles of Incorporation, and is entirely valid as an educational pursuit. I do not dispute that. Obviously you did not carefully read what I had to say. Furthermore, I also said that I'm a born-again evangelical Christian--I don't consider myself a "leftist". (Perhaps you simply use that as a prejorative label to summarily dismiss anyone and everyone who happens to disagree with you, or who, on certain matters, may be critical of President Bush.) Moreover, SMU articles of incorporation cannot be changed by a committee--it would entail a legal process. Finally, it is outright silly to invoke the mistake of a past president (Clinton clearly made more than one egregious miskake) to justify the committal of a mistake by the incumbent president. Would you allow your own children to justify their mistakes by invoking this line of reasoning? I hope not. What a horrible world we'd create if that were the rule of thumb.
Thank you Susannej for pointing out the rest of the story. You've added to the discussion things I didn't know. Now all we need to do is see if SMU has follwed the rest of its principles and guidelines of its Christian founders.
If SMU has gone the route of other originally Christian colleges (Harvard, Yale, etc), I suspect many moral stands have gone by the wayside. Course content. Drinking. Mixed dorms. PC in the classroom. I really haven't looked into this, but if politics matter so much to its administration, I'm wondering if the campus culture does.
Even for the anti-administration, Bush-haters, a policy center is an educational asset for the campus. It might even provide a balance. It will be a great loss to SMU if they are suddenly struck by the morality of this president, and not other courses, faculty and organizations on its campus.
Dr Johnson,
SMU is no moral compass, if it were I would expect to see a letter from you condemning The Vagina Monologues, a disgusting work that includes graphic descriptions of pedophilia and sexual assault, which was performed at SMU on February 16 last.
I did indeed read what you had to say above, as well as what you had to say in your first opinion piece, your second opinion piece, the online petition you wrote which garnered all of 15 signatures when I last looked moments ago.
The SMU articles of incorporation can be changed by sending the approved new articles and a check for twenty five dollars to the Texas Secretary of State. While I didn't specifically review the existing articles, I did review the relevant law and find that §4.01-4.05 of the Texas Non-Profit Corporation Act apply. Since I do not practice law in Texas you may wish to contact your own counsel. However there is no legal process, no Court hearing, no judicial approval, nothing of that sort. Simply send in the forms and a check.
I did not invoke a mistake of a previous president, I remarked upon a previous administration's pattern of prevarication and deception as a means to an end and that administration's obstruction of justice. A moral matter indeed, and it was you that made the argument that locating a policy institute at SMU as a moral matter in your initial post.
It is also unclear to me what you mean when you say ..."to justify the committal of a mistake by the incumbent president" Perhaps you mean commission rather than committal yet that is even unclear as I see no mistake by President Bush that involves SMU.
I do admit to making one error in my above post. I should have read “...the leftists and now the moralists." It was in reference to apparent leftists who replied to one of Norma's writings earlier in the week. I regret that you felt I was calling you a leftist because of my typographical error.
I still find that a policy institute where the policies of President Bush may be studied, examined, and subject to scholarly dissection for all time a legitimate academic exercise. You have heard, even over in the School of Theology I'm sure, that one who does not study history is doomed to repeat it.
Post a Comment