I haven't written much lately, but I thought this might spark an interesting discussion.
My fellow University of Illinois supporters,
I am calling for the firing of Cell and Development Biology Professor Stephen J. Kaufman.
Along with other faculty members, he has been sending packets of information to potential recruits for our athletic teams (including highly touted Eric Gordon) telling them not to come to the University of Illinois because of Chief Illiniwek.
What Professor Kaufman is doing can cost the University millions of dollars in revenue generated from our Illini teams being competitive during the Big Ten season and NCAA tournaments.
By sending these letters, Professor Kaufman is showing that he no longer supports our school in a positive letter.
While I don't think Kaufman should be fired, I wonder how his Dean would view his actions if he were sending similar "don't come here" messages to talented faculty candidates in his Department.
"I wonder how his Dean would view his actions if he were sending similar “don't come here” messages to talented faculty candidates in his Department."
Do we know Dr. Kaufman hasn't done this?
I have communicated with Stephen Kaufman in the past, and I understand his position to a certain extent. However, I made my disagreement with his tactics very clear when he embarked on his letter-writing campaign. He crossed the line, and his actions produced consequences that could certainly cause some to question his continued employment by the University of Illinois.
I think that would clearly qualify as "actions detrimental to the organization". He should be traded as soon as possible to any university willing to take him. Jim Noland had an excellent op-ed piece in the Peoria Journal Star on Sunday. Kaufman is unworthy of the distinction of the University and if he has a degree from there, he should be stripped of it as well! Losing the Chief may be inevitable, but I vow not to make it easy....
"Do we know Dr. Kaufman hasn't done this?"
To be honest, I have no idea. I just assume he hadn't because I would think it would be news if he did. Perhaps I'm wrong? Does anyone know if he's also doing academic "anti-recruiting" (for lack of a better word)?
Isn't he emeritus? Maybe that could be changed to demeritus.
Stephen Kaufman is world renowned and respected in his field.
The purpose of tenure is so professors may speak unpopular, even controversial ideas without the fear of being removed. It does not matter if the area about which he speaks is not the area of his expertise.
I don't like what he says, "but I will defend to the death his right to say it".
Sound familiar, you "free speech" advocates?
This is ABSOLUTELY NOT a First Amendment issue.
First of all, lest you make your own hasty assumptions, I am not pro-Chief. As an alum, I will be sad to see him go, but his time has come for a number of reasons not relevant to this thread.
OK, no one to my knowledge has prevented Dr. Kaufman from stating his opinion. It is the manner in which he has done so, and the damage he has sought to inflict, that has come under question. His detractors have every right to denounce his actions and ask for his removal.
"Sound familiar, you “free speech” advocates?"
You're confused about the concept of what's protected by the First Amendment (i.e., "free speech")
That means the government cannot restrict his speech. It does not mean that saying controversial things will/shall/may not have consequences. He (or anyone else) can say things detrimental to their employer without facing consequences from the Government, but may face consequences from their employer.
Although, in this case, his employer is a part of the government. And he has tenure.
But no one is trying to restrict his "free speech" rights, unless someone in Congress is trying to pass a law muzzling him.
There's a difference between speaking your mind about the Chief and actively working against the goals of your employer. It's the same as the difference between saying that women don't make good engineers (which would be an unpopular, controversial, but protected opinion) and sending letters to all of the female applicants to the school of engineering discouraging them from coming.
"The purpose of tenure is so professors may speak unpopular, even controversial ideas without the fear of being removed. It does not matter if the area about which he speaks is not the area of his expertise."
I have to disagree with your last sentence as I have been told the removal protection by tenure programs only extends to the professors field/area of expertise.
It worked! Prof. Kaufman is no longer an active member of the faculty! It must have been the petition!
Illini Pundit rules! Take credit for doing this--like all other factual misrepresentations on this website.
I would like someone to explain to me exactly how recruiting athletes "helps" the university. Does it fund and improve research? Does it improve teaching? Reduce class sizes? Increase faculty numbers, retention, and salaries? There is not a shred of evidence that success in sports does anything to affect a university's academic ranking. Nor is there any evidence that successful sports teams increase state funding from the legislature.
Is the University of Illinois less successful now because it has a losing football team? Was it more successful when its basketball team was ranked #1? Is the value of one's degree from the University based on the performance of the football and basketball team the years one is attending (and what about gymnastics, golf, wrestling, swimming?)?
As for the myth of lost income, every single solitary dollar gained from athletics goes only to athletics. Not one penny goes to teaching, research, or public service -- in other words, the entire mission of the University. That is why the same year that the legislature cut University funding and faculty salaries were frozen, football coach Ron Turner got a $200,000 raise.
As for Dr. Kaufman, he has retired from the University and does not draw a salary. He does draw a pension, but he has paid into that for many years.
And finally, this is absolutely a free speech issue. The problem with free speech is that it allows for speech you might not like. That's the price you pay.
I don't like what people say. If they complain about their jobs or their workplace they should be fired!
Sinclair Lewis thought so too. So did Martin Luther King. So did Jefferson (job and workplace) Lincoln (job and workplace), Reagan (workplace), and Bush (workplace).
"Oh, THAT'S different."
"As for the myth of lost income, every single solitary dollar gained from athletics goes only to athletics. Not one penny goes to teaching, research, or public service Ӡin other words, the entire mission of the University."
As an Alumni of the U of I, I have to disagree. The university sports program, while independing funded is part of the U of I. The university sports program promotes the U of I especially its mission. It fosters the relationship between the U of I and its alumni. If you look into financial support of the U of I alumni, you will discover significant financial support is provided by alumni besides grants of land and resources, all of which enables the U of I to perform its mission.
You are correct, financial support from the State of Illinois has decreased but you can influence that in about three weeks at the polls.
Wow, some people have really become argumentative. Free speech is limited. You can't yell fire in a theatre, you can't (just recently) go to a funeral and yell that the deceased are baby killers, you can't report on the news the exact location of where the military is going to attack next, blah, blah, blah. The irony is that they say the chief is the disruption when really it seems to be Kaufman. He can disagree with the University all he wants, that is his right, what he isn't allowed to do is infringe on the rights of the prospective 'students' by telling them not to come here based on what he feels is right. Most of these kids will never make the pros, but will graduate with a great education. Does Indiana offer as good of an education as Illinois? I didn't think so? Anyway, didn't the government (Kaufmans employer is the gov't not the NCAA) already say the chief is not hostile?
People who turned the sports program into a national laughingstock by calling a jumpy white guy a Native American chief: Heroes
Person who was the chief (hee hee) officer who managed the sports program while the football team crashed into oblivion: Totally not at fault.
Person who informed athletes about the mascot and despite having some borderline personality disorders is EXCELLENT at his job: Should be fired.
That's just awesome. I'd love to see an institution run by your evaluation processes :)
I'm a little perplexed about Kaufman's letters, if the people who run the sports programs can't influence the development of a good/poor sports program, how is some biology professor's opinion going to utterly level the program? These kids receive about 5000 pieces of letter a day, are people really arguing that someone said, "Oh my God, this Professor Kaufman, a famous biology professor says I shouldn't go to U of I, I'm going to Northern instead!" or "My God, he's right, they are a bunch of racist pricks at this university!"
Besides being infuriated that someone might say or do something you don't like, what's the issue with the action? Furthermore, what's the deal with Gordy arguing that the constitutional protection of freedom of speech from government intervention doesn't protect one's speech from government intervention.
It's all so confusing!
Xian, if you work, go to your work tomorrow, say in advertising (U of I), call all your prospective and current clients (students) and tell them not to do business with your company because the boss wears fur (the chief) and you personally think it is wrong to kill animals. Right before you get fired, don't forget to tell your bosses how good of a salesman you are and that you are allowed your free speech. What is the difference between that scenario and the U of I scenario with Kaufman?
Does Indiana offer as good of an education as Illinois?
If you mean IU, then yes.
Crusader1, Prof. Kauffman is a state employee. The first amendment applies to him; it would not apply to an employee of a private advertising firm.
IU isn't really as good as the U ofI is in most academic or athletic areas.
Michigan is better in EVERY area, except engineering. So is Northwestern, except ag sciences and engineering. So is Ohio State, except engineering. As is Wisconsin, again, except engineering, and their Law school. Medicine at Wisconsin is far superior.
Sports? Historically, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Michiigan State, Ohio State are all a lot better, across the board, including basketball.
Pretty campus and town? Illinois is dead last. Friendly community? Illinois is dead last.
Mascot? Illinois is the silliest, and the only one ever even accused of being racist.
A lot to be proud of.
This is from Lawmemo.com
In Garcetti v. Ceballos (US Supreme Court 05/30/2006) the Court said:
We hold that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.
Using U of I letterhead and the capacity of his position of U of I, I would of thought that discouraging students from attending U of I is not in his job description.
Again it is one thing to stand up against the chief (free speech), but it is another thing to send mail telling prospective students (can't be a teacher if there are no students) not to attend because of what he feels is wrong (not free speech, see above).
The concept of academic freedom involves tenure and differs from the protections of free speech offered by the first ammendment. Your employer is free to fire you for bad-mouthing the company, whereas a univeristy that acknowledges the princple of academic freedom is not. Universities are of course free to set their own polices in these regards, and some universities are known for firing anybody who fails to tow the party line. But these are generally poorly regarded, and end up mostly hiring faculty who can't find work anywhere else.
The fact that some people (probably the same ones who's kids harassed Nancy Cantor's kid until she left town) would try to remove an accomplished professor on the basis of his postion about a ridiculous cartoon character is a very sad comment indeed on the priorities of a small but vocal group of people who wish to keep the Chief as a symbol of their own continued domination of the University, whatever the consequences to the university itself.
I notice that someone above asked what would happen if Kaufmann warned faculty members about coming here. I find this sort of funny, since most faculty members are aware of this already, since Illinois is mostly known now for its sad and bizzare refusal to join other top univeristies in abandoning its Native American mascot. I promise you that no faculty come here all pumped to make the tomahawk-chop in the stadium, and that many elect to go elsewhere on the correct belief that U of I and its surrounding community are beset with a narrow, conservative, and bitter mindset. Those who do come here come here very much aware of what they're getting into, and many quickly leave.
But Chief lovers don't care about the damage they do faculty, or to the value of degrees from here, or damage they do to education itself at the University. They want so badly to fly the emblem of their own power above memorial stadium, that they're happy to burn the University itself to see that happen.
The chief is a racist symbol and anyone who supports the chief is a racist and should pay a lot of money to the native americans and probably should also go to jail.
let's see how well all you rich white boys do in jail with your racist crap.
bring it on
I for one very much appreciate the contributions that Professor Kaufman has made --- not only in his academic research, but also in his leadership and willingness to stand up against bullying chancellors and other people on campus and in the community to try to stifle free speech and efforts to end the University's ridiculous use of a racist mascot. He has spoken out against and educated many about the University's racist mascot and the harm that having it and promoting it does to Native Americans, the University community, and the surrounding community. He is a beacon of hope for free speech and the fight against racism wherever it rears its ugly head.
Frankly, I think Professor Kaufman would be honored to see that his issues have made an impression even on Illini Pundit, and you have probably piqued more people's interest his vocal opposition to racist mascots. good job!
I did not go to the UofI. I am, however, a Native American (Iroquois). The Chief is asinine, but hardly racist. And should not merit too much consideration. In a world of Native American caricatures, the Chief is benign at worst (for much worse see the Washington Redskins, the Cleveland Indians, and the Florida Seminoles). As a Native American, I fail to see how some kid from Deerfield dressed in buckskin and prancing about could cause strong feelings pro or con. Maybe the Chief is not politically correct, but when has being politically correct actually solved any problems? Of all the injustices that have been done (and are still being done) to the Native American people, one questions the priorities of the anti-Chief contingent. If you want to do something that will impact Native Americans go teach on a reservation (or be a doctor, nurse, or lawyer), or advocate for increased funding for Native American causes. Because, believe me, there are much, much, much more significant problems in the Native American community. Of course, to fix those, you have to pay them more than lip service...
This petition has over 1600 signatures.
Local Voter wrote: "The university sports program promotes the U of I especially its mission. It fosters the relationship between the U of I and its alumni. If you look into financial support of the U of I alumni, you will discover significant financial support is provided by alumni besides grants of land and resources, all of which enables the U of I to perform its mission."
You are absolutely correct that the football and basketball program fosters a relationship between the U of I and (SOME of) its alumni. Where you are wrong is in your assumption that that leads to contributions to the actual university, as opposed to the sports program. Again, there is not a single piece of evidence that has ever shown that there is a relationship between the success of the football/basketball programs, and donations to the University. I have had confirmation of this from members of the U of I Foundation. It is even more true of the biggest donors. There have also been several studies done nationally on this, and the same holds true. Sports writer and author Rick Telander writes frequently on this subject. You can find citations to some of the older studies in his book "The Hundred Yard Lie", which is actually quite a few years old now.
However, the success of the football/basketball programs does affect donations to the ATHLETIC PROGRAM, which again, is not the University.
People in general, and many lazy writers in particular, like to lump the two together as "donations to the University." But they are very different. Donations to the athletic program do not fund academics, teaching, or research. They do however make it possible for the athletic department to pay Ron Zook $1 million, Bruce Weber $800,000, and Ron Guenther $500,000 per year. If you want to donate your hard-earned money to help make these guys all millionaires, that's your business. I see it as the same as donating money to Donald Trump.
Chief Supporter wrote that Dr. Kaufman's trying to convince some students not to come to Illinois are “actions detrimental to the organization”ÂÂ. That is false. This is not a commercial business where we try to get every single customer we can. The University has a limited number of seats available for students. We already receive far, far more applicants for those seats than we can accomodate. Nor are faculty salesmen, getting a commission on how many applicants we can persuade to apply. I have, on more than one occasion, recommended that a potential graduate student not come to Illinois, because their interests don't fit with our program. That is not the least bit unethical, immoral, or "detrimental to the organization”ÂÂ.
In fact, the problem has often been the opposite--the administration has sometimes thought TOO MUCH like a business. The best example was when women of Asian descent were being attacked, but the administration was super slow publicizing it because they were worried that it might hurt the image of the university. In the meantime, more people were attacked.
In the case of Kaufman, right or wrong, he clearly believes that the Chief could be having a negative impact on minority students. From my personal experience that makes sense to me.
So he might very well see it as a moral obligation to inform prospective students of the situation. That's what a good educator would do. Now, he may be being too polemical, but that's a different issue than the mere actions of him contacting potential recruits.
Those of you claiming that Kaufman's letter said "do not come here" should go back and read the letter. It did not say "do not come here."
It provided background on the issue that is relevant to an athlete considering a school and athletic program that will allow him/her to optimize his/her career as an athlete.
Note to the person who stated he/she is Iroquois: Are you on campus?
I assume that now that Professor Kaufman has retired, that he is donating his time and effort to Native American causes--perhaps volunteering on the Rosebud reservation, or something similar.
Hey Jay, the three U of I Foundation fund raisers I met in Chicago a couple of years ago, told me that a successfull sports program at the U of I makes there jobs a lot easier. They were clear that in addition to the major sports publicity, the minor sports, especially those for women at the U of I, has lead to many donations or additions to current donations.
Now the mascot, the 'chief', a fictional caricuture of a former coalition of Illinois indian tribes is no longer limited to U of I athletics. Some current U of I faculity (and former like Kaufman) have taken it upon themselves to elevate this athletic mascot to a racist symbol of what entire University of Illinois stands for. And they are spreading this 'lie' not only to potential athletes but students and donors (government, corporations and individuals) both in this country and overseas.
Now as when I attended the U of I, I understood the 'chief' was an athletic masot, not a racist symbol of the University of Illinois, but if this 'lie' impacts funding, programs or students, the symbol should be retired. While Kaufman and his supporters may claim victory, we know that they are just liers.
He has every right to send the letters. However, he is a hypocrite for accusing the University of fostering racial stereotypes yet he has no problem moseying up to the pay window for his paycheck.
If anyone should be fired, it's AD Ron Guenther for his incompetence and lack of leadership. Thanks to the BOT for that phat pay raise!
fireronguenther.blogspot.com
the thing about a rascist symbol is that, no matter how it is intended, it can still be perceived as racist and have the effect of being racist for some people
We can argue forever over whether the Chief is, in fact, racist and offensive. That's a subjective question of opinion.
But no one can deny that many people view the Chief -- the symbol of my Alma Mater! -- as racist and offensive. You can think they're wrong. You can think they should worry about more important things. You can think they're all "outside agitators". But in the end, the fact remains you're defending a symbol that many people view as racist and offensive.
Many times over the years, academic "talent" have refused to come to Illinois, citing the Chief as the reason. Several departments have officially complained about how the Chief is harming their faculty recruitment efforts. Unfortunately, few people seem to care whether academics at Illinois are harmed by the Chief. Unfortunately, many people seem to care only when athletic success is threatened (which, I assume, is why Kaufman's sending his letters to athletic recruits in the first place).
The Chief is a problem for the University, whether Kaufman sends his letters or not. Most of us were happy to ignore that problem, as long as it didn't affect athletics. Like it or not, it does now.
Racism
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
dictionary.com
big·ot (bgt) Pronunciation Key
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
American Heritage Dictionary
Nobody thinks that Indians are inferior nor does anybody discriminate against them. Like it or not, the Illini were a tribe here in Illinois and an appropriate nickname. The 'Chief' mascot is a form of bigotry, not racism. Aren't political parties, religions, etc. all groups enacting bigotry? People keep on using the word racism because obviously it draws more attention. I never hear a good solution for a new mascot. Don't be like the Democrats and keep on telling everyone what they are doing wrong, come up with solutions. Maybe the new mascot should be Professor Kaufman?
"Nobody thinks that Indians are inferior nor does anybody discriminate against them."
wow! really?
Alum, if you know of any study that shows a relationship between winning sports teams and contributions to academics and research, I would love to see it (I'm not being sarcastic, but honest). To the best of my knowledge, there is not one. Most of the schools with the largest endowments in the nation are not major sports schools. The most prestigious universities in the nation: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, Columbia, U of Chicago, Stanford (I probably missed a couple) are not top 20 football and basketball schools, with the occasional exception of Stanford. Again, no relation to sports.
You make a good point about the Chief being just the athletic symbol. Then you blow it by name-calling Dr. Kaufman and his supporters liars. If you want your posts to be taken seriously, quit the name calling.
Any academic "talent" that refuses to come to Illinois because of the Chief would seem to be overly sensitive and prone to political correctness. Not my first choice for faculty, and if the Chief impedes the ability of politically correct departments to hire like-minded people so much the better.
Has it occurred to anyone that the students and alumni should get to pick their own mascot?
-Jim
Both Morrow Plotting and Alum are correct----The Chief is a problem for the University of Illinois (my Alma Mater) and it should go.
Let's be a careful in chosing the next athletic masot. I believe that it should be either an animal or inanimate object. It should not be a person or a representatives of people as they will always be construed by some group as a form of bigotry.
Of for the dear dead days of long ago, when college athletics was truly a student activity. I can remember wrecking my knee while playing sandlot touch fooftbll in a game which include one of our local All American blocking backs. Now we are just running minor league atlhetics for the pros.
I feel the same as you. I think anyone that talks bad about his employer or sends out letters should be terminated. What are the trustees thinking about this. He can hit the road just like Cantor. If he doesnt like it here get the hell out and leave the chief alone. It is a symbol not a mascot. We like him very much and like to performaces. Thank you for the support.
Until someone steps up and gets rid of tenure in education, he will keep his job, no matter what!
I am calling for the firing of Cell and Development Biology Professor Stephen J. Kaufman.
For his next act, he will call for the firing of Bill Self.
Points from this thread, I absolutely cannot agree with:
1) Anyone who talks bad about his employer or sends out letters should be terminated.
These types of censuring techniques are legal in private business, but not in government jobs. Furthermore, they are not EFFECTIVE in any scenario. All studies I've seen show that workers are more effective and workplaces run more efficiently when dissent is allowed.
2) Anyone who disagrees with me would not make a good faculty member, and we shouldn't worry that they won't come here.
I'd like to put the well-being of the University whether someone is "sensitive" or whatever. If the top physicist in the field doesn't like the fact that people make fun of East Asian accents, I would blame the people attacking his accent, not his sensitivity. I just want the best faculty.
3) Students should be able to pick their mascot unconditionally.
I think all of you have enough imagination to be able to conceive a mascot that would damage the mission of the university whether you think the Chief does this or not.
Furthermore, if the students want something and they get it, why bother paying administrators at all? What if a majority of the students want to just pay $20K for a diploma and not go to class? Should we just change that rule?
4) Someone is a hypocrite for cashing his paychecks while protesting a policy of his employer.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. We should only work in perfect workplaces, and never seek to improve them through constructive criticism and action. We should shut up and do what we are told.
How American is that?!?!?
I don't agree with about 400 things my employer does. If I do my job better than their other options, I deserve to be fairly compensated.
I guess thats why nobody knew of him or cared who he was until this issue came about.
Seems to me that Kaufmann can't really make a name for himself or get exposure, so he chooses this route. Are we to believe that he really cares about this issue? As one with Native American in my blood, I have more say about this than him, and as a kid watching Illiniwek, I was damn proud to know that was part of my heritage, authentic ritual or not.
Never ending! Ony the name and topic will change! Welcome to the times! Really, it is such a shame when our world has real issues and we waste our collective time and money on such irrelevant topics. The Chief is a non issue in the real world. Shame on those who foster such stupidity. Prioritize your efforts in a direction where great good can be accomplished. The truth with this Chief issue is that no concrete benefits for anyone will be a product of his demise. The racism that is assumed is negligible at best. You crazy leftists will win, in time, because you have what Kaufman stands for- "time" to pursue such efforts against a populace who gets bogged down in the bureaucracy of these incessant attacks, time and time again. If only there was a way to guide all the knaive do gooders in a direction that had substance, wow what our country could accomplish. Throw in the towel, write him off, even though its unsubstantiated and move on. Then convince all the pro Chief people to vote REPUBLICAN. Then we might see something good from this left wing BS. Hopefully they wont try to impeach our commander in chief as well. Nah, there to smart for that, right?
I spent a long time thinking about and typing these points. I tried to be balanced and empathetic, and what does it buy me, completely ignored and then some horrendously ignorant stereotyping response.
So you say the Chief is a racist symbol and anyone who supports him is racist? My ancestors are Native American and I support the Chief....so I guess I am racist against my own people? You are ignorant beyond belief.
But you know what, even though I have "Indian" in my blood...maybe everyone is right. Maybe we shouldn't honor Native Americans as brave warriors. We should just let the memory of Native Americans die out. Let them (us) be forever wiped from history and our memories.
Maybe everyone is right....we need to employ a mascot that deserves more respect in their minds I guess.....a woodchuck perhaps?
CJ sounds much like a lot of people whose family history includes a story that someone---usually a grandmother---was American Indian. What tribe, CJ? Do you know? Are you enrolled? Is your tribe federally recognized? State recognized?
My guess is that CJ can't answer those questions because CJ doesn't know much about his/her professed heritage.
Conversely, Native people who are enrolled, whose people know them, who are dancer, speakers of Native language, working for the tribe,... In other words, people whose claim to Native identity is more than just a family story or a claim, OPPOSE THE USE OF INDIAN IMAGERY FOR MASCOTS.
Does CJ know what the National Congress of American Indians is? Or the National Indian Education Association? Or the Native American Rights Fund?
I assume CJ is in the CU area. Has CJ come to events hosted by UIUC's Native American House or American Indian Studies program? Does CJ care about real Indians? Or does CJ get enough out of his/her professed Native identity by embracing the Chief?
And what is the charade taking place tomorrow at Parkland?! Congress is adjourned. Johnson's bill is dead in the water. Who voted for him? He is wasting his time and capital on this resolution. He is wasting YOUR confidence in what he can realistically do for the state of Illinois.
So you say the Chief is a racist symbol and anyone who supports him is racist? My ancestors are Native American and I support the Chief....so I guess I am racist against my own people? You are ignorant beyond belief.
But you know what, even though I have "Indian" in my blood...maybe everyone is right. Maybe we shouldn't honor Native Americans as brave warriors. We should just let the memory of Native Americans die out. Let them (us) be forever wiped from history and our memories.
Maybe everyone is right....we need to employ a mascot that deserves more respect in their minds I guess.....a woodchuck perhaps?
_______________________
Wow, that was a frustrating read. Anyone else who wants to address this issue?
Xian, you are infering that I am responding to you. Wrong! But just the same you should try not to be so hostile and abusive in your response. Ignorant is a word that might cause a stir. I do see how you might think I was responding to you, if in fact you are a leftist and think that these are the issues of the day and that right and truth will flow once again after the death of the hostile and abusive Chief. Then life will move closer to utopia, until the next grave issue is dug up by your breathren leftists.
Xian, you are infering that I am responding to you. Wrong! But just the same you should try not to be so hostile and abusive in your response. Ignorant is a word that might cause a stir. I do see how you might think I was responding to you, if in fact you are a leftist and think that these are the issues of the day and that right and truth will flow once again after the death of the hostile and abusive Chief. Then life will move closer to utopia, until the next grave issue is dug up by your breathren leftists.
_____________________
I spent a long time thinking about and typing these points. I tried to be balanced and empathetic, and what does it buy me, completely ignored and then yet another horrendously ignorant stereotyping response.