I think there are a few points in this story that should be introduced. First off, I agree that the beauty of the Governor's School is that it presents both sides of controversial issues without advocating for either, but I think it could be argued that there is no advocacy for heterosexuality in the film series. That is not adequately presenting both sides of the story.
Secondly, I am not aware of the content of the film series, not having viewed the films. It chould be that there was subject material in the films that, quite frankly, was inappropriate.
Lastly, I was at Governor's School in 1991, when a brilliant man named Jim Bray was the GS West Director. Jim embodied the mission and values of the Governor's School more than any other person I have known. Anyone who got a chance to know him came away inspired.
One of the greatest lessons that Jim taught us all was the fact that while it is healthy and imperative that we question the status quo of our lives and societies, we must be accutely aware that there are consequences for our actions.
I'm not saying that one party in this "controversy" is right and another is wrong, but I will submit that we are not being given the full picture.
Stop attacking JohnD - he is weak and will soon crack.
None of you are right, by the way. Whoisthat is cold and unfeeling, and JohnD is far too accepting. JohnD do you allow squatters in your home? Based on your arguments, you must.
The debate here is pointless, people. Lisa, JohnD, and the chivalrous Matt S. (coming to the aid of Lisa in the middle of the fight) have their opinions, and they won't change. JohnD clearly revealed his opinion in his first post, and Lisa weaved her personal opinion so expertly throughout the column, Betsy Ross herself would be impressed.
There is no policy or new law that will solve this problem, and everyone knows that. If the laws we have currently are so willingly ignored with no consequence, surely another bevy will be equally received. Those that are pro-illegal immigrant (and please note that I have the fortitude to call them "illegal" as opposed to the much less offensive "undocumented" moniker Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid have dictated to everyone) think that a one-time amnesty for those that are here will solve the problem. Those that oppose it recognize that it will take action, and by action I mean a physical and visually unpleasant extraction of illegals from this country to alleviate the current leeching of our country's infrastructure. Choosing that path will most decidedly not happen because the media and Hollywood liberals will never allow that to happen because it would seem too barbaric.
But, JohnD does start an interesting concept of merely "paying the fine" for violators. But, again, I maintain that the media will not allow this to happen because that would imply a recognition of personal culpability that is anathema to the social agenda we have been force-fed for years now.
Rather, I think the fines should be against the big, bad, manipulative corporations that hire these illegals. For every illegal immigrant you employ, the federal government should fine your company $250,000 each day. If you employ four illegal immigrants, your company gets fined $1M per day.
Next, the government should set the minimum wage as a per annum amount instead of the per hour amount. Let's just say that the minimum salary for any job in America would be $30,000 per year.
Well, that has a negative effect on the mandatory employer taxes that everyone pays, so a major overhaul in the corporate tax structure will be necessary. Moreover, a true (emphasis on the word "true") reform of the welfare program would be needed as well; if the minimum salary in this country were $30,000 would we really need welfare anyway?
I think you're on to something JohnD. Commence the fines!
Ummm. . .
Game, set, match, Mr. Salda
Here is my issue with reparations: Providing tax relief for business for example directly affects state tax income. The state is not going to accept less tax income, so decreasing taxes for some black-owned businesses will increase taxes for someone else (probably white-owned businesses).
My family has historically been poor. There is no one in my family who ever owned slaves. If there are tax incentives for black-owned businesses, at the expense of my white-owned business, then I, too, have become a victim of slavery. And that's not fair, either.
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation