I remember when people failed a grade in school they had two
options. Go to summer school, or repeat the grade. If they tried out for the cheer-leading squad and didn't make it, they had two options. Try again next
year or try something else. If they applied for a job and were denied
employment, they either went and took a couple courses to sharpen their skills
or they applied for a different job doing something else.
If they attempted to join the Air Force and for some reason
were denied entry, they went to the Navy and then the Army and as a last
resort, they became Marines (no insult intended or implied). Not everyone will
make a good Marine and my hat is off to them for their mission. My point is,
they applied around until they got satisfaction.
How many times in a working career do we experience failure
to get a position we believe we not only desire, but deserve? When we don't get
it, what is our response? Do we become antagonistic and combative or (egads)
subversive? Would we rather see the whole business collapse than move forward
without us being in the position we felt we should have filled? Do we whine and
cry and rally everyone we can persuade to overturn the decision or wreck havoc
to show the travesty?
Are we so self assured and righteous to believe that only we
can do the job to the point that we would physically strike the other person or
wish them and their family harm? Should we hire a attorney to go after them, or
a blogger to put into motion a constant barrage of slander against the person
who did the interview or better yet, the person who was chosen over us? Would
we refuse to accept defeat even though we clearly were not selected, elected,
but rejected?
Would we justify our actions by believing everyone got it
wrong, but us and those who supported us knowing full well, it would make the
company, school, or business less effective because of our well planned public
stunts? Would the end justify the means, even if it meant dividing everyone
against each other? Would creating a hostile situation satisfy us or be
acceptable restitution because we were not selected?
Whatever happened to just accepting the fact that we were
not chosen and either go back to the drawing board, or find another occupation?
Why is it, that people who claim to be
accepting of almost anything and everything are so outspoken against other
things to the point that they turn to violence to get their message across.
They claim to be champions of human rights and the first amendment, but they behave
in just the opposite manner when arguing their point. They demand to be heard,
but scream down anyone who won't agree with them. They proudly crash into
assemblies rudely shouting out "My team is better than your team",
but pummel anyone wearing a button, hat, or t-shirt with the opposing view
stamped on it.
But the greatest weapon they possess is using the misogyny
or race card to slander anyone who has the ignorant temerity to disagree with
them. This automatically buys them time, as the very implication of this heinous
malady makes the person guilty in the eyes of other people like them and for
the most part, the Press. Never mind that many people on both sides of the
argument do not reach for actual facts; they just follow. What, me read? Why
should I read when I can listen to Limbaugh or Pelosi? They will tell me what
to think, right?
It's sad, sad, sad days we are living in when people don't
have enough moral and ethical history to think for themselves. This is why if
you were to pull a random protestor out of any hostile group and have them
explain whey there are really protesting, it would be a joke. It would sound
like this, "It is history man! I mean, like, look at all the people out
here making history!" "What are you specifically protesting
against"
"Racism, misogyny, hatred, violence, repealing
Obamacare, man!" "Do you have insurance?" "Heck no! I can't afford it! Now stand back. Watch me throw this brick at that racist!"
No, sadly, the day when people backed up, licked their
wounds and went quietly into the shadows are gone. They would rather release
the dogs of war and rip apart the throat of the nation than let things go a
different way than they would have chosen. The liberal and tolerant idealism is
a facade that many people sincerely believe is a benevolent philosophy.
The traditional definition was a person open to new behavior
or opinions and willing to discard traditional values. The new definition is
one who wants to tear down traditional values and replace it with radical change
and do both at any cost.
6 comments:
BAM: A very sad truth
DDC: Great column in The Baytown Sun this morning, Bert. There was gobs (is 'gobs' singular or plural?) of truth in that column. I didn't know whether to say, "There were gobs", or "There was gobs". Anyway, it had a LOT of truth in it. Thank you for writing them and sharing your heart with us. God bless you, my brother. Sure do appreciate you. I also pray that they will get the answer to your neck problem.
Melvin Roark: I agree, that is a good analysis of what America has become. Just thinking if another country wanted to attempt to take over our country for its resources I don't think the people would be regarded as such and they wouldn't mind eliminating us in the course of action, as the way folks are acting this day and time, we would not be considered an asset.
Jim McDonnel: I read the article. It pretty much depresses me thinking about what this great nation has become. I feel like we are at the very edge of a huge paradigm shift.
Kristen McCoy: The new definition of liberal and tolerant idealism is creating a dangerous world for my children to grow up in. Thanks for being a clear voice of reason.
Lon Craft: Great article and thank you for your service
MIM: Humans are so Disappointing. Thats why I love animals so much. They just want to make you happy.
Post a Comment