Daily Campus

A Colossal wreck at SMU

Abstract:
I have resisted commenting on the Bush Library - in part because my opposition would come as a surprise to no one, in part because others have argued against it much more articulately than I could and also in part because as a non-tenured lecturer, my opinion matters about as much as that of the feral cats that live around the over-crowded Clements Hall, which houses not only Dedman advising, foreign languages and math, but also education, honors, ESL, women's studies, African-American studies, ethnic studies and Mexican-American studies - have I left anyone out? (Do you think W....

Displaying 1 - 3 of 3

Tom Hunt

posted 1/24/07 @ 5:39 AM CST

With all the evil that he speaks of Mr.Bush, I don't believe that Mr. Henson has had his right to express his opinion squashed by Mr.Bush. In fact Mr. Bush has protected Mr. Henson right to express his opinion, Mr Henson is just not smart enough to recognize it.

Post a reply to this comment

B

posted 1/24/07 @ 7:07 AM CST

I don't always agree with you, but fantastic article!

Post a reply to this comment

Kurt Fischer

posted 1/25/07 @ 10:06 PM CST

While on campus on Wednesday night to attend a Continuing Education class, I picked up a copy of The Daily Campus. In it I read both this article ("A Colossal Wreck at SMU") and a Letter to the Editor from Lindsay Chambers. Both amazed me with their vitrolic attacks upon President Bush. While there is freedom to write what you might, one would hope some sense of accuracy would be required. Here are some memorable quotations:

"... we haven't had a president for the last six years. We've had a dictator who would be king."
"to call what is taking place a debate is akin to calling the Bush presidency a democracy."
"there is no honor in hosting a library for a president whose tenure has been marked by corruption, dishonesty, deception, cronyism, ..."
"do not wish to be associated with this man and his legacy of mendacity, corruption and slaughter."
"a president who lied upon taking the oath of office to 'uphold the Constitution'".

I just don't understand how the individuals writing think they are positioning themselves in a morally superior manner when they stoop to such uncivil discourse. Their letters seem to be filled with name-calling in place of argument, and hate instead of dialogue.

Let's do better in our commentary and not degrade ourselves while disagreeing with others.

Post a reply to this comment

Displaying 1 - 3 of 3

Post Your Comment