Kudos to Mr George Boardman, Union columnist, for his excellent article in this morning’s paper on the pipeline brouhaha at Standing Rock. He takes to task numerous groups of people assembling there with various agendas trying to make hay on the concerns of the Dakota and Lakota Indian tribes. The factors are complex that surround the issue of the new pipeline crossing the Missouri River in the vicinity of other pipelines etc already in place there for years.
Mr Boardman concludes his piece with – “The American Indians who have a stake in the outcome of these protests have enough problems without having to deal with clueless, Johnny-come-lately “supporters.” This experience just reinforces a lesson they should have learned 500 years ago: Bad things can happen it you have an ill-defined immigration policy and don’t protect your borders.”
I invite Mr Boardman to dig into his research and summarize the salient factors that comprise this issue from the pro and con sides of building this pipeline in the disputed region. RR would be pleased to post such a byline for our readers’ edification and discussion.
Pastor Sandra Chipchase wrote a disconcerting letter in today’s Union taking Hilary Hodge, one of the paper’s columnists, to task for her 22nov16 column that, according to the lady of the cloth, “is the kind that incites riots, rebellion, etc.” A perusal of Ms Hodge’s article reveals nothing of the kind – in it she simply joins the many Hillary fans who continue stunned at Trump’s victory and laments that people who voted for him are not experiencing “buyer’s remorse”.
Pastor Chipchase was so assaulted by Hodge’s piece that she calls for “a limit on expression of columnists who write for our local newspaper. This was an extremely biased article. Do we want unity or do we want to incite hate? Because they both bear fruit.” While I am no fan of Ms Hodge’s political ideology, I do believe her to be a person of fine character, a passionate champion of LGBTQ normalcy, and one deserving to be heard. No one should be trying to silence her because of her sexual orientation apologetics or opinions about our nation’s political landscape. Nevertheless, I note that as we become more divided, the calls for silencing those who believe differently continue to grow.
Closer to home, I am also a perennial target of such longstanding calls for censorship. The local Left continues to accuse me of harboring politically incorrect, "extreme" and “hard rightwing” views which I “spew” out in these pages, my radio commentaries, and occasional Union columns. In my case, not only should I be banished from expressing my views through such outlets, but I should not be allowed to participate in community activities in which our more sensitive progressives are also involved.
What I have never been able to solicit from my detractors are the specific tenets of my ideology that deserve the “radical” and “hard rightwing” labels. (They never provide their own tenets.) Here their intellects seem to be capped with the argument that you are what we say you are because we say so. My socio-political philosophy is an open book now ten years old, augmented by a structured credo that can be refuted by chapter and verse for any sins it may contain. But all our local Lefties can do is continue calling me names and demand my withdrawal or resignation from any and all organizations in/through which my voice can be heard. I take strength in that few socialists have ever been able to rise above that level of discourse.