Posted on 11/04/2011 4:51:31 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Thanks for the ping.
In re: your #80: As you suggest, this guy, who clearly has issues, probably popped off in a hallway confrontation and got his lights turned off.
Many of us who have been sucker punched have gone dark for a split second but shook it off and responded. Some who hit an object with their head on the way down often stay down. Mikey looks like the kind that took a single hit, probably did not get up and views such an event as “beaten unconscious”.
One imagines a quick check of academy medical records would shed light on the veracity of Mikey’s assertion. After the second occasion, a guy as “smart” as Mikey certainly would have reported the incident – what other action could better provide protection against future “beatings”?
If he is indeed blowing smoke, members of his graduating class should call him out, if they have not done so already.
It is all but certain that Air Force Academy Class of 1977 has had Mikey’s number for quite some time and that his latest frothings will draw further hostile attention.
There is after all a downside to being a legalistic showboat.
Re class of ‘77 and not suggesting anything, but google “Town Bully”.
I read the article. In no way is the guy protesting the toy drive.
The closest it gets is:
Mikey Weinstein, an academy graduate who runs the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said the academy’s participation in Operation Christmas Child is inappropriate because of its evangelical Christian roots.
Which is protesting the AF Academy's participation in it.
He also said, had you read the article...
Weinstein said he wouldn’t have a problem with the academy participating in a secular toy drive, or the new plan to have academy chaplains promote the religious charity. It was cadet leaders appearing to back Christian evangelism that crossed the line, he said.
Cadet leaders, I might remind, which I pointed out in the OP stating:
He “took issue with an announcement about the drive made to cadets in the dining hall, followed up with an email appealing for donations.”
Specifically, the email he’s protesting was first approved by cadet leadership, thereby making it sanctioned by the Air Force.
And in the Academy, sanctioned activities pushed by leadership usually equals ‘mandatory’.
Or in other words, the whole d@#n thing boils down to some overzealous cadets who wanted their flights to participate in the drive, sought Academy approval, got it, and never realized that not everyone might actually want to do it (or celebrate the dang holiday in the first place).
Long story short - volunteer activities should always be optional, never MANDATORY. And when a cadet leader tells his guys that the activity is approved by academy leadership, that usually implies 'mandatory'.
While I am hesitant and uncomfortable debating the internal workings of the USAF with a career member such as yourself, this issue has broader national implications.
That is because both of our nation’s two most prominent enemies have the stated goal of diluting and eventually eliminating our nation's Judeo-Christian heritage. One actually seeks to eliminate both Jews and Christians; the other merely wishes for us to live in a godless society. Arguably, the latter gained an initial victory in our court system a few decades ago.
It appears you and I continue to talk about a different toy drive.
You point to Mikey’s claim that he has no issue with the academy giving toys to kids through the Chaplain Corps (Drive 1).
I point to the toy drive that was the effort of a single cadet who had the approval of his immediate superiors and the academy’s command (Drive 2, essentially the subject of the article).
Mikey describes Drive 2 as: …cadet leaders appearing to back Christian evangelism that crossed the line… arrogance…clearly an egregious Constitutional mistake .
No matter how one paints it, it cannot be denied Mikey was protesting the toy drive by the cadets. Why didn’t he use his arguments against the cadets against the Chaplain Corps that is coordinating the academy’s participation in the same toy drive? For the same reason he declines to argue the very existence of the Chaplain Corps is an “egregious Constitutional mistake”. Because such a complaint is a bridge too far and he knows history and the arguments are against him.
As for your argument …volunteer activities should…never (be) MANDATORY.
That is a non-issue, Mikey makes no such an argument (at least in the article) as to either the cadets or the Chaplain Corps. As it stands now, cadets can volunteer for the same toy drive via the Chaplain Corps. If a claim of coercion had merit, Mikey certainly would have argued cadet leaders could make any participation mandatory through the use of intimidation.
IMO it appears Mikey seized an opportunity to become spokesman for a dissatisfied cadet, pitched a hissy fit over the cadet’s flawed view of an email, and the AF acquiesced only very slightly simply for political reasons. Have a nice evening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.