I was going to post a comment on this 'non-fix' to the problem [is that by intent?], but find I cannot improve on 'birdmanblue's' excellent comment! Attaboy Birdmanblue!!
Colorado Springs is desperately in need of a fresh and brand new City Council .....
Throughout the weeks and months following Council's 6 to 3 vote in favor of the Broadmoor Land Swap, public opinion has held that representation of the citizens of Colorado Springs was sorely lacking on that issue, and that other considerations strongly influenced the final vote. The April 2017 election will give every voting citizen of Colorado Springs a golden opportunity to make his and her vote count as never before. We can, and must, support and elect responsive, unencumbered, and above all impeccably honest council persons to hold office in Colorado Springs. (It would also help if they can read and correctly interpret the results of polling). This upcoming election holds enormous promise for a city which has been ruled for far too long by forces which jerk the strings of our elected officials like behind-the-scene puppeteers.
April 2017 could be, at long last, the election which proves that the people of Colorado Springs are not as blindly accepting of falsehood, misdirection, and political shenanigans as our present office holders think us to be.
A current councilperson might say to us, "Why punish me for just that one vote when I've done a lot of good with my other votes during my time in office?" Because that vote mattered, Mr. Councilperson. Because it set a horrible precedent which will haunt future generations in Colorado Springs, quite possibly forever.
And most important of all, because it did not accurately reflect the will of the people. It wasn't even close.
This really makes no sense at all (the Academy position). Requiring that employees and military at the Academy only have a disclaimer that their views aren't (officially) those of the Academy and are privately held, while the individual posting those comments uses USAFA imagery/branding and is widely known to be a leader at the Academy (e.g., coach, faculty member, AOC, Superintendent, etc) is ludicrous. Would that mean that the colonel could have her own twitter feed, re-tweeting quotes from the KKK (or ISIS/Daech), but by saying "these are my own views and shouldn't be associated with USAFA" that makes it all okay? USAFA leadership could/should apply a simple rule: If it would seem reasonable and prudent for the Superintendent, Commandant, Dean, or Athletic Director to tweet it or post it on their personal Facebook page, then it's okay for the coach to do the same.
Posts by a 3-star on their devotion to a specific religion or rejection of religion--backed by USAFA signage, even with a disclaimer--would be a clear violation of AFI1-1, so why isn't the same true for a football coach or English professor? (Ref: https://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/2…)
Once again, this is REALLY EASY to fix, Coach Lebotzke: Get two twitter accounts. Use one as a coach and representative of USAFA. Call it "Coach Lebotzke." Get another twitter account (they're free) and call that one "Steed The Evangelizing Dominionist Christian." Use the former to talk about USAFA and football. Use the latter to spread your sky-fairy beliefs. Do NOT cross-tweet between the two. Do NOT allow your recruits or cadets to know about or follow you on the latter. MANY people do this. It's not hard. It's even legal and prudent.
However, since the Academy is NOT providing this type of clear guidance and separation (that would give Steed the ability to practice his religious fervor without issue), I can onl conclude that they APPROVE of his using the twitter feed to spread his religious views while simultaneously doing his job--and that's very, very wrong.
(BTW - the views expressed above are mine only and do not officially represent AF or USAFA policy--except for AFI1-1, which IS Air Force Policy.)
Weinstein should be ignored!
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation