There are a few things I still can't quite understand. One of them is BYU Alternative Commencement. For those who haven't followed the controversy, basically some students at BYU decided to protest against the selection of this year's commencement speaker, Vice President Dick Cheney, by creating an alternative commencement. A lot of their arguments swirled around ideas against Cheney's policies, and protesters argued that Cheney doesn't fit into the ideologies of the University. Ok. Fine. Say/think/believe what you will. I could go off about how we should respect the office of the Vice President. Or how it's a commencement speech, not a political debate (until BYU students made it one). Or maybe how the $23,000+ raised in order to hold the Alternative Commencement should be used to support causes that students don't feel Cheney supports instead of feeding the egos of a select few of the BYU student body (as of 3:25 pm, day of commencement, only 108 students were committed to attend the Alternative Commencement according to the facebook group created about it) by producing the event. Or how they have just been in Provo too long and need to find a worthwhile cause. But the thing I really don't understand is the selection of a speaker for the Alternative Commencement: Ralph Nader. If these people are so anti-Cheney, why invite a speaker who only took votes from Gore and actually helped Bush (and therefore Cheney) get elected? I'm lost on that one.
P.S. Did I really graduate a year ago?