David McElroy

Every person has reached a point in his life when he wanted something very badly, but he was discouraged and ready to quit. We’ve all had things we strongly desired, but we’ve all failed in reaching some of those goals. When you’re faced with the choice between continuing to fight a “hopeless” battle or allowing yourself the relief of giving up, how do you choose?

The answer might be different for every person, so I can only tell you mine. I’ve learned over the years that I’ve been too quick to give up and take the easy way out, because I was afraid or I didn’t want to pay the price that might be required to continue fighting or I simply preferred the certainty of quitting to the uncertainty of continuing the fight. When I look back on big things I’ve wanted, I’m not satisfied with any of my decisions to quit.

When I was 28 years old, I started a small community newspaper in an affluent suburb of Birmingham. I thought I was prepared for the battle of a startup when I launched the paper, and I did work hard. But I went through one disaster after another. The people I hired to sell ads couldn’t sell enough, but I made very few sales calls myself, because I was more concerned with producing the product. The source of our working capital disappeared about six months into the project and I couldn’t figure out how to get additional revenue or new investment.

Keep Reading

If someone I agree with says something controversial, it’s just free speech and should be protected. But if someone I disagree with says something controversial, it’s hate speech and should be banned. Right?

Newspapers frequently air opposing views of issues on their editorial pages. It’s been a staple of school newspapers for years. Pick a controversial topic and two students write opposing views about the subject. It doesn’t seem controversial, but an attempt to air opposing sides about adoption by gay couples has turned into a serious conflict over free speech.

A high school newspaper in Shawano, Wis., is facing criticism after someone had the temerity to argue that adoption by gays was wrong. The article taking the other side — saying that adoption by gay couples was acceptable — didn’t draw criticism. So it’s not the discussion of the subject that’s the problem. It’s that some people don’t believe those with other opinions have the right to express them in print. That’s not free speech, apparently. It’s “hate speech.”

I’m not interested in trying to get into the subject of adoption by gay couples. It’s completely irrelevant to the point here. The only issue we’re going to look at is free speech and “hate speech.”

Here’s what the offending article said:

Keep Reading

There’s a vicious debate that rages among two gangs who oppose each other in a fight to the finish. Yes, it’s the battle over whether to use the serial comma or not — the one commonly referred to as the Oxford comma (or Harvard comma). I don’t use it, but don’t tell the pro-Oxford faction or my life won’t be worth a plugged nickel. (If the joke doesn’t make sense to you, you’re probably way too normal to be reading here.)

Keep Reading