Sounds like someone needs a hobby...

Okay, so I understand that Mr. Shirvell has the freedom to vent his political opinions, no matter how wacky they may be in his spare time, but I think this really speaks measures of his level of maturity.

In the Anderson Cooper interview, he keeps on saying that this is a "political campaign" and that he's "bringing awareness" and that it's "nothing personal" against Chris Armstrong, despite the fact that on his blog, he has a picture of Armstrong with a rainbow flag with a Nazi swastika superimposed over his face with the words "Resign". I mean, it's one of the most shit hilarious MS Paint jobs I've seen in my life (you can literally tell that the guy used the "pen" tool to write the word "resign), but really?

Really?

Come on, man.

You're an assistant attorney general in a state that has three cities with some of the worst violent crime rates in the nation. You don't even know the guy, you're running this smear campaign that's bordering on character assassination against him, you're protesting outside of his house and doing shit that is bordering on stalking, and calling him "Satan's representative on the Michigan Student Assembly", simply for the fact that he's "pushing a gay agenda?"

My question for you is what do you have to prove? I mean, seriously. Even your boss is willing to throw you under the bus as far as your political opinions go.

This isn't angering or frustrating so much as it is mind boggling. Just where Mr. Shirvell is getting the idea that this is a "campaign" is curious as Armstrong has already been elected as MSA president.

Now, I've personally met Armstrong the one and only time I've gone to an MSA meeting with the SG from UM-Flint. He seemed like a pretty understandable guy who didn't seem to be pushing a "gay agenda" or anything like that. If anything, he was faced with decisions such as whether or not the Student Body of U of M would be supporting Israel or Palestine in their crisis by officially recognizing one body or the other.

However, I suppose at the end of the day, Mr. Shirvell has the freedom to write whatever he wants to write and to believe whatever he wants to believe, as long as he doesn't use his position to support that. It's a very touchy thing, being an employee of the government and being asked those questions. One thing I learned from my PR training is "don't be like Gen. McChrystal" and do something stupid on the record.

So far, Shirvell has done that, but as one private citizen to another, what axe do you have to grind against this kid?