So we should probably stop killing our brothers.
"at least 55 people were killed or found dead Sunday, including 24 people found slain execution-style in Baghdad. "
Sunday, May 20, 2007
This is so sad...
...because the headline fails to mention the tragic loss of two individuals other than an officer of the law.
When will we recognize that each individual has worth, and that the lives of police officers are no more precious than the lives of other humans?
When will we recognize that each individual has worth, and that the lives of police officers are no more precious than the lives of other humans?
Thursday, May 17, 2007
An Anniversary Worth Having.
Okay, everyone should go read this: Subversive Christianity: "Our apologies, good friends...
Should We Celebrate the Death of Falwell?
I'm sure that somewhere in America, there's a bundle of happy liberals ecstatic over the death of Fundamentalist Jerry Falwell. No longer will America have the opportunity to hear such "wonderful" sound bits as those which he massively publicized and promoted.
Take, for example, his comments after 9/11, where he said: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say, ‘you helped this happen'."
Take, for example, the debacle over the Teletubbies, where he declared one of the children's television characters as gay and a threat to American life.
Sounds like a great man to listen to, doesn't it?
As much as I may profess to dislike the fundamentalist rants of Falwell, I find that I'm not sure whether or not to be happy upon his death. I personally find only one thing he has done to have had any (subjective, I suppose) moral worth (starting a program for recovering alcoholic men... but I'm not sure of the details of the program) and, for the most part, consider his "teachings" and sermons, such as the "If I were the king of the world" sermon, to be as un-Christian as the wars which he supported. But should we (liberals?) celebrate the death of Falwell, and should we (conservatives?) celebrate his life?
I abhor Falwell's words, and his sermons and public quotes, yet many of his ridiculous and controversial words and statements sparked important debates in the public community. I'm not sure the country would have publicly debated abortion, gay rights, political correctness or even the role of public schools in society without Falwell's outbursts and fundamentalist public statements. For this, I suppose, all of us should actually thank Falwell for his contribution to the public sphere and the debates which he sparked.
Right?
Take, for example, his comments after 9/11, where he said: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say, ‘you helped this happen'."
Take, for example, the debacle over the Teletubbies, where he declared one of the children's television characters as gay and a threat to American life.
Sounds like a great man to listen to, doesn't it?
As much as I may profess to dislike the fundamentalist rants of Falwell, I find that I'm not sure whether or not to be happy upon his death. I personally find only one thing he has done to have had any (subjective, I suppose) moral worth (starting a program for recovering alcoholic men... but I'm not sure of the details of the program) and, for the most part, consider his "teachings" and sermons, such as the "If I were the king of the world" sermon, to be as un-Christian as the wars which he supported. But should we (liberals?) celebrate the death of Falwell, and should we (conservatives?) celebrate his life?
I abhor Falwell's words, and his sermons and public quotes, yet many of his ridiculous and controversial words and statements sparked important debates in the public community. I'm not sure the country would have publicly debated abortion, gay rights, political correctness or even the role of public schools in society without Falwell's outbursts and fundamentalist public statements. For this, I suppose, all of us should actually thank Falwell for his contribution to the public sphere and the debates which he sparked.
Right?
Monday, May 14, 2007
Millionaires and the top 1%
I just read a depressing article about "pentamillionaires," or those individuals who have more than $5 million in revenue, investments and property.
It can be summarized best by: "To enter the nation's top 1%, you need more than $5 million. And if you get there, you'll have plenty of newly-arrived company: The number of U.S. "pentamillionaires" has quadrupled in the past 10 years, to more than 930,000."
I think America is seriously in trouble, as major network news sources seem to care more about these pentamillionaires and their "troubles and successes" and the reasoning for it rather than the tens of millions of impoverished workers trying desparately to get out of the isolating and violent cycle of poverty...
It's just so upsetting. I don't even think I can vocalize this feeling, other than by saying "we're fucked."
It can be summarized best by: "To enter the nation's top 1%, you need more than $5 million. And if you get there, you'll have plenty of newly-arrived company: The number of U.S. "pentamillionaires" has quadrupled in the past 10 years, to more than 930,000."
I think America is seriously in trouble, as major network news sources seem to care more about these pentamillionaires and their "troubles and successes" and the reasoning for it rather than the tens of millions of impoverished workers trying desparately to get out of the isolating and violent cycle of poverty...
It's just so upsetting. I don't even think I can vocalize this feeling, other than by saying "we're fucked."
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Professors and PhD's
I had a fairly insignificant argument a few days back about college professors and PhD's. Or so I thought. Apparently, the pedagological issues which I seemed to be defending aren't as popular and widespread as I maybe would like them to be.
Let me first say that it is really, incredibly hard to be a teacher of anything, and I am guessing that it is equally as hard, if not more difficult, to be a college professor.
For me, my education largely comes from my own personal motivation to learn; to take interesting courses with interesting professors and to pursue, hopefully, learning which is enhanced from the classroom setting, not dictated by it. This view has probably been cemented into my mind because it has worked for me (sure, call me a pragmatist, go ahead, do it, I dare you) in my educational past as well as in college.
My First-Year Seminar professor, Eileen Stillwaggon, on the very first day of my collegiate classroom career told us that college is what the individual student and human being makes it. She gave us this advice for college (not exact quotes): 1) if you're in a class you don't like, switch out. 2) if you don't like the professor of a class in which you're enrolled, switch out. 3) if you don't like the syllabus of the course or the listed course materials and don't see the educational value of the course, switch out.
This is pretty good advice, and advice which coheres exactly to my feelings on education. Throughout high school, my school, Carolina Friends School, sought to make learning an individual thing, where individual students were largely responsible for the courses they took and the material they learned. Students, in the words of english/philosophy teacher Jamie Hysjulien, "got out what they put in," and, to some extent, were only as successful as they let themselves become.
I'm fairly certain that this applies to students everywhere--on a general scale, a student gets out what they put in to a course, an assignment, a paper or a discussion. Yes, of course there are outliers and exceptions, but for the most part, this statement can be said to be true.
Personally, I don't take classes which I don't like the syllabus, the professor or the course as a whole, and I feel like I am a much better student because of it. Sure, I'm just barely going to fulfill my graduation requirements, but I'd really like to wait to take a course like ES 196, in which I am interested, rather than take Bio 102 or 111, Chem 107 or 111, or any other science like that. Yes, biology and chemistry are important to learn about, but I have learned enough about them through high school, summer school and academic programs, for which I didn't get collegiate credit (though I really think I should). I've had enough chemistry. There was a point where I felt like there was nothing else that I wanted to do with my life, but that was ruined by one bad four-week summer experience with two terrible teachers and a boring labratory assignment. But I digress...
The point is this: I can honestly say that I am so successful in school because I am interested. But why am I interested in, say, ES 196 or IDS 121 or philosophy? To some extent, it is a personal experience, but by no means have my experiences been solely individual and personal. I'm not afraid to say that I derive a lot of interest from the people in my life which interest me. This includes my friends (think: my individual study this term), my classmates (think: facilitation discussions for 208), and my professors (think: Phil. Department, Will Lane and Professor Stillwaggon).
What am I saying here? A student can only be successful if they are surrounded by interesting people? No. I'm not saying that this is the only way a student can excel in an academic setting, because there are 8-12 different ways an individual can learn (think: 8 styles of learning), and I'm sure that I can be perfectly "type-casted" into a few of these catagories. I'm trying to suggest that having interesting people in the academic setting can greatly help a student learn.
So what makes an interesting person? And, in a similar vein, what makes a teacher a "good teacher?" Are these the same thing?
I've had very many "good teachers" who happened to be interesting people, but I have also had a bunch of teachers who couldn't for their lives teach a subject but who also happened to be interesting people.
I'll reiterate: it must be really hard to be a teacher. I've taught kids how to shoot archery, helped tutor kids younger than me, and taught a number of courses at CFS and in my community, yet, I have never tried to teach philosophy, or chemistry, or even good writing. I can't imagine how hard it must be to teach.
So, a few days ago, I was out to dinner, and we were discussing the predicament that seems to have befallen the Spanish Department at the College. I could be wrong, but I have heard that the problem is this: professors are getting fired because they don't hold PhD's.
This seems ridiculous to me. Three letters can't possibly dictate that you are a good teacher. Some of the most brilliant teachers I have had don't hold PhD's, Master's degrees, MBA's or even BS's or BA's. These three letters only indicate that you've been to school longer, not that you've studied to become a professor who teaches college students. To some extent, I imagine that teaching college students (or any age, for that matter) can't be taught. To some extent, it must be learned as an acquired skill, and, it must be the case that some people are better suited to become teachers in a collegiate setting.
Yes, I understand that, for college professors, teaching is actually a secondary, or even tertiary job, as publication and research work are far more important to the Administration than it maybe should be. If the College really wishes to pursue the goals which I believe it lists (think: global involvement), or would like to herald the accomplishments which I believe it should (think: CPS), than maybe the focus for our professors should be teaching, and not research. Aspazia and Steve G. both have really solid posts on this notion, found here: http://melancholicfeminista.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-lessons-from-harvard-on-how-to.html
and here: http://www.philosophersplayground.blogspot.com/
The argument went a little like this: I said it was ridiculous to judge someone's teaching ability based on the degree they had. She said that having a PhD ought to be required for any college professor. I asked why this should be a blanket statement, asserting that I've had many teachers who could completely successfully teach a college course (and have) without a PhD. She responded that the knowledge which professors with PhD's are required to acquire through graduate school and a dissertation allow for them to become better teachers. I wanted to know why knowledge is what makes someone a good teacher... she didn't have an answer and then we pretty much dropped it at that.
I kind of wish I'd pursued the argument further, but I also felt completely unable to explain my thoughts at that time. Both Steve G and Aspazia have shared perspectives, as professors, on this, and I can say now that I better understand how "the system" works. But I am in complete agreement with Aspazia who writes,
Let me first say that it is really, incredibly hard to be a teacher of anything, and I am guessing that it is equally as hard, if not more difficult, to be a college professor.
For me, my education largely comes from my own personal motivation to learn; to take interesting courses with interesting professors and to pursue, hopefully, learning which is enhanced from the classroom setting, not dictated by it. This view has probably been cemented into my mind because it has worked for me (sure, call me a pragmatist, go ahead, do it, I dare you) in my educational past as well as in college.
My First-Year Seminar professor, Eileen Stillwaggon, on the very first day of my collegiate classroom career told us that college is what the individual student and human being makes it. She gave us this advice for college (not exact quotes): 1) if you're in a class you don't like, switch out. 2) if you don't like the professor of a class in which you're enrolled, switch out. 3) if you don't like the syllabus of the course or the listed course materials and don't see the educational value of the course, switch out.
This is pretty good advice, and advice which coheres exactly to my feelings on education. Throughout high school, my school, Carolina Friends School, sought to make learning an individual thing, where individual students were largely responsible for the courses they took and the material they learned. Students, in the words of english/philosophy teacher Jamie Hysjulien, "got out what they put in," and, to some extent, were only as successful as they let themselves become.
I'm fairly certain that this applies to students everywhere--on a general scale, a student gets out what they put in to a course, an assignment, a paper or a discussion. Yes, of course there are outliers and exceptions, but for the most part, this statement can be said to be true.
Personally, I don't take classes which I don't like the syllabus, the professor or the course as a whole, and I feel like I am a much better student because of it. Sure, I'm just barely going to fulfill my graduation requirements, but I'd really like to wait to take a course like ES 196, in which I am interested, rather than take Bio 102 or 111, Chem 107 or 111, or any other science like that. Yes, biology and chemistry are important to learn about, but I have learned enough about them through high school, summer school and academic programs, for which I didn't get collegiate credit (though I really think I should). I've had enough chemistry. There was a point where I felt like there was nothing else that I wanted to do with my life, but that was ruined by one bad four-week summer experience with two terrible teachers and a boring labratory assignment. But I digress...
The point is this: I can honestly say that I am so successful in school because I am interested. But why am I interested in, say, ES 196 or IDS 121 or philosophy? To some extent, it is a personal experience, but by no means have my experiences been solely individual and personal. I'm not afraid to say that I derive a lot of interest from the people in my life which interest me. This includes my friends (think: my individual study this term), my classmates (think: facilitation discussions for 208), and my professors (think: Phil. Department, Will Lane and Professor Stillwaggon).
What am I saying here? A student can only be successful if they are surrounded by interesting people? No. I'm not saying that this is the only way a student can excel in an academic setting, because there are 8-12 different ways an individual can learn (think: 8 styles of learning), and I'm sure that I can be perfectly "type-casted" into a few of these catagories. I'm trying to suggest that having interesting people in the academic setting can greatly help a student learn.
So what makes an interesting person? And, in a similar vein, what makes a teacher a "good teacher?" Are these the same thing?
I've had very many "good teachers" who happened to be interesting people, but I have also had a bunch of teachers who couldn't for their lives teach a subject but who also happened to be interesting people.
I'll reiterate: it must be really hard to be a teacher. I've taught kids how to shoot archery, helped tutor kids younger than me, and taught a number of courses at CFS and in my community, yet, I have never tried to teach philosophy, or chemistry, or even good writing. I can't imagine how hard it must be to teach.
So, a few days ago, I was out to dinner, and we were discussing the predicament that seems to have befallen the Spanish Department at the College. I could be wrong, but I have heard that the problem is this: professors are getting fired because they don't hold PhD's.
This seems ridiculous to me. Three letters can't possibly dictate that you are a good teacher. Some of the most brilliant teachers I have had don't hold PhD's, Master's degrees, MBA's or even BS's or BA's. These three letters only indicate that you've been to school longer, not that you've studied to become a professor who teaches college students. To some extent, I imagine that teaching college students (or any age, for that matter) can't be taught. To some extent, it must be learned as an acquired skill, and, it must be the case that some people are better suited to become teachers in a collegiate setting.
Yes, I understand that, for college professors, teaching is actually a secondary, or even tertiary job, as publication and research work are far more important to the Administration than it maybe should be. If the College really wishes to pursue the goals which I believe it lists (think: global involvement), or would like to herald the accomplishments which I believe it should (think: CPS), than maybe the focus for our professors should be teaching, and not research. Aspazia and Steve G. both have really solid posts on this notion, found here: http://melancholicfeminista.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-lessons-from-harvard-on-how-to.html
and here: http://www.philosophersplayground.blogspot.com/
The argument went a little like this: I said it was ridiculous to judge someone's teaching ability based on the degree they had. She said that having a PhD ought to be required for any college professor. I asked why this should be a blanket statement, asserting that I've had many teachers who could completely successfully teach a college course (and have) without a PhD. She responded that the knowledge which professors with PhD's are required to acquire through graduate school and a dissertation allow for them to become better teachers. I wanted to know why knowledge is what makes someone a good teacher... she didn't have an answer and then we pretty much dropped it at that.
I kind of wish I'd pursued the argument further, but I also felt completely unable to explain my thoughts at that time. Both Steve G and Aspazia have shared perspectives, as professors, on this, and I can say now that I better understand how "the system" works. But I am in complete agreement with Aspazia who writes,
- "At present, we spend far too much time trying to build consensus on good teaching, on good advising, on our curriculum. The fact is that faculty will never agree on these matters and trying to get everyone on the same page is a losing battle. We aren't just going to make nice and commit to a overarching image of what makes our college great. But, there are faculty around doing the kind of work--i.e. innovative course design, service learning courses, team taught courses, courses with travel/field research built in, doing active research with students, etc.--that epitomize what many of the administrators would like Gettysburg to look like (at least according to the Strategic Planning documents). So, it seems that one way to drive change here would be to reward, and really reward, faculty who are doing what we think best embodies the mission of of this college. As it stands now--like at many colleges--there are not a lot of incentives for creative and innovative teaching (outside of intrinsic desire) and there are NO DISINCENTIVES for bad behavoir."
This pretty much sums up a lot of my sentiments on the issue.
I would really like the College to encourage the creative and innovative ideas of professors who really want to encourage learning through service experiences, team-taught courses, travel-based courses and experimental courses. I'd really like the College to encourage students to learn outside of the classroom and give them some form of credit for service work (think CPS), community action planning and programming (think internships... namely, mine), teaching (think GRAB, GRASS, AI, tutoring programs, etc) and other innovative and interesting ideas. I've always thought it would be cool for the management majors to have it required to start a business, for the physics majors to design and perform an mass experiment for demonstration at the College and other things of this nature. Student films coming out of IDS Film Majors to be shown at a College sponsored film festival? Students getting credit for making independent films to be screened at this festival? Yeah, these are definate learning opportunities for students who actively want to pursue them--why shouldn't the college give them credit?
It's about time that College Institutions provide their actively learning students the recognition they deserve, and it's about time that they provide their outstanding faculty teachers with the support and encouragement that they deserve.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Indy Major?
Well, my proposal has been turned into the admins, let's hope they take the "social activism through peace and justice" major seriously.
It's been a great week, overall, full of lots of help, guidance, advice and laughs. Though it has contained great sadness, near despair and revulsion, I'd still say that I came out ahead this week. As for now, I will slip off into the moment, try my best to avoid SpringFest, always a wonderful coughcough time at the College...
...right.
Love,
It's been a great week, overall, full of lots of help, guidance, advice and laughs. Though it has contained great sadness, near despair and revulsion, I'd still say that I came out ahead this week. As for now, I will slip off into the moment, try my best to avoid SpringFest, always a wonderful coughcough time at the College...
...right.
Love,
Monday, April 23, 2007
A sample letter (relating to my recent post)
Dear Rep. Platts--
Last September, I had the priveledge of listening to you provide a memorial to the victims and survivors of the attacks of September 11th, 2001. I was deeply struck with your composure, your sympathy, your condolences, and, most of all, your resolve to make our world safe.I am deeply concerned with the ongoing existence of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. You might be familiar with the MCA, having voted on it as H.R. 6166 and H.R. 6054. Though I am unsure as to how exactly you voted on each of these propositions, they passed, and went to the Senate for review. The Senate went through the revisionary process, and, on September 29th, just 18 days after you impressed me with your powerful spoken message and commemoritve dedication, you had a chance to cast your vote on S. 3930. You voted in favor of S. 3930, which transforms America, the American that I love, from a country based solely in constitutional law granting civil liberties, such as the right to a fair trial, to all citizens, to the America of a power-hungry dictatorship that will operate above the law.
Rep. Platts, I am astounded that you voted in favor of a bill which sacrifices the very ideals you spoke about only 18 days before. Was not the memory of September 11th, 2001, fresh in your mind when you spoke at Gettysburg College five years later? I can recall you shared the story of exactly what you were doing at the time of the attacks. Surely, you remeber September 11th. And surely, you must have remembered speaking on September 11th, 2006, to the students and faculty at Gettysburg College. If you could remember 5 1/2 years into your past, I must believe that you could remember 18 days into your past.
Rep. Platts, I am astonished that you would speak on the beauty of our great country, and the wonderful provisions granted to us by our constitution, and, furthermore, claim that you believe in the upholding of democracy and the U.S. constitution, and then, only 18 days later, cast a vote in favor of a bill which restricts American Freedom, strips Americans of the basic civil right of habeus corpus, allows torture, and gives the President, and all Top-Tier White House officials and Cabinent members legal amnesty should they be found guilty of committing war crimes.
Rep. Platts, I want to be sure that I heard you correctly on Sept. 11, 2006, when you claimed that America was beautiful because the people who comprise the country are granted basic human liberty and that the government is, ultimately responsible. I believe in an American government that is accountable for their actions; a government that is accountable to the people it represents. I support the American democracy, but I do not support S. 3930, for this is an unconstitutional law which restricts the freedom of American citizens and transforms the government of America into a psuedo-dictatorship under which the leaders act above the law, rather than bound by it.
Rep. Platts, I want to be clear: I understand that the safety of our nation is important. Though I do not support the Military Commissions Act, I do support our country. I love democracy, I love the fact that I am free to write this letter to you, and I love the fact that you just might read it, should your aides deem it important enough to grace your desk. I would ask you now, for your support of H.R. 1415, which would repeal most of the illegal and, frankly, unconstitutional provisions of the Military Commissions Act. I would also urge you to consider a complete repeal of the MCA, S. 3930, so that I can once again believe in the American democractic process.
I will also be sending a copy of this letter through the wonderful USPS. I can only hope that you have a chance to read it.
Yours,
Jason Parker
Gettysburg College
Class of 2009
President,
Amnesty International Club(919)452-8048
parkja03@gettysburg.edu
Last September, I had the priveledge of listening to you provide a memorial to the victims and survivors of the attacks of September 11th, 2001. I was deeply struck with your composure, your sympathy, your condolences, and, most of all, your resolve to make our world safe.I am deeply concerned with the ongoing existence of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. You might be familiar with the MCA, having voted on it as H.R. 6166 and H.R. 6054. Though I am unsure as to how exactly you voted on each of these propositions, they passed, and went to the Senate for review. The Senate went through the revisionary process, and, on September 29th, just 18 days after you impressed me with your powerful spoken message and commemoritve dedication, you had a chance to cast your vote on S. 3930. You voted in favor of S. 3930, which transforms America, the American that I love, from a country based solely in constitutional law granting civil liberties, such as the right to a fair trial, to all citizens, to the America of a power-hungry dictatorship that will operate above the law.
Rep. Platts, I am astounded that you voted in favor of a bill which sacrifices the very ideals you spoke about only 18 days before. Was not the memory of September 11th, 2001, fresh in your mind when you spoke at Gettysburg College five years later? I can recall you shared the story of exactly what you were doing at the time of the attacks. Surely, you remeber September 11th. And surely, you must have remembered speaking on September 11th, 2006, to the students and faculty at Gettysburg College. If you could remember 5 1/2 years into your past, I must believe that you could remember 18 days into your past.
Rep. Platts, I am astonished that you would speak on the beauty of our great country, and the wonderful provisions granted to us by our constitution, and, furthermore, claim that you believe in the upholding of democracy and the U.S. constitution, and then, only 18 days later, cast a vote in favor of a bill which restricts American Freedom, strips Americans of the basic civil right of habeus corpus, allows torture, and gives the President, and all Top-Tier White House officials and Cabinent members legal amnesty should they be found guilty of committing war crimes.
Rep. Platts, I want to be sure that I heard you correctly on Sept. 11, 2006, when you claimed that America was beautiful because the people who comprise the country are granted basic human liberty and that the government is, ultimately responsible. I believe in an American government that is accountable for their actions; a government that is accountable to the people it represents. I support the American democracy, but I do not support S. 3930, for this is an unconstitutional law which restricts the freedom of American citizens and transforms the government of America into a psuedo-dictatorship under which the leaders act above the law, rather than bound by it.
Rep. Platts, I want to be clear: I understand that the safety of our nation is important. Though I do not support the Military Commissions Act, I do support our country. I love democracy, I love the fact that I am free to write this letter to you, and I love the fact that you just might read it, should your aides deem it important enough to grace your desk. I would ask you now, for your support of H.R. 1415, which would repeal most of the illegal and, frankly, unconstitutional provisions of the Military Commissions Act. I would also urge you to consider a complete repeal of the MCA, S. 3930, so that I can once again believe in the American democractic process.
I will also be sending a copy of this letter through the wonderful USPS. I can only hope that you have a chance to read it.
Yours,
Jason Parker
Gettysburg College
Class of 2009
President,
Amnesty International Club(919)452-8048
parkja03@gettysburg.edu
The Military Commissions Act
I'm not quite sure how the American public let this little piece of legislation (okay, so it's over 100 pages long and apparently quite heavy) get passed as the official law of the land. It's called the "Military Commissions Act," and became official on October 16th, 2006. Yes, that is six months ago, and yes, I understand that this post has been very much delayed, and I apologize for that. I was just so horribly unaware that this law was passed until a few weeks ago. This received absolutely no media coverage (and this scares me by itself) and, well, to be frank, I'm living in the bubble that is college--it's hard to get into the outside world on regular occasion.
Anyway, I am now officially and formally speaking out against this law, which, in the words of the good folks at http://www.irregulartimes.com, "transforms the United States of America from a nation of laws into a nation of power unaccountable to law. It transforms the United States of America from a free democracy into a de facto dictatorship."
The following are the major components of the Military Commissions Act (again, thanks to irregular times for the succint summary):
1. It revokes habeas corpus, thereby giving the power to imprison people without trial for as long as the President "deems necessary."
2. It gives George W. Bush and other top officials legal amnesty for any war crimes they may have committed.
3. It formally legalizes torture.
4. It creates a secret committee controlled by the President that can declare anyone to be an enemy, and thereby strip away their legal rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
5. It ends protection of prisoners of war by the Geneva Conventions.
6. It removes the right to a speedy trial.
7. It sets up "kangaroo courts" that fail to meet the most fundamental civilized standards of justice, with unfair trials kept hidden from the American public.
Seems like a constitutional law to me! How could America not support this law? (Who can sense a copious amount of sarcasm?)
While there was, strangely, no immediate reaction to the passing of this law (probably because proponents sneaked it in prior to mid-term elections), there has been recent support for restoring the constitutional rights to citizens that would otherwise (now) be subject to the MCA. Searching the LOC database for H.R. 1415 will yield: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:1:./temp/~bdTE1a:@@@L&summ2=m&/bss/d110query.html 36 Representatives have co-sponsored this bill, but that is not nearly enough to gain support.
Here's what you ought to do to help:
1. Contact your Representative and Senator demanding their support for H.R. 1415 (and whatever Senate number this bill is given).
2. Contact the President, and let him know what you feel about the MCA.
3. Sign petitions, send letters, gather community support, meet with your Representative or Senator.
4. Tell everyone you know to investigate their own government and their Representatives.
5. Conduct your own individual research into the matter. Amnesty International is a great resource, Human Rights Watch is a great resource, the Center for Constitutional Rights is a great resource... if you want information, you will be able to find it.
I think that's my post for the day; I have Representatives to call. Do the same?
Anyway, I am now officially and formally speaking out against this law, which, in the words of the good folks at http://www.irregulartimes.com, "transforms the United States of America from a nation of laws into a nation of power unaccountable to law. It transforms the United States of America from a free democracy into a de facto dictatorship."
The following are the major components of the Military Commissions Act (again, thanks to irregular times for the succint summary):
1. It revokes habeas corpus, thereby giving the power to imprison people without trial for as long as the President "deems necessary."
2. It gives George W. Bush and other top officials legal amnesty for any war crimes they may have committed.
3. It formally legalizes torture.
4. It creates a secret committee controlled by the President that can declare anyone to be an enemy, and thereby strip away their legal rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
5. It ends protection of prisoners of war by the Geneva Conventions.
6. It removes the right to a speedy trial.
7. It sets up "kangaroo courts" that fail to meet the most fundamental civilized standards of justice, with unfair trials kept hidden from the American public.
Seems like a constitutional law to me! How could America not support this law? (Who can sense a copious amount of sarcasm?)
While there was, strangely, no immediate reaction to the passing of this law (probably because proponents sneaked it in prior to mid-term elections), there has been recent support for restoring the constitutional rights to citizens that would otherwise (now) be subject to the MCA. Searching the LOC database for H.R. 1415 will yield: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:1:./temp/~bdTE1a:@@@L&summ2=m&/bss/d110query.html 36 Representatives have co-sponsored this bill, but that is not nearly enough to gain support.
Here's what you ought to do to help:
1. Contact your Representative and Senator demanding their support for H.R. 1415 (and whatever Senate number this bill is given).
2. Contact the President, and let him know what you feel about the MCA.
3. Sign petitions, send letters, gather community support, meet with your Representative or Senator.
4. Tell everyone you know to investigate their own government and their Representatives.
5. Conduct your own individual research into the matter. Amnesty International is a great resource, Human Rights Watch is a great resource, the Center for Constitutional Rights is a great resource... if you want information, you will be able to find it.
I think that's my post for the day; I have Representatives to call. Do the same?
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Media Coverage
Dear U.S. Media:
I wonder how many people have heard last night's late-breaking story (see above). I don't want to assume that CNN and MSNBC didn't instantly shift to 24-hour coverage on it, because, honestly, I didn't watch tv last night, but something tells me that you, the media, did not.
I am writing this to ask, again, why you do not consider this a tragedy. Is it because of the institution which was accessed? A man with a gun somehow slipped past securty at a NASA facility! Does that freak anyone else out? I mean, it's one thing to be afraid for security reasons when there is are locks on doors, no metal detectors, no security guards, but if we're really concerned about safety, as a culture, shouldn't we be a least bit afraid that the security in our "most-secure" institutions is not effective?
Is it because of the number of victims killed? Is one life of a NASA employee worth less than the life of a student? Does the number of "kills" make Monday a tragedy but make Friday just a homicide? A human life was taken. And then another. This is concerning. And it was taken for no apparent motive.
Is it because of the perpetrator? When an Asian student kills 33 people with what is now a clear and distinct motive, you, the media, cover the story non-stop. When a middle aged white employee takes hostages and takes two lives, you, the media, don't cover it at all. I'm not intending to suggest that you should drop all other news from coverage, but I am intending to suggest that you are perhaps creating a double-standard in our own society. I am suggesting that the media does not care about human lives.
Let's play a out scenerio: someone who is a part of an institution, a member of the culture contained within the institution, carries a gun past any preventative barrier, and murders someone. Do you care?
It would appear that you care if the perpetrator/victim is not the status quo, but you do not care if the perpetrator/victim is a white male.
Surely Americans are concerned at the absolute lack of media coverage for this murder. Surely there are members of government agencies asking each other "did you hear about building 44?" Surely parents of employees of government agencies are frequently calling their kids to tell them they love them. Surely this is shocking, and surely, people are afraid.
But I doubt that this is happening right now. CNN is covering a story on Alberto Gonzales, and in 15 minutes has not mentioned the shooting, even in the bottom-line banner.
This is disconcerting.
Will there be a memorial for the lives lost in building 44? Facebook groups?
When is enough violence truly enough?
Yours,
Jason Parker
A Human Being
I wonder how many people have heard last night's late-breaking story (see above). I don't want to assume that CNN and MSNBC didn't instantly shift to 24-hour coverage on it, because, honestly, I didn't watch tv last night, but something tells me that you, the media, did not.
I am writing this to ask, again, why you do not consider this a tragedy. Is it because of the institution which was accessed? A man with a gun somehow slipped past securty at a NASA facility! Does that freak anyone else out? I mean, it's one thing to be afraid for security reasons when there is are locks on doors, no metal detectors, no security guards, but if we're really concerned about safety, as a culture, shouldn't we be a least bit afraid that the security in our "most-secure" institutions is not effective?
Is it because of the number of victims killed? Is one life of a NASA employee worth less than the life of a student? Does the number of "kills" make Monday a tragedy but make Friday just a homicide? A human life was taken. And then another. This is concerning. And it was taken for no apparent motive.
Is it because of the perpetrator? When an Asian student kills 33 people with what is now a clear and distinct motive, you, the media, cover the story non-stop. When a middle aged white employee takes hostages and takes two lives, you, the media, don't cover it at all. I'm not intending to suggest that you should drop all other news from coverage, but I am intending to suggest that you are perhaps creating a double-standard in our own society. I am suggesting that the media does not care about human lives.
Let's play a out scenerio: someone who is a part of an institution, a member of the culture contained within the institution, carries a gun past any preventative barrier, and murders someone. Do you care?
It would appear that you care if the perpetrator/victim is not the status quo, but you do not care if the perpetrator/victim is a white male.
Surely Americans are concerned at the absolute lack of media coverage for this murder. Surely there are members of government agencies asking each other "did you hear about building 44?" Surely parents of employees of government agencies are frequently calling their kids to tell them they love them. Surely this is shocking, and surely, people are afraid.
But I doubt that this is happening right now. CNN is covering a story on Alberto Gonzales, and in 15 minutes has not mentioned the shooting, even in the bottom-line banner.
This is disconcerting.
Will there be a memorial for the lives lost in building 44? Facebook groups?
When is enough violence truly enough?
Yours,
Jason Parker
A Human Being
Friday, April 20, 2007
A Student Activist Victory...with reasons for concern?
It would seem that students at UCSC (that's University of California--Santa Cruz) have won a victory for student activists everywhere (the link is in the title of this post, neat, wow, crazy blog-tools).
So why am I concerned?
I am certainly quite happy that the student activist organization, Students Against War, has been able to freely speak out against war. I am overjoyed that military recruiters will not be attending a job fair at an institution with 15,000 students. So this is a complete victory, right?
...Maybe it's not as good as the report would indicate. Here's a suggestion why.
"The UCSC administration claims that U.S. Marine Corps recruiters withdrew from participation in the April 24th job fair because they were “over booked.” This explanation seems unlikely for several reasons:
1) With the U.S. Marines consistently missing their recruitment goals, and a severe shortage of troops, it seems illogical that they would forgo access to a campus of 15,000 students.
2) The U.S. Army withdrew from the event on the same day as the Marines without providing a reason. Were they “over booked” too? Not likely.
3) Having had this event on their calendar for over two months, the military did not withdraw until a week prior to the event, shortly after publicity began for a protest hundreds of students were expected to attend. The recruiters had to forfeit their registration fee.
4) On Monday, student government leaders sent a letter of concern to administrators, noting that the protest was expected to be one of the largest in recent memory and expressing concern that military recruiters’ presence would inhibit students’ access to the job fair. Recruiters withdrew the next day. "
Does reason #4 seem faintly... off... to anyone else? I hope that I am wrong in my reading of #4. It appears that the administration is perfectly okay wtih military recruitment on campus as long as there is no protest.
I was pretty sure that our colleges and universities wanted to promote academia and protect the lives of their alumni population (even if this second reason is money-driven), not the Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force or National Guard.
I suppose that I'll consider this a victory, but it won't be total victory until Administrators really begin representing their students, not the U.S. Government.
Of course, this article makes me interested in just who will be attending Get Acquainted Day this year. It makes me interested in who will be behind tables at our Job Fair. And, most of all, it makes me interested in what my administration really thinks about student voices.
So why am I concerned?
I am certainly quite happy that the student activist organization, Students Against War, has been able to freely speak out against war. I am overjoyed that military recruiters will not be attending a job fair at an institution with 15,000 students. So this is a complete victory, right?
...Maybe it's not as good as the report would indicate. Here's a suggestion why.
"The UCSC administration claims that U.S. Marine Corps recruiters withdrew from participation in the April 24th job fair because they were “over booked.” This explanation seems unlikely for several reasons:
1) With the U.S. Marines consistently missing their recruitment goals, and a severe shortage of troops, it seems illogical that they would forgo access to a campus of 15,000 students.
2) The U.S. Army withdrew from the event on the same day as the Marines without providing a reason. Were they “over booked” too? Not likely.
3) Having had this event on their calendar for over two months, the military did not withdraw until a week prior to the event, shortly after publicity began for a protest hundreds of students were expected to attend. The recruiters had to forfeit their registration fee.
4) On Monday, student government leaders sent a letter of concern to administrators, noting that the protest was expected to be one of the largest in recent memory and expressing concern that military recruiters’ presence would inhibit students’ access to the job fair. Recruiters withdrew the next day. "
Does reason #4 seem faintly... off... to anyone else? I hope that I am wrong in my reading of #4. It appears that the administration is perfectly okay wtih military recruitment on campus as long as there is no protest.
I was pretty sure that our colleges and universities wanted to promote academia and protect the lives of their alumni population (even if this second reason is money-driven), not the Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force or National Guard.
I suppose that I'll consider this a victory, but it won't be total victory until Administrators really begin representing their students, not the U.S. Government.
Of course, this article makes me interested in just who will be attending Get Acquainted Day this year. It makes me interested in who will be behind tables at our Job Fair. And, most of all, it makes me interested in what my administration really thinks about student voices.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
The Dead Horse
I hate to ask, again, and continue to beat this dead horse, but does anyone care about the culture which allows such tragedy to occur? I mean, I've got to think that there is maybe a few people who are capable of seeing that the solution to violence just might be the denunciation of violence on a widespread political, social and influencial scale. I've got to think that there are people who believe that, though our country was wrought through war, held together by war, and is seeking to gain resources through war, war is not the answer. Maybe violence isn't the answer to the problem. Maybe the problem is solved by making the culture in which we live more simplistic, more generous, more willing to serve, less selfish, less time-oriented, less goal-oriented, less individualistic, and more peaceful.
Oh, sure, make the argument that our constitution's second amendment allows our citizens the right to bear arms. I'm pretty sure that we're all completely ecstatic that of the 200,000,000 guns purchased legally in the United States, a very low percentage of them have ever been used for "cold-blooded murder." Hey, neat! Only a few people have died at the firing of a gun, that's wonderful!
Maybe we should be concerned about, say, any deaths brought on by violence.
When is enough finally enough?
Oh, sure, make the argument that our constitution's second amendment allows our citizens the right to bear arms. I'm pretty sure that we're all completely ecstatic that of the 200,000,000 guns purchased legally in the United States, a very low percentage of them have ever been used for "cold-blooded murder." Hey, neat! Only a few people have died at the firing of a gun, that's wonderful!
Maybe we should be concerned about, say, any deaths brought on by violence.
When is enough finally enough?
A Call to Action?
Dear U.S. Media,
Without question, the Virginia Tech shootings were, and are, and will remain to be, a tragedy. There is a great deal of pain in the Blacksburg, VA, community, and in the entire college community of the United States. The institution on which students like me, like my younger sister, like my friends, like my future children, has now become the focus of drastic security measures, viable and understandable fear, and restriction. I realize the necessity in ensuring the safety of our future professionals, world leaders and humanitarians—nothing could be more important. I ask, though, if the response of tighter security patrols, locking entire buildings during class hours and closing public roadways is the correct response to such a tragedy.
It is obvious that we are afraid. In the instances after first learning of the events at VT, I myself became very concerned for the safety of my friends in colleges all over the United States, from California to Florida to Maine. The thought, “if it happened at one, why couldn’t it happen at others?” absolutely crossed my mind, and this thought terrified me. I will admit it, openly, plainly, and simply—I am very afraid. But I am afraid not for my life, but because I believe that the motivation behind such violent attacks is of legitimate concern. Furthermore, as citizens of such a powerful country, we should all be concerned about the motivations which lie behind tragedies.
Yes, obviously this individual suffered from psychological problems, but this is no reason to cast off his actions on such problems as feeling isolated, alone, backed into a corner and trapped—hundreds, thousands, maybe tens of thousand college students in the U.S. have shared at least one of these feelings. I, myself, have felt them. I, myself, have been to a college counseling center, and refused to return for counseling because it did not change how I was feeling. Talking did not solve the problems I had with my social environment.
Perhaps one of the reasons I was so terrified and distressed upon reading the news, when I finally felt able to do so, was that I expected the motivation to lie in feelings of isolation. I expected such a tragedy to be caused by the social problems which still exist in our American culture today. Perhaps one of the reasons I was terrified is because I know exactly what it feels like to be alone. I know what it feels like to be so full of wrath, anger, rage and violence that you almost cannot stop yourself from performing an act of violence. This is why I am afraid.
I am afraid because our culture has not changed in reaction to the school shootings at Columbine. It has not changed due to the tragic events at Broughton High School in Raleigh, NC. Our government, our citizens, our “peacemakers,” our politicians, our professionals, our teachers, our students, and our children absorb tragedy after tragedy, blaming each on “the mental problems of proven mental patients” or “the proto-type loner” or “the outcast,” which both distances such groups from the event, and dehumanizes the perpetrator/victim of such events.
We must realize that we are all connected. It is so apparent in the hours and days after a tragedy such as this one that we deeply care about our own humanity and the lives of individual humans. Prayers are said, people are memorialized, remembered for their best actions and deeds, tears are shed, and tremendous popular support is shown through National “Hokie Day” and even in the college medium Facebook, in groups such as “A Prayer for VT students.” Yet this empathy is exclusive. We pray for the families of the victims, but do we pray for the family of the perpetrator? We memorialize the heroes of the tragedy, but do we remember the best actions of the student who committed such perverse and tragic actions? We create college-network Facebook groups, espousing respect for the dead, yet, in these very same groups, students spit violent threats and hatred towards international students, towards Koreans, towards immigrants, and towards this particular victim of American greed culture who felt so trapped into isolation by his fellow students that he desired to send a message through violence.
Violence can never be justified, but it can be explained.
America needs an explanation, and you, the U.S. Media sources, ought to give it to them. Let you not recount that this was an isolated mental patient; let you not claim that it was entirely his fault. Yes, it is true that, in finality, his choice was his to make, but that a choice made in desperation, in isolation, is really no choice at all. Let you finally do an exposé on school culture so that we do not have to be treated to another media frenzy at the helm of a tragedy.
When is enough violence finally enough violence?
When is enough violence finally enough violence?
When are the “isolated loners” finally going to be realized as social creations, not as “psychotic individuals?”
When has the American public absorbed enough tragedy to once and for all demand a change? To demand an explanation for why violent tragedy continues to occur?
I am afraid, I will admit this. But let it be known that I am afraid for my safety because the American media refuses to pursue the real factors behind the copious violence in our nation. Let it be known that I am afraid for my safety, not because my classroom has no lock, but because guns are legally purchased fifty yards from my classroom. Let it be known that I am afraid for my safety, not because there aren’t strict regulations on who is allowed within the campus boundaries, but because the media has normalized violence.
We expect violence. Yes, there are tragedies. Yes, 33 people died. Yes, no one could possibly have predicted the events which unfolded in Blacksburg yesterday.
But why is this outbreak of violence so threatening to the American public? Is it the number of deaths? Hundreds of people die each week at the end of handguns, and yet there is no outcry. Is it the individual who pulled the trigger, some 85 times? Our soldiers fire more than 200 rounds per outing, and there is no outcry. Is it the identity of the people targeted? Is it the “unexpected” nature of the events?
Why should we expect violence? Why is there no public outcry for the terrible triple homicide which occurred in Littlestown, PA, last night? Why is there no outcry at the gang violence which occurs in my hometown of Durham, NC? Why does the American public care more about their students and professors than their working poor? Why does the American public speak out against violence when there is a school shooting, but not when a rural husband takes a rifle and shoots his wife six times and his three kids three times each and turns it on himself?
Violence begets violence, and the world is a violent place. What message does this culture send to our children? What message do we want to send our children?
Do we honestly want our children, our sons and daughters, to grow up accepting violence as the status quo? Do we honestly want our children thinking that the death of a migrant worker at the hands of a farm contractor is less valuable than the death of a prominent lawyer? Why has such value been placed on violence?
It is time for America to speak out against violence, all violence, once and for all. It is time for the media to perform real journalism, and pursue the underlying story. No longer will I accept my media corporations taking the easy way out and casting the violent stabbing and murder of a woman outside a known abortion clinic on a gang member, who cannot be helped. No longer will I accept that violent tragedy such as school shootings are conducted by outliers of society, and in their isolation their psychotic problems are the blame for their actions. It is time for the American public to cry out for an end to violence. It is time for the American media to give answers.
I am afraid. I am afraid that America will not seek to end the cycle of violence which we all allow to exist. I am afraid that the American media will forget this tragedy, cast it aside as a psychotic-driven murder which will never happen again. I am afraid because it has happened again. It happened in Columbine. It happened in at Virginia Tech. I am afraid because, if this culture does not change, it will happen again.
Let this be the last tragedy schoolchildren, your sons and daughters, the future of this country, ever have to face.
Enough is enough. Speak.
With great grief, terror, and peace,
Without question, the Virginia Tech shootings were, and are, and will remain to be, a tragedy. There is a great deal of pain in the Blacksburg, VA, community, and in the entire college community of the United States. The institution on which students like me, like my younger sister, like my friends, like my future children, has now become the focus of drastic security measures, viable and understandable fear, and restriction. I realize the necessity in ensuring the safety of our future professionals, world leaders and humanitarians—nothing could be more important. I ask, though, if the response of tighter security patrols, locking entire buildings during class hours and closing public roadways is the correct response to such a tragedy.
It is obvious that we are afraid. In the instances after first learning of the events at VT, I myself became very concerned for the safety of my friends in colleges all over the United States, from California to Florida to Maine. The thought, “if it happened at one, why couldn’t it happen at others?” absolutely crossed my mind, and this thought terrified me. I will admit it, openly, plainly, and simply—I am very afraid. But I am afraid not for my life, but because I believe that the motivation behind such violent attacks is of legitimate concern. Furthermore, as citizens of such a powerful country, we should all be concerned about the motivations which lie behind tragedies.
Yes, obviously this individual suffered from psychological problems, but this is no reason to cast off his actions on such problems as feeling isolated, alone, backed into a corner and trapped—hundreds, thousands, maybe tens of thousand college students in the U.S. have shared at least one of these feelings. I, myself, have felt them. I, myself, have been to a college counseling center, and refused to return for counseling because it did not change how I was feeling. Talking did not solve the problems I had with my social environment.
Perhaps one of the reasons I was so terrified and distressed upon reading the news, when I finally felt able to do so, was that I expected the motivation to lie in feelings of isolation. I expected such a tragedy to be caused by the social problems which still exist in our American culture today. Perhaps one of the reasons I was terrified is because I know exactly what it feels like to be alone. I know what it feels like to be so full of wrath, anger, rage and violence that you almost cannot stop yourself from performing an act of violence. This is why I am afraid.
I am afraid because our culture has not changed in reaction to the school shootings at Columbine. It has not changed due to the tragic events at Broughton High School in Raleigh, NC. Our government, our citizens, our “peacemakers,” our politicians, our professionals, our teachers, our students, and our children absorb tragedy after tragedy, blaming each on “the mental problems of proven mental patients” or “the proto-type loner” or “the outcast,” which both distances such groups from the event, and dehumanizes the perpetrator/victim of such events.
We must realize that we are all connected. It is so apparent in the hours and days after a tragedy such as this one that we deeply care about our own humanity and the lives of individual humans. Prayers are said, people are memorialized, remembered for their best actions and deeds, tears are shed, and tremendous popular support is shown through National “Hokie Day” and even in the college medium Facebook, in groups such as “A Prayer for VT students.” Yet this empathy is exclusive. We pray for the families of the victims, but do we pray for the family of the perpetrator? We memorialize the heroes of the tragedy, but do we remember the best actions of the student who committed such perverse and tragic actions? We create college-network Facebook groups, espousing respect for the dead, yet, in these very same groups, students spit violent threats and hatred towards international students, towards Koreans, towards immigrants, and towards this particular victim of American greed culture who felt so trapped into isolation by his fellow students that he desired to send a message through violence.
Violence can never be justified, but it can be explained.
America needs an explanation, and you, the U.S. Media sources, ought to give it to them. Let you not recount that this was an isolated mental patient; let you not claim that it was entirely his fault. Yes, it is true that, in finality, his choice was his to make, but that a choice made in desperation, in isolation, is really no choice at all. Let you finally do an exposé on school culture so that we do not have to be treated to another media frenzy at the helm of a tragedy.
When is enough violence finally enough violence?
When is enough violence finally enough violence?
When are the “isolated loners” finally going to be realized as social creations, not as “psychotic individuals?”
When has the American public absorbed enough tragedy to once and for all demand a change? To demand an explanation for why violent tragedy continues to occur?
I am afraid, I will admit this. But let it be known that I am afraid for my safety because the American media refuses to pursue the real factors behind the copious violence in our nation. Let it be known that I am afraid for my safety, not because my classroom has no lock, but because guns are legally purchased fifty yards from my classroom. Let it be known that I am afraid for my safety, not because there aren’t strict regulations on who is allowed within the campus boundaries, but because the media has normalized violence.
We expect violence. Yes, there are tragedies. Yes, 33 people died. Yes, no one could possibly have predicted the events which unfolded in Blacksburg yesterday.
But why is this outbreak of violence so threatening to the American public? Is it the number of deaths? Hundreds of people die each week at the end of handguns, and yet there is no outcry. Is it the individual who pulled the trigger, some 85 times? Our soldiers fire more than 200 rounds per outing, and there is no outcry. Is it the identity of the people targeted? Is it the “unexpected” nature of the events?
Why should we expect violence? Why is there no public outcry for the terrible triple homicide which occurred in Littlestown, PA, last night? Why is there no outcry at the gang violence which occurs in my hometown of Durham, NC? Why does the American public care more about their students and professors than their working poor? Why does the American public speak out against violence when there is a school shooting, but not when a rural husband takes a rifle and shoots his wife six times and his three kids three times each and turns it on himself?
Violence begets violence, and the world is a violent place. What message does this culture send to our children? What message do we want to send our children?
Do we honestly want our children, our sons and daughters, to grow up accepting violence as the status quo? Do we honestly want our children thinking that the death of a migrant worker at the hands of a farm contractor is less valuable than the death of a prominent lawyer? Why has such value been placed on violence?
It is time for America to speak out against violence, all violence, once and for all. It is time for the media to perform real journalism, and pursue the underlying story. No longer will I accept my media corporations taking the easy way out and casting the violent stabbing and murder of a woman outside a known abortion clinic on a gang member, who cannot be helped. No longer will I accept that violent tragedy such as school shootings are conducted by outliers of society, and in their isolation their psychotic problems are the blame for their actions. It is time for the American public to cry out for an end to violence. It is time for the American media to give answers.
I am afraid. I am afraid that America will not seek to end the cycle of violence which we all allow to exist. I am afraid that the American media will forget this tragedy, cast it aside as a psychotic-driven murder which will never happen again. I am afraid because it has happened again. It happened in Columbine. It happened in at Virginia Tech. I am afraid because, if this culture does not change, it will happen again.
Let this be the last tragedy schoolchildren, your sons and daughters, the future of this country, ever have to face.
Enough is enough. Speak.
With great grief, terror, and peace,
Sunday, April 15, 2007
A Welcome, I Guess?
I realize I never had an initial welcome post. Problematic? Not really, but out of a desire for cordiality, let the following ensue.
Oh, and I'll probably try to edit the timestamp so that it is way before Monday. But know that I cheated.
So, welcome to the new space I've created for my thoughts. Hopefully I will be able to dedicate enough time to myself to post regularly. It could get hectic in the last few weeks of school, but I'll manage, somehow.
To those of you coming from my old, shitty, stream-of-consciousness rant-rag, hopefully you'll find that this is abundant in the clarity which the old blog was not.
Enjoy!
Oh, and I'll probably try to edit the timestamp so that it is way before Monday. But know that I cheated.
So, welcome to the new space I've created for my thoughts. Hopefully I will be able to dedicate enough time to myself to post regularly. It could get hectic in the last few weeks of school, but I'll manage, somehow.
To those of you coming from my old, shitty, stream-of-consciousness rant-rag, hopefully you'll find that this is abundant in the clarity which the old blog was not.
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
