Like a songbird he lies
In his nest, in his cage
Protected from the world outside
From anger, hatred, and covetous crimes.
Does anyone hear the songbird cry?
The despair and anguish floating from his cage
Through the woven wicker bars he cries
As the seasons slowly change.
Finally, the songbird rests
Trapped behind thorny vines
Waiting for the light of day
As darkness smothers his heartfelt cries
Enfolding his song until it dies.
No one listened from outside.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
The Art of Violence and Justice
The key question to any philosophy of morality is "When, if at all, is it permissible to do violence to others?"
In one of my earlier posts I discussed the idea of self-defense as being a reasonable instance in which one can morally do others harm. When one attacks another physically one is breaking the compact of "do no harm to others" and therefore leaves the protection granted by that moral clause and can be harmed in turn.
What I failed to discuss in that writing was any sort of case where an individual is harmed not by physical means but by social, economic, or bureaucratic means. In such a case would it be permissible to resort to physical violence? Most people would probably answer no, but then no one would think that it would be impossible to solve such problems by non-violent means.
However, let us make an example of such a case where communication and bargaining will not work. Let us say that there is an individual who's boss hates him. This could be for a variety of reasons, perhaps he is of a different race, perhaps he is gay, or perhaps he simply refuses to cover up a mismanagement of funds by the department(not embezzlement just poorly managed). Suffice it to say that the man is hated by his manager to the extent that manager makes his work a living hell and will eventually fire him if he can't force him to resign. The man has clearly done nothing wrong to the company but he is none-the-less at the mercy of his manager. Because he is such a hard working individual he will put up with all the indecencies of being moved to the office by the toilets and getting stapler stolen. In the end he is fired. The higher ups he appealed to were all friends of the manager and ignored his please that he had done nothing wrong. They had trumped up charges of insubordination and lack of positive work ethic to fire him on. The next day he sets out to find a new job and in the coming weeks realizes that his previous employer has spread his name around town as someone who is not to be hired. He can't find a job and in the meantime the rent is coming due. He has no money left with which to hire a lawyer to fight his employer in court over his unfair firing. He is up a creak and will have to move elsewhere to find a job probably in a city several states over and he will have to sleep in his car until he can afford to pay rent again. Those who did him wrong get off without so much as a filed lawsuit.
So there is our conundrum, what is our individual to do? Should he go do some massive property damage to their vehicles? Or maybe rough one up in an alley some night for payback? Perhaps he should stick to non-violent means and spread vicious rumors about his employer to get him fired? But what about the lawsuit that is sure to follow since he has no proof that his employer did anything wrong... they'd end up taking his car and the shirt on his back too. Our options seem to come down to some sort of vengeance.
Most people would likely say that vengeance is wrong, an eye for an eye leaves all men blind etc. etc. But in the end there is no justice left for our poor evicted employee. Sure some might say that there will come a final justice after death but I'm not one for counting on that. After all we didn't wait for Hitler to die to try to make him pay for his crimes why should we wait for someone much easier to punish? Just a few slices of some tires or maybe a baseball bat and our dear friend will have taken back his loses or well... at least inflicted them equally upon those who have done him harm. This seems to be the key difference between vengeance and justice. Vengeance inflicts similar harm upon others while justice lends itself to retaking that which has been taken. So for our dear individual in order to engage in justice would need to do something other than bash in a few windshields.
While vengeance can be somewhat cathartic what seems to make it immoral is that one is not trying to achieve equity but instead inflict the same inequity upon others. This can be a difficult distinction for one to make especially in moments of injustice being inflicted upon oneself. One's anger can often get the better of one. This brings us back to figuring out what options our homeless individual is left with that do not lead him down the immoral path.
The answer I have come up with is quite simple but may be difficult in execution none-the-less if one wants justice sometimes one cannot follow the letter of the law. The law and justice do not always coincide as many unfair convictions of people who were thought to be rapists attest to(Thank you DNA testing). Essentially, our man would have to commit grand theft auto and take his employer's vehicle to the local chop shop. Upon his arrival he will be paid a sufficient enough sum to move to another town pay for an apartment with his restitution money and find a new job. Hopefully, it will be one with a kind individual as a boss. This is justice and not vengeance for the pure reason that our man takes no violent action against his employers or their property. In stealing his boss's car he gets restitution for the harm that has been done him not some cheap thrill of merely bashing a few windshields. All in all, it is the round about way of getting what would have come to him if he would have had a lawyer to fight his employers in court and a fair trial which would have seen through his boss's underhanded dealings.
So my answer is that there seems to be ways out of impossible situations of injustice without resorting to violence. Such situations may only be solved by violating the law but are none-the-less just in their outcomes. Perhaps, there is some impossible situation I haven't thought of where there is no way out but vengeance yet I do not think that is the case. One just has to think outside the box and outside the rules sometimes.
Another case which comes to mind is that of our forefathers. When Britain began overtaxing Americans and violating the property of the colonists they felt it necessary to break away from the mother country and say no. One might think that they could have waged a war of civil disobedience instead of one of guns but the British weren't adverse to making examples of those who disobeyed them. This being the case I have to conclude that outright war was inevitable since defending oneself while being disobedient might have required offing a few redcoats in self-defense. This would have lead to outright war or cowering colonists taking the abuse they were given and probably eventually giving in. It seems to me that civil disobedience while proven relatively effective in the past when demonstrated on a united front has lead to many individuals being sacrificed as examples. This is why I'm not a pacifist. If someone is beating you then you should beat them back. Turning the other cheek while still resisting peacefully only gets you hit again, probably harder, and most likely until your skull fractures and you die. My point, I guess, is that when violence is finally used by one party then the time for peaceful resolution is over.
Thank you for reading. I'd love to hear any impossible philosophical problems you guys can come up with where pure vengeance is the only option left. Good night.
In one of my earlier posts I discussed the idea of self-defense as being a reasonable instance in which one can morally do others harm. When one attacks another physically one is breaking the compact of "do no harm to others" and therefore leaves the protection granted by that moral clause and can be harmed in turn.
What I failed to discuss in that writing was any sort of case where an individual is harmed not by physical means but by social, economic, or bureaucratic means. In such a case would it be permissible to resort to physical violence? Most people would probably answer no, but then no one would think that it would be impossible to solve such problems by non-violent means.
However, let us make an example of such a case where communication and bargaining will not work. Let us say that there is an individual who's boss hates him. This could be for a variety of reasons, perhaps he is of a different race, perhaps he is gay, or perhaps he simply refuses to cover up a mismanagement of funds by the department(not embezzlement just poorly managed). Suffice it to say that the man is hated by his manager to the extent that manager makes his work a living hell and will eventually fire him if he can't force him to resign. The man has clearly done nothing wrong to the company but he is none-the-less at the mercy of his manager. Because he is such a hard working individual he will put up with all the indecencies of being moved to the office by the toilets and getting stapler stolen. In the end he is fired. The higher ups he appealed to were all friends of the manager and ignored his please that he had done nothing wrong. They had trumped up charges of insubordination and lack of positive work ethic to fire him on. The next day he sets out to find a new job and in the coming weeks realizes that his previous employer has spread his name around town as someone who is not to be hired. He can't find a job and in the meantime the rent is coming due. He has no money left with which to hire a lawyer to fight his employer in court over his unfair firing. He is up a creak and will have to move elsewhere to find a job probably in a city several states over and he will have to sleep in his car until he can afford to pay rent again. Those who did him wrong get off without so much as a filed lawsuit.
So there is our conundrum, what is our individual to do? Should he go do some massive property damage to their vehicles? Or maybe rough one up in an alley some night for payback? Perhaps he should stick to non-violent means and spread vicious rumors about his employer to get him fired? But what about the lawsuit that is sure to follow since he has no proof that his employer did anything wrong... they'd end up taking his car and the shirt on his back too. Our options seem to come down to some sort of vengeance.
Most people would likely say that vengeance is wrong, an eye for an eye leaves all men blind etc. etc. But in the end there is no justice left for our poor evicted employee. Sure some might say that there will come a final justice after death but I'm not one for counting on that. After all we didn't wait for Hitler to die to try to make him pay for his crimes why should we wait for someone much easier to punish? Just a few slices of some tires or maybe a baseball bat and our dear friend will have taken back his loses or well... at least inflicted them equally upon those who have done him harm. This seems to be the key difference between vengeance and justice. Vengeance inflicts similar harm upon others while justice lends itself to retaking that which has been taken. So for our dear individual in order to engage in justice would need to do something other than bash in a few windshields.
While vengeance can be somewhat cathartic what seems to make it immoral is that one is not trying to achieve equity but instead inflict the same inequity upon others. This can be a difficult distinction for one to make especially in moments of injustice being inflicted upon oneself. One's anger can often get the better of one. This brings us back to figuring out what options our homeless individual is left with that do not lead him down the immoral path.
The answer I have come up with is quite simple but may be difficult in execution none-the-less if one wants justice sometimes one cannot follow the letter of the law. The law and justice do not always coincide as many unfair convictions of people who were thought to be rapists attest to(Thank you DNA testing). Essentially, our man would have to commit grand theft auto and take his employer's vehicle to the local chop shop. Upon his arrival he will be paid a sufficient enough sum to move to another town pay for an apartment with his restitution money and find a new job. Hopefully, it will be one with a kind individual as a boss. This is justice and not vengeance for the pure reason that our man takes no violent action against his employers or their property. In stealing his boss's car he gets restitution for the harm that has been done him not some cheap thrill of merely bashing a few windshields. All in all, it is the round about way of getting what would have come to him if he would have had a lawyer to fight his employers in court and a fair trial which would have seen through his boss's underhanded dealings.
So my answer is that there seems to be ways out of impossible situations of injustice without resorting to violence. Such situations may only be solved by violating the law but are none-the-less just in their outcomes. Perhaps, there is some impossible situation I haven't thought of where there is no way out but vengeance yet I do not think that is the case. One just has to think outside the box and outside the rules sometimes.
Another case which comes to mind is that of our forefathers. When Britain began overtaxing Americans and violating the property of the colonists they felt it necessary to break away from the mother country and say no. One might think that they could have waged a war of civil disobedience instead of one of guns but the British weren't adverse to making examples of those who disobeyed them. This being the case I have to conclude that outright war was inevitable since defending oneself while being disobedient might have required offing a few redcoats in self-defense. This would have lead to outright war or cowering colonists taking the abuse they were given and probably eventually giving in. It seems to me that civil disobedience while proven relatively effective in the past when demonstrated on a united front has lead to many individuals being sacrificed as examples. This is why I'm not a pacifist. If someone is beating you then you should beat them back. Turning the other cheek while still resisting peacefully only gets you hit again, probably harder, and most likely until your skull fractures and you die. My point, I guess, is that when violence is finally used by one party then the time for peaceful resolution is over.
Thank you for reading. I'd love to hear any impossible philosophical problems you guys can come up with where pure vengeance is the only option left. Good night.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
MySpace Police
For some reason I have a difficult time coming up with titles for my articles on the stupidity and deplorable behavior of others. Every time I try to write a good one I end up thinking of titles involving what I would like to do to the ignorant jerks. Usually, these involve various forms of telling them to do anatomically impossible things combined with veiled threats that they should suffer physical or mental harm. I have another article to write on that later but suffice it to say I'm going to keep my titles rather bland so as not to risk disturbing people at first. Hopefully, they might care to read further and discover why I would want to write such titles. If so maybe they'll be convinced my feelings would make better titles than what I'm using.
Stacy Snyder a 25 year old woman who attended Millersville University was allegedly refused her bachelor of science in education degree and a teaching certificate after the University administration found a picture called "Druken Pirate" on her MySpace. She has filed suit in federal court.
You will notice the picture below:
She was apparently accused by the University of promoting underage drinking. In my opinion, the University's actions against Ms. Snyder are ridiculous. Not only is she of legal drinking age(25) but they can't even prove there was an alcoholic beverage in the cup! I'd really like to know how these bloody Nazis of University officials can get off saying someone is promoting underage drinking by wearing a party hat!
To the best of my knowledge the majority of individuals on my freshmen hall drank underage at least once. With the exception of myself and a couple other nerds I'd say around 90% had done so at least once and 50% had done so multiple times. Guess what folks? People drink. Its bound to happen at any University because access to alcohol at Universities is open door.
Millersville should be happy she was well over the legal drinking age and stayed the hell out of her private life. I'd bet half those jerks that denied her her degree drank underage at least once. From all indications Ms. Snyder had completed all her coursework with a good GPA. If drinking legally is encouraging underage drinking then we should probably fire most University professors staff and elementary through high school teachers. I know dang well most of them have consumed alcohol at least once and I'm sure there are more than a few of them who have been in a picture while their blood alcohol content was higher than normal. Eggnog at Christmas anyone?
Getting a degree is about grades not one's personal life. The fact these people make it about that is disgusting. I've seen far too many of these social police actions by employers and schools in the news not to be angered by the pettiness of people in power. So I hope you'll forgive me for suggesting the anatomically impossible in this case.
Source 1
Source 2
Source 2 continued
Stacy Snyder a 25 year old woman who attended Millersville University was allegedly refused her bachelor of science in education degree and a teaching certificate after the University administration found a picture called "Druken Pirate" on her MySpace. She has filed suit in federal court.
You will notice the picture below:
She was apparently accused by the University of promoting underage drinking. In my opinion, the University's actions against Ms. Snyder are ridiculous. Not only is she of legal drinking age(25) but they can't even prove there was an alcoholic beverage in the cup! I'd really like to know how these bloody Nazis of University officials can get off saying someone is promoting underage drinking by wearing a party hat!
To the best of my knowledge the majority of individuals on my freshmen hall drank underage at least once. With the exception of myself and a couple other nerds I'd say around 90% had done so at least once and 50% had done so multiple times. Guess what folks? People drink. Its bound to happen at any University because access to alcohol at Universities is open door.
Millersville should be happy she was well over the legal drinking age and stayed the hell out of her private life. I'd bet half those jerks that denied her her degree drank underage at least once. From all indications Ms. Snyder had completed all her coursework with a good GPA. If drinking legally is encouraging underage drinking then we should probably fire most University professors staff and elementary through high school teachers. I know dang well most of them have consumed alcohol at least once and I'm sure there are more than a few of them who have been in a picture while their blood alcohol content was higher than normal. Eggnog at Christmas anyone?
Getting a degree is about grades not one's personal life. The fact these people make it about that is disgusting. I've seen far too many of these social police actions by employers and schools in the news not to be angered by the pettiness of people in power. So I hope you'll forgive me for suggesting the anatomically impossible in this case.
Source 1
Source 2
Source 2 continued
Monday, April 16, 2007
Personal Account: The Virginia Tech Rampage
I'm sure everyone has already seen the news coverage of what the major channels are calling "the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. history". It's a tragedy that will likely stay with people here for a long time to come. Its one of those events like 9/11 which demarcates the before and the after in people's lives. In this case it is the before and after for people here at Virginia Tech and their families not the before and after for the United States. That makes it no less significant for the people here.
My own story of this day begins at 9:00AM. I got up and began to prepare for class. I had a quiz this day. Sometime between 9:15-9:20AM I check my e-mail. I continue with my morning routine and leave for class around 11:50-11:55AM, it is in a building behind Buruss Hall. As I reach the drill field via a route beside Slusher Hall I notice a line of cars blocked by police further up. I assume like many that the police are responding to another bomb threat since we've had a couple the last few days. I proceed to cross a fourth of the drill field and I am yelled at by the police and told to turn back. I do so just to appease them but I don't feel alarmed(considered it just another fake bomb threat) and kind of wonder why if I can't cross the drillfield on that side if they haven't bothered to block it off. I overhear a couple of guys talking, as I get back to the sidewalk, about someone being shot in Ambler-Johnston and that classes are canceled. Seeing that there is no point in continuing to class I return to my dorm. From there I learn that there is a mass shooting in Norris/Holden Hall. Before this I was operating under the impression the situation was similar to the escaped killer William Morva we experienced here last semester. It turned out to be much, much bloodier.
Well, as you can see I missed all the relevant e-mails due to my routine and nearly ended up walking across the drill field because it wasn't blocked off fast enough, or at least not at the end I was crossing. I've found out I'm not the only one who missed these e-mails so I don't consider myself particularly unlucky. I mentioned before the bomb threats from the previous week. Below is the e-mail I received the day before pertaining to those events:
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:01:48 -0400
From:
To:
Subject: Engineering Buildings to Reopen Monday
To The University Community
Three university buildings, Torgersen, Durham, and Whittemore Halls, have been closed since Friday because of a bomb threat. Police have swept the buildings with search teams and deemed the buildings suitable for use beginning 7 a.m. Monday, 16 April.
The university has posted a $5,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons involved in either bomb threat incidents occurring April 2 or April 13. The university encourages anyone with relevant information to contact the Virginia Tech Police Department at 232-TIPS (8477) or 231-6411.
Virginia Tech Police, in collaboration with other law enforcement agencies, continue to investigate both incidents.
What I do know of events so far is at around 7:15AM the shooter killed both a girl and an Resident Adviser who supposedly showed up to break up/mediate an argument they were having. The building was swarmed and sealed off by police who conducted searches for the suspect and secured testimony from witnesses. The did not find the shooter. The search for the shooter proceeded and no e-mail notifying students was sent out until around 9:25AM. I do not know when the campus authorities responsible for sending such e-mails were initially informed of the incident. The first e-mail I received is as follows below:
A shooting incident occurred at West Amber Johnston earlier this morning. Police are on the scene and are investigating.
The university community is urged to be cautious and are asked to contact Virginia Tech Police if you observe anything suspicious or with information on the case. Contact Virginia Tech Police at 231-6411
Stay attuned to the www.vt.edu. We will post as soon as we have more information.
There was no indication from this e-mail that anyone should stay indoors or that the shooting was lethal. It does not specify that there were multiple victims. It was released roughly two hours after the first shootings took place.
After returning to my dorm I checked my e-mail and in addition to the first e-mail I found the following e-mails. This is the second:
A gunman is loose on campus. Stay in buildings until further notice. Stay away from all windows
Nearly two and a half hours after the first incident it is decided to have the students stay inside their buildings. This e-mail appears hastily typed and the final period after "windows" was left off originally.
The third e-mail:
Virginia Tech has canceled all classes. Those on campus are asked to remain where there are, lock their doors and stay away from windows. Persons off campus are asked not to come to campus.
This message was received 25 minutes after the second e-mail. It reaffirms the directive to stay inside and appears more calm and collected.
The fourth e-mail:
In addition to an earlier shooting today in West Ambler Johnston, there has been a multiple shooting with multiple victims in Norris Hall.
Police and EMS are on the scene.
Police have one shooter in custody and as part of routine police procedure, they continue to search for a second shooter.
All people in university buildings are required to stay inside until further notice.
All entrances to campus are closed.
Nearly 45 minutes later this e-mail confirms a second shooting and incorrectly reports that the police have a shooter in custody. I had already been informed by watching the local news reports that a second shooting had occurred.
The following is a fifth e-mail I received from housing and dinning services of Virginia Tech. At this point I was kind of wondering what I would be doing for food since I'd run out of snacks in my room the other day.
Residents:
First and foremost, stay indoors and away from windows and doorways
until you receive the all clear from the university.
D2 will remain open this afternoon once the all clear has been announced
through dinner time for students to get a meal.
Kenneth E. Belcher
Associate Director for Occupancy Management
I have edited out the lower part of this fifth e-mail so as to protect Mr. Belcher's contact information. The main bodies of all the previous e-mails are intact and I only edited the TO: and FROM: headers to protect the listservs.
The following is the sixth e-mail, this one from our university president:
Shooting at Virginia Tech / Statement by President Charles W. Steger
The university was struck today with a tragedy of monumental proportions. There were two shootings on campus. In each case, there were fatalities. The university is shocked and horrified that this would befall our campus. I want to extend my deepest, sincerest and most profound sympathies to the families of these victims which include students There are 22 confirmed deaths.
We currently are in the process of notifying families of victims. The Virginia Tech Police are being assisted by numerous other jurisdictions. Crime scenes are being investigated by the FBI, University Police, and State Police. We continue to work to identify the victims impacted by this tragedy. I cannot begin to covey my own personal sense of loss over this senselessness of such an incomprehensible and heinous act The university will immediately set up counseling centers. So far centers have been identified in Ambler Johnson and the Cook Counseling Center to work with our campus community and families.
Here are some of the facts we know:
At about 7:15 a.m. this morning a 911 call came to the University Police Department concerning an event in West Amber Johnston Hall. There were multiple shooting victims. While in the process of investigating, about two hours later the university received reports of a shooting in Norris Hall. The police immediately responded. Victims have been transported to various hospitals in the immediate area in the region to receive emergency treatment.
We will proceed to contact the families of victims as identities are available.
All classes are cancelled and the university is closed for the remainder for the today. The university will open tomorrow at 8 a.m. but classes will be cancelled on Tuesday. The police are currently staging the release of people from campus buildings.
Families wishing to reunite with the students are suggested to meet at the Inn at Virginia Tech. We are making plans for a convocation tomorrow (Tuesday) at noon at Cassell Coliseum for the university community to come together to begin to deal with the tragedy.
The final e-mail after the shooter was confirmed dead is as follows:
Virginia Tech remains closed on Monday, April 16, 2007. Vehicular entrances to campus are severely restricted to essential personnel only. Additional security remains on campus as the investigation continues.
Counseling assistance for students in available at West Ambler Johnston and McComas Hall until 9 p.m. tonight. Students are encouraged to utilize these services. Counseling for faculty and staff is available at the Bowman Room in the Merriman Center (athletic complex). Student may also be together at the Old Dominion Ballroom at Squires Student Center.
The university will also close on Tuesday, April 17. Essential personal are to report for work. Classes will be canceled.
A public gathering will be held Tuesday, April 17 at Cassell Coliseum at 2 p.m. (a time change from the originally scheduled 10 a.m. gathering).
All students are urged to contact their parents as soon as possible to let them know individuals are safe.
Students, faculty, and staff who may have any information related to the incident at West Amber Johnston Hall and Norris Hall are encouraged to go to the Blacksburg Police Department to make statements, or call 540-231-TIPP (8477), or 231-6411
Parents with concerns are asked to call the Dean of Students Office at 540-231-3787.
Individuals injured in the two shootings have been taken to area hospitals.
The restrictions on traffic allowed into campus prevented anyone from ordering out for food. That was annoying tonight but the on campus food services staff were brave enough to stick around for us. More than just D2 opened up again after the all clear was signaled. What I know at the moment is 33 people including the shooter are dead and 15 more injured. He used two 9mm handguns and committed suicide. The identities of the shooter and the most of the victims have not yet been released.
I would like to thank our medical professionals at the regional hospitals for doing there best to help during this crisis. It couldn't have been easy to deal with the flood of casualties especially when the high winds prevented more critically injured patients from being airlifted elsewhere. Our local law enforcement officials also did what they could to stop this tragedy and I thank them also. Good night folks. I'll update this when I can.
Update: Well the shooter is Cho Seung-Hui. Also, as a correction he used a 9mm and a .22 not two 9mms as previously stated. As it happens he also lived in my dorm, Harper Hall. I'm fairly certain he lived on one of the upper floors but I don't have any information yet as to what room or who his roommate was. Odds are I could have passed him the hallway sometime event though he was probably on the other side of the building. Damn, that is kind of disturbing. Also, I'm fairly certain Virginia Tech removed his name and room number from their online person search to make it difficult to learn anything. So I guess I'll just have to talk with people.
My own story of this day begins at 9:00AM. I got up and began to prepare for class. I had a quiz this day. Sometime between 9:15-9:20AM I check my e-mail. I continue with my morning routine and leave for class around 11:50-11:55AM, it is in a building behind Buruss Hall. As I reach the drill field via a route beside Slusher Hall I notice a line of cars blocked by police further up. I assume like many that the police are responding to another bomb threat since we've had a couple the last few days. I proceed to cross a fourth of the drill field and I am yelled at by the police and told to turn back. I do so just to appease them but I don't feel alarmed(considered it just another fake bomb threat) and kind of wonder why if I can't cross the drillfield on that side if they haven't bothered to block it off. I overhear a couple of guys talking, as I get back to the sidewalk, about someone being shot in Ambler-Johnston and that classes are canceled. Seeing that there is no point in continuing to class I return to my dorm. From there I learn that there is a mass shooting in Norris/Holden Hall. Before this I was operating under the impression the situation was similar to the escaped killer William Morva we experienced here last semester. It turned out to be much, much bloodier.
Well, as you can see I missed all the relevant e-mails due to my routine and nearly ended up walking across the drill field because it wasn't blocked off fast enough, or at least not at the end I was crossing. I've found out I'm not the only one who missed these e-mails so I don't consider myself particularly unlucky. I mentioned before the bomb threats from the previous week. Below is the e-mail I received the day before pertaining to those events:
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:01:48 -0400
From:
To:
Subject: Engineering Buildings to Reopen Monday
To The University Community
Three university buildings, Torgersen, Durham, and Whittemore Halls, have been closed since Friday because of a bomb threat. Police have swept the buildings with search teams and deemed the buildings suitable for use beginning 7 a.m. Monday, 16 April.
The university has posted a $5,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons involved in either bomb threat incidents occurring April 2 or April 13. The university encourages anyone with relevant information to contact the Virginia Tech Police Department at 232-TIPS (8477) or 231-6411.
Virginia Tech Police, in collaboration with other law enforcement agencies, continue to investigate both incidents.
What I do know of events so far is at around 7:15AM the shooter killed both a girl and an Resident Adviser who supposedly showed up to break up/mediate an argument they were having. The building was swarmed and sealed off by police who conducted searches for the suspect and secured testimony from witnesses. The did not find the shooter. The search for the shooter proceeded and no e-mail notifying students was sent out until around 9:25AM. I do not know when the campus authorities responsible for sending such e-mails were initially informed of the incident. The first e-mail I received is as follows below:
| Date: | Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:26:24 -0400 |
|---|---|
| From: | |
| To: | |
| Subject: | Shooting on campus. |
The university community is urged to be cautious and are asked to contact Virginia Tech Police if you observe anything suspicious or with information on the case. Contact Virginia Tech Police at 231-6411
Stay attuned to the www.vt.edu. We will post as soon as we have more information.
There was no indication from this e-mail that anyone should stay indoors or that the shooting was lethal. It does not specify that there were multiple victims. It was released roughly two hours after the first shootings took place.
After returning to my dorm I checked my e-mail and in addition to the first e-mail I found the following e-mails. This is the second:
| Date: | Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:50:07 -0400 |
|---|---|
| From: | |
| To: | |
| Subject: | PLease stay put |
Nearly two and a half hours after the first incident it is decided to have the students stay inside their buildings. This e-mail appears hastily typed and the final period after "windows" was left off originally.
The third e-mail:
| Date: | Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:16:40 -0400 |
|---|---|
| From: | |
| To: | |
| Subject: | All Classes Canceled; Stay where you are |
This message was received 25 minutes after the second e-mail. It reaffirms the directive to stay inside and appears more calm and collected.
The fourth e-mail:
| Date: | Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:52:45 -0400 |
|---|---|
| From: | |
| To: | |
| Subject: | Second Shooting Reported; Police have one gunman in custody |
Police and EMS are on the scene.
Police have one shooter in custody and as part of routine police procedure, they continue to search for a second shooter.
All people in university buildings are required to stay inside until further notice.
All entrances to campus are closed.
Nearly 45 minutes later this e-mail confirms a second shooting and incorrectly reports that the police have a shooter in custody. I had already been informed by watching the local news reports that a second shooting had occurred.
The following is a fifth e-mail I received from housing and dinning services of Virginia Tech. At this point I was kind of wondering what I would be doing for food since I'd run out of snacks in my room the other day.
| Date: | Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:33:09 -0400 |
|---|---|
| From: | |
| To: | |
| Reply To: | |
| Subject: | Housing Notice: Dining Operations |
Residents:
First and foremost, stay indoors and away from windows and doorways
until you receive the all clear from the university.
D2 will remain open this afternoon once the all clear has been announced
through dinner time for students to get a meal.
Kenneth E. Belcher
Associate Director for Occupancy Management
I have edited out the lower part of this fifth e-mail so as to protect Mr. Belcher's contact information. The main bodies of all the previous e-mails are intact and I only edited the TO: and FROM: headers to protect the listservs.
The following is the sixth e-mail, this one from our university president:
| Date: | Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:41:44 -0400 |
|---|---|
| From: | |
| To: | |
| Subject: | Statement by President Charles W. Steger |
The university was struck today with a tragedy of monumental proportions. There were two shootings on campus. In each case, there were fatalities. The university is shocked and horrified that this would befall our campus. I want to extend my deepest, sincerest and most profound sympathies to the families of these victims which include students There are 22 confirmed deaths.
We currently are in the process of notifying families of victims. The Virginia Tech Police are being assisted by numerous other jurisdictions. Crime scenes are being investigated by the FBI, University Police, and State Police. We continue to work to identify the victims impacted by this tragedy. I cannot begin to covey my own personal sense of loss over this senselessness of such an incomprehensible and heinous act The university will immediately set up counseling centers. So far centers have been identified in Ambler Johnson and the Cook Counseling Center to work with our campus community and families.
Here are some of the facts we know:
At about 7:15 a.m. this morning a 911 call came to the University Police Department concerning an event in West Amber Johnston Hall. There were multiple shooting victims. While in the process of investigating, about two hours later the university received reports of a shooting in Norris Hall. The police immediately responded. Victims have been transported to various hospitals in the immediate area in the region to receive emergency treatment.
We will proceed to contact the families of victims as identities are available.
All classes are cancelled and the university is closed for the remainder for the today. The university will open tomorrow at 8 a.m. but classes will be cancelled on Tuesday. The police are currently staging the release of people from campus buildings.
Families wishing to reunite with the students are suggested to meet at the Inn at Virginia Tech. We are making plans for a convocation tomorrow (Tuesday) at noon at Cassell Coliseum for the university community to come together to begin to deal with the tragedy.
The final e-mail after the shooter was confirmed dead is as follows:
| Date: | Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:31:29 -0400 |
|---|---|
| From: | |
| To: | |
| Subject: | Campus Update on VT Shootings |
Counseling assistance for students in available at West Ambler Johnston and McComas Hall until 9 p.m. tonight. Students are encouraged to utilize these services. Counseling for faculty and staff is available at the Bowman Room in the Merriman Center (athletic complex). Student may also be together at the Old Dominion Ballroom at Squires Student Center.
The university will also close on Tuesday, April 17. Essential personal are to report for work. Classes will be canceled.
A public gathering will be held Tuesday, April 17 at Cassell Coliseum at 2 p.m. (a time change from the originally scheduled 10 a.m. gathering).
All students are urged to contact their parents as soon as possible to let them know individuals are safe.
Students, faculty, and staff who may have any information related to the incident at West Amber Johnston Hall and Norris Hall are encouraged to go to the Blacksburg Police Department to make statements, or call 540-231-TIPP (8477), or 231-6411
Parents with concerns are asked to call the Dean of Students Office at 540-231-3787.
Individuals injured in the two shootings have been taken to area hospitals.
The restrictions on traffic allowed into campus prevented anyone from ordering out for food. That was annoying tonight but the on campus food services staff were brave enough to stick around for us. More than just D2 opened up again after the all clear was signaled. What I know at the moment is 33 people including the shooter are dead and 15 more injured. He used two 9mm handguns and committed suicide. The identities of the shooter and the most of the victims have not yet been released.
I would like to thank our medical professionals at the regional hospitals for doing there best to help during this crisis. It couldn't have been easy to deal with the flood of casualties especially when the high winds prevented more critically injured patients from being airlifted elsewhere. Our local law enforcement officials also did what they could to stop this tragedy and I thank them also. Good night folks. I'll update this when I can.
Update: Well the shooter is Cho Seung-Hui. Also, as a correction he used a 9mm and a .22 not two 9mms as previously stated. As it happens he also lived in my dorm, Harper Hall. I'm fairly certain he lived on one of the upper floors but I don't have any information yet as to what room or who his roommate was. Odds are I could have passed him the hallway sometime event though he was probably on the other side of the building. Damn, that is kind of disturbing. Also, I'm fairly certain Virginia Tech removed his name and room number from their online person search to make it difficult to learn anything. So I guess I'll just have to talk with people.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Bush Supports Gay Rights... sort of
As much as I've criticized the conservative anti-homosexual groups in some of my other writings I have to give credit to President Bush in appointing General Peter Pace. If anyone is sure to work hard at keeping homosexuals out of the military its him. I have to applaud our country's efforts since 1994 to throw out close to 10,000 able bodied soldiers for their sexual orientation. Just think that by continuing this policy President Bush not only sacrifices more upstanding, moral, straight soldiers in the Iraq war but is willing to bite the bullet and accept lower numbers of troops than necessary to complete our mission there. He could easily have used thousands more to get the job done. By continuing this policy President Bush is doing an excellent job to support gay rights by saving hundreds of homosexuals who may have died had they actually been sent to fight for this country in Iraq. Its wonderful to know that even in these times conservatives do their best to save the lives of citizens in America's minority groups.
If the above paragraph doesn't sound ridiculous to you for a variety of reasons then there is something seriously wrong with you. If you are a conservative who hates gays then logically you should support them serving in the military on the front lines. Not only would their deaths help save the moral straight soldiers in Iraq but would help to keep control of a worsening situation in that destabilized country.
On the other hand if you support the rights of homosexuals to not be penalized for their orientation then you should support their sacrifice for the benefit of this country that allows them such freedom of choice.
Really, its absurd that during wartime our country does not use every able bodied soldier who has volunteered to server his or her country. Removing soldiers from the ranks for things that don't conflict with their ability to fight is retarded. Sun Tzu would be rolling in his grave at the idiocy of it. As for my personal opinion I don't think giving homosexuals a disproportionate number of dangerous assignments so they die in combat is fair either but thats just another problem to overcome in gaining some much deserved acceptance and respect for homosexuals. Seriously, as long as the guy or gal isn't grabbing you constantly you shouldn't give a crap if you have to bunk with them.
No longer having 10,000 more soldiers that you could have used is just another thing that adds up to how to lose a war. Maybe President Bush will think about it when chaos breaks out in the green zone sometime.
Source
If the above paragraph doesn't sound ridiculous to you for a variety of reasons then there is something seriously wrong with you. If you are a conservative who hates gays then logically you should support them serving in the military on the front lines. Not only would their deaths help save the moral straight soldiers in Iraq but would help to keep control of a worsening situation in that destabilized country.
On the other hand if you support the rights of homosexuals to not be penalized for their orientation then you should support their sacrifice for the benefit of this country that allows them such freedom of choice.
Really, its absurd that during wartime our country does not use every able bodied soldier who has volunteered to server his or her country. Removing soldiers from the ranks for things that don't conflict with their ability to fight is retarded. Sun Tzu would be rolling in his grave at the idiocy of it. As for my personal opinion I don't think giving homosexuals a disproportionate number of dangerous assignments so they die in combat is fair either but thats just another problem to overcome in gaining some much deserved acceptance and respect for homosexuals. Seriously, as long as the guy or gal isn't grabbing you constantly you shouldn't give a crap if you have to bunk with them.
No longer having 10,000 more soldiers that you could have used is just another thing that adds up to how to lose a war. Maybe President Bush will think about it when chaos breaks out in the green zone sometime.
Source
Texas Against Public Health
Isn't it wonderful that this day in age the government won't even look out for the welfare of its own people by helping everyone get vaccinations? Or are they planning further ahead and hope that a bunch of women dropping dead of an entirely preventable cancer will reduce our ever growing population and stave off overcrowding and mass starvation?
Forgive me for being so blunt, but it seems like the Texas House of Representatives are a bunch of morons. They stop mandatory vaccinations which would save thousands of lives and the only excuse they make is that they think the governor has a vested interest in requiring it because he has ties to drug companies. Well yes, the drug companies are going to make money off of it but thats what they do and it still benefits the public not to die of cancer. Basically, all they are doing by blocking vaccinations is being jerks for their own political reasons.
My parting advice to Texas is, get rid of the jerks next election. Maybe then people won't have to die of cancer.
Source
Forgive me for being so blunt, but it seems like the Texas House of Representatives are a bunch of morons. They stop mandatory vaccinations which would save thousands of lives and the only excuse they make is that they think the governor has a vested interest in requiring it because he has ties to drug companies. Well yes, the drug companies are going to make money off of it but thats what they do and it still benefits the public not to die of cancer. Basically, all they are doing by blocking vaccinations is being jerks for their own political reasons.
My parting advice to Texas is, get rid of the jerks next election. Maybe then people won't have to die of cancer.
Source
A Comedy of Errors
Some of you may be familiar with this story but for those of you who are not, a substitute school teacher is facing a considerable amount of prison time because she is clueless about technology.
It is incredibly stupid that prosecutors charged Julie Amero with anything. The investigators failed to check the computer for spyware and malware which could have directed it to porn sites creating the prior search history she was convicted on. The poor woman has been criticized for failing to protect the children from seeing the pornography on the computer even though witnesses have testified that she not only pushed them away and tried to block the screen from their view but ran to get help to remove the pop-ups because she didn't know how. Considering her lack of knowledge she did everything right that she could do except lock the door when she left to get help to keep kids from wandering in.
I don't know about everyone else but I can forgive her for that one mistake when she is obviously so frantic to get rid of the pop-ups and concerned for the wellbeing of children that it slipped her mind.
If she is at fault then the school system must be doubly so because due to not keeping their security updated the pop-ups were allowed through their filter. The point is this sort of thing can happen because there are dirty people out there who make these kinds of spyware and malware programs. The prosecutors should spend their time charging them instead of a clueless substitute teacher.
I have had a similar experience with pop-ups on my home computer years ago. I was visiting a site totally unrelated to pornography and a pop-up came showing porn. When I hastily clicked the X to remove it about a hundred other pornographic pop-ups began flooding my computer screen. I ended up having to unplug the computer because its was locking it up.
My father has also had a similar experience at our public library when someone who had previously been using the computer left pornographic pop-ups on the screen. He tried clicking X and more pop-ups flooded the screen. He ended up going to find one of the librarians who took care of turning off and restarting the machine. He may not have been as clueless as Mrs. Amero but he certainly didn't want to damage or violate library policy by turning off the library's computer himself.
Julie Amero obviously felt the same way about respecting other people's property so instead of unplugging it and chancing that she would damage it by doing so she got someone who would be qualified to make such a decision. She clearly didn't know if it would hurt the computer or not to turn it off and did the only thing she could reasonably do, get help.
Yet these idiotic people want to punish her for it.
Source
It is incredibly stupid that prosecutors charged Julie Amero with anything. The investigators failed to check the computer for spyware and malware which could have directed it to porn sites creating the prior search history she was convicted on. The poor woman has been criticized for failing to protect the children from seeing the pornography on the computer even though witnesses have testified that she not only pushed them away and tried to block the screen from their view but ran to get help to remove the pop-ups because she didn't know how. Considering her lack of knowledge she did everything right that she could do except lock the door when she left to get help to keep kids from wandering in.
I don't know about everyone else but I can forgive her for that one mistake when she is obviously so frantic to get rid of the pop-ups and concerned for the wellbeing of children that it slipped her mind.
If she is at fault then the school system must be doubly so because due to not keeping their security updated the pop-ups were allowed through their filter. The point is this sort of thing can happen because there are dirty people out there who make these kinds of spyware and malware programs. The prosecutors should spend their time charging them instead of a clueless substitute teacher.
I have had a similar experience with pop-ups on my home computer years ago. I was visiting a site totally unrelated to pornography and a pop-up came showing porn. When I hastily clicked the X to remove it about a hundred other pornographic pop-ups began flooding my computer screen. I ended up having to unplug the computer because its was locking it up.
My father has also had a similar experience at our public library when someone who had previously been using the computer left pornographic pop-ups on the screen. He tried clicking X and more pop-ups flooded the screen. He ended up going to find one of the librarians who took care of turning off and restarting the machine. He may not have been as clueless as Mrs. Amero but he certainly didn't want to damage or violate library policy by turning off the library's computer himself.
Julie Amero obviously felt the same way about respecting other people's property so instead of unplugging it and chancing that she would damage it by doing so she got someone who would be qualified to make such a decision. She clearly didn't know if it would hurt the computer or not to turn it off and did the only thing she could reasonably do, get help.
Yet these idiotic people want to punish her for it.
Source
Friday, February 09, 2007
The Third Question Answered
In an earlier post I discussed the nature of God. There were three main questions/objections posed to his existence. I answered the first two then but left third for a later time. The problem of evil is what I will discuss here in this post.
How can God allow evil to exist and even be responsible for its creation if He is an omni-benevolent God?
A common response to this question is that God did not create evil but Satan did. The classic comeback to that statement is God is omniscient and would have known that Satan would create evil and, therefor, by proxy be party to its creation.
This thinking that God could do something evil is wrong headed. I originally thought this problem would be much more complicated but it is not. God could not have committed an evil act when creating evil because it doesn't follow logically. If God created evil then the act of doing so would predate evil's existence and therefore not be subject to being considered an evil act.
That solves the part of the question involving the creation of evil but now we are left with, "Why would God allow evil to continue to exist?"
The answer to this seems a little more complicated. The simplest explanation would be that it is required for evil to exist in order for there to be such a thing as good. Without evil humanity could not recognize the good. This is slightly problematic thought since now that evil exists the question becomes "But isn't God committing an evil act by allowing evil to exist?"
The answer to that is much more difficult. I would think that the answer is no. Otherwise we are all committing an unbelievable number of evil acts by not helping others simply because we have the ability to. The U.S. has the amount of wealth necessary to end starvation and cure disease in Africa but in order to do so we would have to give most of it up. The average American is not willing to do this. U.S. citizens are, for the most part, not responsible for all the evil things happening to others around the world but we refrain from interfering to stop them from occurring. This is in the same vain as God not interfering to end all evil even though he has the ability to. There seems to me to be more to the world than just good and evil or there are maybe more types of good and evil. Not causing evil could be said to be good but interfering to stop evil can also be said to be good. The question here is "Is putting an end to evil a greater act of good than simply refraining from committing evil acts?"
If the answer is yes then while God is good allowing evil to continue to exist is not the greatest possible good act available to Him. However, it is not evil so He can still be considered to be omni-benevolent. One would like to think that God exemplifies the highest possible good and allowing evil to exist when there is a greater possible good in eliminating it makes Him seem less great. However, evil is necessary for good so it may be that He is justified in not eliminating it and is thereby engaging in the greatest possible good by allowing it to continue to exist. Humanity on the other hand has no possible objection on the grounds of necessity to not choose the greater of the two goods and help others as much as they possibly can. The only answer to humanity's faults is that we are human and not angels or God. There is a good argument here that we should try to be though. There does not seem to be a straight answer to why God or humanity should not do the greatest good possible. It is also conceivable that there is nothing in this universe but good and evil and I am wrong in assuming that there is something other or more than one type of good. If this is the case, then I see no way to say that God is omni-benevolent since allowing evil to exist does not seem to be an act of great goodness and more closely resembles evil if there is no neutrality.
How can God allow evil to exist and even be responsible for its creation if He is an omni-benevolent God?
A common response to this question is that God did not create evil but Satan did. The classic comeback to that statement is God is omniscient and would have known that Satan would create evil and, therefor, by proxy be party to its creation.
This thinking that God could do something evil is wrong headed. I originally thought this problem would be much more complicated but it is not. God could not have committed an evil act when creating evil because it doesn't follow logically. If God created evil then the act of doing so would predate evil's existence and therefore not be subject to being considered an evil act.
That solves the part of the question involving the creation of evil but now we are left with, "Why would God allow evil to continue to exist?"
The answer to this seems a little more complicated. The simplest explanation would be that it is required for evil to exist in order for there to be such a thing as good. Without evil humanity could not recognize the good. This is slightly problematic thought since now that evil exists the question becomes "But isn't God committing an evil act by allowing evil to exist?"
The answer to that is much more difficult. I would think that the answer is no. Otherwise we are all committing an unbelievable number of evil acts by not helping others simply because we have the ability to. The U.S. has the amount of wealth necessary to end starvation and cure disease in Africa but in order to do so we would have to give most of it up. The average American is not willing to do this. U.S. citizens are, for the most part, not responsible for all the evil things happening to others around the world but we refrain from interfering to stop them from occurring. This is in the same vain as God not interfering to end all evil even though he has the ability to. There seems to me to be more to the world than just good and evil or there are maybe more types of good and evil. Not causing evil could be said to be good but interfering to stop evil can also be said to be good. The question here is "Is putting an end to evil a greater act of good than simply refraining from committing evil acts?"
If the answer is yes then while God is good allowing evil to continue to exist is not the greatest possible good act available to Him. However, it is not evil so He can still be considered to be omni-benevolent. One would like to think that God exemplifies the highest possible good and allowing evil to exist when there is a greater possible good in eliminating it makes Him seem less great. However, evil is necessary for good so it may be that He is justified in not eliminating it and is thereby engaging in the greatest possible good by allowing it to continue to exist. Humanity on the other hand has no possible objection on the grounds of necessity to not choose the greater of the two goods and help others as much as they possibly can. The only answer to humanity's faults is that we are human and not angels or God. There is a good argument here that we should try to be though. There does not seem to be a straight answer to why God or humanity should not do the greatest good possible. It is also conceivable that there is nothing in this universe but good and evil and I am wrong in assuming that there is something other or more than one type of good. If this is the case, then I see no way to say that God is omni-benevolent since allowing evil to exist does not seem to be an act of great goodness and more closely resembles evil if there is no neutrality.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
What can you expect from people who threw perfectly good tea overboard?
Its amazing to me just how stupid people can be when they are fed propaganda day and night instilling an unreasonable fear of terrorism. Take a look at the things that caused all the problems in Boston this week. Link
It doesn't look like a bomb to me. Besides, what terrorist is stupid enough to put flashing lights on his IED (Improvised Explosive Device) to attract attention to it? Surely, any good terrorist wouldn't want people to notice that he's placed a bomb so that no one tries to escape it. On a more interesting not the media is editing the image of the cartoon in the pictures so as to make it more presentable to the public. I find this highly unethical. If you show an image it should be as it originally was or you are distorting how the public sees reality. Its just wrong to do that. If you'd prefer not to show it period thats fine but if you show it it better be unchanged.
The supposed "bombs" were placed two to three weeks ago in ten cities including Boston and only just late this week got noticed as suspicious. Obviously, no one thought they were a problem for a few weeks and the other cities didn't consider them a threat at all. This whole mess is a result of overactive imaginations on the part of Boston officials. They should just admit they made a bad judgment call and leave the poor guys who set up the cartoon billboards alone. Its really nice that Turner Broadcasting offered to pay for the city's expenses since I don't think they are liable for a public official's stupidity.
The lesson to take out of this is cartoons do not equal bombs. Stop being paranoid, accept your mistakes, and move on. Good Luck to Peter Berdovsky, 27, and Sean Stevens, 28, in getting the charges dropped. This whole thing is ridiculous.
Link
It doesn't look like a bomb to me. Besides, what terrorist is stupid enough to put flashing lights on his IED (Improvised Explosive Device) to attract attention to it? Surely, any good terrorist wouldn't want people to notice that he's placed a bomb so that no one tries to escape it. On a more interesting not the media is editing the image of the cartoon in the pictures so as to make it more presentable to the public. I find this highly unethical. If you show an image it should be as it originally was or you are distorting how the public sees reality. Its just wrong to do that. If you'd prefer not to show it period thats fine but if you show it it better be unchanged.
The supposed "bombs" were placed two to three weeks ago in ten cities including Boston and only just late this week got noticed as suspicious. Obviously, no one thought they were a problem for a few weeks and the other cities didn't consider them a threat at all. This whole mess is a result of overactive imaginations on the part of Boston officials. They should just admit they made a bad judgment call and leave the poor guys who set up the cartoon billboards alone. Its really nice that Turner Broadcasting offered to pay for the city's expenses since I don't think they are liable for a public official's stupidity.
The lesson to take out of this is cartoons do not equal bombs. Stop being paranoid, accept your mistakes, and move on. Good Luck to Peter Berdovsky, 27, and Sean Stevens, 28, in getting the charges dropped. This whole thing is ridiculous.
Link
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
The N Word
Before I launch into discussing the topic I'd like to make excuses for my long absence from writing. I have been busy for a while now but in addition to that I haven't felt it was worth repeating myself again and again in response to new world events. Much of what is going on in the world is still more of the same as it was the last time I wrote. I've also been having a bit of writer's block and several things I've started writing I haven't finished. If you are easily offended by bad words you may wish not to read this. I've refrained from using the main work in question out of courtesy to others who may be sensitive even though this righting is strictly academic. There are several other words I use in full which may or may not also offend but are also discussed in a strictly academic manner. You have been given warning. Now on with the real topic.
As I'm sure you all know Michael Richards made racist remarks to some people while performing at a club. This sparked some justified outrage among other people as it very well should. The patrons to which Mr. Richards made his comments were disrupting the atmosphere surrounding his performance. This quite justifiably was upsetting to him but does not justify the comments he made. However, it does make logical sense that if someone makes one angry enough that one would wish to say something to that person which would hurt them as much as is possible. Hence, why it makes sense that to insult and demean a person of African origin one would call them the N word. Just because it follows logically to use racial slurs does not mean it is right to use them. What interested me the most after watching a segment of the video of this scene was that one of the individuals who Mr. Richards had referred to by the N word responded to him by using a racial slur for someone of Caucasian origin, Cracker. One might be inclined to view this individual as no better in behavior than Mr. Richards. But surely he was only responding in kind because he was angry. Then again that was Mr. Richards' excuse. So it should be said that no racial slur is justifiably appropriate at any time. An eye for an eye solves nothing even if it is logical.
Another subject of related interest is the use of the N word by individuals of African origin referring to people like themselves to which it would have once, and still sometimes is, applied. It is unfathomable to me why one would use a derogatory word to refer to oneself but be outraged when someone of a different racial background uses it. No one should use the N word if only to keep people from demeaning themselves.
Why do we display such anger towards racial slurs and not nearly so much towards other derogatory terms? Words like bastard, asshole, jerk, nerd, geek, bitch, and slut. There is really no difference between the N word and these words when used in anger to demean someone. The N word demeans a person by stating their race is of less worth. Bastard demeans a person by stating their family lineage is of less worth. Asshole and jerk both demean a person by stating their personality and behavior is of less worth. Bitch demeans a person by stating their personality, behavior, and sex is of less worth. Slut demeans an individual by stating that person is of less worth because she engages in a large quantity of sexual behaviors with many individuals. Make no mistake it was made to demean one sex, females. Men get by with the same sort of behavior and no negative social repercussions. Nerd and geek are demeaning to individuals who look and dress a certain way and who may have certain hobbies. Each term is equally demeaning to the group of individuals to which it is applied as the N word is to the group of people it was created to demean. It is inexplicable that the repercussions for using these words to make people feel as if they are less are infinitely less severe. It would be good if the next time everyone hears these words used by someone to hurt others if you were to all ask yourselves "How is the basic behavior behind using these words any different than using the N word to describe a different group of people?"
As I'm sure you all know Michael Richards made racist remarks to some people while performing at a club. This sparked some justified outrage among other people as it very well should. The patrons to which Mr. Richards made his comments were disrupting the atmosphere surrounding his performance. This quite justifiably was upsetting to him but does not justify the comments he made. However, it does make logical sense that if someone makes one angry enough that one would wish to say something to that person which would hurt them as much as is possible. Hence, why it makes sense that to insult and demean a person of African origin one would call them the N word. Just because it follows logically to use racial slurs does not mean it is right to use them. What interested me the most after watching a segment of the video of this scene was that one of the individuals who Mr. Richards had referred to by the N word responded to him by using a racial slur for someone of Caucasian origin, Cracker. One might be inclined to view this individual as no better in behavior than Mr. Richards. But surely he was only responding in kind because he was angry. Then again that was Mr. Richards' excuse. So it should be said that no racial slur is justifiably appropriate at any time. An eye for an eye solves nothing even if it is logical.
Another subject of related interest is the use of the N word by individuals of African origin referring to people like themselves to which it would have once, and still sometimes is, applied. It is unfathomable to me why one would use a derogatory word to refer to oneself but be outraged when someone of a different racial background uses it. No one should use the N word if only to keep people from demeaning themselves.
Why do we display such anger towards racial slurs and not nearly so much towards other derogatory terms? Words like bastard, asshole, jerk, nerd, geek, bitch, and slut. There is really no difference between the N word and these words when used in anger to demean someone. The N word demeans a person by stating their race is of less worth. Bastard demeans a person by stating their family lineage is of less worth. Asshole and jerk both demean a person by stating their personality and behavior is of less worth. Bitch demeans a person by stating their personality, behavior, and sex is of less worth. Slut demeans an individual by stating that person is of less worth because she engages in a large quantity of sexual behaviors with many individuals. Make no mistake it was made to demean one sex, females. Men get by with the same sort of behavior and no negative social repercussions. Nerd and geek are demeaning to individuals who look and dress a certain way and who may have certain hobbies. Each term is equally demeaning to the group of individuals to which it is applied as the N word is to the group of people it was created to demean. It is inexplicable that the repercussions for using these words to make people feel as if they are less are infinitely less severe. It would be good if the next time everyone hears these words used by someone to hurt others if you were to all ask yourselves "How is the basic behavior behind using these words any different than using the N word to describe a different group of people?"
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Xfire for Mac
Its been a long time coming but there is finally Xfire for Mac. Just follow these instructions at your own risk.
1. Get Adium version 1.0b8 Note: the newest version is 1.0b9 but it may cause errors with the plugin.
2. Get the plugin here http://www.kaintek.com/?page_id=18
3. If after downloading the plugin it appears as a folder instead of a plugin just make a duplicate of it and rename the duplicate to how it looks without the word copy after its name. It should now appear as a plugin.
4. Double click on the plugin to install it.
5. If you get the (null) (null) error then right-click on the plugin and show package contents. Then follow the folder path Contents/MacOS/ and then right click on xblaze and open with the terminal. This will likely give you an error message but you should now be able to run the Xfire plugin in Adium without getting the (null) (null) error.
6. Enjoy Xfire and your Mac.
1. Get Adium version 1.0b8 Note: the newest version is 1.0b9 but it may cause errors with the plugin.
2. Get the plugin here http://www.kaintek.com/?page_id=18
3. If after downloading the plugin it appears as a folder instead of a plugin just make a duplicate of it and rename the duplicate to how it looks without the word copy after its name. It should now appear as a plugin.
4. Double click on the plugin to install it.
5. If you get the (null) (null) error then right-click on the plugin and show package contents. Then follow the folder path Contents/MacOS/ and then right click on xblaze and open with the terminal. This will likely give you an error message but you should now be able to run the Xfire plugin in Adium without getting the (null) (null) error.
6. Enjoy Xfire and your Mac.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Anyone ever wish the Senate was comprised of pregnant school girls?
What a wonderful day it is today that we should see the senate pass a bill which would throw a person in jail for helping a girl escape abusive parents. This crap abortion bill passed in the senate fails to provide any exemption for anyone helping a girl get an abortion whose parents have abused her. This would stop a girl's grandparents from helping her. The bill does provide a means by which a girl could petition a court to allow her to have an abortion without notifying her parents but this is utterly ridiculous. How is a girl of 13-14 going to get to a courthouse to file any sort of petition? Even if she could walk there in a small town odds are her bloody parents would find out about it. All this bill does is stop anyone from helping someone who has been abused by her bastard of a father/other relative. Who do you think is going to be better at deciding whether or not a girl has abusive parents and should be allowed anonymity? A judge who has never seen her or her grandparents who actually are around at least some of the time? The exemption that was drafted to protect those who help abused girls in these cases was shut down because of evil people who know that since the Judge has no clue what is going on he/she will always decide the parents should be informed. Adults have an unerring propensity for believing in other adults over whatever children have to say. There is simply no good reason why people who help others should have to face criminal charges for doing so.
Reference
Reference
Monday, July 24, 2006
What is it worth to you not to have bombs dropped on your head?
People never cease to amaze me with their idiotic behavior. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when you hold two people capitive that their government is going to do everything it can to release them. Most likely this involves beating you into submission by any means possible. Hezbollah are a bunch of idiots and should be looked upon with disgust. They could end this war in Lebonan right now if they'd hand over the two soldiers they took prisoner. Instead they still keep the soldiers prisoner and kill Israeli civilians while letting lebanese civilians die because their hideouts are mixed right into populated areas. I sincerely hope people supporting them figure out that it really does more harm than good. It'd save a lot of lives.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Searches without Warning
The Supreme Court decided today that it is ok for Police to search homes without knocking or giving some form of warning before entering. I am perfectly ok with this since I don't think this violates the Constitution as a form of unreasonable search. In the case in question the police did have a warrant. Throwing out evidence from cases in which the police failed to announce themselves is absurd because it has nothing to do with whether or not a suspect committed a crime. I do wish to point out that this ruling may cause future problems when the police barge into someone's home unannounced. Suppose the police have the wrong house and just run right in and the homeowner thinks he is under attack and kills a police officer in what he perceives to be self defense. I can envision lawsuits where the police have shot an innocent man dead because he was defending his rights. It may be useful to police to sometimes not knock before entering but they should in most cases still do this anyway and be very sure of what they are doing when they use this new freedom of theirs.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Only Partially Free Speech
"A closely divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that government whistle-blowers are not protected by free-speech rights when they face employer discipline for trying to expose possible misconduct at work."-UPDATE 1-U.S. court rules no whistle-blower free-speech right By James Vicini
Source
"Adopting the position of the Los Angeles prosecutor's office and the U.S. Justice Department, the high court ruled that a public employee has no First Amendment right in speech expressed as part of performing job-required duties."-UPDATE 1-U.S. court rules no whistle-blower free-speech right By James Vicini
Source
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Learn English
I cannot fathom why anyone would be against requiring immigrants to learn English. If someone comes here and doesn't learn the language then they are forever in a huge sea of the unknown as people converse around them. It would be a great idea, though by no means a should be a requirement, if they could learn it even before they come. It would make their lives a million times easier. I heard some liberals crying out that the bill was based on prejudice towards illegal aliens and even legal immigrants from Mexico. You can't change your ethnicity but you can learn English. It makes no logical sense to call it prejudiced when one can actually change something about one's self and learn the language. It isn't logical to move to China and expect them all to learn English for you either. Its even a bit arrogant and insulting if one believes everyone in a country should learn another language for one's self. America is a meltingpot of people who all have shared two things throughout history. That being a common language which brings them together and a desire for the rights and freedoms of this country. Having more than one language is devicive. This bill helps ensure Americans all understand each other in a mutual language and become united in that understanding.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
The Great Wall of Mexico
There seems to be a growing debate about what should be done about the growing number of illegal aliens in the U.S. There are two ways to fix this. The first is to let them in and the second is to keep them out. I personally would prefer that they be allowed to stay on the provision that they are all accounted for by having records, paying taxes, etc. I'm happy with such an open door immigration policy. What I can't stand for are unregistered illegal aliens. They work here, don't pay taxes, and undercut the salaries of legal citizens who work here. Essentially they are stealing from the government and the citizens of this country. I realize that even allowing all of them to come here legally likely won't stop them from coming here illegally anyway. Any illegal alien who becomes legal is likely to get fired by the greedy scum employing them and replaced by another illegal. What is needed is strict penalties for employing illegals to stick up for their rights and the rights of our citizens to be treated fairly and given proper salaries. By this I mean forget just fines and go with jail time. The best way to enforce fair salaries and ensure people aren't fired for doing the right thing and becoming legal is to make sure the only way into this country is the legal way. That means guarding the border. Too bad President Bush sent all our troops to Iraq to guard its border instead of ours. The more of the Guard that is Guarding our border the better. The more illegal aliens we keep out the more likely we'll be able to keep out any terrorists trying to cross the same way. What's the argument about defending people's rights to fair wages and not to be blown up by terrorists? Defend the border and let everyone in the only way, the legal way.
Monday, May 08, 2006
What? Did Someone Make a Caricature of Him too?
Cardinal Francis Arinze, a Nigerian who was considered a candidate for pope last year, made his strong comments in a documentary called "The Da Vinci Code-A Masterful Deception."
Arinze's appeal came some 10 days after another Vatican cardinal called for a boycott of the film. Both cardinals asserted that other religions would never stand for offences against their beliefs and that Christians should get tough.
"Christians must not just sit back and say it is enough for us to forgive and to forget," Arinze said in the documentary made by Rome film maker Mario Biasetti for Rome Reports, a Catholic film agency specializing in religious affairs.
"Sometimes it is our duty to do something practical. So it is not I who will tell all Christians what to do but some know legal means which can be taken in order to get the other person to respect the rights of others," Arinze said.
"This is one of the fundamental human rights: that we should be respected, our religious beliefs respected, and our founder Jesus Christ respected," he said, without elaborating on what legal means he had in mind.
- Cardinal urges legal action against Da Vinci Code By Philip Pullella
For some reason the way this cardinal reacted to the Da Vinci Code reminds me of a bunch of Muslim's after those Muhammad caricatures were published. I absolutely love how he professes that it is a fundamental human right not to have one's Christian beliefs questioned. The only fundamental right that remotely comes close to what he professes is in the first amendment and that only allows for the free exercise of religion. There is nothing in the first amendment that says one has to respect another religion only that the believers of it are allowed to worship. For instance, suppose there is a mosque of Muslims who believe the people murdered in the WTO got what they deserved because they were infidels. Am I going to respect their beliefs? Hell no. Do I believe they still have the right to worship Allah since they as of yet haven't gone out and martyred anyone? Yes they may worship Him as they see fit. The most idiotic statement this cardinal makes is that Christians shouldn't forgive and forget. If I remember correctly there is a whole lot of advice in the Bible professing forgiveness. I think the cardinal needs to read through it again before he opens his mouth and makes himself look foolish a second time.
Source
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Teaching Creationism: Listen to Europe and Just Say No
"The Archbishop of Canterbury opposes teaching creationism in school and believes that portraying the Bible as just another theory devalues it,"- from Anglican Leader Says the Schools Shouldn't Teach Creationism By Sarah Lyall
"For most of the history of Christianity, there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time," - The Archbishop of Canterbury from Anglican Leader Says the Schools Shouldn't Teach Creationism By Sarah Lyall
Apparently, certain American Christians do not have this awareness the good Archbishop speaks of. The Archbishop is correct that by making the Bible a theory it is downgraded. A theory in science can be disproved and is constantly open to questioning. This is not the realm the Bible should be in. It should stay in the realm of religion. So to all those who want to teach it in public schools I say "No".
If you happen to be Catholic please listen to the Vatican: "In January the official Vatican newspaper said a decision by a judge in Pennsylvania that intelligent design should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution was "correct.""- from Anglican Leader Says the Schools Shouldn't Teach Creationism By Sarah Lyall
I hope the other Christians in America see the logic in keeping the Bible in the realm of religion and not as questionable scientific theory. Just say no to creationism in schools.
Source
"For most of the history of Christianity, there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time," - The Archbishop of Canterbury from Anglican Leader Says the Schools Shouldn't Teach Creationism By Sarah Lyall
Apparently, certain American Christians do not have this awareness the good Archbishop speaks of. The Archbishop is correct that by making the Bible a theory it is downgraded. A theory in science can be disproved and is constantly open to questioning. This is not the realm the Bible should be in. It should stay in the realm of religion. So to all those who want to teach it in public schools I say "No".
If you happen to be Catholic please listen to the Vatican: "In January the official Vatican newspaper said a decision by a judge in Pennsylvania that intelligent design should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution was "correct.""- from Anglican Leader Says the Schools Shouldn't Teach Creationism By Sarah Lyall
I hope the other Christians in America see the logic in keeping the Bible in the realm of religion and not as questionable scientific theory. Just say no to creationism in schools.
Source
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Does Anyone Think they Fired the Wrong Guy?
"Ray Nagin, New Orleans mayor, said on Wednesday night he was shocked by video showing President George W. Bush being told the day before Hurricane Katrina hit that the city’s protective levees could fail. The tape contradicts the president’s statement four days after the hurricane struck: “I don’t think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees.”- Reuters: Bush ‘warned day before Katrina struck’
Source
"Trent Duffy, White House spokesman, said the tape was misleading. 'It seems to me to suggest that the president was not fully engaged in the response to Hurricane Katrina. The president was fully engaged and involved in meetings on the response,' he said."- Reuters: Bush ‘warned day before Katrina struck’
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
