Category: Society

Posted on
by

I’m glad I waited a day to write this up, now there’s a little more to talk about.  We now know a little bit more.  Apparently, a South Korean born legal resident, undergraduate of Virginia Tech, was the shooter.

I said I was going to talk about the mind of a killer, but I think everyone knows why he did it.  Simple enough, he had serious problems.  Teachers have said he wrote rather violent stories in English class.  Then he left a rather depressing note before he went off to do his deeds yesterday.  And it makes sense.  In all the recent situations where people have done mass killings, there seems to be a mental component to the reason they did it.  Whether they don’t know right or wrong, or are depressed and suicidal (as seems to be the case here), I think it can only take a person who has serious mental issues to do something like this.  Whether it’s Timothy McVeigh, this guy, or Saddam Hussein, they all have to be sick in the mind to ever contemplate this.  The same is also true of serial killers.  They may not kill many at once, but they do kill many, whether because they like it or otherwise.

I’m not saying all killers have serious problems.  Certainly there are enough that are motivated by simple jealousy or anger. Yet, those people don’t seem to go around killing anybody they can find; those murders are usually limited to a few.  However, I think yesterday has shown that there is a real problem here in America.  I’m not saying we should legislate an outright ban on guns.  I don’t take advantage of my second amendment right by buying a gun, but I also don’t think it should be gotten rid of entirely.  However, more can be done.

First, we need to make it more difficult to get a gun.  That said, a mere background check for prior violent crimes alone just isn’t going to do it.  I got some ire out of the American crowd at the last place I suggested this, but I think we need a way for our medical professionals to determine who is really a threat to others/themselves, and then let the authorities know this.  Now, I know that the doctor-patient privacy laws are something that we cherish.  I’m not saying that the person with a learning disability or ADD should be marked.  Nor am I saying that all the details of a patient’s case should be revealed.  What I’m saying is that we need some way to let a weapons seller know that a potential buyer may have an ongoing mental problem or some sort, whether it be a long standing, well documented case of depression or suicidal thoughts, or whether somebody has admitted to a shrink that they’ve thought about killing people.

Now, I know the liberals are going to scream “taking away my rights!”  However, I think it is necessary that the authorities and weapons sellers know to whom they are selling.  If there is not an issue, then fine, they can get a gun.  But, if there is, checking for a problem after the person has already killed somebody does little to help.  It’s basically 20/20 hindsight and saying, “Oops, maybe they shouldn’t have gotten a gun.”  America needs a pro-active way to eliminate gun crimes, without resorting to ending the right to own one.

Not that my idea is without problems.  Some people simply cannot afford health care, so their mental problems may never become known.  Others may never visit the psychiatrist to figure out their issues.  So, it is true that people will fall through the cracks.  However, I think some is better than none.  Take what we have already, such as background check for prior crimes, and augment that with a non-invasive way of figuring out if a buyer is a problem before they go around killing somebody.  That may not stop all gun crimes completely, but I think that it would stop a lot of the mass shootings that happen.

Of course, there is more that we can do to stop gun crimes.  We need to do more to eliminate poverty, and other conditions that are breeding grounds for crime.  We need to restructure a system that ostracizes the poor for being that way, instead of helping them up from their condition.  That way, hopefully those stricken by poverty won’t have to resort to crime or joining a gang in order to make money.  There’s a lot we can do to stop gun crimes.  My idea is not perfect, and I admit it.  But, it is an idea, rather than sitting around with the same old system, just because we value our second amendment and our privacy so damn much.

Wow, that was much longer than I intended, but I’m happy I got it out.  Please, I invite you to comment with your opinions and comments on the Virgina Tech shootings, and the issue of gun control.  And please don’t worry about disagreeing with me.  As long as your comment is civil, it will appear.

Posted on
by

I apologize in advance to anyone who might be offended at this, but I have to share. So, we’re talking about the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment in my Comm Law & Ethics class today. At the end of class, the professor gave us a copy of a New York Times article from 2005, which goes over three differently written versions of the commandments: one in the form of poetry, one that is more or less summarized (I guess for kids), and one that shows how they might be sent in today’s increasingly popular text message technology. Here they are:

3 Do not worship NE god but me
4 Do do make idols dat look like NEtin in da sky or on earth or in da ocean unda da earth
5 dun bow down & worship idols. I am da LORD ur God, & I eem & all ur luv. If u reject me, I will punish ur families 4 3 or 3 generations.
6 But if u luv me & obey my laws I will be kind 2 ur families 4 thous&s of generations.
7 Do not misuse my name. I am da LORD ur God, & I will punish ne1 who misuses my name.
8 Remember dat da Sabbath day belongs 2 me.
9 u have 6 days when u can do ur work,
10 but da 7th day of each week belongs 2 me, ur God. No 1 is 2 work on dat day-not u, ur children, ur slaves, ur animals, or da 4ingers who live in ur towns.
11 In 6 days I made da sky, da earth, da oceans, & evrything in dem, but on the 7th day I rested. Dat’s y I made da Sabbath a special day dat belongs 2 me.
12 Respect ur father & ur mother, & u will live a long time in da l7 I am givin u.
13 Do not murder.
14 Be faithful in marriage.
15 Do not steal.
16 Do not tell lies about others.
17 Do not want NEthing dat belongs 2 sum1 else. Dun want ne1’s house, wife, hus&, slaves, bullocks, donkeys, or NEtin else.

Maybe not so much laughable as passably amusing. Hey, I humor easily.

Posted on
by

I’ve read the books in my room so many times, it was starting to get boring. Recently, I found Dan Brown’s Digital Fortress in the table outside the editing lab, so I picked it up and read it. So, now I’m done with that and need something else to read. So, I’m changing my perspective a bit. For a long time now, I have tended to limit myself to science fiction and fantasy books, and while I’m definitely not done with them, I’ve decided to take a break from them. Thus, last night I ordered two non-fiction books by a couple prominent authors.

The first book is Culture Warrior by Bill O’Reilly. Yea, yea, I know what you’re probably thinking, but I’ve been watching his show for some time now, and would like to see what all the (mostly self created) hype is about. I know I’m not going to agree with a lot of it, but I’d like to see what’s going on in his mind. But, you can’t make up your own mind without reading and learning other views. So, to do that, and partially to repent for my sins, I also ordered The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama. So, I’m going to have fun reading those books for a while.

The second topic of the day is one concerning yet another book series, Harry Potter. For those of you who don’t follow news regarding these books, Laura Mallory, a mother from Loganville, Georgia, has been protesting the addition of these books to her children’s school library, claiming they promote and teach kids witchcraft. She hasn’t read the books, but that’s not stopping her from going on a crusade. She’s lost her case with the county board of education, and state BOE, but she’s still going to appeal. I guess I admire her perseverance and her ability to stick to her convictions, but I still think Laura Mallory is an idiot. The Harry Potter books teach witchcraft about as much as your friendly card-flipping magician (I wonder if she keeps her kids away from them, too). She’s clearly using religion as a reason for censorship. Harry Potter teaching witchcraft? Come on. Really, now. GET A HOBBY. Stop your mission to bar kids from reading arguably one of the greatest book series of this generation. You want to stop kids from reading good books? Insanity.
Continue reading →

Posted on
by

CNN has run this article about Virgina Congressman Virgil Goode’s letter to constituents opposing the use of the Muslim Quran for the swearing-in ceremony for lawmakers. He also warns that we’ll have more Muslim immigrants in the next century if the U.S. does not adopt tougher immigration policies.

Now, as I’ve said before, I’m for making standards more uniform and tougher, but fair. People coming to this country should be here to live and work and contribute here. I don’t support illegal immigration – they should get in line like everybody else. There’s even Permanent Residency, though I also think anyone wanting to live here permanently should be going for citizenship within 10 years or so.

However, I fail to see what Muslim immigration has to do with a native born citizen lawmaker swearing in. I also oppose his position on the process of swearing in. If someone is not a Christian, I have no problem with them using their own religious document to do the ceremony, any more than why I wouldn’t see a problem with a Jewish lawmaker using the Torah to swear in. Someone shouldn’t be forced to do things the same way when it comes to religion, just because it’s “tradition.” On that note, anybody know what Lieberman used to swear in? If he used the Torah, I’d like to shove that under Goode’s nose. So, yes, we are a society largely defined by Judeo-Christian values. But, we also have a little thing called religious tolerance. No, that doesn’t mean you have to agree with that religion. But, you have to accept that it’s here, and here to stay. So, yes, people following a different religion from yours will do some things differently in terms of being a good member of that faith.

Imagine that. People being free to live their own lives how they see fit. Disgraceful, huh?

Posted on
by

This blog post is different than others I’ve done. Unlike the Clash of Civilizations, which started off as a blog post and then became a class paper, this started off as a class paper, and I’m just now posting it to the blog. I think CoC is better work, but I want to post this anyway.

The role of “national identity” has an important part in shaping American security policy since World War II. The norms and values of this nation have defined how we want to see the rest of the world. Therefore, anything that has been perceived as vastly different from the identity of the nation has been deemed first as foreign to the people of the nation, and at the level of government, a possible threat. Since the end of the war, there have two major areas of security policies: dealing with communist and middle eastern states.

The first major threat after the war was the rise of communism. Here we have several new regimes popping up that are just about as different from the U.S. as possible. No more capitalist system, state-run industry on everything, a promised sharing of wealth, and to top it off, totalitarian leaders. Everything that is just about direct opposite of what Americans identify themselves as, capitalist and democratic. So, a national security policy is adopted that generally opposes these states, and one that works to eventually see a change in the regime that runs them. However, the policy was more confrontational than hands-on, because of the problem of nuclear weapons. They wanted to change the system, but not incite violence, or the problem would just increase. Hence why it never turned into a “hot war.” In the end, through persistence, among other factors, communism fell, and that problem ended.

The threat of the current day is Islamic terrorism, and those states that support it, or would work to cause violence in the world. Again, the problem boils down to those states that go against American values, particularly democracy. In this case, the government saw a need to directly intervene and act in a very hands-on way to solve the problem. The first case was in response to direct attack by terrorists who were supported by Afghanistan, and the next case because of the allegation of weapons of mass destruction. They were invaded, and new regimes are currently undergoing development.

This seems to represent another aspect of American identity, wanting to directly change things that also affect us. In World War II, we were relatively neutral until we were attacked. We may never have gotten involved if we were not affected. Then, in the Cold War, we were constantly under a perceived threat, but never directly affected, so no direct action against communist states was really ever taken (yes, I know of the exceptions, like the Bay of Pigs). Yet, here we were attacked, and the government decided that it needed to go on a mission of spreading democracy, to prevent weapons of mass destruction from being used. There have been exceptions, of course, like Vietnam, Korea, and the first Gulf War, but generally, but in terms of threats that affect us, we tend not to get involved unless we have to. So, our strong national identity of wanting to see democratic values throughout the world has shaped the U.S.’s security policies, which have been implemented in different ways depending on the situation.

Posted on
by

I am back up at school now, and among other classes, I’m taking one called “Culture and National Security.” For our first reading assignment, the professor gave us a text copy of an interview from a television show called Think Tank with Ben Watterberg. The episode, entitled “When Cultures Collide” features an interview with Samuel Huntington, known for his theory that post-Cold War conflicts would no longer feature nation-states, but rather civilizations. The basic thesis is that no longer will two or more nation-states, say the United States and Russia, battle for ideological dominance in the world, but rather that this fight will return to clashes rooted in antiquity, say Christianity against Islam, or Western values against the value system from other parts of the world.

I like to think that Huntington’s theory is starting to prove true. Yes, the current conflicts of our time officially have been the U.S. (and its allies) against Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and to a small extent, Cuba (though we don’t actively engage them in conflict anymore), but for most of these conflicts, I think it represents something deeper. The Korea and Cuba conflicts are still ideological for the most part, but what about that of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran? Here we have three countries where the norms and traditions are very foreign to somebody who lives in a Western nation. There are traditions and laws that somebody coming from the Americas or Europe might consider old fashioned, sexist, racist, or just plain barbaric. The fact that many do not understand the differences and why they exist already place a barrier between us and them, without creating any physical conflict at all. Likewise, people in the predominantly-Muslim nations may view our culture as something they do not understand.
Continue reading →

Posted on
by

I should have known, when I saw the CNN article referenced in the last entry, that the subject of polygamy would be brought up again by the media. Sure enough, CNN’s Anderson Cooper has a whole special on his show tonight about it. Of course, you can’t speak polygamy without somehow including fugitive Warren Jeffs, so he brought in a guy to give an update on the situation.

Must have been precognition that prompted me to write my last entry. Somehow, I must have known somebody was going to cover it this Monday night. Thus, it had to happen.

That is all.

Posted on
by

Update: I should probably have made it a little clearer that I do not support polygamy people like Warren Jeffs, who force people into it. If polygamy is to be accepted, it must be a consensual relationship between adults.

Ever since a series of articles and news stories flooded the media earlier this year about fugitive polygamy cult leader Warren Jeffs, I’ve noticed an increasing number of articles about polygamy and those seeking to have it supported by society (U.S. society, anyway). I didn’t think too much of it at the time, but then I noticed this article tonight.

CNN has an story about a recent polygamy rally in Utah. The main idea is that children of polygamists were speaking out to have their lifestyle supported by the Utah government, and how they are living happy and free lives. One quote in particular caught my attention:

We are not brainwashed, mistreated, neglected, malnourished, illiterate, defective or dysfunctional,” 17-year-old Jessica said. “My brothers and sisters are freethinking, independent people: some who have chosen this lifestyle, while others have branched out to a diversity of religions.

This appears to be a defense either directly or indirectly related to the flood of media attention on Jeffs. For those who don’t know, Warren Jeffs is currently on the run from authorities for committing statutory rape and conspiracy to commit such an act. Jeffs is the self-appointed leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the major religious sect in the U.S. practicing polygamy. Major polygamist communities tend to be clustered out west, especially in Hildale, Utah.

I believe that the attention on Jeffs has definitely brought about some more negative feelings toward something that has been already viewed highly immoral by many. This rally seems to be the polygamists’ and their childrens’ way of trying to reach out to the community around them. However, this may only be the start. One rotton apple can spoil it for the bunch, as they say. I forsee more functions of this type in the future, as polygamists try to get their lifestyle accepted, especially in places like Utah, where it’s illegal.

It definitely has some parallels to the on-going gay-rights movement. A group of people trying to get their lifestyle accepted amongst a sea of people who may or may not accept it. It would definitely be an uphill battle, perhaps moreso than gay rights. This one may be man and women, but here we have multiple woman or multiple men, depending on exactly what type is practiced. I can definitely see how even some in the gay community would be averse to this, a double-whammy, whereas gays only have to battle against heterosexuals for the most part.

Whatever the eventual outcome, these movements seem to go in waves, with the major actions separated by about 40 years or so (yes, I counted). The women civil rights movement in the 20s, the black civil rights movement in the 60s, and now the gay civil rights movement in the 2000s. Will the polygamists have to wait until the 2040’s for their movement? Only time will tell, but I’m guessing they will be the next major social rights movement. I can’t really think of another group that might be up for rallying for their civil rights, so the polygamists naturally seem to be the next (you can correct me in the comments if you wish). So, where am I on this? Well, I can hardly support the gay right movement without supporting their lifestyle, at least from afar. Neither I’d get involved in, but neither I particularly have problems accepting as a way people can live.

What are your views? I invite you to comment, but remember, no attacks.

Posted on
by

Jackie Chan is one of my favorite actors. He has good movies, and is, in my opinion, the master of the comedic martial arts style of film. So, I was happy to hear that he wants to be a good example for kids. I think we all know that most modern Hollywood movies thrive on violence, profanity and sex. It’s what sells; that was the case in the last decade, and I still think it holds true now.

In the midst of these movies come ones with a guy who is defying the standard, bar the violence part, which is still a relief since it isn’t anything gruesome. In all the Jackie Chan movies I’ve seen, he has only sworn a couple times (for comedic purposes), and he doesn’t have sex (well, nothing on screen, there was the scene in Shanghai Noon where he gets married). Not that I’m against these things in movies, if they’re done the right way. It just seems like there was a period where profanity and sex in movies were almost expected, and thrown in for no other reason than trying to get more money at the box office. So, the fact that Chan refuses to do these things is something refreshing.

The fact is, Chan doesn’t need (gruesome) violence, sex, or profanity in his movies. The skills he already has, and in the comedic style he uses these skills, is enough to draw a crowd. Just look at Rush Hour and Rush Hour 2. Two big successes, and his other movies, while not generating as great a return, show that will have a following for years to come.

Posted on
by

I know that racism is still rampant in America, but it’s still sad to see it, hear about it, or read about it. Especially when it concerns police officers, who are supposed to be upholding the law.

The Associated Press reported today that for several years, the Chicago department used beatings, electocution, and other methods to worm confessions out of crime suspect, and that most of the people who received this treatment were black. These actions started out as rumors until prosecutors decided to investigate, and investigate they did.

The found that many of the 148 cases they investigated seemed to be true, but they thought they had pretty solid evidence for three of them, except for one problem. A three year statute of limitations on this type of crime. That is, most of the cases happened more than three years ago, so they cannot be prosecuted.

What is a statute of limitations? You hear it a lot in the news, especially in regards to criminal cases. Connecticut residents might remember a few years in the Michael Skakel case that the defense lawyers tried to use the statute of limitations argument to throw out the case. Well, a statute of limitations is basically the amount of time someone has to prosecute on a criminal case or sue on a civil case. After that, the case would be thrown out before it was started. The justification for this is that over time memories fade and evidence becomes unreliable1. In this case, the statute of limitations was three years.

This ticks me off so much. I understand and agree with the justification for the statute of limitations, but why the hell didn’t prosecutors investigate this years ago? You know, when people first started spreading rumors. In the article, it makes mention of how a former official at the Cook County State Attorney’s office could have investigated but did not. I think this story not only shows that racism is still very much kicking in this country, but also underlines the problem with some police officers. How they think they’re above the law and so can do anything they want, because they think there will be no consequences. The fact is, in this case there be no prosecution. Perhaps it is time for Illinois to review their statute of limitations laws, especially in reference to the police.

As well as completely ignoring civil rights and every law on due process, there is a chance some of the people tortured are innocent. I’m sure we’ve all seen stories and documentaries on how well pressured confessions work…not so much. People will tell you anything you want if you threaten them enough, never mind physical harm. So, now there is the chance that some people are in jail for all the wrong reasons.

If there is a bright side to this dymersion, it’s that more and more departments across the country are video taping interrogations. Thus, it will be almost impossible to threaten or beat a confession out of a suspect. Hopefully, in the future, all departments across the country will have this system. It can only help ensure proper due process.

1: Wikpedia: Statute of Limitations