The sign held outside of Planned Parenthood said:
PLEASE PRAY
ABORTIONS ARE
PERFORMED TODAY
And everyone who drove by prayed as hard as they could for speedy abortions.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Academic Freedom or Professorial Intimidation
A sociology professor, who is teaching a course titled "Sociology of Globalization," sent out an email to his University of California at Santa Barbara students in which he compared the Israeli treatment of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to the Holocaust. His class and his university, as well as several Jewish organizations, are calling for him to make a public apology (incidentally, the professor is a practicing Jew himself). The professor is, predictably, citing academic freedom, while his students are arguing that sending out such information through an email, which included images of Jews in concentration camps juxtaposed against images of Palestinians living in Gaza refugee camps, is akin to intimidation. While I agree with the professor's rational about raising this issue as a point of discussion, I wonder if initiating the discussion through email was the wisest course. The article I've linked to does not mention if the prof regularly started discussions through email or if he was using a class listserv. Presumably students were encouraged to respond to the email as a way of discussing the issue, but there is no discussion of whether or not they actually talked about this in class.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Same-Sex Marriage Hurts....
...Beauty Queens.
In the Miss America contest, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, argued that Same-Sex Marriage violated God's law and, as some believe, her answer cost her the contest. You can see a clip from the contest here.
In response, Miss California will be part of an ad campaign by the National Organization for Marriage.
According to Ben Smith at Politico:
If nothing else, we now know that Same-Sex Marriage hurts beauty queens and, consequently, should not be allowed.
In the Miss America contest, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, argued that Same-Sex Marriage violated God's law and, as some believe, her answer cost her the contest. You can see a clip from the contest here.
In response, Miss California will be part of an ad campaign by the National Organization for Marriage.
According to Ben Smith at Politico:
What happens when a young California beauty pageant contestant is asked, "Do you support same-sex marriage?" She is attacked viciously for having the courage to speak up for her truth and her values. But Carrie's courage inspired a whole nation and a whole generation of young people because she chose to risk the Miss USA crown rather than be silent about her deepest moral values. "No Offense" calls gay marriage advocates to account for their unwillingness to debate the real issue: Gay marriage has consequences.
If nothing else, we now know that Same-Sex Marriage hurts beauty queens and, consequently, should not be allowed.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
Things Heard Around the Office
The Unfortunate Statement of the Day: An Office worker and student discuss a professor. The student is upset with the professor though the reason is not given. The student claims that, "lies will be told about me," and the student wants to speak out against the professor to "protect his reputation." The Office worker states that no one really likes him and is a difficult person. Then she states:
I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
"It is very hard to work with gay people. You have to be careful with everything you say. You have to walk on egg shells."
I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Thursday Night Muscial Tribute
Harrogate has long cherished this cover of "Dead Flowers," by The Rolling Stones. Lord knows there are many excellent covers out there, by artists ranging from Ryan Adams to Cowboy Junkies to New Riders of the Purple Sage. And of course, the Stones' original version remains far and away the best version.
But still, this is one hell of a cover here.
And here's another kickass version by the incomparable Shelby Lynne.
But still, this is one hell of a cover here.
And here's another kickass version by the incomparable Shelby Lynne.
The Decline and Fall of American Exceptionalism
During a discussion over torture on This Week, Peggy Noonan delivered the Bizarro World Statement:
Noonan never accounts why the political actors favor torture but the military actors, such as John McCain or a host of Generals, believe it is wrong. Maybe because it is morally wrong; maybe because it is the complete breakdown of individual autonomy; maybe because in its totality, it produces bad information and wastes resources; maybe because it puts the torturer in an unforgivable position; maybe because its use threatens US troops; maybe because there are better methods of interrogation when people who are properly trained engage the prisoner; maybe because that the costs outweigh the benefits, which is the real focus of the Blair public and private discussion on torture (see here and here, or the discussion between torture as a tactic and as a strategy.) But these maybes are never elaborated on as it is best to "walk on by" since, as Slate notes, the arguments supporting the notion that torture works by the torture apologists (Hannity, Levin) do not survive scrutiny, or, the claims survive scrutiny only by those who do not evaluate evidence or do not understand the concept of chronology.
If nothing else, because of these memos, the US needs to have a public debate about the nature of torture even if ideology distorts the debate and even if it brings down the Obama presidency. For far too long public commentators have been able to assert, without evidence, that torture worked. (See Scarborough, Joe, every day on Morning Joe, who avoids a discussion of torture's criminality or unconstitutionality to assert this discussion is the "criminalization of politics." The "rule of law" only applies to sex, I guess.) More information needs to be released, especially in regards to the totality of torture: the damage inflicted, the information received, the escalation of the war, the attempt to create a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And this needs to be public, diminishing the filter of the Mass Media, even if the release of this controversial information diminishes the Obama presidency but restores the Constitution.
Yet, the role of torture by the US in the War on Terror provides an interesting commentary on the nature of language and the shaping of reality by ideology.
Noonan's argument is Reaganesque, especially in the plausible deniability, Iran-Contra sort of way. Something happened, and it appears as if it is bad or unconstitutional. Yet, America is a good nation, or as Reagan stated in his Evil Empire Speech:
I am not one to engage the "decline of civilization" argument, but at the very least, I believe that the US, especially Conservatives in the US, are in a Thucydidean Moment where language loses its meaning and this loss of language threatens the political and social order. If nothing else, "Enhanced Interrogation Technique," especially from a political ideology that despises politically correct language, is nothing more than a corruption of language and thought.
But nothing expresses the Decline and Fall of the America Empire like Fox News. In the clip below, Shepard Smith drops the F-Bombs over torture. "We're America, we don't torture," Shep declares. Well, Shep, the evidence shows we torture. Consequently, the questions remain, who are we? We are no longer good, right Noonan?, (unless we walk away). Does that also mean we are no longer America?
Or, the better version.
"It’s hard for me to look at a great nation issuing these documents and sending them out to the world and thinking, ‘Oh, much good will come of that.’ Sometimes in life you want to keep walking… Some of life has to be mysterious."This quote is a strange confession, admitting that torture is wrong but necessary, as if there could be no other way. It even expresses the limits of personal responsibility as Noonan notes there are some things a person, and a country, must walk away from.
Noonan never accounts why the political actors favor torture but the military actors, such as John McCain or a host of Generals, believe it is wrong. Maybe because it is morally wrong; maybe because it is the complete breakdown of individual autonomy; maybe because in its totality, it produces bad information and wastes resources; maybe because it puts the torturer in an unforgivable position; maybe because its use threatens US troops; maybe because there are better methods of interrogation when people who are properly trained engage the prisoner; maybe because that the costs outweigh the benefits, which is the real focus of the Blair public and private discussion on torture (see here and here, or the discussion between torture as a tactic and as a strategy.) But these maybes are never elaborated on as it is best to "walk on by" since, as Slate notes, the arguments supporting the notion that torture works by the torture apologists (Hannity, Levin) do not survive scrutiny, or, the claims survive scrutiny only by those who do not evaluate evidence or do not understand the concept of chronology.
If nothing else, because of these memos, the US needs to have a public debate about the nature of torture even if ideology distorts the debate and even if it brings down the Obama presidency. For far too long public commentators have been able to assert, without evidence, that torture worked. (See Scarborough, Joe, every day on Morning Joe, who avoids a discussion of torture's criminality or unconstitutionality to assert this discussion is the "criminalization of politics." The "rule of law" only applies to sex, I guess.) More information needs to be released, especially in regards to the totality of torture: the damage inflicted, the information received, the escalation of the war, the attempt to create a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And this needs to be public, diminishing the filter of the Mass Media, even if the release of this controversial information diminishes the Obama presidency but restores the Constitution.
Yet, the role of torture by the US in the War on Terror provides an interesting commentary on the nature of language and the shaping of reality by ideology.
Noonan's argument is Reaganesque, especially in the plausible deniability, Iran-Contra sort of way. Something happened, and it appears as if it is bad or unconstitutional. Yet, America is a good nation, or as Reagan stated in his Evil Empire Speech:
And finally, that shrewdest of all observers of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville, put it eloquently after he had gone on a search for the secret of America's greatness and genius - and he said: "Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the greatness and the genius of America . . . America is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."If the premise is that America is good, hence "American Exceptionalism," then all evidence to the contrary must be overlooked or discarded. We must have a "mystery" and we must "keep walking" if any evidence threatens the social mystery and social hierarchy inside the US.
I am not one to engage the "decline of civilization" argument, but at the very least, I believe that the US, especially Conservatives in the US, are in a Thucydidean Moment where language loses its meaning and this loss of language threatens the political and social order. If nothing else, "Enhanced Interrogation Technique," especially from a political ideology that despises politically correct language, is nothing more than a corruption of language and thought.
But nothing expresses the Decline and Fall of the America Empire like Fox News. In the clip below, Shepard Smith drops the F-Bombs over torture. "We're America, we don't torture," Shep declares. Well, Shep, the evidence shows we torture. Consequently, the questions remain, who are we? We are no longer good, right Noonan?, (unless we walk away). Does that also mean we are no longer America?
Or, the better version.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
File Under: WTF?
According to Andrew Sullivan, this was the logo for the 1973 Catholic Church's Archdiocesan Youth Commission. If anything were to reveal the unconscious, this may be it.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Flat-Earthers on the Highest Court
Well, not FLat-Earthers really. But, something that may be of more importance to members of this blog. According to the WSJ:
Justice Steven's opinion on the matter stems from a moch trial case he was involved with in the 1980s (see the article.) What I want to know is (1) is Justice Stevens an ENglish heretic? and (2) how does one prove his case if you believe Shakespeare did not write the works of Shakespeare?
In his 34 years on the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens has evolved from idiosyncratic dissenter to influential elder, able to assemble majorities on issues such as war powers and property rights. Now, the court's senior justice could be gaining ground on a case that dates back 400 years: the authorship of Shakespeare's plays.
Justice Stevens, who dropped out of graduate study in English to join the Navy in 1941, is an Oxfordian -- that is, he believes the works ascribed to William Shakespeare actually were written by the 17th earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere. Several justices across the court's ideological spectrum say he may be right.
This puts much of the court squarely outside mainstream academic opinion, which equates denial of Shakespeare's authorship with the Flat Earth Society.
"Oh my," said Coppelia Kahn, president of the Shakespeare Association of America and professor of English at Brown University, when informed of Justice Stevens's cause. "Nobody gives any credence to these arguments," she says.
Nonetheless, since the 19th century, some have argued that only a nobleman could have produced writings so replete with intimate depictions of courtly life and exotic settings far beyond England. Dabbling in entertainments was considered undignified, the theory goes, so the author laundered his works through Shakespeare, a member of the Globe Theater's acting troupe.
Over the years, various candidates have attracted prominent supporters. Mark Twain is said to have favored Sir Francis Bacon. Malcolm X preferred King James I. De Vere first was advanced in 1918 by an English schoolmaster named J. Thomas Looney. More recently, thanks in part to aggressive lobbying by a contemporary descendant, Charles Vere, Oxford has emerged as a leading alternate author.
Justice Steven's opinion on the matter stems from a moch trial case he was involved with in the 1980s (see the article.) What I want to know is (1) is Justice Stevens an ENglish heretic? and (2) how does one prove his case if you believe Shakespeare did not write the works of Shakespeare?
Friday, April 17, 2009
Things Heard Around The Office
A few moments ago, I decided it would be best to leave the office and read in the library.
The reason: well, if you must ask I will tell you. While sitting in my office reading, I heard the Administrative Assistant from another Department and a Graduate Student talk about children and race. First, it seems that the Grad. Student and his wife cannot have children for biological reasons. But rather than try all options, the male grad student decided against using an egg donor because, and I quote, "I told me wife if I wanted to do that I would just sleep around." A few moments later, the Secretary and the Grad Students decided it would best to get a puppy instead since if the grad student and his wife were to use an egg donor, it would not be "their" child. Besides, puppies are less aggravating and more rewarding than children.
From this conversation, the pair began to discuss race. Unfortunately, I did not hear the transition from the child- bearing conversation to the race conversation. Yet, all that I can remember about the race conversation is the Secretary's pronnouncement that "whites will be a minority soon. We probably already are."
It is unclear if she meant the country, the state, the city, or the university but does a qualification actually matter? After a few exchanges, she stated that the kids here are a "special group," which means that the minorities here are okay but it is the minorities elsewhere that are the problem. (And, yes, I work at a University where the minority population is very high.) But this is just a terrible statement to make as if this country needs to be a white nation. I though we were all Americans? I am sure that this woman would denounce other forms of identity politics (and she has) unless, of course, it is the politics of her identity.
It has been a charming morning. Just lovely really.
The reason: well, if you must ask I will tell you. While sitting in my office reading, I heard the Administrative Assistant from another Department and a Graduate Student talk about children and race. First, it seems that the Grad. Student and his wife cannot have children for biological reasons. But rather than try all options, the male grad student decided against using an egg donor because, and I quote, "I told me wife if I wanted to do that I would just sleep around." A few moments later, the Secretary and the Grad Students decided it would best to get a puppy instead since if the grad student and his wife were to use an egg donor, it would not be "their" child. Besides, puppies are less aggravating and more rewarding than children.
From this conversation, the pair began to discuss race. Unfortunately, I did not hear the transition from the child- bearing conversation to the race conversation. Yet, all that I can remember about the race conversation is the Secretary's pronnouncement that "whites will be a minority soon. We probably already are."
It is unclear if she meant the country, the state, the city, or the university but does a qualification actually matter? After a few exchanges, she stated that the kids here are a "special group," which means that the minorities here are okay but it is the minorities elsewhere that are the problem. (And, yes, I work at a University where the minority population is very high.) But this is just a terrible statement to make as if this country needs to be a white nation. I though we were all Americans? I am sure that this woman would denounce other forms of identity politics (and she has) unless, of course, it is the politics of her identity.
It has been a charming morning. Just lovely really.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
If Texas Were to Secede...
would you notice?
During one of the April 15th AstroTurf, I mean, grassroots organized Tea-Bagging Parties, sponsored in part by Fox News, Gov. Rick Perry announced to a crowd that since the Bailout presented Constitutional problems, Texas may need to secede from the Union.
But the real focus of his comments have little to do with Texas actually leaving form the Union. While the comments were delivered to feed the passions of the angry base (see some great photos here, here, and here, they make little sense in terms of secession.
Instead, I would argue that the focus of the comments concern Gov. Perry's opponent for the 2010 Gubernatorial race against Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
As we know from previous Texas elections, Perry cannot mistreat Hutchinson just because she is a woman. During the 1990 Gubernatorial race, Clayton Williams refused to shake the hand of Ann Richards after a debate, made a poor decision by telling a rape joke, and as The Houston Chronicle notes, Williams the Rancher compared Richards to his cattle, stating he would "head her and hoof her and drag her through the dirt." During the 2008 Presidential Election, John McCain canceled a fundraiser with Claytie because of these remarks...
Knowing this, the best explanation for Perry's remarks is that he is a showing a sign of strength against Hutchinson. This strength, of course, is Texas talk for manliness. The Huffington Post notes that Hutchinson, "issued a newspaper opinion piece Wednesday criticizing the Democratic-led Congress for spending on the stimulus bill and the $1 trillion appropriations bill." For a conservative Texas audience, this opposition to the stimulus would be similar to waiving a white flag in the air. Translation: Hutchinson writes things in a Newspaper that is biased; Perry proclaims things to a crowd of savage beasts, or, whatever.
In all probability, Perry is not only positioning himself to be the strongest conservative in the state but in the nation. (Calling Sarah Palin: "Are you done with your feud with the Johnson family? Because if you cannot manage your house," the other Conservatives will insinuate, "how can you manage the country?") And if you are a Conservative that cannot proclaim authority, what do you have?
Of course, it is certainly clear that Republicans lost the elections in 2006 and 2008 because they were just not conservative enough and the Country needs more tax cuts. But who can be conservative when you spend your days developing memos allowing the use of torture, torturing people, or defending those who torture? It must be exhausting...
If anything, at least Perry did not stoop down to the actions of his fellow Aggie, Claytie. It is an encouraging sign for women in Texas' politics that they are no longer subject to rape or violence jokes. Progress, we can proclaim!!! Of course, the race is still young and you never know what will happen when the polls say you are losing to a woman in Texas, right Claytie?
Though, returning to the original subject of the post, I wonder what would happen if Texas were to secede. Perry, Or Chuck Norris, could offer some lame argument that the state is "defending the Constitution." Of course, when he, or Norris, acting as President of the Republic sat down to write a new Constitution and making the necessary alterations to the U.S. Constitution (School Prayer, Abortion, mandatory machine guns in every home, banning The New York Times), would the secession then be a treasonous act? If they were to write a new Constitution, they could not be defending the old one. This would be a replay of Luther v. Borden. Well, not really. In fact, they have nothing in common.
But maybe it is time for Texas to leave the Union. And take South Carolina with you. But not North Carolina or Georgia. N.C. is now blue and Georgia has too many NY transplants. Maybe we can give you Alabama and Arkansas but retain Florida. But then, who takes Nebraska? I suppose the North should retain Kansas. And Virginia. But no way should it retain West Virginia. Nope. Never going to happen.
To decide this matter, I think the question you need to ask yourself is, "What has Texas (or South Carolina, etc.) done for me lately?" Then maybe we can get a game of Rock-Paper-Scissors. A tournament perhaps?
The good news for the students in Texas is that if Texas were to leave the Union, they would no longer be ranked 48th in education and they finally could learn real scientific theories, such as Intelligent Falling.
Of well. It is all Obama's fault anyway. The recession, the massive government spending, the unconstitutional power, and the torture all started on January 20th, 2009. Maybe I should have thought more carefully about my vote before this crisis of "competnce" worsens.
Photo from Crooks and Liars.
During one of the April 15th AstroTurf, I mean, grassroots organized Tea-Bagging Parties, sponsored in part by Fox News, Gov. Rick Perry announced to a crowd that since the Bailout presented Constitutional problems, Texas may need to secede from the Union.
But the real focus of his comments have little to do with Texas actually leaving form the Union. While the comments were delivered to feed the passions of the angry base (see some great photos here, here, and here, they make little sense in terms of secession.
Instead, I would argue that the focus of the comments concern Gov. Perry's opponent for the 2010 Gubernatorial race against Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
As we know from previous Texas elections, Perry cannot mistreat Hutchinson just because she is a woman. During the 1990 Gubernatorial race, Clayton Williams refused to shake the hand of Ann Richards after a debate, made a poor decision by telling a rape joke, and as The Houston Chronicle notes, Williams the Rancher compared Richards to his cattle, stating he would "head her and hoof her and drag her through the dirt." During the 2008 Presidential Election, John McCain canceled a fundraiser with Claytie because of these remarks...
Knowing this, the best explanation for Perry's remarks is that he is a showing a sign of strength against Hutchinson. This strength, of course, is Texas talk for manliness. The Huffington Post notes that Hutchinson, "issued a newspaper opinion piece Wednesday criticizing the Democratic-led Congress for spending on the stimulus bill and the $1 trillion appropriations bill." For a conservative Texas audience, this opposition to the stimulus would be similar to waiving a white flag in the air. Translation: Hutchinson writes things in a Newspaper that is biased; Perry proclaims things to a crowd of savage beasts, or, whatever.
In all probability, Perry is not only positioning himself to be the strongest conservative in the state but in the nation. (Calling Sarah Palin: "Are you done with your feud with the Johnson family? Because if you cannot manage your house," the other Conservatives will insinuate, "how can you manage the country?") And if you are a Conservative that cannot proclaim authority, what do you have?
Of course, it is certainly clear that Republicans lost the elections in 2006 and 2008 because they were just not conservative enough and the Country needs more tax cuts. But who can be conservative when you spend your days developing memos allowing the use of torture, torturing people, or defending those who torture? It must be exhausting...
If anything, at least Perry did not stoop down to the actions of his fellow Aggie, Claytie. It is an encouraging sign for women in Texas' politics that they are no longer subject to rape or violence jokes. Progress, we can proclaim!!! Of course, the race is still young and you never know what will happen when the polls say you are losing to a woman in Texas, right Claytie?
Though, returning to the original subject of the post, I wonder what would happen if Texas were to secede. Perry, Or Chuck Norris, could offer some lame argument that the state is "defending the Constitution." Of course, when he, or Norris, acting as President of the Republic sat down to write a new Constitution and making the necessary alterations to the U.S. Constitution (School Prayer, Abortion, mandatory machine guns in every home, banning The New York Times), would the secession then be a treasonous act? If they were to write a new Constitution, they could not be defending the old one. This would be a replay of Luther v. Borden. Well, not really. In fact, they have nothing in common.
But maybe it is time for Texas to leave the Union. And take South Carolina with you. But not North Carolina or Georgia. N.C. is now blue and Georgia has too many NY transplants. Maybe we can give you Alabama and Arkansas but retain Florida. But then, who takes Nebraska? I suppose the North should retain Kansas. And Virginia. But no way should it retain West Virginia. Nope. Never going to happen.
To decide this matter, I think the question you need to ask yourself is, "What has Texas (or South Carolina, etc.) done for me lately?" Then maybe we can get a game of Rock-Paper-Scissors. A tournament perhaps?
The good news for the students in Texas is that if Texas were to leave the Union, they would no longer be ranked 48th in education and they finally could learn real scientific theories, such as Intelligent Falling.
Of well. It is all Obama's fault anyway. The recession, the massive government spending, the unconstitutional power, and the torture all started on January 20th, 2009. Maybe I should have thought more carefully about my vote before this crisis of "competnce" worsens.
Photo from Crooks and Liars.
A little inspiration
And just in case you haven't seen Susan Boyle from "Britains Have Talent," check her out. It is inspirational.
Thursday's Musical Tribute
PW and I don't follow Scrubs as ardently at Harrogate does, but we do occasionally catch the show. Last night, it was on in the background while I wrote about houses in 19th-century American and PW graded. When Ted began singing Outkast's "Hey Ya," we both stopped working and listened intently. This is a great version of the song, which is one of my favorites. I think I might like this one better.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
I know I shouldn't be, but . . .
I'm highly amused by Jamie Foxx's recent comments about Miley Cyrus. Highly amused, I say.
Question of the Day: What is the oddest holiday you celebrate?
Yesterday was Dyngus Day, an Easter Monday celebration. While it carries many aspects of tradition, when growing up I always heard about the bar celebrations where men would chase women around with squirt guns, which are supposed to be filled with Holy Water and the men are to bless the women, and the women chase the men and swat them with pussy willows.
While I really cannot visualize what this represents in the bar culture, it does provide me a chance to ask what is the oddest holiday you celebrate or would like to celebrate, or, what are the oddest traditions of a holiday you celebrate or would like to celebrate?
While I really cannot visualize what this represents in the bar culture, it does provide me a chance to ask what is the oddest holiday you celebrate or would like to celebrate, or, what are the oddest traditions of a holiday you celebrate or would like to celebrate?
Monday, April 13, 2009
Pirates of the Gulf of Aden--the tv show
Hmmm... a Fox reality show on how to choose which employee to fire and now a Spike show on the Navy versus the Pirates (no this isn't pro-sports).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30191814/
What does it mean (if it means anything) that contemporary issues (serious issues at that) can now be turned so quickly into "reality" shows?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30191814/
What does it mean (if it means anything) that contemporary issues (serious issues at that) can now be turned so quickly into "reality" shows?
Friday, April 10, 2009
Bringing guns in classrooms back to the forefront
A few weeks ago, Supa posted that a Texas state legislator had introduced a bill making it legal to carry concealed weapons onto college campuses. This bill is meant ostensibly to give students and professors the opportunity to defend themselves against an armed individual assaulting the campus. I just read an update to this issue, and it looks like the bill is gaining a lot of support. The whole idea behind this seems very reactionary to me. I truly do understand the motivation to protect one's self and to protect others. But it seems to me this is the wrong way to go about it.
My dad is a retired military firefighter, and, thus, he knows a lot men and women who fought in Vietnam, the Gulf War, and in Afghanistan and Iraq. My dad is also a staunch supporter of guns rights, and he initially supported this bill and wanted to various versions passed in other states. He then had a conversation with me and with a young man he worked with who had recently returned from Iraq. I explained that knowing my students had guns wouldn't make me feel any safer; in fact, knowing that anyone I come into contact with on campus could be carrying a concealed weapon legally scares the hell out of me. My dad dismissed most of my comments because, after all, I'm a liberal academic who is in favor of strong gun control. But the young man he worked with had come under heavy fire in Iraq, and when he told my dad he thought laws like this were problematic, my dad listened. This young man argued that having a gun in a situation like the one that recently occured in Binghamton, NY or the one at Virginia Tech isn't going to help people. As he said, he had been trained to use his weapon in combat, but when he was under fire for the first time, he and many of his soldiers were often so frightened and disoriented by the noise and confusion that it took them a few moments to react. Eventually his training kicked in, and he did what he had to do to survive in a war zone. My father has since revised his stance on carrying concealed weapons on college campuses.
Most people carrying guns onto college campuses are not going to be similarly trained, and most are going to be too frightened to "take out" the shooter. Sure, there is a small chance that someone with a gun could save a lot of lives in such a situation, but it seems to me there is great chance for more gun violence on college campuses if such a law is passed.
My dad is a retired military firefighter, and, thus, he knows a lot men and women who fought in Vietnam, the Gulf War, and in Afghanistan and Iraq. My dad is also a staunch supporter of guns rights, and he initially supported this bill and wanted to various versions passed in other states. He then had a conversation with me and with a young man he worked with who had recently returned from Iraq. I explained that knowing my students had guns wouldn't make me feel any safer; in fact, knowing that anyone I come into contact with on campus could be carrying a concealed weapon legally scares the hell out of me. My dad dismissed most of my comments because, after all, I'm a liberal academic who is in favor of strong gun control. But the young man he worked with had come under heavy fire in Iraq, and when he told my dad he thought laws like this were problematic, my dad listened. This young man argued that having a gun in a situation like the one that recently occured in Binghamton, NY or the one at Virginia Tech isn't going to help people. As he said, he had been trained to use his weapon in combat, but when he was under fire for the first time, he and many of his soldiers were often so frightened and disoriented by the noise and confusion that it took them a few moments to react. Eventually his training kicked in, and he did what he had to do to survive in a war zone. My father has since revised his stance on carrying concealed weapons on college campuses.
Most people carrying guns onto college campuses are not going to be similarly trained, and most are going to be too frightened to "take out" the shooter. Sure, there is a small chance that someone with a gun could save a lot of lives in such a situation, but it seems to me there is great chance for more gun violence on college campuses if such a law is passed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)