Well, my second semester of my junior year has started. As usual, I feel unsettled. That may be me just adjusting back to college life, or it could be me adjusting back to college food; either way, it's not comfortable.
I plan on doing several things this semester:
1. Actually reading my assignments.
2. Sleeping more.
3. Being social.
4. Giving a damn.
5. Not doing any of the above.
Either way, I win.
That's all for now,
DF
P.S. Visit here because I told you so. Say I sent you; you get 20% off.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Remonstration of a Tragedy
As almost everyone in the United States and beyond likely knows, Congressional Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot by Jared Loughner during a public event in Tuscon, Arizona. Much has been made of this incident, as liberal and conservative pundits have placed blame on each other for the occurrence. Conservative pundits have portrayed Loughner as a liberal tool, and Liberal pundits have painted him as a man influenced by rhetoric spouted by those such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. I won't blame either side for the tragedy.
I will blame both sides, however, for politicizing an event that should not be politicized. I will blame them both for acting in such a way to incite the tempers of both reasonable and unreasonable people alike.
Some may say that America has entered an age of unreasonable and irresponsible politics, where the effort to gain and control power, whether it is government power or media power, has become more important than ensuring quality of life or stable relations with other countries. I do agree with that to some extent, though much of what we see and hear as major opinions usually only constitutes a small, extreme minority. It is the failure of our news system that allows for these extreme positions to garner any kind of attention, as news is (and has become) a profit-driven enterprise, where ratings are what matters rather than quality. If a pundit's rhetoric is acerbic and sure to insult others, run it- viewership will increase. If a story, such as if a Florida pastor (whose congregation was constituted of a minuscule amount of people) threatens to burn a Qu'ran to protest Islam even though his church represents the extreme fringe of all civilized debate, run it- not only that, over-analyze it.
American politics, to some or many, has seemingly become a competition in superior morals, whereby one side continually tries to display the faults of the other. I don't disagree.
I usually have to stop myself from writing things such as this, as it makes me question why the hell I'm majoring in political science. It's a strange feeling, hating something so passionately that will, more likely than not, be an inevitable career choice.
So, I suppose my main message here is that focus of the tragedy should be on the man himself rather than any larger influence, unless it is found to be the case. I decided to watch some of Loughner's videos on Youtube, and honestly, they were incoherent and made very little sense. His grammar is terrible and his reasoning is logically flawed, so more likely than not, the man is to blame.
Members of both parties are culpable for so much else, but on this issue, let's all agree that no one is to blame but Loughner.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
I will blame both sides, however, for politicizing an event that should not be politicized. I will blame them both for acting in such a way to incite the tempers of both reasonable and unreasonable people alike.
Some may say that America has entered an age of unreasonable and irresponsible politics, where the effort to gain and control power, whether it is government power or media power, has become more important than ensuring quality of life or stable relations with other countries. I do agree with that to some extent, though much of what we see and hear as major opinions usually only constitutes a small, extreme minority. It is the failure of our news system that allows for these extreme positions to garner any kind of attention, as news is (and has become) a profit-driven enterprise, where ratings are what matters rather than quality. If a pundit's rhetoric is acerbic and sure to insult others, run it- viewership will increase. If a story, such as if a Florida pastor (whose congregation was constituted of a minuscule amount of people) threatens to burn a Qu'ran to protest Islam even though his church represents the extreme fringe of all civilized debate, run it- not only that, over-analyze it.
American politics, to some or many, has seemingly become a competition in superior morals, whereby one side continually tries to display the faults of the other. I don't disagree.
I usually have to stop myself from writing things such as this, as it makes me question why the hell I'm majoring in political science. It's a strange feeling, hating something so passionately that will, more likely than not, be an inevitable career choice.
So, I suppose my main message here is that focus of the tragedy should be on the man himself rather than any larger influence, unless it is found to be the case. I decided to watch some of Loughner's videos on Youtube, and honestly, they were incoherent and made very little sense. His grammar is terrible and his reasoning is logically flawed, so more likely than not, the man is to blame.
Members of both parties are culpable for so much else, but on this issue, let's all agree that no one is to blame but Loughner.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
A Question of Culpability
Recently, the parents of deceased Rutgers student Tyler Clementi announced that they have preserved the right to sue Rutgers over their negligence to act on his behalf in the events leading to his tragic suicide. Mr. Clementi jumped off of the George Washington Bridge in late September after his roommate Dharun Ravi and classmate Molly Wei broadcast his sexual encounter with another man over the internet. While many would believe that the family is simply trying to take advantage of the sympathetic feelings towards the parents, it would be wise to mull over the finer details of the case and see whether or not the university was truly at fault.
Firstly, Mr. Clementi did speak to an Resident Assistant about his roommate’s voyeurism. He also requested a room change. Unfortunately, two days later (I believe), he committed suicide.
Secondly, Mr. Clementi spoke to two “higher ups” (as he put it) about his roommate’s indecency. Who they are is not known (or at least not well known), though their actions could have drastic implications.
If Rutgers official staff did not act within the window between Mr. Clementi’s first report and his suicide, then the parents have the right to claim gross negligence on the part of the university for, 1: Not upholding their privacy guidelines, and 2: Not acting in an expedited fashion to rectify the problem.
The first incident should have been the stopping point, as there was enough evidence against Mr. Ravi to act on Mr. Clementi’s allegations of invasion of privacy. Mr. Ravi posted on his Twitter feed “Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into Molly’s room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay.” Two days later, Mr. Ravi posted again: “Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30 and 12. Yes it’s happening again.” Quotes from www.dailymail.co.uk
The ultimate verdict, however, rests with the Resident Assistant and the “higher ups” in question, because if they failed to act in any way, Rutgers will be held accountable for their lack of action. If the evidence surrounding them shows that no tangible action was taken, either in the form of a formal action (through Rutgers bureaucracy) or direct (the RA speaking directly to Mr. Ravi and admonishing him), then the family has every right to sue Rutgers. And, if that is the case, I support the Clementi family wholeheartedly.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Firstly, Mr. Clementi did speak to an Resident Assistant about his roommate’s voyeurism. He also requested a room change. Unfortunately, two days later (I believe), he committed suicide.
Secondly, Mr. Clementi spoke to two “higher ups” (as he put it) about his roommate’s indecency. Who they are is not known (or at least not well known), though their actions could have drastic implications.
If Rutgers official staff did not act within the window between Mr. Clementi’s first report and his suicide, then the parents have the right to claim gross negligence on the part of the university for, 1: Not upholding their privacy guidelines, and 2: Not acting in an expedited fashion to rectify the problem.
The first incident should have been the stopping point, as there was enough evidence against Mr. Ravi to act on Mr. Clementi’s allegations of invasion of privacy. Mr. Ravi posted on his Twitter feed “Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into Molly’s room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay.” Two days later, Mr. Ravi posted again: “Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30 and 12. Yes it’s happening again.” Quotes from www.dailymail.co.uk
The ultimate verdict, however, rests with the Resident Assistant and the “higher ups” in question, because if they failed to act in any way, Rutgers will be held accountable for their lack of action. If the evidence surrounding them shows that no tangible action was taken, either in the form of a formal action (through Rutgers bureaucracy) or direct (the RA speaking directly to Mr. Ravi and admonishing him), then the family has every right to sue Rutgers. And, if that is the case, I support the Clementi family wholeheartedly.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)