Laws didn't prevent mass murder

The atrocity at Virginia Tech, yesterday, left thirty-three people dead, and at least twenty-three wounded. It is now known as "The worst mass-murder in the history of the United States. This is a time to wish peace and healing on the victims and their families. We would like to be able to avoid entering the debate as to why or how it happened, but the self-described "experts" are already pointing the finger of blame at everything from video games to the lack of gun control and a "violent society," and we feel compelled to state our feelings in the case.
We live in a world where there are people who have nothing in their state of being to tell them that it is wrong to take an innocent life. Such people have existed since the earliest time of history, going all the way back to the story of Cain and Abel. The fact of life is that there will always be someone who is out to kill people. There is no reason or rationale, and no cause. There will always be horror and tragedy such as that which happened at Virginia Tech. Although our natural state is to abhor acts which take the lives of others, there are those who do not fit in to our natural state.
Jack Thompson, a self-proclaimed "expert" on school shootings is an attorney--not a psychologist or sociologist--who claims that video games are behind all school shootings. The absurdity of such claims is evident in the fact that tens of millions of people have played video games such as "Doom," or "Grand Theft Auto," yet the percentage of these people who actually become killers is so small that Thomas may as well say that beer drinking is behind all school shootings.
Of course, all the gun control folks are claiming that our "gun" society is responsible for the actions of the killer, who has been identified as Cho Seung Hui, a South Korean National in the US on a student visa. Such people should be reminded that, though Virginia has a liberal weapons carrying policy, firearms are not permitted on school grounds or college and university campuses in that state. No law could have prevented the tragedy, unless there was one under which potential victims could have defended themselves. There was no way for the victims to defend themselves, in this case, while Seung Hui reloaded his weapons, which were not permitted on campus, and fired them over a hundred times. Think about it.

"And So It Goes"

Photo Credit: Avalon Books
There is not one person of my generation who has graduated from high school in America and hasn't read a book by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. His books, including Cat's Cradle, Slaughterhouse 5, and Breakfast of Champions, were often recommended, if not required reading, for high school level literature courses. He exposed us to a level of satire and humor that went beyond Mad Magazine or Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In, as well as political ideology that we may not have been aware of at the time.
Writing in the genre of Science/Speculative Fiction, his plots, story lines, and dialogue often reflected his personal beliefs in Socialism and Atheism. But, in spite of the fears of censorship advocates and book burners of the time, reading his books did not create a generation of anti-capitalists. Rather, his books opened up a dialogue in our minds where we were invited to defend our beliefs--Vonnegut, through his writing, did not try to force his beliefs upon the reader, he merely presented his ideology for scrutiny. Whether we agreed with his ideology or not, he made us think, and created constructive discourse among ourselves and our fellow students. In his way, he proved that freedom of speech/expression does not cause the End of Civilization As We Know It.
Political and social ideology aside, Vonnegut wrote good books--books that entertained us and made us laugh. He has often been called the Samuel Clemons (Mark Twain) of our time, which is, in our minds, a justifiable comparison. He allowed us to laugh at ourselves, often while identifying with his main characters who were almost always helpless victims of circumstance, with no control over their own lives. As darkly cynical as some of his humor was, a glimmer of hope was always present in his writing.
Kurt Vonnegut passed away Wednesday, April 11, reportedly due to head injuries suffered in a fall. He will always be remembered as an important and influential contributer to modern literature, perhaps the best of our time. "And so it goes..."

Whose job is it to tell us to be offended?

The questions generated by the Don Imus controversy have gone far beyond what he said, and how and why he got fired. The entire controversy has grown in such a way it affects everybody, whether we are members of the Rutgers women's basketball team or not.
Granted, Imus' bad joke was uncalled for, and never should have been said, much less repeated everywhere in the media. There were likely less than 300,000 people--less than one-one hundredth of the US population--listening when he said it, and it would be safe to say, given Imus' history of racism and sexism, that none of the listeners were members of the championship basketball team. The entire matter should have been irrelevant to most of us. The entire set of circumstances was escalated, by people who have chosen to make themselves the nation's thought police, into a situation that is life threatening to freedom of speech.
It would be entirely rational if the reason for firing Don Imus from both his radio broadcast and television simulcast was loss of revenue from lack of sponsorship. In that case, the question of First Amendment rights would be irrelevant. However, the reasons given by the Viacom/CBS broadcasting consortium that Imus was canned due to complaints by employees, and the pundits and newscasters across the media have speculated that it was because of the involvement of Sen. Barak Obama and/or the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. It could be reasonably argued that the involvement of these three did have something to do with several large companies withdrawing their sponsorship of Imus' radio and television programs.
One question that comes to mind is, do we really need somebody to tell us when we should be offended? Certainly, we all possess the rationale to determine for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. Most of us believe in the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King--that there will come a day when the color of one's skin does not matter. But the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton have too much to gain from perceived racism. There are sheep who accept without question anything that is said by these two men. Without being told they are oppressed, the sheep wouldn't feel oppressed. Jackson and Sharpton do not want to see Dr. King's dream come to fruition, for, if it did, they would be out of a job.
What precedent does the firing of Imus set? Where do we draw the line? It should be up to the individual to treat others with respect, not up to the Federal government and the FCC to tell us what we can say, see, or hear. Can anybody who feels offended by anything just say so, and thereby limit the choices we make for entertainment? It certainly seems that way, and, figuratively speaking, book burning has made a comeback. From the looks of things, song lyrics are next, soon to be followed by such entertaining television programming as The Daily Show, South Park, Red Eye, The Jimmy Kimmel Show, and The Cobert Report, all of which are satire, which is the most often misunderstood form of humor. We don't have to agree with the issues made by such programming, and we can often laugh at ourselves watching these programs. We really don't have to watch or listen--because we have the rationale to make such choices. In any case, we must realize that humor and satire are not news or opinion, in order to realize the significance, or lack of such, to the nature of society and culture as a whole.
As South Park creators and writers Trey Parker and Matt Stone often point out, in their program, we can only be offended if we choose to feel offended . We can either laugh at a joke, or feel that it is wrong, but in no way should we let it be an excuse to limit freedom of speech.

Sacrificial Lamb?

Photo credit: Don Imus-WFAN Pediactric Center For Tomorrow's Children

Freedom requires responsibility and that includes freedom of speech. When one person exercises his or her individual rights in a way that trespasses on the rights of others, it is no longer an expression of freedom, but of aggression.
Don Imus' statements, in actuality, hurt nobody except himself.. What he said, and the backlash to what he said, should not be used as an excuse to limit freedom of speech or expression, but as a warning that there may be consequences in what we say and do. Imus was wrong to say what he said, but he had every right to say it. It is conceptually erroneous to point out the apparent hypocracy that some are allowed to use language that others aren't. Offense is a relative concept that must include context, meaning, and scope, or sphere of influence. We would do well to see an example in the entire incident that respect for others is the best way to protect our individual freedoms, and it all comes down to personal responsibility. However, what we do see is a sacrificial lamb that negates the conscious of others who will continue to use unfounded and hateful terms such as "Nazi," "Chickenhawk," and, in the context it is often used, "neocon."
We should remember that our First Ammendment rights also give us the freedom to choose to listen or not to listen, and that includes the choice to or not to be offended. We have, at our disposal, a high tech device called the "on-off switch." Rather than using offensive speech to limit the rights of others, it is better to just ignore it.

Why Pike's Peak is my favorite photo subject

Iraq is not a political issue

Common sense would say that the best way to bring the troops home would be to complete the mission as quickly and efficiently as possible. It isn't going to happen tomorrow, but the "surge" operation prescribed by General Petreaus is, by all accounts, working toward that end. Iraqi troops are being trained in US military units, the Iraqi government is allowing and encouraging former Sunni insurgents to become involved in the peacekeeping process, and the insurgent groups are breaking up.
Both the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report and Gen Petreaus have suggested that military force alone will not resolve Iraq's problems--diplomatic means have to be a part of the process. The Iraqi government has responded to diplomatic pressure by the United States, budgeting ten billion dollars toward reconstruction, working toward peace initiatives between the Sunni and She'ya factions, mingling Iraqi troops with the coilition forces for training, becoming involved in regional talks with neighboring countries, and working out fair distribution of oil wealth. Iraq is on its way to becoming an independent, democratic nation, while its new government is gaining strength, and working to make a society that is fair to all its different factions.
There is still much work to do. Iraq does not yet have a strong enough military force to stand on its own. The presence of Baathist and foriegn militant forces is still felt in a violent fashion daily. If the coilition was to withdraw from Iraq before the democratic government is solidly established and in control of the country, all indications of the result forcast a much more widespread and deadly war. The Saudis have vowed to support Sunni militants in Iraq, if the coillition leaves, while Iran has supported and will support She'ya factions. This would amount to conflict over Iraq between the two Arab nations, which would most likely escalate into a world war. It is about oil, not Oil, and until modern society can do without oil from the Middle East conflict over the precious commodity will ensue. Most experts believe that energy independence will take twenty to forty years to achieve--until then, oil is a necessary evil.
So why do some politicians in the United States want to stop US involvement in Iraq? It is simply that they are politicians. Their agenda does not include a peaceful world and the future does not concern them unless it involves keeping their jobs. They do not want to see success in Iraq, because it would indicate to the voters that the policy they opposed was the correct policy. They will twist public opinion factors to justify their actions--such as interpreting the call for a change in direction in Iraq as meaning that we should withdraw right now. Every American wants to be able to call our troops home from Iraq, but not if it leaves a battleground which will be exploited in a way which will cause devistation to our economy. It is more likely that the ideology of these politicians will increase the violence in the Middle East, rather than decrease it. When politics become involved in a military operation, and in the movement of troops, defeat is often snatched from the jaws of victory.

Tears in my eyes

This recent video from Baghdad brought tears to my eyes, out of gratitude for seeing our troops trying to make good with the population, and out of sympathy for these children who live among so much violence. It feels good to see them have a happy moment.
I have to bring up a unattributed quote here, because I can't remember who said it:
"If the Iraqis loved their children more than they hate each other, they would stop the violence."