Rants and Raves

Freedom of Religion?

2008-04-10T11:55:00.001-07:00

Few things strike an emotional chord in the American heart more than the untimely death of a small child. On March 23, 2008 an 11-year-old girl died needlessly of a treatable form of diabetes. There was plenty of money and plenty of resources, but the parents refused to consult any doctors; instead they trusted the power of prayer to heal their daughter.

Even after the child's condition became serious, an ambulance was never called and no professional medical help was sought to revive the child. Due to the neglect of two grown adults, a child is dead, and they may not face any consequences thanks to a broad definition of religious freedom.

The right to practice religion in any way a person wishes is a well-documented right and a foundation of the United States. In theory, anyone can practice prayer to any god (or gods) they please. This idea should remain strong and the government should stay out of religious beliefs. However, like all other rights, the right to religion is no longer legitimate if it brings harm to another person. Neglect is harm, and in this case, neglect is murder.

The ability to make decisions for children is the responsibility of the parents, but the parents must do what is in the best interest of the child. Refusing lifesaving treatment is obviously harmful to a child and not in their best interest. With rights come responsibility, and the parents of this child neglected their parental responsibility to look after their daughter and protect her from harm. Unfortunately, a growing American view is that there should be no responsibility intertwined with rights.

One of the government's few legitimate tasks is to protect those who cannot protect themselves, including this child. Children are not property; they are humans, and the rights of a human apply to them.

The government should not allow religion as an excuse for violating the rights of another. If a person violates the law while practicing religion, they must be willing to face the consequences of those practices. Nobody should be above the law, especially when it causes an innocent child to die.

Religion is supposed to bring happiness and fullness to life, not death and tragedy. Whether it is refusing medicine, food, water or air, it is neglect and abuse for a parent to turn to prayer for all their needs. There is no legitimate excuse, including religion, for knowingly allowing a child to die of a treatable disease.

It is disturbing and disgusting that the belief in eternal life is being transformed into an excuse to cause early death. Actions have consequences, and a child's death should bring punishment.

Rally Spreads Anti-War Message

2008-03-27T14:58:00.001-07:00

The sleeping giant of student activism has finally awoken on the College of Charleston campus. It seems that 4,000 flag-draped caskets and the spilt blood of over 29,000 injured Americans in Iraq finally justifies rising up against the war. Thursday the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), an unofficial group on campus, organized an Anti-War Walk Out to Marion Square. With close to 200 students, staff, and community members in attendance, the mood was focused but friendly. Several guitars were present with a few drums, and the air was filled with speeches and songs, mostly anti-war and anti-Bush ballads that vented the grief that participants felt towardsthis generation's Vietnam. The participants ranged from tie-dye wearing students adorning hemp jewelry, military veterans standing tall, curious community members and professors with small but proud smiles on their faces. There was even a bandana clad anarchic-communist waving a red and black flag and occasionally calling for revolution.

Among the speakers was Jared Esselman, a junior Political Science student as well as an Iraq veteran who served in the Air Force. His passionate speech brought up the importance of such protests to prevent the illegal invasions of other countries deemed members of Bush's "Axis of Evil," namely Iran. The words of an Iraq veteran add a special potency to the conversation; this was not an average student speaking it was a man who tasted the dirt of the desert and watched his friends lay down their lives for a country they love and a war they don't believe in. In addition, he not only spoke for himself but also spoke for the voiceless men and women half a world away. These service members are facing the brutality of an enraged community protecting their own nation, as well as the betrayal of an authoritarian president who answers to none.

With students now taking to the streets in an organized fashion, which is surprising for a campus as apathetic as C of C, thoughts toward past activist movements drift into the minds of anyone who experienced the 60s first hand. The modern day SDS is actually a reformation of the largest radical student organization in the history of the United States. During the Vietnam war, SDS was a representation of the New Left who started with protest but at the tail end of the 60s moved on to more active resistance. With sit-ins, marches, and participation in a wide variety of social issues, the SDS focused against student grievances that ranged from ineffective student governments, the draft, bad food, Vietnam and anything else that could be used to motivate change.

The modern SDS does not carry the same socialist slant as its former self and appears to be focusing on only Iraq, but with the never-ending nature of the "Global War on Terrorism," the movement has time to grow toward greater social change. These social activists do need to keep two key issues in mind. First, the protests must continue to be nonviolent. The bombing of recruiting offices and other such stains on the student protests of the past must be avoided. Whenever participatory politics turns violent, the activists become the enemies. With the Bill of Rights suspended until further notice, the government does not need much of an excuse to round up dissidents and ship them to Guantanamo. The second issue is to remember that the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who are bravely protecting our country are not the enemy. Iraq war veterans should not face the same social shunning that Vietnam soldiers received. Today's military personnel are the victims of a colonial foreign policy and in many senses they are the most violated victims of all.

Change appears to be in the air but only if the students across the country continue to stand for peace and remain non-violent. These movements helped end one war and they can certainly help end another.

CWP on Campus

2008-03-25T10:11:00.000-07:00

With the echo of gunfire still ringing fresh and the potent carbon smell of gunpowder bombarding the senses of NIU students, many questions flood the minds of college students across the nation. Why did this happen? What kind of person would kill? How can we help the friends of our fallen brethren? How can we stop this from happening again?

This final question is one that has coursed through the veins of our modern society many times as every couple of years seems to bring another round of violence to academic institutions. Colleges across the nation have taken many steps to prevent campus attacks and every one has brought about greater safety. It has now come to the point where the power of the institution has reached its limits and to enhance safety, a decision must be made that marches into the realm of controversy.

Once the emotions of tragedy have subsided, cooler heads must decide what is to be done. Should the tyranny of the status quo be maintained or should new measures be taken? Perhaps, the ability for students and staff to protect themselves should be reinstated.

The idea of firearm ownership itself is controversial but it is not any more controversial than the current decisions to leave members of the College defenseless in times of tragedy. The College of Charleston is set in a distinctly urban environment that poses unique problems and requires unique solutions. Set less than 10 miles from North Charleston, the 7th most dangerous city in the country and containing more than 100 different buildings, even the ever-present Public Safety is not up to the task of guaranteeing student's safety. If an organization (whether it is the state, a school or private organization) cannot guarantee the safety of those within their jurisdiction then it is immoral to take away a person's means of defending themselves.

It is impossible to imagine what could have happened during past tragedies if faculty had been able to defend themselves and students against the ruthless actions of unstable individuals. If Professor Bishop of Virginia Tech had a weapon maybe some students would be alive, instead they were all barricaded inside of a building, defenseless and at the mercy of Seung-Hui Cho. If Juliana Gehant, a trained 12-year Army veteran, had been armed she may have stopped Steven Kazmierczak from taking so many lives at Northern Illinois University. Instead, the students at NIU were forced to rely on an Illinois state-wide ban on loaded firearms which failed as a deterrent to tragedy.

University's can take greater steps to protect their students without increasing costs or sacrificing the educational nature of college. The academic world can simply allow a staff member, who is qualified and willing, to carry a firearm in a concealed manner with a state issued concealed weapons permit (CWP). Firearms on campus are already allowed under South Carolina law with the permission "of the authorities in charge of the premises." A program could be easily developed where professors could voluntarily carry a weapon, register that weapon with the administration and agree to follow strict guidelines such as keeping the firearm concealed at all times.

In order to maintain and improve the safety of university's across the country the discussion must venture into the controversial. That is what universities are all about, discussing and debating unpopular opinions so that we can sort out emotion from the practical. Tough questions must be asked and even tougher decisions must be made. Students and staff alike must be ever vigilant against those who attempt to take advantage of these centers of learning, and that very vigilance requires us to not rely on ineffective legislation instead of physical means of self-protection.

Clinton Presidency

2008-03-25T10:09:00.000-07:00

The Democratic presidential campaign heats up as the primary race quickly approaches South Carolina. It is a sure bet that the days before Jan. 26th will be bombarded with television ads, radio commercials and the ever-growing sea of yard signs cluttering our fair city. Unlike previous elections however, the front-runner is far from determined. The former golden child of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, seems to have lost some of her luster under a barrage of scrutiny coming from Republicans and Democrats alike.

Ever since her infamous "Lets have a conversation" speech she has been forecasted as the guaranteed candidate for our left-leaning friends in the Democratic Party. Unfortunately for her though, times do change and in politics a matter of months is an eternity. It seems citizens respond positively to authenticity and hope, two areas that Senator Clinton seems to be lacking. While many feel that Clinton truly believes in what she says, she often comes across as cold and calculated; the epitome of a politician who seeks only power. The electorate's notion of an inhumane woman as president is a substantial hurdle that she will need to overcome. It is undeniably difficult being a woman seeking a position of power, if she tries to appear strong or authoritative she is perceived as an ice queen; however, if she demonstrates sensitivity she is "just another emotional woman". It is a sad state for the public to view women this way, but it demonstrates that Senator Clinton must campaign practically, not ideally.

As Senator Clinton attempts to circumvent these personality roadblocks, many simultaneously attack her experience and policies. These assaults are much more valid than mere character pitfalls and it is important to note that the voters of this country would receive much better leaders if they voted with their heads instead of their hearts. Senator Clinton also has some serious problems when her past comes under scrutiny. Her time in the White House as First Lady seems to have been much more passive then she has suggested and her unwillingness to fully disclose the conversations of those times only reinforce the skepticism that surrounds her. While she was certainly more active than most first ladies, her experience pales when compared to other candidates. She has only gained more experience than Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and neither of their pasts has involved serious executive positions.

Senator Clinton has taken repeated attacks on her war vote, taking considerable donations from lobbyists, and her reputation as a Washington insider. Meanwhile, the conservative leaning areas of the country repeatedly refuse to accept her "big government, big executive branch" concepts of government. Many contributors to the national political dialogue believe that this government ideology results in more taxes and a reduction of the personal liberties of citizens. These are all obstacles that Clinton must overcome, and overcome quickly if she is to remain a major force in this presidential race.

As Super Tuesday quickly approaches, Senator Clinton's problems seem potentially more disastrous than most. As of now, it appears increasingly less likely that she will receive the nomination from the Democrats and even more unlikely that she will be able to push her way into the White House once again. Sorry Clinton fans, it looks like your hopes may have to lay with Chelsea.

February 23, 2010

2007-12-05T12:22:00.000-08:00

1st Journal Entry.

Well I guess I am a rebel now. Officially the government calls us "terrorists", a vague term that has been used more frequently since President Clinton was elected into office. Its hard to say when our rebellion really started, it just seems to have sprung up on its own as small groups of individuals reached their breaking point. Very few of us can put up with it anymore, its like the days of freedom have passed our generation by. Even the winter's seem colder, but that might be due to the rationing of fuel.

None of us really blame OPEC. Its true they are a cartel that artificially inflates prices, but how many countries did we think we could invade before they just shut their pipelines down to us. We were mistaken to think they need our money, while its true they want our money they are doing just fine with Chinese Yuan and Russian Rubles. We are the ones freezing now, we are the ones without cars, we are the ones shivering in our homes. Our "representatives" in DC are doing just fine... but its okay though, because what they are doing is important, what they are doing is going to help society as a whole. Well I could give a damn about society. If they would allow us to take care of ourselves then we wouldn't be in this situation. We need fuel though, and it is doubtful we will have active trade with the Middle East again. First we invade Iraq, then Iran, then Pakistan... we "annex" Kuwait and attempt to unite with the Saudis but we received the military butt kicking that we deserved.

I don't know what President Clinton was thinking going into all those countries, especially with military recruitment at an all time low. She continued to whine and claim that soldiers were sexist if they didn't want to have a female commander-in-chief. It wasn't that they were sexist, its just that soldiers have a sixth sense that detects bad leadership, so they bailed out. Next came the draft, which most of us avoided. It is getting harder and harder to survive under the radar though. You need your national ID card just to go shopping or ride a bus, everything is done on the black market. Thankfully we are close to Canada who still has some variation of a free society. Its kinda funny actually, when President W. Bush passed the Military Commissions Act nobody paid attention, and then it was turned against citizens who disagreed with the government. If we dissent we must be terrorists. So many good Americans disappeared during the first purge, we still don't know where they are. You can't store that many people at Guantanamo.

It was like a stack of dominoes. People were upset that Clinton was invading countries in our name, so they blogged about her and protested her. Then the arrests started. Well some people didn't feel like going peacefully. They fought back with their guns, they guns our founding fathers wanted us to carry to keep the government in check. So she took our guns. She claimed that personal firearm ownership was hindering national security and security was always more important than liberty. I guess Benjamin Franklin was right, so was Abe Lincoln. After the national firearm confiscation started many people had had enough. Large groups of people, mostly organized through the Internet, moved into New Hampshire and successfully started a secession movement. These patriots wanted to be free from the tyranny that was brewing within our own shores, well President Clinton responded the only way she knew how. She sent in the military, whatever was left of it. I hear they are still fighting over there, but information is scarce, especially since the Internet was turned off. Some pirate stations still exist but it is so hard to distinguish real patriots from government agencies attempting to weed out us "terrorists".

Well, I gotta go. It sounds like we were able to get a hold of a transport truck that was delivering food to a boat headed for Africa (we have to fight the AIDS epidemic, after all it is the humanitarian thing to do).

Self Defense

2007-12-05T07:51:00.000-08:00

We all have the right to defend ourselves. Except for the extreme pacifist this right is recognized as ingrained in us, it does not need to be defined within laws (though it is), we are simply justified to use force to preserve our own life. Many, like me, feel this right includes the right to bear arms. Lets be realistic, people own guns. Some of these people are bad and because of this it is necessary to allow good people to own guns as well. Even if it were not necessary it would still be within our human rights to own the means of protecting ourselves. Not everyone is created physically equal and a firearm can become a great equalizer. A 100 lb woman with a Springfield XD .40 has a way to defend herself from a physically superior 200 lb, 6'00" man. Weapons are not bad, but some people who use them are bad.

So when can the government legitimately remove our ability to defend ourself? Legally they can do it almost anytime but morally the only time anyone should be able to remove your ability to defend yourself is when they can guarantee your safety. Honestly though, it is rare that the government can guarantee our safety yet we are forbidden from carrying firearms in many locations. One of those locations (at least in my home state) is college campuses. Why can I not carry a weapon at my school? I have extensive firearm training, I have completed a concealed weapons class, I have a concealed weapons permit and I have my own pistol that I can easily carry concealed so as to not disrupt or intimidate anyone. So the question remains, why can't I carry my weapon on campus?

The government apparently feels that the school and local law enforcement can guarantee my safety. Life has taught us otherwise. We continue to have school shootings where deranged people are able to take advantage of a proverbial "fish in a barrel" situation. Just imagine if one student was able to fight back at Virginia Tech or one teacher at Columbine could carry a weapon. Imagine that lives that would be saved if the government would allow us to fight fair. My school has over 100 buildings in an urban environment, we are only 6 miles from the 20th most violent city in the nation... yet I am legally not allowed to carry a weapon to defend myself and other students. My campus has public safety, but unless we can get an armed officer for every building on campus then my safety is still in jeopardy. This kind of risk could easily be avoided if we were simply allowed our constitutional right to carry a weapon for self defense.

McCain

2007-12-05T06:02:00.000-08:00

Senator McCain claims the troops want to finish the mission. Senator McCain claims the troops told him this while visiting them over Thanksgiving. Senator McCain is somewhat mistaken.

I was a soldier. I served as an infantry paratrooper in Afghanistan and Iraq as a machine gunner and operations sergeant, respectively. I know soldiers. While serving in the military your normal rank and file soldier will rarely try to rock the boat, and the last thing they want to do is embarrass their chain of command. This isn't apathy as much as it is a survival instinct. When you depend on those in charge of you and next to you to save your skin then you try not to cause problems. This is probably why Senator McCain thinks the troops are completely on his side and the side of this illegal war.

When a Senator (or anybody that has power or prestige) visits the troops they are often scolded over and over that they had better behave themselves. When in a combat zone you do what you are told, and having been in these kind of "dog and pony shows" I know that it is generally best to answer affirmatively to any questioning that may occur. The truth of the matter is that soldiers are not robots, they are free-thinking individuals who have varying opinions about the war. That is why I am skeptical of Senator McCain's claim that all soldiers want to finish the job. All soldiers can't agree on anything, much less the authenticity of a war where more and more of my brothers are being killed daily. Realistically the proportion of soldiers who back the war is probably fairly similar to the proportion of civilians who back the war. I don't think Senator McCain realizes that the troops he sat down with were probably hand selected by officers to put forth the most positive image as possible, and even if they weren't it is unlikely that a soldier would whine to a senator about how much they want to go home and disagree with the situation they are in. That would be suicide for that soldier.

I was once told that your true character shines when nobody is watching. So what are these soldiers doing when nobody is watching? That is hard to pin down but one thing is for sure, they are donating money to Ron Paul. I don't know if they back his foreign policy or some other specific issue, but one thing is for certain, they aren't sending money to Rudy McHuckneyson.

I don't speak for all soldiers, I only speak for me, but using my knowledge of the military and an attempt at an objective view point, it seems obvious that Senator McCain is mistaken. No matter what they say to your face, Senator, their true opinion lies in how they spend their money, and that isn't on you.