Wesleyan Incident Sparked by Student Ignorance

There are few things that get me boiled to the point of screaming uncontrollably. One of them is the absent minded ignorance of partying college students.

Early Friday morning, a group of about 250 students from Wesleyan University in Middletown, CT felt the need to spill their incoherent and drunken blunders into the public streets.

As a result, Wesleyan Public Safety called Middletown Police for help in dispersing the crowd. When the PD showed up and asked the highly intoxicated crowd to move along, they were met with a barrage of flying bottles and rocks from a few of the more intoxicated revelers.

That's when police took the riot approach by breaking out pepper spray, pepper balls and K-9's to aid and protect them in dissolving the volatile situation.

Wesleyan students responded with an outcry of misinformed rhetoric on the Internet and in local television interviews, denouncing the police response.

Middletown Police, however, tell a different story.

They say the use of force was warranted for their protection... and the protection of the students themselves.

After listening to the frantic chatter of police on their scanners, I heard the out-of-control drunken bursts of the crowd myself before police took action. Like it or not, officers responded with the appropriate action.

Students, in their drunken stupor, acted totally out of control and brought force upon themselves. Intoxicated college students are like hyper 5-year-old children. The only way to get through to them in that state is to respond with physical coercion.

But of course, students, in their own world of inexperience, don't see it that way. They view it as police brutality and excessive force.

Nevermind the fact that no one was injured, and five students had to be arrested for confronting officers.

College students seem to like the idea of creating riot-like havoc so they can criticize the authorities for responding too harshly. We saw it on the UMass-Amherst campus after the Red Sox won the World Series in 2004, when students felt the need to flip over cars and light them on fire.

It's amazing how students can be educated on facts needed to excel careers, but not how to apply common sense.

It's also amazing how in this post 9-11, post Virginia Tech and post Northern Illinois world, students like to push the envelope.

We can teach them to be lawyers, doctors and business owners; but we can't teach them the common sense of what needs to be done for public safety.

Maybe that is the solution. A general education class that focuses on how not to provoke a forced police presence. Obviously it's a skill that has to be taught along side reading, writing and arithmetic.

It's simple. If you're drunk, you're loud and you're with 250 of your loud, drunk friends in the middle of a public street, you deserve whatever's coming to you. Is it really that hard to think before you hurl that glass bottle?

Giving him the Power

With more and more details coming in about Virginia Tech shooter Cho
Seung-Hui, it seems the media can’t get enough.

NBC New York received a package from Cho yesterday that included a video manifesto and several photos.

According to NBC, the video was mailed in between the first and second shootings. In it, he blamed what he was about to do on “rich” kids. The photos were of him brandishing the very weapons police believe he used to carry out his killings.

"You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option" he said in the recordings. "You have blood on your hands that will never wash off."

Cho’s massacre of 32 people has gone down in history as one of the worst single-person shootings. But what NBC and other media outlets did with Cho’s manifesto is just as appalling.

As soon NBC received the package, it was on the air before police could even look at it. Not only that, but at a press conference, NBC told other media outlets that they would have to watch their newscast to see what the manifesto included.

It was here that the insensitivity of at least one media giant was exposed. NBC basically told parents, investigators and other media outlets that they would have learn the big question of “why?” on NBC’s terms.

But that was only the tip of the iceberg.

Once the other media outlets obtained the video and images, it was drilled into the heads of viewers and listeners with all of the insensitivity one would expect from big corporations trying to boost ratings.

NBC’s nightly news anchor Brian Williams even said “this was a sick business tonight, going on the air with this.”

It was not just NBC either. CBS and CNN were just as guilty. Ratings have turned our own media against us.

There was no need to broadcast the gun-brandishing images. There was also no need to broadcast Cho’s messages. By doing so, the media fell right into his trap.

All that was accomplished by broadcasting those images was strengthening Cho’s message. He effectively turned the media into his tool and they fell for it, hook, line and sinker. And by watching it, we gave him the power.

It’s already been established that Cho Seung-Hui was a sick and twisted individual. He even demonstrated the warning signs of someone who needed help.

But we ignored him and allowed him to grow into a merciless monster. And it’s only now that we listen.

And as I’ve said before, it is we who decide what appears on television. We made that monster and we gave power to his message. The only reason his pictures and words were aired is because we lend the media our ears.

We need to start listening in real life and stop listening to what corporations tell us we should hear. Then those corporations will be forced to pander to the real news.

Campus Crisis Boils Down to Negligence

It’s finally happened. Columbine? The University of Texas? They are nothing compared to what happened yesterday.

Thirty-three people dead, including the shooter, in two separate shootings at Virginia Tech. And for what?

That’s something that investigators will have to figure out.

But anyone who’s been a college student knows there are two possible reasons for a shooting of that caliber.

One is political protest. But given that the shooter was Asian and not of Arab or Muslim descent, that is unlikely. However, it can not be ruled out.

The second, and more common reason for violence of that magnitude, is classmate ridicule or injustice. The shooter was either mocked by fellow students or had some kind of discrepancy with the staff.

But in either case, this incident highlights the rather lax security on college campuses across the country, not just VA Tech.

The first shooting occurred shortly after 7 a.m. in a dorm and was considered to be a domestic dispute by officials.

The Virginia Tech campus was not put into lockdown until two hours after two people were killed in that shooting.

Then, 15 minutes after that email was sent out, the carnage erupted in Norris Hall across campus at 9:45 a.m.

For 30 minutes, the 6-foot tall Asian gunman walked calmly in an out of classrooms, leaving an uninterrupted trail of carnage. 30 people were killed before he took his own life. He even chained the exits to prevent escape, according to police.

As a former campus-dwelling student, I was horrified at the way the Virginia Tech staff responded to this travesty. And honestly, I believe the same lackluster police response would have happened on my campus at Central Connecticut State University as well as several other campuses across the country.

Warning students two hours after any kind of shooting is unacceptable; and the fact that the shooter was able to continue his rampage for a half an hour is absurd.

By waiting that amount of time, campus officials allowed the rest of that brutal rampage to take place. Their efforts to contain and handle the case themselves lead to the deaths of over 30 people.

What’s to stop this from happening at other colleges? Nothing. And believe me, most college campuses are ripe with disturbed students waiting for something to push them over the edge.

There is absolutely no security in many classroom buildings and few alternate exits, which makes those buildings a shooting gallery for any disturbed individual with a gun. This is generally because most classroom buildings are old and are low priority to campus revitalization efforts.

Thus more security measures need to be put in place there. But beyond that, the true resolution to a crisis like this resides within the student body.

I’ve seen students ridiculed by other students to the point of uncontrollable anger. Though none of them actually harmed anyone, the seeds of a potential disaster were there.

It seems officials look toward preventing extreme circumstances like a shooting, but never look to head the problem off at the source.

A couple of things can be done to aid avoid these circumstances.

College applications, like job applications, should be denied if a student has a criminal record or a history of psychological problems. True, this would prevent a perhaps redeeming education to certain problematic individuals. But how else are we to protect ourselves from the otherwise corrupt? How long before the next disgruntled student turns one of our educational institutions into a graveyard?

Granted not all problems are caught by a simple application screening; but it’s a start.

The other thing that needs to be done is an increased security presence, especially in classroom buildings. These are the most used buildings on the entire campus and virtually anyone from off the street could walk into them.

Though more security measures are unpopular with the student body and relatively seen as a restriction to rights and freedom, the only other alternative could be to end up in a body bag.

But perhaps the most important thing students could do themselves is think twice about relentlessly ridiculing students. That will never happen; but all it takes is a little kindness.

It could be all that stands between life and death.

A Victim of a Nation's Hypocrisy

An infamous radio talk show host was canned in a hypocritical frenzy of shameful finger pointing.

Don Imus, who has received more than his fair share of criticism and verbal abuse over this issue, was fired by CBS and MSNBC Thursday.

Imus referred to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos" during his April 11 broadcast.

He met with Rutgers team members and their coach, Vivian Stringer, Thursday night at the Governor's mansion in Princeton, NJ.

After the meeting, Stringer told reporters that it was very productive and that "hopefully, we can put all of this behind us."

She did not say whether her team forgave Imus; but that statement implies it. She, like most people interviewed on the issue, feels that everyone makes mistakes and are entitled to forgiveness.

That is a sentiment that the gatekeepers of media are not willing to accept.

Imus said he was an "equal opportunity offender" and has proven that on more than one occasion.

So what was so different this time?

Somewhere along the line, someone all of the sudden decided to take offense. Just by chance, the wrong person was listening. And all it took was that one circumstantial listener to bring the legendary shock jock down.

It's unfortunate that all it takes is one individual or a small group to bring down a proud giant who has been doing the same thing for over two decades.

What he said was inexcusable, racist and just plain wrong.

But to oust the man over that particular issue is also wrong. One, because he's been saying similar, if not worse, things on the air during his long broadcast career. And two, other shock jocks like Howard Stern have said and done far worse, yet they are still on the air.

Granted, Stern made the move to Sirius Satellite radio to avoid such fiascos. But before that, his CBS radio programs featured naked women performing indecent acts, sexual and often offensive behavior and all sorts of discriminitory remarks in the name of humor.

Yet he remained on traditional radio for years, and still remains on the air with Sirius. Yes, the FCC has tried to bring him down. But he's still alive and kicking.

So how is it that someone like Don Imus, who has done far less offensive radio, gets brought down in course of week?

Because it's a hypocritical world where people are quick to point out other people's mistakes and not acknowledge their own.

Take the hypocrisy of the Reverend Al Sharpton. Last year, Sharpton said that the three Duke Lacrosse players were guilty of raping a stripper at a team party. He said there was no doubt in his mind that they did it.

But Thursday, the charges were dropped because there was no evidence to support the prosecution. North Carolina's attorney general stated in a public address that those players were innocent.

Where was Sharpton's apology to them?

He was quick to leap down Imus's throat at the blurting of three simple words. Yet he can't own up to his own mistake of publicly accusing three innocent college students.

Both Imus and the brave athletes from Duke University are victims of a hypocritical nation.

It's just a shame that ignorant people, especially those in the public eye, do not have the ability to see how their words can strip an individual of their life.

The truth is, we are all guilty of passing judgement where we should not. But it takes courage to admit when we are wrong.

Don Imus did that; and the Duke Lacrosse athletes have had their innocence proven. Yet people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson continue to nail them to the cross in the name of racism.

It's easy for Sharpton and Jackson to blame flaws on racism because they can't see past the color of their own skin.

Who's to blame for Media Coverage?

If there's one thing there's been too much of in the news, it's Anna Nicole Smith.

Since her death on February 8, virtually every newscast, newspaper, and online publication has featured regular updates on the various debacles caused by the former playmate. It can't be avoided. Furthermore, it's not the media's fault.

First it was the anticipation leading up to the cause of her death, which was ruled an accidental overdose from sleeping pills. Story after story gave updates almost every second. If people did not like the story, like the weather in New England, all they had to do was wait a minute.

Then it was the inquest of her son Daniel's death. He died September 10, three days after Smith gave birth to baby Dannielynn. Officials say he died from a combination of methadone and antidepressants, but an inquest was launched to determine whether the death was accidental, a suicide or even a homicide.

Now the media paints the picture of a fierce battle waging in the Bahamas over the real father of baby Dannielynn. Howard K. Stern and Larry Birkhead have been facing off in court and the results of a DNA test could be revealed today.

And even after the results are released the media frenzy will continue as another battle wages over the proper guardian of Dannielynn.

While this circus continues, hundreds are dying in the Middle East, hundreds more are dying on the streets of our own cities from senseless gun violence, and the United States is in all sorts of economic trouble.

But what America can't get enough of is Anna Nicole Smith. The whorish lifestyle of the former playmate has mesmerized viewers and readers across the country.

And it's not the media's fault. News stations tend to pander more toward the popular topics among their audience in order to maintain that audience. In this case, people would rather hear about who had sex with an untalented southern hussy than the deaths of our sons and daughters in a foreign land.

The scapegoat for this coverage has always been the media. But the media only airs what people will watch or read.

So the next time you get fed up with the coverage on the 6:00 news, you don't have to look far to place blame. Just look in the mirror.

What We Call The News...

What We Call the News
JibJab.com

Letting Them Rest

The House of Representatives recently advanced a bill that would limit protesting at funerals. Protests would not be able to take place within 300 feet of the ceremony. Thirty-two states already have laws like these in place, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

But more needs to be done.

The bill was introduced after members of a Kansas-based Baptist Church protested several military funerals by dragging American flags on the ground and carrying signs saying "Thank God for I.E.D's." I.E.D's are the homemade bombs that frequently kill soldiers in Iraq.

As with most bills born after the beginning of the war in Iraq, this one swells with controversy. Families argue over their right to grieve in peace while protesters feel it's their First Amendment right to express their opinions at that particular time.

The Senate has already approved the bill. The House will continue its legislative process Friday.

It is very disconcerting that people who call themselves Americans have the audacity to disturb the final resting place of individuals who gave their lives for them. It's one thing to be against the war... but to bring those arguments to a funeral is not only distasteful, it's inhuman.

This bill has been called an infringement on the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause. But where is the line drawn? When does protesting become an invasion of privacy?

Defending such protests as Freedom of Speech is ridiculous. It's taking advantage of an overly generous law for the purpose of expressing extremist, chauvinistic opinions.

And being labeled as an extremist in this country is not a good thing. They are the kind of people who plot the destruction of the free world and plan for the deaths of millions of innocent people.

This legislation needs to be passed; but more steps need to be taken out of respect for the men and women who give their lives for this country. Protesting should be banned altogether from taking place anywhere near military funeral services.

No grieving family should have to deal with the scornful opinions of soulless protesters at a time when silence is needed most.

Iranians call ‘300’ an ‘obvious insult’

The Iranians have an obvious gripe over the adaptation of Frank Miller's graphic novel, 300.

In an associated press article, Javad Shamghadri, cultural adviser to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said the movie was an attempt by the United States to humiliate Iran. Shamghadri also said the U.S. was trying to “compensate for its wrongdoings in order to provoke American soldiers and warmongers” against Iran.

Some Iranians also say the Greeks-vs-Persians action flick insults their ancient culture and provokes animosity against Iran.

The movie itself raked in $70 million over it's first weekend and is based on the battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C. In that battle, a force of 300 Spartans held off the massive invading armies of the Persian Empire at a mountain pass in Greece for three days.

The movie is as gruesome as Miller's other graphic novel-turned-movie, Sin City.

But this time it is not the violence that's drawing attention. It's the sexually flamboyant and almost homosexual depiction of the Persians that has the Iranians up in arms.

Director Zack Snyder has said he never intended to insult the Iranians or add to any hostility amongst the country and the United States.

But Iran suggests actions speak louder than words.

“It is a new effort to slander the Iranian people and civilization before world public opinion at a time of increasing American threats against Iran,” said the Ayende-No newspaper.

But do they have a right to be angry after the aggravation they've caused the world?

Plain and simple: The country is looking for scapegoat. They know most of the world is against their nuclear plans and they are looking for a way to pit other countries against the United States, the prime antagonist against Iran's program.

The movie is not likely to open there because of the government's restrictions on western films. So what's the big deal?

Western countries tolerate the harshly hypocritical and frequently advertised middle eastern views toward western civilization all the time. In fact, nearly 3,000 Americans died as a result of an extremist form of that view six years ago.

Hamshahri, another Iranian newspaper, has predicted that 300 will spark protests all over the world and that Iranians living in the U.S. and Europe will not be indifferent about this obvious insult.”

Good. Because The U.S. and Europe will not be indifferent to the building of nuclear weapons for genocidal reasons; not to mention the supplying of weapons to known terrorists.

I'll be owning this movie when it comes out on DVD.

Delaying a Decriminalized Death

Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell is currently exploring alternatives that would postpone the execution of convicted serial killer Michael Ross.

She told the Associated Press that her office is actually looking at their options and what's available to them. In a sense, they’re looking for excuses not to kill the guy in order to prevent a death penalty debate.

Forty-Five-year-old Ross is on death row for brutally raping and murdering four young women during the ‘80’s in eastern Connecticut. He confessed to killing eight women total throughout Connecticut and New York.

If Rell is successful in delaying Ross' planned Jan. 26 execution until after the "next" legislative session, state lawmakers will have a chance to eliminate Connecticut's capital punishment law. This would potentially stop what would be the state's first execution since 1960.

Rell, a Republican governor, has said that she supports the death penalty in heinous cases, according to the Associated Press.

So the question is posed: How many young women have to be ruthlessly murdered before it becomes heinous? Obviously in Connecticut, four is too few.

Ross needs to fry, plain and simple.

What other options are there? Let him rot in a prison cell for the rest of his life? Set him up with a lengthy sentence? -- there's an idea -- then he could get out and create more non-heinous cases.

There is no sense in preserving a life that’s ended so many. A person who consciously takes a life, especially in the manner of Ross’s, is not worthy of their own.

"A society that sentences killers to nothing worse than prison -- no matter how depraved the killing or how innocent the victim -- is a society that doesn't *really* think murder is so terrible." -- Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe

The WWB

It’s finally happened: the NBA has joined forces with professional wrestling to form a new multimillion dollar franchise, World Wrestling Basketball.

At least, that’s what appeared to have happened Friday night during the Detroit Pistons and Indiana Pacers game, which took place in Detroit. The Piston’s Ben Wallace shoved Pacer’s forward Ron Artest after Artest fouled Wallace hard under the basket.

After separating Wallace and Artest, a Pistons fan felt it prudent to hurl a cup of beer at Artest, which landed squarely on his chest while Artest was lying on the scoring table trying to stay out of more trouble. In a frightening rage, Artest lurched forward into the crowd attacking who he thought the assailant was. What followed was a no-holds-barred brawl involving players from both teams and fans. Innocent bystanders – including an elderly woman – were shoved to the ground during the unruly riot.

The NBA took swift action against the two clubs, handing out suspensions and bans. Artest was suspended for the entire season, while other brawlers from the Pacers like Stephen Jackson and Jermaine O’Neil were suspended for 30 and 25 games respectively. Wallace was suspended for a meager six games.

“The line is drawn, and my guess is that won’t happen again — certainly not by anybody who wants to be associated with our league,” said David Stern, commissioner of the NBA.

According to MSNBC, Artest will lose approximately $5 million in salary and O’Neal will squander nearly 25 percent of his $14.8 million salary. And for what?

This incident proves one thing: the NBA is full of egotistically selfish dirt bags. The days of respectable role models like Michael Jordan and Larry Bird are history; and the NBA opened the floodgates to such intolerable behavior by allowing players to be drafted before finishing college and high school.

With so many young players still struggling to grow out of their childish adolescent behavior, it was only a matter of time before the pot boiled over.

The NBA took the right step by applying such lengthy suspensions and pay cuts. But something else needs to be done. The league should set up a “no tolerance” policy in which players are forced to follow a specific code of conduct. If a player doesn’t adhere to any part of the code, they should be fined…heavily: put a dent in their wallet and ego.

The fact is that the NBA lacks discipline and is rapidly losing the dignity and respect it once had. These players are supposed to be role models. Instead, they’re uneducated fools. And the fans are no different.

"The liberals live in a dream world."
~Lcpl Lucien Lafreniere Weapons Platoon India Co. 3rd Battalion 6th Marines, Camp Lejune NC

from Afgahnistan.

Safe for another four years

The nation has spoken.

Projections? Exit Polls? They're all meaningless. Why? Because They all indicated a tighter race and a much more divided America. An extreme hatred for President Bush has conjured up a belief that John Kerry, the baby-killing Democratic Presidential hopeful from Massachusetts, had a chance to take the wheel and steer the county in a new direction.

Like it or not liberals, America doesn't want to go in that direction. So much doubt and dismay has been displayed over the re-election of Bush, the clear-cut winner of the 2004 Presidential Election.

Some liberal students on the campus of Central Connecticut State University have grieved over the existence of the electorial college. Perhaps they need a lesson in government procedures before they run their mouths. Not only did Kerry win California, the state with the most electoral votes at 55, but he won all of New England. If anything, the Republicans should be damning the electoral vote since most of California is fiercly conservative. But regardless, Kerry won the most populated areas of the country and it still wasn't enough.

Then the lefties moved to curse the popular vote, which almost saved them with Al Gore in the 2000 election. Too bad, Bush won there too: a piercing 51-percent to Kerry's 48-percent. That's 59,459,765 to 55,949,407. That hurts. If anything, Democrats should be cursing Ralph Nader for stealing 1-percent of the popular vote. Once again, the country has spoken.

The final point brought up by liberals cursing anyone who voted Republican is the unfounded rumor of Bush instituting a draft for people 18-26. This is remedial government 101: Bush can't istitute a draft all by himself. For it to pass, Congress has to draft a law to authorize it. I thought politically active college students are supposed to be up on such processes.

The Senate had two bills which surfaced in January 2003: Senate Bill 89, introduced by Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC), and House Resolution 163, introduced by Representative Charles B. Rangel (D-NY). According to Rod Powers's article on drafting at about.com, both bills would require two years of military service for every male and female in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26. Might I point out the hefty "D" attatched to both the individuals' names?

As recent as October 5th 2004, Resolution 163 resurfaced and was swiftly defeated by a vote of 402 to 2.

Democrats are simply scared and looking for a "you've-doomed-us-all" reason to throw in the faces of Bush-backers. There will be no draft. Democrats: you lost. Get over it and work together with Republicans instead of pouting over unfounded beliefs.

The Fate of a Nation

Let's take a moment to analyze Democratic Presidential hopeful John Kerry and the enduring crusade of the left to oust the one man who's protected our country from those who wish to destroy us.

As a Yale graduate and former Navy Swift Boat Officer during the Vietnam War, John Kerry first entered the American spotlight by testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Kerry asked the committee in regard to the Vietnam War. Kerry became senator of Massachusetts in 1984 and was re-elected in 1990, 1996, and 2002.

With the election nearly five months away, a recent Gallup pole indicated a 47% approval rating for President Bush, while 49% disapprove. Roughly the same percentages can be found in the presidential race, with Kerry slightly ahead of Bush. This information suggests that the popular vote of the country is split down the middle, with a significant amount of voters teetering in the middle.

In a recent Time Magazine article, director of a documentary called "Uncovered: The War on Iraq" Robert Greenwald said the media may play a significant role in the upcoming election. "We've underestimated the audience's desire to see [political] material," said Greenwald, who's documentary criticized the Bush administration's foreign policy. "I don't think it's about hating the President. It's that politics has been brought home to the deepest part of ourselves."

Michael Moore's latest blockbuster documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, hopes to seesaw those wayward voters over to the left. "There's millions of you on the sidelines," explains Moore, "and I'm like the coach saying, 'Come on, bench, get in the game!'" Though Moore's anti-Bush message is clear in the film, even democrat's fear its repercussions.

"It is an exaggerated message from an imperfect messenger," said former John Kerry campaign manager Jim Jordan.

In fact, the film features a clip where Senate minority leader Tom Daschle urges other Senators to vote for war in Iraq after his lead.

Slate Columnist Christopher Hitchens called the film "a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of 'dissenting' bravery." Hitchens also points out several key points that he feels were deliberately left out of the film: the emerging Afghan army, Afghanistan is now a joint NATO responsibility and therefore under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, it's constructed a new constitution and is preparing against great odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of the ravaged country's refugees have opted to return.

But aside from the facts left in and out of the documentary, more is at stake that has perhaps been purposely overlooked. Though Moore has taken swings at Bush and the democrats in the film, he fails to incorporated the fallacies of the democratic Presidential hopeful. Those viewers overpowered by the film's message and coerced to vote "anyone but Bush" may wish to reconsider.

Larry King recently asked Kerry in a CNN interview if he would want former President Bill Clinton to campaign for him.

"What American would not trade the economy we had in the 1990's, the fact that we were not at war, and young Americans were not deployed?" answered Kerry. Wake up Mr. Kerry. Under the Clinton Administration, our country suffered attacks by Osama bin Laden on our embassy's and the U.S.S Cole. They simply chose not to fight back.

Kerry's speeches reveal his fallacies. He preaches his objection to the deployment of young people, yet he complained not enough troops were sent to Afghanistan. Furthermore, the Democratic savior to President Bush voted for the war in Iraq. It's interesting how voters poised against President Bush will vote for Kerry simply because of the war notion. Bottom line: Kerry voted for the war liberals feel was unrighteous.

Beyond that, Kerry and the rest of the Democrats maintain that our global standing has never been lower and claim our country is more vulnerable than ever before. Let's look at the scoreboard since the 9/11 attacks: The Taliban in Afghanistan was eradicated, Saddam Hussein's Baathist despotism in Iraq was toppled, the nuclear weapons bazaar hosted by Pakistan and Libya has been terminated, and al Qaeda fugitives are captured daily.

As a matter of fact, Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's leading Democrat, made a convincing case for war when he took the floor in an October 2002 speech. "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East," he stated.

The truth is, John Kerry and the Democratic Party are fooling the American people into thinking the Bush Administration has not only accomplished nothing, but has been counterproductive. In a time where friends and family fight to protect our rights, John Kerry and the left would blind us against the accomplishments of the Bush Administration. Thus the choice should be clear: a President who's stance on issues fluctuates more than al Qaeda operatives on the grid or a President who's dedicated to our safety.

What Nerve! (agents)

This is dedicated to all the bleeding liberals out there who want anyone but Bush in office.

An exploded artillery shell found in Iraq was armed with the sarin nerve agent. According to Reuters, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that initial field tests indicated that the 155mm shell contained the dangerous chemical agent developed by Hitler’s Nazis and used by Saddam Hussein against the Kurds of Halabjah 16 years ago.

The Pentagon reported that two U.S. servicemen were hospitalized in Baghdad for exposure to the agent. As the servicemen attempted to disarm the crude bomb, it was set off. Later it was determined that the chemical agent dispersed by the explosion was the poisonous sarin agent.

The shell has been dated back to the Gulf War, which suggests that Hussein did not destroy all of his weapons. It seems clear that chemical weapons still exist, proving our case for war. However, the liberals will find someway to disprove it and pin the finding of such deadly nerve agents on bogus causes.

Believe it or not, Senator and Democratic Presidential hopeful John Kerry, the liberals’ only hope of dethroning Bush, believes weapons of mass destruction could still exist in Iraq. "Who knows if a month from now, three months from now, you find some weapons?” he commented on April 27. “You may."

One thing is for certain: these chemical weapons exist and are being used on our soldiers. But don’t tell the Democrats, they’re the one’s that don’t want the military vote to count in close elections. Cheers to another four years Mr. Bush.

The Recorder vs. Academic Integrity

Central Connecticut State University's student newspaper, The Recorder, was recently under scrutiny over a slight case of plagiarism in an opinion article. While the paper's Editorial Editor, Carol Davis, addressed the issue adequately in an April 14 editorial, there are still some issues I'd like to address as Editor in Chief.

The author of the article, which appeared in the Feb. 4 issue of our paper, allegedly misattributed a source idea from a website used in research. While the author cited one source used, he mistook an idea from a second source as being said by the first. A CCSU student then brought the piece to the attention of a boss who pointed out the errors, as well as expressed his displeasure over the author's side of the issue.

Professor Vivian Martin of the CCSU Journalism Department said the mistake was common among students, particularly those in their first year of college. In a meeting with Professor Martin, the author, Managing Editor Ed Harris, Sue Sweeny of the Student Activities Leadership Department, and myself, we resolved to educate the author and future new writers in citation techniques as well as what typically constitutes plagiarism.

CCSU Political Science professor Toni Moran requested that an academic misconduct report be filed and sent to campus judicial. She believed that while most clubs wouldn’t be held to the same standard, The Recorder is in the public sphere and thus requires some kind of judicial-decided consequence.

First and foremost, The Recorder is a club, separate from the institution. Academic policies do not apply because of this. We adhere to our own laws and deal with problems internally in a manner that we see fit. Submitting the author's case of slight plagiarism, which was attributed to ignorance, to campus judicial based off academic misconduct is illogical since no course work was involved and a no grade given.

While Professor Moran was generally pleased with Carol Davis's editorial, I believe the issue should be put to rest. The author has dealt with Professor Martin for educational purposes. That's what The Recorder is: a learning experience. How are students, particularly freshman, supposed to learn if they are knocked down by the first blow?

Marriage vs. Civil Union

President Bush endorsed a proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between two people of the opposite sex. However, he left open the possibility that states could allow civil unions.

“The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith,” Bush said as reported by cnn.com. A full transcript of Bush’s statements can be found here.

Ron Paul is a congressman representing the 14th district in Texas. He calls marriage “a religious matter, not a government matter.” Law should mirror moral standards, but morality comes from religion, philosophy, societal standards, families, and responsible individuals, according to Paul. “It seems sad that we need government to define and regulate our most basic institutions,” he wrote in an article called Gay Marriage Quicksand, which appeared in The New American.

While some may view it as sad, others view it as necessary. And why shouldn’t they? Don’t get me wrong; I have nothing against gay people. I am in no way against gays living together in some form of unifying bond. But to call something that is sexually artificial to begin with “marriage” defies more than just the bond between a man and a woman; it defies the basis of our culture.

Marriage is a religious term for sanctifying and symbolizing the heterosexual union between a man and a woman. To cast aside the religious references is to disrespect the right to freedom of religion. Allowing a gay couple’s union to be called “marriage” infringes on religious freedom.

While we’re disposing of the country’s foundational moral standards, we might as well scrap the rest of the Constitution as well.

The Many Lives of Judd

Central Connecticut State University President Richard Judd was caught by a Hartford Courant reader for plagiarism. An Op/Ed appearing in the March 9 edition of the Courant described Judd's copying of lines from the New York Times, calling them his own words. This piece may be viewed at ctnow.com in the Other Opinion section.

For example, the Op/Ed by John J. Zakarian in the Courant said that Judd wrote the "island has for too long been contorted by tensions between Turkey and Greece." In a Jan. 7, 2003 New York Times editorial, the line "Cyprus, long contorted by tensions between Turkey and Greece ..." appeared.

Steps to pursue this have been taken and the Hartford Courant has apologized for running the article. As a response, Judd has said "I see now that in preparing a speech, which later became the basis for an op-ed in The Hartford Courant, I mistakenly assumed notes I had made were my own and I thus incorporated them without attribution. As an author of many texts and articles, I should have done a better job of vetting my text. I had no intention of using another's words or misleading readers in describing my sense of events in Cyprus," to the Courant.

If the punishment for plagiarism at CCSU can be as high as expulsion, Judd should be treated no different. The CCSU academic handbook states that academic misconduct can result in contacting "the University Judicial Officer regarding additional University disciplinary actions, which may include probation, suspension, or expulsion."

Judd has a growing list of felonies and falsehoods on his record and should therefore resign in order to preserve the integrity of this university and himself. Him staying in office provides the worst example for students to follow.

A news story from CNN.com can be found here. WFSB Channel 3 also covered the controversy.

I was interviewed by the Hartford Courant in this article, which appeared on the March 10 front page.

Haitian Turmoil

A rebellion in Haiti, led by Guy Philippe, has gained international attention from both France and the United States. Philippe claims that President Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s regime was unjust and corrupt. Philippe boasted roughly 4,000 strong and threatened the governmental foundations of Haiti itself.

The Bush administration sent 50 marines into Haiti’s capital of Port-au-Prince to protect the U.S. Embassy and its staff. This decision came after the Haitian rebels rejected a U.S.-backed resolution because it did NOT involve the ousting of Aristide.

However, Aristide fled to Africa, claiming he was forced to leave by a U.S. coup d’etat. This statement completely contradicts the reason the U.S. entered Haiti, whether one backs the Bush administration or not. The U.S.’s plan did not demand Aristide step down.

Perhaps Aristide should have heeded the recommendation of the French, who suggested a new form of government. He has accused the United States of kidnapping him and forcing him to give up his presidency. Whatever Aristide did was enough for 4,000 people rebel on a little island nation and was in no way the fault of the United States. By the sound of Philippe’s demands, he deserved to be booted to Africa.

Any nation leader that blames a country for their own personal problems should be forcefully removed. Aristide might as well blame the Jews for the holocaust while he's at it.

The Passion of the Christ

The following will be published in the 3/3 issue of The Recorder

With Christian leaders calling Director Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” perhaps “the best outreach opportunity in 2000 years,” it is unfair to rank this film in terms of an entertainment value. To criticize a depiction of the horribly agonizing and redemptive last 12 hours of one of the most revered religious figures in human history seems sacrilegious.

Actor James Caviezel plays Jesus of Nazareth and had to endure seven hours of makeup each day in order to accurately depict the savagery that Christ’s body endured. “I felt this is what we believe in the Roman Catholic faith and in Christianity as a whole,” he told James Brady of “Parade” about the film. “I didn’t do this for the money but because I love my faith.”

The movie is presented in the original languages that the characters would have been speaking during the time, according to the movie’s official website passionofthechrist.com. Jesus, his disciples, and the Jewish characters speak Aramaic while the Romans speak a common dialect of Latin. Hearing the characters speak these languages brings a degree of realism to the screen. The English subtitles are also easy to read.

Gibson hired cinematographer Caleb Deschanel, whose credentials include “The Patriot” and “The Right Stuff”, to recreate the look and textures conveyed in the paintings of Caravaggio. Gibson wished to illustrate the dark and violent, yet spiritual, context of Caravaggio’s art. According to the film’s background information, roughly 40 percent of the movie was filmed indoors to capture the sense of “light fighting its way out of the darkness.”

Gibson said his “intention for this film was to create a lasting work of art and to stimulate serious thought and reflection among diverse audiences of all backgrounds.”

Whether or not the movie blames Jewish leaders for the death of Jesus Christ is irrelevant. The depiction of Jesus’ crucifixion has been told and retold through many venues and mediums; all of which have numbed the portrayal for suitable family viewing. Gibson has depicted exactly what the death of Jesus Christ was: the savage and barbaric persecution of the son of God.

‘Passion’ illustrates a more vivid understanding of Jesus’ suffering. The movie begins with Jesus praying in the Kidron valley garden. He receives an unsettling and eerie visit from Satan, whose appearance can be described as dangerously luring and strangely appealing: sin in its purest form. The entire scene accurately conveys everything from the betrayal of Judas to the cutting off of Malchus’s ear, which was healed by Jesus.

After the high priests present Jesus before Pontius Pilate, who washes his hands of matter, the movie reveals the ruthless and inhuman treatment of an alleged Roman infidel. It highlights the less savory aspects of human history as Jesus was whipped, gouged, and tortured for every one of humankind’s sins. This powerful representation of Christ’s sacrificial torment for humanity was enough to make even the most casual Christian wince with remorse.

Gibson made the suffering of Jesus incredibly life-like, down to the hammered nails in his hands. Once Christ gave up his spirit after shouting the final words from all four Gospel readings, the earth shook and the clouded sky rumbled. After determining Jesus was indeed dead by disrespectfully stabbing his side with a spear, they took him down. Mary, who witnessed the violent and inhumane torture of her own flesh and blood, cradled the son of God in her arms, looking directly at the camera.

Some people left the theatre in tears; but everyone left with a solemn sense of revelation.

Reality Bites

The Following will be published in the 2/25 issue of The Recorder

Reality TV's roots can be traced back to MTV's first season of “The Real World" back in 1992. From there, such shows as "Road Rules" and later CBS's "Survivor" were born, turning the private lives of individuals into primetime human peep shows.

While "Survivor" revolutionized the modern game show, popularizing the concept of reality television, it opened the floodgates of filth. It wasn't long until broadcasting companies like FOX had to trade a few raunchy sitcoms in for completely grotesque unscripted shows centered on the embarrassment of unsuspecting people.

Reality TV has lost its steam; however, in an effort to leave ts mark on the reality TV industry, FOX has morphed its concept into a continuum of lewdness. Its latest creation, "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiancé" focuses on a beautiful bride-to-be attempting to convince her unsuspecting parents of her plans to marry an annoying, obnoxious and obese man for a million dollars. To be successful, she must make it through vows at the altar. The six-episode series began airing on Jan. 19.

The fact that a young woman would embarrass herself and her family on public television for a million dollars, and that Americans would watch it, only demonstrates how American society and its concept of decency are de-evolving. Another example of FOX's tread along this line is their new show called "Playing it Straight" which will first air on Mar. 12.

The show breaks the ethical barrier by creating an environment in which a woman must determine who of fourteen bachelors is gay. As FOX puts it, she "must determine which side of the saddle these guys ride on." If the straight guy is the remaining bachelor after the rest are eliminated by the woman, the couple will split a million dollars. If a gay guy remains, he walks away with the entire prize.

The show places its entertainment value on the sexist stereotype that homosexual males are different from heterosexual males. When the FCC argued that Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction defied the laws of decency, where does the public humiliation of homosexual or over-weight individuals fit in? Apparently the lure of money is more important than ethics.

Providence College's newspaper, "The Cowl," made a particularly sad distinction "noting that there were more votes for 'American Idol' than for president in the 2000 election." Reality TV distracts the American public from the more relative and important issues that plague this nation. People would much rather see the exploitation and public humiliation of horrendous talent ridiculed by American Idol's Simon Cowell than choose a political leader who will impact real life. This needs to change before American entertainment becomes comparable to that of the Roman Empire.

However, Americans will remain devoted to their favorite reality TV programs as they witness the degradation of public entertainment. Soon the axes and maces will be brought back into the gladiatorial coliseum while box-office ticket purchases will be for public executions.