Tomorrow is National Day of Silence, a day to call attention to the silence that many gay, lesbian, bi and trans-gendered people are forced to experience through bullying, harassment and intimidation. Because of this anti-LGBT attitude, the LGBT community fears coming out of the closet and must silence their true selves.
This day is primarily a youth event that takes place in middle schools, high schools and colleges. Its purpose is to encourage schools and classmates to address the anti-LGBT atmosphere in our education system. It started at the University of Virginia in 1996. Read these four truths for more information about Day of Silence.
I'm actually surprised this hasn't caught on outside of schools ... and maybe it has. If you notice people completely silent tomorrow in settings where there usually is conversation, this may be the reason.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
National Day of Silence
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Violence in America
I'm not one of those people who believes that any one thing leads to violence in America or in today's youth. I also have a feeling that people who blame things like the Internet, video games, movies and TV know that there is much more to it than that. I do believe that those things probably do desensitize us to violence and for people with other risk factors (for lack of a better term), violent forms of entertainment can further increase their likelihood of committing violent crimes.
I do not think that guns are inherently evil but I do think there need to be restrictions on gun ownership and that safety classes should be required for people who own guns. Responsible gun owners will take care of learning about their guns on their own and will make sure they know how to keep guns safe but you can't say that is true for every gun owner. A look at the statistics of accidental gun fatalities and injuries alone will tell you that.
I know that many gun rights activists believe this to be an underhanded way to restrict gun ownership but I disagree. If you have to have a license to operate a car, it should be required in owning a weapon and it makes sense for part of that license to include gun safety. If every air traveler has to go through intense security checks at airports for the safety of us all, it makes sense that gun owners would also have to take certain steps for the safety of us all as well. That's enough about guns for now, though. It's not something I intended to talk about but I also know there is always more to say on the subject.
I've heard a lot of people lament about today's youth, saying that this generation is more violent than previous generations. Most likely, this is true. It's hard to completely trust statistics, though. A lot more crime and instances of violence is reported today than may have been reported decades and even a century ago. That does not mean these things didn't happen, though.
When you look at the instances that have really grabbed the attention of the media like Columbine and Virginia Tech, you can argue that things like this haven't happened before ... but would you be correct? Well, there have been other instances in the past but not at this level and not for these reasons. For example, when Kent State happened, the Ohio National Guard was responsible for the death of 4 protesters. Then again, the school shooting with the third most fatalities in history took place over 40 years ago at the University of Texas in Austin at the hand of a lone, unbalanced gunman.
So, has something changed? Has something happened somewhere along the line where more and more people are resorting to violence? Perhaps it only took one highly publicized school shooting for others to find glory in such an action. The copy-cat theory is possible but I don't think that's everything either. Perhaps society has changed, perhaps families have changed, perhaps this generation (and I am of the Columbine generation, by the way) just have all their priorities fucked up.
There certainly is evidence for that. The recent incident in Lakeland, Florida where 8 students worked together to kidnap and video tape 6 of them beating a classmate lends evidence to the idea that this generation has the wrong priorities. These 8 students committed this act for two primary reasons that I know of: 1) the victim was talking trash online at MySpace and 2) for "fame" on YouTube.
For those of you out there who don't know this already, violence is no way to respond to trash talk. I don't care what someone says. This is especially true when the resulting violence is 8 against 1 ... 1 individual who refuses to hit back. As for YouTube fame, that is beyond disgusting. I know plenty of people who, long before this incident, said that sites like MySpace and YouTube were nothing but trash and should not exist. I disagree with that. For every questionable item on YouTube, I believe there are many, many worthwhile, timely and funny videos. I don't have a problem with MySpace either. It's a good place to keep in touch, to meet people and to find out about music, podcasts and more. Just like any form of technology or free speech, there will be people who use it improperly or even grossly abuse it.
While on the subject of YouTube, I think it's important to know that many people take part in something called Vlogging. Similar to Blogging but instead of coming from the term "weblog" it comes from "video log." It is just like blogging but to a video camera instead of to a keyboard. As you can imagine, many people who love and use YouTube had things to say about the Lakeland Florida incident. Afterall, this is the most highly publicized event of people using YouTube to become famous for an act of violence (although, it's definitely not the first time). Others who use YouTube want to distance themselves from such an act and say to the world that they are not such people.
If you watched some of the linked videos and other similar videos, you may have noticed one particular recurring theme and that is that a lot of these bloggers and those who commented on their videos are not only angry and desire justice but they also want all out revenge. They want to see these students beat down and there's little that would make them happier than if they could personally deliver the beatings.
Now, I'm not trying to say that revenge isn't a natural human emotion but I definitely think it is a natural emotion that we need to rise above. Mostly, I find it interesting that when we as a society see these atrocious acts of violence, we want to answer with violence. The idea of an eye for an eye is very pervasive throughout our culture. The truth of the matter is, though, violence begets violence. As I've stated before, I'm not a particularly religious person but I don't think you have to be religious to appreciate the grace in the idea of turning the other cheek. Most importantly, though, violence begets violence. To quote Mahatma Gandhi, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
For those of you who don't like the idea of turning the other cheek, I'm not suggesting that we forget about any kind of justice. All I'm saying is that vengeance is not justice. There is punishment in justice, yes, but that should not include violence. Furthermore, we as a nation need to figure out a better way of including more rehabilitation and helping criminals readjust to life after prison or jail. That too is for another journal entry, though.
I said before that I wanted to talk a bit about how we can learn from Cho's shooting at Virginia Tech last year. Part of that will hopefully be better care for the mentally ill and even less stigma for the mentally ill. I remember hearing a DJ on a local radio station last year talk about how anyone who has these homicidal and suicidal thoughts is insane, abnormal and that they need to get themselves committed immediately. I wouldn't be surprised if many people agree with that sentiment. Few people want to admit to ever having had such thoughts so it's easy for some people to dismiss such thoughts as "insane" and "abnormal." I do not disagree that people having such thoughts should seek help but many people need help for many mental health aliments. It does not help to alienate any of these people; in fact, it makes such people more likely to act on their thoughts.
Similarly to having more respect and compassion for those with mental health problems, we all can do better about treating those who are different than us better than we do. This starts in grade school with the bullying that occurs and continues on through adult life. The day before the anniversary of the Tech shooting, a local school had an informal "Kick a Freshman Day." I was shocked when I heard about this for a number of reasons, but mostly because students at the school are hyper-aware of the VT tragedy and yet many of them stupidly took part in the same kind of bullying that separates, humiliates and leads to more violence. This is the kind of thing that needs to stop. It's no longer just kids being kids.
We as a society are not a lost cause but we can and need to do better. Luckily, for every act of violence, there are examples of amazing humanity. If you need a reminder of that, just read this article that Chris Fowler wrote last year about the Virginia Tech students' response, grace and dignity in the face of such a tragedy. There is always hope. This generation is not lost.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Should bells toll 32 or 33 times for VT tragedy?
This is a very sensitive subject and I do not intend to say that my opinion is the answer. I'm looking in from the outside on all of this. I didn't go to Virginia Tech and I've never lived in Blacksburg, VA. I do have connections to Tech and feel a certain sense of Hokie pride upon seeing, for example, someone wearing a VT hat while in London, England. There's this feeling that I have some kind of special relationship with Tech, as I'm sure many people have felt before, and feel even more strongly after the events of 4/16/07. I get choked up when I see the pictures, I flat out cry when I hear Nikki Giovanni's speech and I'm often even more emotional whenever I hear "Let's Go Hokies," especially somewhere other than at a sporting event. But the reality is: I'm an outsider here. And I'm well aware of that.
All of this to say: I wish that more people would remember that 33 people died as a result of the Virginia Tech shooting. I understand why people tend to just use the number 32, to make picture collages with 32 faces, to ring the bell 32 times and to light 32 candles. I definitely agree that it would be too much to include the person responsible for all these deaths during the remembrance ceremony that took place on the Drill Field this past Wednesday.
Should Seung-Hui Cho's name always be completely forgotten, though? Last year, it seems like there was more of a mix. Some radio stations asked for 32 seconds of silence while others played 33 bell chimes. I went to a church vigil that specifically used 33 candles to make the VT sign and I saw other vigils with 32 roses. This year, though, I cannot think of a time when I've seen the number 33 in place of 32. I cannot think of a time that Cho's name has been mentioned or his picture shown. I purposely added his picture to my flickr slideshow below but I also purposely put it after the other 32 and towards the end of the show, knowing that fewer people would click all the way to the end.
There are many reasons to leave Cho out of these memorials, vigils, ceremonies, etc. If nothing else, it can be hurtful to the families, friends and surviving victims as well as everyone who feels any kind of connection with Virginia Tech. We would also not want to glorify anything about what he did. I definitely understand these reasons and I agree with them.
I think there are also good reasons to include him in the number, though. Least of all, he did die as a result of the shooting and it is inaccurate to ignore that fact. Most of all, his life should be considered just as precious as anyone else's. I'm sure that sounds like a simplistic, hippie way of seeing things. It may even sound like something a religious zealot would say but you'll have to take my word for it when I say I'm not at all an overly-religious person. I simply believe that while Cho was clearly a mentally ill person who committed a terrible crime and robbed us of people of indescribable worth, he too deserves to be remembered.
I also believe that in taking Cho off the list, we lose the complete ability to learn from this situation. I do not believe that political policy or anything similar should be changed or created solely based on this attack but I do believe there is plenty to learn from it. Furthermore, it is not just for our policy makers and mental health professionals to learn from this tragedy. We as a society can and should learn multiple lessons and in order to learn those lessons, I think it is important for us to attempt to understand Cho and to resist the impulse to continuously ignore his part of the story.
Again, I do not want to make it sound like there is a clear cut answer here. I personally believe that it was best to not include Cho in the ceremony on Wednesday but I wish that he were included more often. I would not ask for victims or their families and friends to add Cho to any of their memorials. I would ask for people to consider the possibility of saying 33 instead of 32 and to then decide for themselves which they think is best. For the slideshow memorial I did and this blog entry, I choose 33. I cannot promise that in another situation I wouldn't choose 32 instead.
Next time I write, I intend to talk about violence in America, particularly violence in American youth. I plan to tie back to this entry and what I said about society learning from this tragedy. I also plan to include some links next time. None this time.
Thanks for reading and I hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend!
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Hokie Nation
A Time to Remember
Tomorrow will mark the anniversary of the tragedy at Virginia Tech. This blog will be maroon and orange for the rest of the month in honor of all those affected by the shooting. I may say more about this later, but for now I will simply post Nikki Giovanni's speech and the responding spirit of the Hokie Nation shown in this CNN video.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Bitter Americans and Elite Politicians
Upon first hearing about Barack Obama's comments at a fundraiser in San Francisco on April 6, I didn't think it was that of a big deal. Americans, specifically Small Town Americans, are bitter. What's surprising or controversial about that? It seems like the primary focus has been on the idea that calling people "bitter" is insulting. This idea doesn't make sense to me.
Hard working Americans are losing jobs, paying more to fill up their gas tanks and have been lied to over and over by politicians. Meanwhile, CEOs are no longer just millionaires but billionaires, gas companies are raking in the cash and politicians are still lying to them. I'm bitter. I want change. We should all want change. We should all be bitter, even angry. To quote Howard Beale in Network, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"
As I've read various reactions to Obama's comments (here's one example from Pennsylvania), I've come to believe that most people agree that people are bitter and it's not just Small Town America. It makes me wonder who really is out of touch here. Obama is exactly right while Clinton and McCain are just saying what they think Small Town America wants to hear. But in the process, they come off, at best, as the ones out of touch and, at worst, patronizing to people who are sick and tired of being patronized.
What gets Obama into trouble, though, isn't the bitter comment ... or rather, it shouldn't be the bitter comment. Where Obama has a problem is in how voters look at him now. In particular what he said about what Small Town people "cling" to: guns, God and good ol' American values ... not to mention good ol' Americans. That doesn't sound great with that spin. These Small Town Americans are so bitter that they irrationally lash out at anyone different from themselves. Hm.
Let's take a look at what he said, though. And before we do, it should be pointed out that I did read that Obama was responding to a question asking what demographic is his hardest sell (such as working class Pennsylvania). I can't find a full transcript that would show what prompted this portion of the speech but here is what I have found:
So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.Well, taken in context, this all looks entirely different to me. Obama has not dismissed anyone as gun toting, Bible beating, xenophobic assholes. I think that if Clinton or McCain had to respond to more of the speech than most people are quoting, most of their comments would not hold water. To me, Obama made it perfectly clear that he is not talking about everyone in Small Town America and also that wherever you go, there is a mix of people.
Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laughter), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).
But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.
But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing. (copied from this Huffington Post article.)
More importantly to me is, as I've said before, Obama wasn't accusing anyone of anything. He was giving a credible reason why people are disenfranchised with a disappointing government and how, if the conservative part of the working class wants to maintain some optimism in their government, they must focus on (even cling to) the few issues in which they get some kind of satisfaction from their government. After all, neither Democrats (Bill Clinton's administration) nor Republicans (both Bush administrations) have done much of anything for them in terms of employment or economics in the last 20 years so they concentrate on the social issues where experience has shown they have a chance at some satisfaction.
These social issues are also where they seem to differ from liberal-Obama. Why is it so surprising that Obama lays these issues out and talks about how he wants and needs to convince people that he would not disappoint them on employment and economic issues? If he wants to unite and lead, he will have to convince people that he is able to make a difference in their daily lives and that there is good reason to be optimistic about the government.
I do not find it surprising that people are offended by parts of this speech. I think it is important to point out that Obama did not feel a need to explain himself fully because he did not expect his words to hit the press. That is not to say that he showed his true colors as some "liberal elitist," but instead that he skimped his words while in a room full of like-minded individuals waiting to hand over their money.
Had he given a similar speech in Small Town Pennsylvania, I think he would spend more time explaining why he feels they aren't so different on social issues. After all, Obama also supports the right to gun ownership, Obama also has a strong faith in God and Obama also cares about immigration reform. Most probably, he would then go on to try to convince Small Town Pennsylvania that not only are they not so different socially, but also that Obama can and will make a difference in their daily lives by helping them out in terms of employment and economics.
Having gone through all of this mess and analysing it all, I am more strongly convinced that Obama is not the one out of touch here. It seems to me that he has his finger right on the pulse of things and has a good understanding of what he is up against: convincing Americans that even though their government has been a disappointment in the past and they have little reason to believe he will be different ... he will be different. A daunting task indeed but Obama is not intimidated by it. He understands it and is resolved to address it full-force.
I am even more of the opinion that it is ridiculous for any one of these candidates to call any of the other elitist. All three of them are part of the elite and none of them should act like Americans do not know that. The best they can hope to do is to show that they have some understanding of those they serve instead of pointing fingers and hoping to make everyone forget that the pot often calls the kettle black.
Related links:
What is a political elitist?
Obama on the Issues - Poverty
Obama on the Issues - Rural America
Clinton on the Issues - The Middle Class
Clinton on the Issues - Rural America
McCain on the Issues - Taxes and Economics
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Blog Update
Just posting here to say that if you scroll down to the first entry of this blog, you will see the brand new Master Links List. I put a 04/04/08 00:01 timestamp on it so it would be the first entry on the site even though I just now posted it. This master list will be a work in progress and I'll probably post a new blog entry every time I make changes to it. I'll also have an *updated on MM/DD/YYYY* at the top of the list.
I'm happy with the start, but I also know that there are plenty of websites missing that I visit regularly. Not to mention websites that I don't yet know of, but that would fit in here perfectly.
Short entry this time but hope to be back soon. Until then, have a great week!
Thursday, April 10, 2008
A Few Websites of the Day
I've spent most of my free time getting things set up and writing my intro post. I may add to this post later but for now, here are a few links that I visited today:
1. From CNN HEROES - Runner Gets Homeless On Right Track
2. From Consortium News - (The Late) M. L. King Still Silenced
3. My favorite columnist - Leonard Pitts - I'll probably link him a lot and highlight specific columns.
4. Perceval Press - an independent publishing house started by Viggo Mortensen. They publish books of art, poetry, photography, essays and more. The website not only has a listing of the books they publish but also recommendations, most of which are of a liberal political persuasion. Mortensen is very liberal and he posts a lot of links to news stories and editorials on the homepage. The site also displays a lot of the photography and art found in the books they publish and that have not yet been published. It's a beautiful site but I am biased. I don't always agree with Mortensen but more often than not I do. I also am very much against the belief that celebrities should, to quote critics of the Dixie Chicks, "shut up and sing." There are plenty of celebrities who talk a lot who I do not agree with but it seems to me that it is the liberals who are most often criticized for speaking up while conservatives are more tolerated and even encouraged to get involved in politics. Examples? Ronald Reagan, Charlton Heston and Arnold Schwarzenegger, to name a few. I do not resent these people being involved in politics. I resent the double standard applied to liberal celebrities. Of course, people shouldn't give celebrities more credit just because they are famous but people also shouldn't dismiss celebrities only because they are famous. I personally think it is only responsible for people like Viggo Mortensen to use their celebrity to better the world and raise awareness.
5. Speaking of the Dixie Chicks - I recently watched the 2007 documentary, Shut Up & Sing. As I'm sure you can guess by what I say above, I loved this movie. It reinforced what I already felt about the incident and the band. I loved their music before this all happened and have even more respect for them after Natalie Maines spoke out and yet more after watching this movie.
That's it for now! I may come back to some of these things another time but I also may not :)
Have a good one!
Introduction - Me and My Blog
Although this is a new blog, I am not at all new to blogging. I have accounts with LiveJournal, Xanga, FaceBook, MySpace ... you name the networking site, I most likely have an account with them. I'm also a member of numerous forums and I was even on volunteer staff for a forum for a while. Now I hardly ever read, must less post, on any forums. Other than my AIM screenname and a little bit of writing I've submitted to another website, this is the first time I've started an account like this without using my own first name as my user name ... or at least part of my user name. This is the first time I plan to be almost completely anonymous.
I do think I will eventually invite some friends and family to this website and ask them to not use my real name when commenting here. I'm not sure how to articulate why I want to be anonymous with this site when it really doesn't matter on other websites. So for now, I won't even try. I just ask you to respect that wish.
About Me
While I plan to remain anonymous, I imagine that along the way, I'll share some of my background in order to show where I am coming from and to put my biases for all to see. As you can tell by this blog's title and how I sign my name here, I am a liberal and while I am liberal on many issues, I do not blindly follow any party line or political persuasion. A little more background: I am 26, female, white, middle class (perhaps upper-middle) from a southern state and I have a BA in psychology. I've lived abroad, I have a politically diverse family and, although young, I have a wide range of work experiences. I may share more specific information later but that's it about me for now.
About the Blog
If I already have so many ways to connect to friends and family, why start this blog? Well, the other ways I connect are much more personal. I plan to use this blog to discuss politics, current events, charitable opportunities, and society (yes, that probably will include pop culture). I anticipate posting a lot of links to stories I find interesting and worthy of discussion. Sometimes, I will simply have links without any commentary from me; just to use this as a place to help me organize and share these links. If discussion follows in the comments, great. I'm sure other times I will include my own thoughts on linked stories in the body of my entry. Along the same lines of sharing links, I hope to eventually have one master entry that has the homepage links to a lot of the specific links I share. In particular, I'd like to organize a listing of charitable organizations and outreach opportunities.
That's how I see this all shaping out. We'll see though. Those that know me know that I may start out strong on things like this but then I start to only post every 4 months or something.
Edited to Add: If you stumble upon this site and would like to discuss anything I've brought up (or anything I haven't), I'd love to talk with you about it in the comments. I'd also be happy to post links that you find interesting. I doubt I'd turn links away but I will reserve the right to not publish a link.
Master Links List
*updated April 14, 2008 --- 16:29*
I actually created this on April 13, 2008 but it makes sense to keep it back with the intro entry. I'll include an *updated* date every time that I add new links to this master list. I will not be adding links to specific articles here ... only links to homepages of certain websites. Also, this is a very slow start. I just wanted to get this particular entry going and didn't take a lot of time to add a lot of important websites.
News/Politics/Publications
Stay informed, read multiple sources
Charity/Activism
Get inspired and get involved
Movies/Music/TV
Thought provoking entertainment and documentaries
*Please comment with any link recommendations. I will probably add most things suggested to this list but I reserve the right to not add certain links.
