I've got a great number of friends at state universities and out of state colleges, and they're all worried about finals week. I'm not sure why, isn't finals week just a random collection of essays and final projects laced sporadically through the last two weeks of school?
Wait, maybe that's just Loras.
Of all the schools I've heard of, Loras is the only one that seems to have such an inconsistent finals experience. That's just fine with me, I've lived a relatively short life of clutter and insane, randomly placed deadlines, but I'm sure people who need congruence can get a little miffed over the clutter that is loras finals week.
Why do we do it this way? is it because Loras curriculum is planned seperately? is that a good thing? I can't answer that because all I know is that summer is on the way.
Thanks all, for year that was medium at best.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Returning
Osama Bin Laden is still dead, and we're still celebrating like we those hollow point bullets scored a touchdown on his face, so not much has developed since last I addressed this topic.
I'll try to be new and interesting though.
Bin Laden should have been tried as a criminal, not shot like a dog.
I have two good reasons
1. Killing Osama Bin Laden makes this a U.S. victory and cheats the world of its closure, furthermore, it serves no function of justice, only a function of revenge. Yanking Bin Laden out of his compound and whipping him like the dog he was on national television would have been a moment of vindication for the families of 9/11, a time to share their stories, and a time to show the eastern hemisphere that the western hemisphere's initial beef with Bin Laden was entirely legitimate, if not the wars that followed. Instead he was shot twice in the head by a covert team and his end was catharsis before justice. Just like every other death, it was a waste.
2. Osama Bin Laden probably enjoyed breathing and eating fudge as much as you do. That means that he's entitled to the same basic semblance of dignity, respect, and mercy that you enjoy regardless of his crimes. Saddam Hussein was a bastard coated bastard with bastard filling, but his treatment upset me. That's not because I'm a bleeding heart, it's because we share basic human similarities, and nobody likes to watch a person who shares their basic human similarities be hung by the neck until dead on Youtube. A general rule that would prevent acts of terrorism and cruelty: treat people like people, even if you don't like them very much. Blood and brain matter are clear signs that hollow point bullets and human beings don't mesh well.
Killing people, even nasty ones, is bad. Feel free to disagree, but it won't change my opinion unless you do it loudly (even then, good luck).
I'll try to be new and interesting though.
Bin Laden should have been tried as a criminal, not shot like a dog.
I have two good reasons
1. Killing Osama Bin Laden makes this a U.S. victory and cheats the world of its closure, furthermore, it serves no function of justice, only a function of revenge. Yanking Bin Laden out of his compound and whipping him like the dog he was on national television would have been a moment of vindication for the families of 9/11, a time to share their stories, and a time to show the eastern hemisphere that the western hemisphere's initial beef with Bin Laden was entirely legitimate, if not the wars that followed. Instead he was shot twice in the head by a covert team and his end was catharsis before justice. Just like every other death, it was a waste.
2. Osama Bin Laden probably enjoyed breathing and eating fudge as much as you do. That means that he's entitled to the same basic semblance of dignity, respect, and mercy that you enjoy regardless of his crimes. Saddam Hussein was a bastard coated bastard with bastard filling, but his treatment upset me. That's not because I'm a bleeding heart, it's because we share basic human similarities, and nobody likes to watch a person who shares their basic human similarities be hung by the neck until dead on Youtube. A general rule that would prevent acts of terrorism and cruelty: treat people like people, even if you don't like them very much. Blood and brain matter are clear signs that hollow point bullets and human beings don't mesh well.
Killing people, even nasty ones, is bad. Feel free to disagree, but it won't change my opinion unless you do it loudly (even then, good luck).
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Between Timid and Timbuktu
Osama Bin Laden is dead, I'm not writing about the royal wedding. It ain't happening.
The whole affair raises far more questions than answers. Osama Bin Laden is dead very little has changed.
Is this a victory for freedom? A bitter defeat to humanists because a world power government actually killed a scumbag for once? What happens to the Global War on Terrorism? What are we going to call the nasty things we do with missles now? Why are we all celebrating a death like we just won the world cup (I didn't like the guy any more than anybody else, but I'm not up for celebrating deaths via predator missile).
I have all these questions because I'm sitting in pocket of time entirely alien to the modern world. A pocket in which I have not yet been told what to think. I intend to take full advantage.
Is this a victory for freedom?
No, not really. But it probably makes free people feel a little warmer and fuzzier I suppose.
A bitter defeat to humanists because a world power government actually killed a scumbag for once?
Nope. We've done that before, and I seem to remember the U.S. using the grace period swelling out of such an accomplishment to annhilate Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Humanists never win or lose because people will never be nice. That is the irony of it all.
What happens to the Global War on Terrorism?
as a proper noun, its media attention dries up and it fizzles like that $5 firework you were sure was going to blow up your cat. As a general idea, it continues on without our consent or our support.
What are we going to call the nasty things we do with missles now?
I'm sure we'll think of something. we haven't used "police action" in a while, it could be due for a comeback.
Why are we all celebrating (etc.)?
Because a very nasty man won't hurt anyone else. and because 10 years after the crisis, after the sorrow and the pain and the answers that we never really believed, we're still all looking for just the littlest bit of closure.
If life was simple, everyone would be able to do it.
The whole affair raises far more questions than answers. Osama Bin Laden is dead very little has changed.
Is this a victory for freedom? A bitter defeat to humanists because a world power government actually killed a scumbag for once? What happens to the Global War on Terrorism? What are we going to call the nasty things we do with missles now? Why are we all celebrating a death like we just won the world cup (I didn't like the guy any more than anybody else, but I'm not up for celebrating deaths via predator missile).
I have all these questions because I'm sitting in pocket of time entirely alien to the modern world. A pocket in which I have not yet been told what to think. I intend to take full advantage.
Is this a victory for freedom?
No, not really. But it probably makes free people feel a little warmer and fuzzier I suppose.
A bitter defeat to humanists because a world power government actually killed a scumbag for once?
Nope. We've done that before, and I seem to remember the U.S. using the grace period swelling out of such an accomplishment to annhilate Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Humanists never win or lose because people will never be nice. That is the irony of it all.
What happens to the Global War on Terrorism?
as a proper noun, its media attention dries up and it fizzles like that $5 firework you were sure was going to blow up your cat. As a general idea, it continues on without our consent or our support.
What are we going to call the nasty things we do with missles now?
I'm sure we'll think of something. we haven't used "police action" in a while, it could be due for a comeback.
Why are we all celebrating (etc.)?
Because a very nasty man won't hurt anyone else. and because 10 years after the crisis, after the sorrow and the pain and the answers that we never really believed, we're still all looking for just the littlest bit of closure.
If life was simple, everyone would be able to do it.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Spring and Earth Day and all the stuff in between
In honor of the pointless, storm-packed interlude to summer that we call spring, I'd like to take this opportunity to discuss one of the trendiest and most overlooked real issues in America and the world today. Sustainability is on every tongue and every business banner and every political platform, but are we really that gung-ho about sustainability or is it just another hip way to judge people for eating steak?
I say it's number two. Climate change is an incredibly pressing world issue, and yet anyone who has ever and will ever discuss sustainability won't say a single thing about reducing carbon emissions or battling climate change because its just a mite too edgy for most.
As Earth Day approaches we'll hear plenty about recycling and saving water and shutting off our computers before we put off to bed, but any self respecting environmentalist can tell you that those things won't make a lick of difference as long as a coal plant offsets your earth friendly practices with a few thousand metric tons of atmospheric pollution.
Here's a fun personal activity, dear readers. Think of all the times you've heard the phrases green, go green, or sustainability in the last month. How many of those uses prefaced a discussion of alternative energy use, of policies to restrict greenhouse gas emissions, of (gasp) climate change?
I'm willing to bet that if you're honest with yourselves the answer will be one or less.
But I'm not just whining, I've got a suggestion. I say this year we do our duty to mother earth by confronting a Greenwasher or two. We all care enough about the environment to eat nothing but stalks of celery and ride horses to school and read in the dark for the rest of our lives, but wouldn't we find it a bit easier to simply take on the businesses and products that pollute our environment on a daily basis?
That said (ranted) there are a great many opportunities on campus to get involved in cleaning up the earth and creating a sustainable future. Check out Use Less Win More, the Loras Sustainability Committee, or even the Dubuque Sustainability Challenge at a city level for some entertaining and active ways to celebrate earth day.
That's all folks, hug a polar bear (not actually, those things will eat your face and gum your organs.)
I say it's number two. Climate change is an incredibly pressing world issue, and yet anyone who has ever and will ever discuss sustainability won't say a single thing about reducing carbon emissions or battling climate change because its just a mite too edgy for most.
As Earth Day approaches we'll hear plenty about recycling and saving water and shutting off our computers before we put off to bed, but any self respecting environmentalist can tell you that those things won't make a lick of difference as long as a coal plant offsets your earth friendly practices with a few thousand metric tons of atmospheric pollution.
Here's a fun personal activity, dear readers. Think of all the times you've heard the phrases green, go green, or sustainability in the last month. How many of those uses prefaced a discussion of alternative energy use, of policies to restrict greenhouse gas emissions, of (gasp) climate change?
I'm willing to bet that if you're honest with yourselves the answer will be one or less.
But I'm not just whining, I've got a suggestion. I say this year we do our duty to mother earth by confronting a Greenwasher or two. We all care enough about the environment to eat nothing but stalks of celery and ride horses to school and read in the dark for the rest of our lives, but wouldn't we find it a bit easier to simply take on the businesses and products that pollute our environment on a daily basis?
That said (ranted) there are a great many opportunities on campus to get involved in cleaning up the earth and creating a sustainable future. Check out Use Less Win More, the Loras Sustainability Committee, or even the Dubuque Sustainability Challenge at a city level for some entertaining and active ways to celebrate earth day.
That's all folks, hug a polar bear (not actually, those things will eat your face and gum your organs.)
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Improving America's Pastime
With opening day right around the corner, and most Americans are already concentrating on football, I've decided to suggest some incremental changes to the sport of baseball in the style of Hunter S. Thompson in hope that a new game might put more butts in the seats. (to see his far more entertaining article on baseball reform check out "Baseball has Become Unruly" On ESPN).
New Rules of Baseball (Effective Immediately)
1. Shorter Seasons--The Baseball season will now be shortened to 32 games a year, spread out equitably so as to keep the season running until October, in order to prevent injuries.
2. Action-- The rule that allows a baserunner to squash a catcher standing in his path to home base like an unruly field mouse will now apply to all bases, and basemen will need to retain control of a ball for at least 3 seconds to earn an out.
3. Psyche Outs-- Baseketball was on to something. Coaches, managers, or base coaches on the batting team will now be allowed to make their way onto the field to "Psyche out" opposing pitchers. any balls, bean balls, or home runs caused directly by an opposing player's distraction will be listed in official box scores as a PO or "Psyche Out".
4. Fights--Charging the mound will no longer result in ejection for both players, instead the instigating batter will sit out for half an inning, providing he had due cause to charge the mound (was struck or brushed by an errant pitch, insulted by an opposing pitcher, etc.). Fights will be allowed to continue under close observation of on-field officials. A fight will end when one player hits the ground.
5. Subsitutions--Substitutions will no longer be one-and-done, a player may sub in/out of a game as often as he likes, a player may sub at any time during the proceedings by tagging a player currently in the dugout (this will be especially amusing if combined with rule 2 for maximum effect, imagine a player rounding first base, then tagging in C.C. Sabathia just to watch gleefully as he lampoons an unsuspecting second baseman.)
6. Live Ball-- If a ball touches the ground at any time during a game, players from either team will be allowed to touch it and move it as they please. Balls hurled past the foul line by the batting team will become foul balls, balls hurled over the fence will become home runs. If a batting team player holding a ball is touched by a fielding team player he will be considered out. Additionally, if a fielding team player catches an errant throw by a batting team player, that player will be out (Imagine this, after Sabathia plows the second baseman, he picks up the ball and hurls it at the stadium's back wall, giving him time to tag the original baserunner back in, a fielder dives for it but just misses it and Sportscenter has the greatest replay clip of all times.)
7. Instant Replay -- Lets get real for a minute. Baseball actually needs this. and they'll need it even more to see if the second basemen touched Sabathia's leg before he got his throw off.
There you have it, I believe that if these rules are implemented, they will change the sport of baseball for the better in a matter of years. Draft picks will be chosen on all around athleticism, size included. Steroids will no longer be welcome, as players will need more stamina for the fast-paced game that baseball has become and basic boxing lessons will be a must for prospective recruits. More fighting in sports and more sports with fighting will make for a more perfect world, I say.
New Rules of Baseball (Effective Immediately)
1. Shorter Seasons--The Baseball season will now be shortened to 32 games a year, spread out equitably so as to keep the season running until October, in order to prevent injuries.
2. Action-- The rule that allows a baserunner to squash a catcher standing in his path to home base like an unruly field mouse will now apply to all bases, and basemen will need to retain control of a ball for at least 3 seconds to earn an out.
3. Psyche Outs-- Baseketball was on to something. Coaches, managers, or base coaches on the batting team will now be allowed to make their way onto the field to "Psyche out" opposing pitchers. any balls, bean balls, or home runs caused directly by an opposing player's distraction will be listed in official box scores as a PO or "Psyche Out".
4. Fights--Charging the mound will no longer result in ejection for both players, instead the instigating batter will sit out for half an inning, providing he had due cause to charge the mound (was struck or brushed by an errant pitch, insulted by an opposing pitcher, etc.). Fights will be allowed to continue under close observation of on-field officials. A fight will end when one player hits the ground.
5. Subsitutions--Substitutions will no longer be one-and-done, a player may sub in/out of a game as often as he likes, a player may sub at any time during the proceedings by tagging a player currently in the dugout (this will be especially amusing if combined with rule 2 for maximum effect, imagine a player rounding first base, then tagging in C.C. Sabathia just to watch gleefully as he lampoons an unsuspecting second baseman.)
6. Live Ball-- If a ball touches the ground at any time during a game, players from either team will be allowed to touch it and move it as they please. Balls hurled past the foul line by the batting team will become foul balls, balls hurled over the fence will become home runs. If a batting team player holding a ball is touched by a fielding team player he will be considered out. Additionally, if a fielding team player catches an errant throw by a batting team player, that player will be out (Imagine this, after Sabathia plows the second baseman, he picks up the ball and hurls it at the stadium's back wall, giving him time to tag the original baserunner back in, a fielder dives for it but just misses it and Sportscenter has the greatest replay clip of all times.)
7. Instant Replay -- Lets get real for a minute. Baseball actually needs this. and they'll need it even more to see if the second basemen touched Sabathia's leg before he got his throw off.
There you have it, I believe that if these rules are implemented, they will change the sport of baseball for the better in a matter of years. Draft picks will be chosen on all around athleticism, size included. Steroids will no longer be welcome, as players will need more stamina for the fast-paced game that baseball has become and basic boxing lessons will be a must for prospective recruits. More fighting in sports and more sports with fighting will make for a more perfect world, I say.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
U.N. Loosens Soil Around the Future Crater of Gaddafi
I'm experiencing the bad news fatigue that our generation has become known for. Thousands of people are in pain around the world and I'm shutting off my TV because I can't concentrate anymore.
It is a highly unfortunate longterm outcome of our prolonged exposure to Superinformation. When we can hear so much about death each and every day, Life itself becomes something largely numerical.
Ironically, the only tidbits absent from news reports of missle strikes on Libyan air defenses are the numbers we've come to ignore.
Comm centers and anti-air bases need crews.
Crews that aren't missle-proof.
I'm not suggesting that the casualties in these strikes were astronomical, merely that reports of these casualties are entirely conspicuous in their absence. I get as tired of casualty reports as the next guy, but they serve a vital purpose in our increasingly numb world: adding reality to a situation.
War games have winners and losers and losers bleed just like you.
I strongly dislike Moammar Gaddafi and if I were alive in the 1980's I'd probably like him even less, but my general distaste for him doesn't decertify his humanity.
If people with more power and general temerity than me have decided that it is entirely necessary to take human lives to resolve this crisis I ask only one thing of them. Tell me about it.
I understand that It's vital to keep Americans in support of the no-fly zone over Libya in order to save hundreds if not thousands of lives, but obscuring the stark truths of the operation isn't at all right way to curry our favor. I don't believe that taking a life is ever a necessity, but I understand that most Americans likely believe that it can be the lesser of two evils.
The problem with American politics for the last 200 years has been the general belief that Americans are too soft, too slow, or too stupid to make the right choice in an emergency, and this has driven the rhetoric that leads to the obscuring of details from the general public.
We're not stupid, we're not soft, we're not slow; we're simply very busy, and we're very tired. Be honest with us and we might surprise you.
(well, not me, but those other folks will come through, I swear).
It is a highly unfortunate longterm outcome of our prolonged exposure to Superinformation. When we can hear so much about death each and every day, Life itself becomes something largely numerical.
Ironically, the only tidbits absent from news reports of missle strikes on Libyan air defenses are the numbers we've come to ignore.
Comm centers and anti-air bases need crews.
Crews that aren't missle-proof.
I'm not suggesting that the casualties in these strikes were astronomical, merely that reports of these casualties are entirely conspicuous in their absence. I get as tired of casualty reports as the next guy, but they serve a vital purpose in our increasingly numb world: adding reality to a situation.
War games have winners and losers and losers bleed just like you.
I strongly dislike Moammar Gaddafi and if I were alive in the 1980's I'd probably like him even less, but my general distaste for him doesn't decertify his humanity.
If people with more power and general temerity than me have decided that it is entirely necessary to take human lives to resolve this crisis I ask only one thing of them. Tell me about it.
I understand that It's vital to keep Americans in support of the no-fly zone over Libya in order to save hundreds if not thousands of lives, but obscuring the stark truths of the operation isn't at all right way to curry our favor. I don't believe that taking a life is ever a necessity, but I understand that most Americans likely believe that it can be the lesser of two evils.
The problem with American politics for the last 200 years has been the general belief that Americans are too soft, too slow, or too stupid to make the right choice in an emergency, and this has driven the rhetoric that leads to the obscuring of details from the general public.
We're not stupid, we're not soft, we're not slow; we're simply very busy, and we're very tired. Be honest with us and we might surprise you.
(well, not me, but those other folks will come through, I swear).
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
I seem to have forgotten what this is supposed to be about
It's a slow week in every sense of the word. The union protests are still running strong, but the press and the general public are burning out, and until the U.S. government decides to turn Tripoli into the 9th wonder of the world--the crater of Gaddafi--there'll be nothing exciting coming out of the middle east either.
Because it's a slow week, and my boredom will not allow me to do anything that could possibly entertain any of you without retching, I've decided to have a little fun.
I 'm going to use this rare time I have to myself to promote a theory that I may never get to express otherwise.
I'm a humanist. I believe that beating, clubbing, shooting or burning another living being until they are no longer a living being is the highest crime imaginable. Human beings are a renewable resource, Morgan Freeman is not, Fred Thompson is not, the short kid from my kindergarten class is not. Each individual person is a unique quantity and should avoid all labels like they would avoid flying sawblades.
Humans are unique but this line of thinking isn't, I'm getting to the new and interesting part.
I've always wondered if it is even possible to stop people from killing each other. After all, everyone is against murder and war, but a great many human beings engage in each wholeheartedly, justifying it as we go.
A foregone conclusion of the life we live is that, if we are unlucky enough, one day someone will come along, declare us an infidel, a traitor, an enemy of the state, or some malleable ethnic slur, and then take our lives unceremoniously.
but perhaps it wouldn't be this way if doing such a thing was a little bit difficult
Here's my thought:
6 Rules of Killing
1. From this point on, All acts of murder, execution, and war (police-action, conflict, whatever) must be committed by hand. If you are physically handicapped, you will be allowed to use a small sharpened stone.
2. A killing must be a public event, no killings may occur in private.
3. In order to take a another person's life, you must know their full name, their favorite beverage, one of their dreams or life goals, and one thing that makes them sad.
4. If you choose to kill a person, their death must last a minimum of 18 minutes.
5. all people you have elected to kill will be allowed a final statement if they choose to give one, and you must carry this statement to any of four living individuals that your victim chooses. You will be required to tell these people the way in which your victim was killed.
6. If war is declared, all members of both armies will adhere to all of the above rules. The leaders of each country will have two options to choose from, either they must fight in the wars themselves, or they will be charged with the duty of knowing each casualty's name, favorite beverage, dream, and sorrow and of carrying each casualty's final statement to each of his chosen witnesses alongside their killer.
Some of those rules might sound harsh, but remember that it took 3 men 45 minutes to kill 100,000 people at Hiroshima. These people had stories, passions, goals, and tastes just as I do. If those people truly had to die, they never should have died as labels. They were 100,000 Japanese, when they should have been counted as 1 Setsuko Thurlow, 1 Francis Mitsuo Tomosawa, and so on forever and for all time.
Perhaps if we had to kill People every day instead of nazis and traitors and criminals and enemy combatants and terrorists and communists and gypsies and heretics and spies and monsters, we'd kill less.
Because it's a slow week, and my boredom will not allow me to do anything that could possibly entertain any of you without retching, I've decided to have a little fun.
I 'm going to use this rare time I have to myself to promote a theory that I may never get to express otherwise.
I'm a humanist. I believe that beating, clubbing, shooting or burning another living being until they are no longer a living being is the highest crime imaginable. Human beings are a renewable resource, Morgan Freeman is not, Fred Thompson is not, the short kid from my kindergarten class is not. Each individual person is a unique quantity and should avoid all labels like they would avoid flying sawblades.
Humans are unique but this line of thinking isn't, I'm getting to the new and interesting part.
I've always wondered if it is even possible to stop people from killing each other. After all, everyone is against murder and war, but a great many human beings engage in each wholeheartedly, justifying it as we go.
A foregone conclusion of the life we live is that, if we are unlucky enough, one day someone will come along, declare us an infidel, a traitor, an enemy of the state, or some malleable ethnic slur, and then take our lives unceremoniously.
but perhaps it wouldn't be this way if doing such a thing was a little bit difficult
Here's my thought:
6 Rules of Killing
1. From this point on, All acts of murder, execution, and war (police-action, conflict, whatever) must be committed by hand. If you are physically handicapped, you will be allowed to use a small sharpened stone.
2. A killing must be a public event, no killings may occur in private.
3. In order to take a another person's life, you must know their full name, their favorite beverage, one of their dreams or life goals, and one thing that makes them sad.
4. If you choose to kill a person, their death must last a minimum of 18 minutes.
5. all people you have elected to kill will be allowed a final statement if they choose to give one, and you must carry this statement to any of four living individuals that your victim chooses. You will be required to tell these people the way in which your victim was killed.
6. If war is declared, all members of both armies will adhere to all of the above rules. The leaders of each country will have two options to choose from, either they must fight in the wars themselves, or they will be charged with the duty of knowing each casualty's name, favorite beverage, dream, and sorrow and of carrying each casualty's final statement to each of his chosen witnesses alongside their killer.
Some of those rules might sound harsh, but remember that it took 3 men 45 minutes to kill 100,000 people at Hiroshima. These people had stories, passions, goals, and tastes just as I do. If those people truly had to die, they never should have died as labels. They were 100,000 Japanese, when they should have been counted as 1 Setsuko Thurlow, 1 Francis Mitsuo Tomosawa, and so on forever and for all time.
Perhaps if we had to kill People every day instead of nazis and traitors and criminals and enemy combatants and terrorists and communists and gypsies and heretics and spies and monsters, we'd kill less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)