Fighting fire with...fire?

The school shooting at the University of Texas at Austin this week is another school shooting in a trend that seems to be increasing. In this instance, a masked man walked into a library on the UT Austin campus and opened fire with an AK-47 before he took his own life. No one else was hurt in this shooting. This is a particularly scary problem for any college student because we all know how easy it would be to do the same thing. The State of Texas is currently debating on whether or not it should be legal for students with a permit to carry a concealed handgun on campus. Now, I own and love guns as much as the next guy, maybe more, but the idea of having the student next to me carrying a pistol would not make me feel safer. Policemen and Soldiers in our military have extensive training on how to use their weapon in a crowded area, and I can’t imagine a busy, college student would have the same training and recertification it takes to be a skilled marksman under the most extreme circumstances. The government should be looking at more preventative measures to stop gun violence in schools. Students carrying guns may be able to defend themselves but it is only a reaction to a problem already occurring. Unfortunately, most preventative measures such as metal detectors just aren’t practical for a University and so the problem still exists. I think the best preventative measure is education of the students. Awareness of the problem and signs to look for in students that may be depressed or lonely would be a good start. Education on hazing and bullying and the consequences it can have in the worst of circumstances. Resources for students who are feeling depressed or suicidal are probably the most important resource for helping students in need. I don’t think the answer lies with arming the school population and hoping for the best.

'W'

We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace. We know that oppressive governments support terror, while free governments fight the terrorists in their midst. We know that free peoples embrace progress and life, instead of becoming the recruits for murderous ideologies.

George W. Bush, Speech to UN General Assembly, September 21, 2004
43rd President of US (1946 - )

In this speech, George Bush generalizes dictatorship and freedom with the use of, or using restraint when talking about aggression. In the first line, he says dictators are quick to use aggression but free nations use peace. This is contrictary of his own presidential campaign which was quick to respond to September 11 by invading Afghanistan and eventually and questionably, Iraq. Although the war in Afghanistan was more justified, the war in Iraq could best be described as a ‘witch hunt’ and our swift aggression towards Iraq, would not be considered the practices of a free nation, at least according to this quote. It is wrong to automatically relate aggression with a dictator and peace with a free nation. Although those things may exist for some countries, that is not true of all. He also relates free governments to fighting “terrorist in their midst.” What describes a terrorist? Does he mean foreign or domestic? Even though America is a free nation, we have domestic terrorists that try to scare and terrorize citizens of their own country. Does this mean we aren’t free? Does this mean if we use aggression against these terrorist, America will be considered a dictatorship? Not every free nation needs to prove its freedom by invading other countries to fight terrorism. In fact, governments and citizens around the world opposed our involvement in Iraq saying that we were not justified to be there.

NCAA punishments, fair or unfair?

Last weekend, while watching the opening weekend of college football, the issue of boosters and alumni giving improper benefits to players was brought the fore front during the USC vs. Hawaii game. This is an issue that is close to my heart because the same type of thing happened to a member of my family and it hurt his reputation badly. In the case of USC, I found it particularly unfair the way the NCAA athletic committee gave out punishment to the school. And when you think about it, the whole system really doesn’t make sense. Most of you have heard of Reggie Bush, a former USC running back and current NFL player. While attending USC, it is alleged he had a house rented for his family by a man representing a NFL sports agent. The alleged deal was that Reggie would then sign with that agent when he joined the NFL in return for the house and other benefits. It has been 5 years since Reggie Bush left USC and now the punishment has come down. USC, a perennial postseason contender, is banned from postseason play for the next two seasons, and will have to forfeit ten football scholarships for the next three years. How can this be fair? Reggie is now a multi-millionaire and NFL superstar, as well as the head coach from that time, Pete Carroll who is also now a NFL head coach. The agent and his representative besides having their reputations hurt have had no consequences either. Why does the NCAA let these kinds of people get so close to college athletes without punishment? Reggie did eventually have his Heisman trophy and all the wins from that year forfeited also, but everyone knows who won those games that season. These types of boosters and agents don’t care about the future of that young man; they are just looking for the ticket to be the next big thing. Every college has a compliance team to try to inform college athletes about these issues but it isn’t enough. I know the decision is always on the athlete, but there should be consequences to these people who try to persuade broke college kids with money, cars, and anything they want.

Major League Base-brawl

       Last night while I was watching TV, I was surprised by a commercial I saw for an upcoming program. The commercial was for the next broadcasting of the ESPN news and highlights show, Sportscenter. I am very familiar with this program and watch it often but last night’s episode was glorifying a major fight that happened in Major League Baseball. Fighting in professional sports is a very big deal, except in baseball. In the NFL or NBA, suspensions and heavy fines come for throwing a punch or even leaving the bench during an altercation. In baseball, you are allowed to have a bench clearing brawl with minor consequences only for the instigators of the fight. Every sports league is concerned with their image and keeping it perfect for their fans. Professional athletes are role models to young kids, especially aspiring athletes. I don’t know why but athletes, coaches, and owners in professional baseball, and apparently the media who are covering it, have seem to have lost sight of this. The anchors for Sportscenter were advertising that episode as a Mixed Martial Arts or WWE fight. They were yelling and screaming and getting worked up like they were are a royal rumble. Both teams left their bench and collided in a massive pile at the pitching mound after plenty of ‘bean balls’ and a frustrated batter finally charging the mound. Punches were thrown, people were thrown and pushed on the ground, and one guy even threw a nasty close line that almost knocked someone out cold. How can it be considered entertainment when adults are throwing fastballs at each other clearing the benches to fight? How can they be proud to broadcast that on a sports news network, the anchors cheering them on the whole time. I was truly surprised and appalled at the lack of maturity and discipline from the highest paid athletes in professional sports, and by the supposed approval from the TV network which usually discourages behavior like that.