Thoughts by Alana

I, along with millions throughout the world, have been watching in horror this week as facts are unfolding related to Monday’s massacre at Virginia Tech that left 33 students and faculty dead. Being a student at a major university, this tragedy really hit home for me. You never think when you’re walking into class in the morning anticipating your afternoon nap or the party that night that you might not make it there– I’m sure those students weren’t.

It was strange to catch myself today looking around at other students in class wondering ‘Would he ever do anything like that?’. Since Monday, I’ve become more perceptive of the people around me, as we all should because it could have been any of us. It’s easy to read about the events at Virginia Tech from the comfort of your safe home or from your office and feel removed from the threat of an overly-hormonal 20-something with a grudge on his shoulders. Yes, it happened on a college campus but what if it had happened while you were waiting in line at the bank, the dry cleaners, or any of the other countless places you go that seem routine? The reality, like it or not, is that you are no safer than those students who were sitting in a classroom learning French minutes before they were savagely murdered. It is, unfortunately, the world we live in.

Today, NBC received a package from Cho Seung-Hui, the man responsible for the murder of 32 of his teachers and classmates. It contained video, photos, and commentary and was postmarked at 9:01 Monday–only minutes before he entered Norris Hall. While NBC struck media gold with that package, it was terribly irresponsible of that company to release those images to the public. First and foremost, it has only been two days since the event. A complete list of the dead has not even been released yet and we are already rubbing salt in the wounds of those grieving families and students. Second, the attention he has gotten since his name was released is exactly what he wanted. We have managed to turn this terrible tragedy into a victory for a him. While I hope he is burning in hell at this moment, I have to believe that if Cho could see the aftermath of his actions, he would feel pride that he had accomplished just what he hoped. And, the thought of that makes me absolutely sick. What message are we sending to people, like Cho, who seem to feel that they are or could be martyrs?

Cho referenced the two boys responsible for Columbine in one of the videos he shot days before the massacre, which I find incredibly troubling. Columbine was, no doubt, tragic but it was also a media circus as people obsessed over why such a thing could have happened. We watched as the media picked apart every aspect of these boys’ troubling lives. Now more than ever, we have to remember that focusing such attention on people who commit heinous acts of violence will only spur more violence. Cho was watching on April 20, 1999. He saw media dissect these boys but rather than feeling horrified as the rest of us did, Cho was idolizing them.

We have to remember that the messages our media sends are not always as cut and dry as we perceive them. It is a fact that when it comes to news and the media, what one reads or sees will only serve to reinforce whatever beliefs they already hold. If Cho was already a mentally unstable person with violent tendencies, watching the media’s attention on the Columbine murderers only reinforced the fact that he, too, could be a martyr like them…that shooting your classmates is a surefire way to have people hear what you want to say. And here we are, almost 8 years to the day, and history is repeating itself. And now, with NBC releasing video of the message Cho wanted to send, what are we saying to future generations? That this is the way to be heard?

It is absolutely disgusting to hear Cho talk on those videos. He wanted attention and, unfortunately, he’s getting it. Rather than focusing our attention on him, the media should focus on the human element of the tragedy itself. And no, Cho was not human-he was a living personification of evil. We all want to know why. We all want to understand it, but would we not be doing the responsible thing to let the wounds heal and accept that in the interest of public safety, maybe we don’t all need to know. After all, would Virginia Tech have happened without the media frenzy of Columbine?

Despite what he wants us to believe, no one pushed him to open fire on innocent people in a school building. The blood of those 32 victims is on no one’s hands but his own and an eternity in the flames of hell will not wipe that clean. He was just another lunatic in need of a good ass kicking and some quality time in a mental institution. It is terribly sad, however, that 32 innocent people lost their lives Monday at the hands of such a disgusting monster.

If you were asked to name one of the biggest screw-ups in American history, what would you say?

There are hundreds of potential answers to that question but I firmly believe that the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 and Nixon’s subsequent “War on Drugs” has got to rank somewhere in the top 5 on that list. I know, I know…drugs are bad, we don’t need a bunch of strung-out criminals on our streets, we don’t want out kids becoming targets, etc. but look at where we are today because of it.

• By 1995, 60% of all federal inmates were drug offenders. That number, however, has gone down (to 55%, as of December 2006) due to overcrowding. The United States, by the way, has the highest prison population rate in the world, in large part due to the “War on Drugs”.
• 80% of increase in the federal prison population between 1985 and 1995 was due to drug convictions.
• Federal spending to incarcerate drug offenders is about $3 billion a year. It costs states more than $16 million per day to imprison drug offenders- nearly all of whom fall in the category of nonviolent offenders.
• Of all drug offenders in our prisons, nearly half are serving time for possession- not trafficking. Less than 1% of all drug offenders are considered large-scale distributors.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe drug offenders deserve to be punished. But to what degree? Many states now have mandatoy minimum sentences for drug offenders…or, as I’d like to call it, screw-up #1. These mandatory minimum sentences (in which the punishment, more often than not, outweighs the crime) have been proven to have little to no effect as a deterrent to drug-related crimes. Also, I think there needs to be a clear distinction between types of drug offenses. I believe that there is a huge difference between those possessing drugs and those selling drugs and the law should account for this. There is absolutely no reason for someone caught in possession to serve a sentence equal to that of those caught distributing- offenders are generally charged with possession when it is a small quantity found, otherwise it becomes a case of possession with intent to distribute, which carries a heavier punishment. The federal government does offer a distinction between drug offenses in the Controlled Substance Act but these, for the most part, are laughable, at best…screw-up #2. The federal government classifies drugs in Schedules, with Schedule I drugs being the most dangerous- this list includes marijuana, which has greatly undermined the credibility of the government’s distinctions as nearly all researchers and experts (generally, everyone except the DEA) agree that it has no place being classified so highly and only serves the purpose of giving the federal government the opportunity to lock up even petty drug offenders.

And probably the biggest consequence of the War on Drugs: turning the drug trade into a black market in which violence is rampant and otherwise decent people become common criminals. The War on Drugs took a huge and booming industry and forced it underground, raised the stakes, and we are still paying the consequences today. Would the drug industry be an industry run by a bunch of thugs today if not for Nixon’s little “war”? Probably not. It’s actually very similar to what happened during the Prohibition era of American history. The more the government tried to crack down, the more chaotic things became- outlawing a substance doesn’t mean people are going to quit using it, they’re just going to have to find other ways to do it. It isn’t going to slow it down, it’s just going to create a whole new brand of criminal. And hey, guess what didn’t work? Prohibition.

And while we’re on the topic, alcohol is really no better than a lot of minor drugs out there. Alcohol is as dangerous as many classified drugs- you can become dependent on it, it does fuel criminal activity, it can cause you to become a danger to yourself and others, and will kill you with prolonged and excessive use…the same exact reasons the federal government outlaws drugs such as marijuana and heroin….huh! So if you happen to be the sort that enjoys drinking, are you not just as “criminal” as the average recreational drug user, despite the fact that alcohol is legal?

The War on Drugs has failed miserably and it’s about time for some government reform…too bad we’ve all been brainwashed to believe exactly what the government wanted us to believe from the beginning- that drugs are enemy number one, an issue not be compromised on. The American public has never paused long enough to seriously question the issue and because of this, the government has been able to take their whims and run with them. The DEA is one of the largest and most costly government operations in existence. The prison system is at the breaking point after years of being overrun with minor drug offenders. And most of all…none of it has proven to have any effect on drug use or drug trade in this country! I’m not saying let’s go legalize everything, because I don’t think that’s a smart approach. Instead, lets reform laws already in place to keep our prisons from overflowing with petty, nonviolent drug offenders. The government could start by lessening mandatory minimum sentences and giving more opportunities for parole to petty, nonviolent offenders. The insanity of the War on Drugs has gone on too long and any efforts at this point will probably be futile but hey, it’s a start!

What do you think? Does the War on Drugs serve a good purpose or has it done more harm than good?

Another MLK Day has come and gone and once again the nation (or maybe just the media?) has brought the issue of race relations in America back to prime time. It’s that time of the year where we, as Americans, celebrate black history and those who did so much to serve “the dream”.

Before we continue, I think it’s necessary to discuss what exactly race is. Race, in terms of usage in public discourse, simply does not exist. It’s a lot like Pluto- you grew up believing Pluto was a planet based on all that you had seen, heard, and been taught but it, in fact, is not a planet. You can agree or disagree but the facts are the facts. The same is true for race- whatever you think you may know about it is simply false. Race is a thoroughly human and social construct. There is no Asian race, no White race, no Latin race, and certainly no African race. We all have differences, which as humans we feel a need to categorize, but we are fundamentally the same. As humans, we are members of the human race- which cannot be further broken down. So, where exactly did our ideas of race originate?

In America, it originated during colonial times- specifically the late 1600s to early 1700s- as the political and social landscape of the southern colonies was undergoing a dramatic shift. Colonists had used forced labor, in the form of indentured servants, for many years before the forced labor of Africans became a common practice. In fact, Africans were considered undesirable as workers for many, many years because they were a lifelong investment (as opposed to the 7 years of an indentured servant) that often wielded little to no profit for the owner- many Africans died at a very early age before owners were even able to make a profit off their investments. Around 1700, the economy in England began to pick up and fewer and fewer English were willing to become indentured servants. Also at this time, there was a huge power shift in the southern colonies as more and more of the government and available land was being controlled by a small, corrupt, but wealthy elite. As African forced labor began to catch on, it was only that small group of wealthy elite that could afford to own slaves, which began to create a divide between classes of white colonists. In the wake of Bacon’s Rebellion (in which lower-class white farmers attempted to unite and rise against the ruling elite) it became evident to those that controlled the government that something needed to be done to pacify the violence and ensure their jobs. In the early days, slaves were distinguished as being inferior because they were non-Christian heathens but as time went on, many slaves began to convert to Christianity. So, what then could be used to justify slaves’ inferiority since previous distinctions failed? The color of their skin.

The Virginia colony soon enacted laws to see to it that slaves were not only considered inferior by society but also by the law. Though 75% of white colonists did not own slaves, the new laws accomplished exactly that which they were intended. It gave all white colonists the sense that they had a stake in maintaining the system of slavery because it gave all white people, slave-owning or not, a social and legal superiority over at least some segment of society- something that most colonists were desperately looking for after years of being considered inferior by their own government. Thus, racism in America was born.

And that brings us to today. Senator Joseph Biden, a Democrat running for president, said Monday at an event honoring MLK that he believes the Confederate flag should be taken down from the South Carolina statehouse. Though it is certainly not a new issue, it always finds a way to resurface this time of year…this time thanks to another shameless politician feeding his audience what he knows they want to hear while hopefully ensuring support (i.e. votes) along the way.

While many argue that the flag is a symbol of bitter hatred and the oppression of African-Americans, others say it is simply their heritage. And it would be ignorant to say that either side is wrong. On the one hand, the flag unintentionally became a symbol of hatred that, for obvious reasons, still strikes a sour note with many African-Americans. But on the other, it is very much so a symbol of the proud history and heritage of the south. It, along with the Civil War, was about so much more than just slavery- a fact that the American education system does a poor job of clarifying and one that blacks and whites alike could benefit from knowing. The issue of slavery was, at the time, a side note to larger issues of ideology, economics, and politics- the true driving factors of the Civil War. The confederate flag was never designed to be a symbol wholly supportive of slavery or discrimination.

I didn’t have ancestors who were slaves but I did have ancestors (who, mind you, were not slave owners) that fought and died to uphold a society they believed in defending, despite its many ills. And that, too, deserves some respect- at the very least, the right to fly a flag honoring that. Of course the flag and all it symbolizes will be miscontrued and used in very wrong contexts, as have many other symbols throughout history, but that doesn’t mean that I (or any state, for that matter) should be stripped of the right to fly it. “To each his own” is a more than adequate policy to take on the matter. Understanding is vital in easing tensions among the “races” of this nation and it’s about time we all took a moment to respect one another without trying to force our ME, ME, ME views of who’s right and who’s wrong down the other’s throat. A little respect and understanding will go a lot further than anything the NAACP or ACLU can do. I’ll respect anyone’s feelings on the issue so long as you respect mine. You sure won’t see a Confederate flag on anything I own but if the people of South Carolina are okay with it, why shouldn’t I be?

A Tennessee state senator has introduced a bill that would punish cable companies for airing obscene advertisements. What led to this bill? Girls Gone Wild commercials.

The bill, which could impose fines of up to $50,000 for any cable company that airs raunchy late-night ads, hopes to police otherwise lightly-regulated cable television advertisements. As it stands, cable television is generally not regulated by the Federal Communications Commission on obscenity because it is not broadcast over open airwaves. Cable companies typically set their own guidelines on what is considered offensive or obscene as well as the time of day that they will begin broadcasting not-for-the-kids material. Many companies begin airing “adult” commericials after 10 p.m.

Senator Doug Jackson, who introduced the bill, believes that his constituents deserve a voice when it comes to the images that are interjected into their living rooms. “People feel like, as they sit in their living rooms, they just have to surrender; there’s nothing that can be done,” said Jackson. After seeing the Girls Gone Wild commercials, he decided it was time that something be done.

Though I am a big believer in freedom of speech and information (including broadcasting), I must say that I applaud the senator’s bill for a number of reasons. Cable companies are making big bucks off of brands such as Girls Gone Wild that pay obscene amounts to broadcast their raunchy commercials on as many different stations as possible. And if you happen to be a late-night channel surfer, you know that at any given time there are usually at least 3 or 4 stations broadcasting the same Girls Gone Wild commercial. It has gotten so out of hand that you can’t just avoid them any longer. I have cable and recieve 80 channels. Of these, I can count on my hands the number of stations that I haven’t seen the commercials on. Cable companies will not begin the process of self-censorship as long as they’re making money broadcasting these inappropriate commercials. It’s about time someone steps in. I know it sounds like the Girls Gone Wild brand is being unfairly targeted in this discussion but anyone who has seen the content of these commercials would understand why this company has found its way to the center of the debate. The commercials feature a great deal of the kind of “action” that only a few years ago could be found only behind the semi-closed doors of pay-for-access internet pornography sites. Now, it’s being blasted into our living rooms in 20 minute rotations that don’t end until the sun comes up. A little black bar over the finer points of a drunken woman’s anatomy doesn’t save these commercials from being obscene. It’s just a “television-friendly” brand of pornography. Because Girls Gone Wild has been able to get away with their commercials, they get more risque every year. And if no one steps in, what’s coming next?

I think it’s about time for cable companies to become accountable for everything they broadcast, including commercials. These companies have the ability to force brands such as Girls Gone Wild to clean up their advertisements by refusing to air them until they do. While it may hurt their advertising revenue in the short term, it could greatly boost late-night ratings in the long term. They also need to seriously reconsider the times at which adult content begins to air. 10 p.m. is just too early- there are many kids still up and watching television at that time. Cable companies have refused to take responsibility for far too long and if they won’t do it, someone else should. Though this bill would only be effective in the state of Tennessee, it has the ability to change the landscape of late-night television on a larger scale…and that’s not a bad idea.

A Dallas-based pizza chain, Pizza Patron, has stirred up quite a controversy this week after posting signs saying “We accept pesos”. The company, whose restaurants are in predominately Hispanic areas, says it is using the promotion as an attempt to sell more pizza to its customers. According to Pizza Patron, nearly 60% of customers are Hispanic- many of whom they believe have “pesos sitting around in their sock drawers or in their wallets” that would otherwise be useless in America. While the company has received some feedback in support of the promotion, most response has come in the form of death threats and hate mail. Hmmm….

There are many businesses in the United States, including big names such as Wal-Mart, that accept pesos. Most, however, are in towns close to the border where businesses must accept pesos just to survive. Many who are outraged by Pizza Patron’s pesos promotion are upset that a company so far away from the border is so exclusively catering to a Hispanic market. But is this the real issue? No.

I believe that the bigger issue at hand is the fact that we, as Americans, are being increasingly forced to cater to the special needs of a population that is so hungry for the opportunities we take for granted yet so unwilling to assimilate into American culture- and that’s not even mentioning the big elephant in the room that is the fact that a great percentage of that population is undocumented and here illegally. Illegal is illegal any way you cut it and I owe nothing more to the illegal immigrant than i owe to any thief, rapist or murderer. Hispanics in America want more rights and want more equality but that will not happen until they learn to function as Americans, not Hispanics in America. You can’t walk into a store without seeing signs in both English and Spanish, you can’t call customer service without having to choose which language you want to be helped in, and you can’t watch tv without having to hear the Spanish translation of every phrase repeated- this is America now, for better or worse. I think that Hispanics living in America could take a vital lesson from history- immigrants who came to America in the early 1900s were forced to balance maintaining their identity and traditions and “fitting in” to culture in America. This is not to say that there were not large concentrations of certain ethnic groups or that life in that area didn’t revolve around traditions or culture of the home country- there were and it did. But these people also had to learn to be American. It took several generations but it was inevitably vital to their success in America to learn our values, our language, and our customs. Until Hispanics in America can learn to ditch the “you should cater to me” attitude and willingly assimilate into American culture (be it learning to speak English or paying with the U.S. Dollar) they should not expect any dramatic change. Protesting with Mexican flags just isn’t going to cut it.