Palestinian Government's Approval of Deadly Suicide Bombing, A Clear Declaration of War?

http://www.comcast.net/news/international/index.jsp?cat=INTERNATIONAL&fn=/2006/04/17/369965.html

That is what the UN Israeli Ambassador claimed after the Palestinian Government justified and approved of the deadly suicide bombing that occurred in an Israeli owned fast-food restaurant during Passover. Such a claim is certainly one to analyze seriously. The Palestinian Government, Hamas, did indeed defend the suicide bombing, claiming that it was "a legitimate response to Israeli 'aggression'."

I first saw this news watching CNN while I was partaking in my morning coffee ritual. I almost felt as though I had sunk back into the feeling I had upon my first awareness of the September 11 attacks. I was absolutely floored, thinking to myself, "this can not be real." Things have been changing rapidly in the Middle East in the past few months. It has been a stark contrast compared to the perpetual news of sluggish progress in Iraq. Suddenly, Iran is making nuclear weapons against the demands of the UN, and a group directly linked to terrorism has become the government head of Palestine.

We as a nation, and our allies are on becoming frightened of the potential for further uprising against the West in the Middle East. For Hamas to make such brazen statements in support of violence against our close ally, Israel, is for them to challenge the Western world. We should be afraid when any country, even our own, allows and justifies violence to be had against innocent civilians.

If Westerners are afraid, they should be. The Global Community that exists today is one of great instability. One bomb or threat from any faction could force the world to topple into a third world war. Such a world is unkind to those who lack political power and wealth. There is such a helpless feeling involved in depending on others (some of whom you may lack confidence in their mental competance) to hold the Global Community in balance. I feel as though the average citizens of the world are simply holding their breaths in anxiety, waiting for the day that will yank them into a war, maybe the war, maybe the end.

"No White Child Left Behind?"

http://www.comcast.net/news/national//index.jsp?cat=DOMESTIC&fn=/2006/04/17/369941.html

Once again, the "No Child Left Behind Law" has left children behind. The law has allowed for the national academic progress test scores of minority students to be withheld from public school reports on test scores and acedemic progress. This loop hole is allows schools to make inaccurate claims of acedemic progress in order to meet their progress quotas. The test scores of over two million Black, Asian, Hispanic, and Native American students have been ignored in acedemic progress reports.

The No Child Left Behind Law has provided a loophole allowing this practice to take place. The law states that the test scores of minorities in a school who make up only a small percent (which varies from state to state) of the student population can be removed from anual acedemic progress reports. This means that of the 23 million public school students, 2 million or 8.69% of the population's scores are being ignored.

8.69% is a BIG number! How can we as a nation continue to allow our minority students slip through the cracks? It seems that we have learned nothing from our mistakes. Allowing minority students slip through the cracks will only hurt our nation. We as a nation can only grow stronger if me ensure the success of the education of ALL students. With out a proper education, the future of or nation is sure to crumble. I can only hope that we can adjust the No Child Left Behind Law so that it adheres to all children.

Immigration Legislation

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/12/immigration/index.html

In the Post September eleventh world, it is difficult for me to believe that illegal immigration remains such a problem. It seems as though the government has been dragging its heals in their pursued of an answer. The only recent progress that has been made involved legislation formed in December of 2005, which would make illegal immigrants felons. On the surface, this seems like the perfect answer to such a black and white issue (she says with bitter sarcasm). All the government needs to do is to send all of those silly immigrants to jail...right?

Unfortunately, the issue is not quite that simple. In order to pass proper legislation, we as a nation must make an atemt to understand the mechanics of immigration. This issue is one of full color which can not be covered by black and white "blanket legislation".

We need a number of things from immigration legislation. Firstly, we must be able to protect our borders from potential terrorists or illegal substance smugglers, while allowing legitimate applicants for citizenship through. Secondly, we need to create a sort of amnesty (possibly temporary, with a chance of citizenship) to protect the illegal aliens who are currently residing in the U.S. Thirdly, we need to expand our sect of government which deals with citizenship so that it may process foreigners more safely and efficiently, including background checks.

If we wish to be successful in our search for adequate immigration legislation, we must not remain on a hauty pedestal. We must understand that most immigrants are not terrorists. The majority of illegal aliens are simply seeking a place in which they can live in peace and stability. These people make a huge impact on our national economy. We can not continue to pretend that criminalizing illegal aliens is okay. We must realize that these aliens have become a part of the American Dream. They are fulfilling the dreams that our ancestors (who were most likely immigrants) fulfilled long ago. Instead of criminalizing illegal aliens, we as a nation need to take steps to improve the citizenship process, making it easier for alien's backgrounds to be checked and for them to be granted citizenship.

America must stop its snobbish out look on the people who are horribly underpaid to do our dirty work. We must learn to embrace these people who simply have a dream of stability. Where did we get the pompous idea that only so many people can immigrate to America. Can the U.S. ethically close its doors to immigrants now?

I realize that in a post 9/11 world, we have an obligation to make sure that our borders are protected from terrorists and smugglers of illegal substances. However, the issue does not have to remain as "us against the felons". Not all immigrants are dangerous people. We must remember that we have an obligation as people to open our arms to our human family.

China, Censorship, and Rock-n-Roll

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/04/08/stones.concert.ap/index.html

The Rolling Stones recently made their first appearence in the Communist nation of China. It seems so odd that such a world widely famous band has only recently visited one of the most populated nations in the world. And although the Communist nation is far more prepared for such a racey group than in previous years, they still requested censorship of a number of the Rolling Stone's songs.

The Chinese government felt that many of the song lyrics were far too sexually suggestive to be sung during the Chinese concert, and were there for censored.

The idea of censorship is certainly not an old one. To today's American youth however, the idea seems almost archaic. America's collective youth has rarely experienced censorship in any form. Our generation has witnessed tremendous growth in the freedoms of speech and print through all of our entertainment and News medians (televisions, computers, music, video games, books, magazines, etc.). The past two decades have become prime examples of pushing censorship bounderies, allowing things that would have been faux pas only a few years prior to become the current norm.

However, there seems to be a turning of tables in America. In the past year, the News media has been hounded by the government for releasing unflattering news about the war in Iraq to the American public. Mind you that some of the information that was released in the prior year lead to the revealing of an undercover CIA agent, possibly putting her, and national security at risk of being harmed. Because of this scandal, and other news that may be viewed as harmful to the reputation of the Presidential Administration, there has been a call for censorship of the News media.

There have also been cries for censorship of "lewd" material in the entertainment medians of the media. Conservative groups have complained that growing sexual, violent, and "immoral" material premiered in entertainment medians of media are harmful to the moral basis of society, and should be censored.

My question is, do these people have a point? Should all forms of media be sensored? I say no. My concern is who would be doing the censoring. Who has the right to determine what I watch, listen to, or read. And why does that particular group have all of the right answers? I believe to give one group such great power over the information we recieve is a huge mistake. It would completly limit our aility to view the world around us. To be able to make educated choices as a human being, we must be able access information from all sides, cultures, and creeds. If we so choose not to partake in certain forms of media, then it is our choive as a free human being to make that choice.

As with all things, there are some limitations that must apply to prevent the explotation of people. Certainly media that endangers people (as in the Scooter-Libby Sacandal) or exploits (as in child pornography) must be closely watched and censored if necissary.

Such special circumstances make it difficult to make a judgement call on censureship. However, I believe that in most cirrcumstances, censorship is unnecissary and wrong. We must use our best judgement to decide what media is truly harmful and what is not. Such a job can be tedious and difficult, but what else can we do? We can not censor everything. We must protect our freedom.

Accusations and Apologies

http://www.blacknews.com/pr/saga101.html

It is interesting to me how quikly someone changes their mind about the validity of an accusation they have made when their peers refuse to stand behind them. I believe this is the case behind the belated apology of Cynthia McKinney to the capitol officer which she physically assalted.

I was quite puzzled earlier in the week to read that racial profiling accusations had been made by McKinney towards a capitol officer. As I read the article, I could not believe that she had the audacity to make such accusations. When McKinney was stopped from going around a metal detector and into the Capitol Building, she was stopped for legitamate reasons. She was not wearing the Congressional pin that would allow her special access to the Capitol. The accused capitol officer was simply doing his job by keeping someone who was not appropriatly labeled away from the designated areas for congress men and women. The officer only touched her on the shoulder and told her that she could not go around the metal detector with out being properly identified.

I think the only thing irrational about the entire situation was McKinney's reaction to being stopped. She punched the officer! I believe that her cries of racial profiling were simply a means of justifying her own hot headedness. I was quite pleased to see that such a Red Herring was ignored by her peers. It seems that McKinny's accusation fooled no one, and she was given no support in continuing allegations against the officer.

In a post September 11 world, there is certainly no room for such behavior. For all that officer knew, McKinney could have been someone dangerous. He was simply doing his job by keeping undesignated people form sliping thourgh undetected.

I think it is a shame that it took such peer pressure to get Cynthia McKinney to apologize at all to this poor officer. And I cringe to think what could have happened to him and his career if people had stood behind McKinney and her accusations. That capitol officer could have lost his job because of her irrational temperment. Thank goodness most of our Congressmen and women have a little good sense.

Anecdotal Catharsis

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/06/Moussaoui.victims/index.html

The occurance of September 11, 2001, in a sense, brought America to a new state of awareness. As a country we realized that we were not impenitrable, nor invincible. Following this tragedy, our nation has moved in a new direction, we have declared a "war on terror". We have put forth millions of dollars to ensure that every last terrorist is confiscated and tried for his or her crimes against humanity. Over the past few years, this "war" has been everyting but successful in bringing down a terrorist regime. That is why the confescation and on-going trial of Zacarias Moussaoui is so important right now.

In a sense, we as a nation are using this trial in a cathartic manner. The people who lost loved ones on September 11 now have a means of feeling that some sort of justice is finally being served. These people finally have a tangible face in which to pin blame for their heartache.

Because the case against Zacarias Moussaoui is so emotionally charged, people have lost interest in whether Moussaoui was actually involved in the September 11 attacks or was just a "want-to-be-terrorist". It seems that the nation is willing to allow Moussaoui to take blame, whether he was truly involved or not.

I think the most interesting part of this trial is the use of personal anecdotes from the people who lost loved ones in the September 11 attack. These anecdotes are heart wrenching. There are stories of children, husbands, and wives left behind, some resorting to suicide to deal with their losses. And there is also the aspect of the ones who perished, all having lives and hopeful futures, now lost.

It is my belief that Zacarias Moussaoui would be found guilty and sentenced to death with out the aid of these personal anecdotes. However, I feel that the people who have lost the ones they love will have a greater sense of justice if they can tell their tragic stories. They are being given the ability to tell the "enemy" and the nation just what they have gone through i the years since September 11. It seems that this could be a catharsis for the families who have lost and the nation as a whole. We are being given a chance to tell the stories of our lost, hopefully with the result of a bit of relief. We can all share a bit of the heartache and let go of some of the anger that remains from one our nation's greatest tradgedies.

South Park Says Goodbye to Chef

http://www.smh.com.au/news/tv--radio/chefs-grisly-exit-is-a-south-park-hit/2006/03/24/1143083957683.html

As a fan of the television show South Park, I have spent many an hour laughing histarically at the antics of chef, the source of advice and song for the South Park elementary students. I was deeply disappointed by the news that Isaac Hayes, the voice of chef, had left the show. However, my disappointment quickly evolved into disgust as I discovered the reason behind Hayes departure from the show.

When I discovered that he had been angered by the episode dealing with Scientology I could not stifle a confused, "what?!". The word hypocracy bounced in my brain and danced on my tongue. Of all of the years that South Park has aired, it has made fun of almost every religion, politician, celebrity, media figure, and knews story imaginable. I found it hard to believe that Hayes failed to take offense when other people's religions were being satirized, but quit the show when his religion of scientology was made fun of.

I feel that Haye's selective intolerance is insulting. For him to believe that only certain groups should be spared from satirization is a kind of descrimination.

As a Roman Catholic, my religious beliefs have been satirized many times on the show. I do not always agree with the way my religion is portrayed, however, I realize the importance to be able to laugh at your beliefs in some cases. No belief system, person, or istitution is un-flawed, and to be able to sometimes laugh at those flaws is important to our survival in an often dark and serious world.

We are living in a time when the world is constantly pushing for censure of "insulting" material in the printed and televised media. Isaac Hayes is another example of this kind of push. I believe that it is important to hold strong to our freedom of speech and expression, whether we are insulted by other's un-represed speech or not. I say ,"long live South Park", and its unrepressed expression.

The Purpose of Prayer

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13184b.htm

While driving to work on Sunday morning, I was intrigued by a section of MPR Radio devoted to spirituality. This week they were focusing on prayer, its purposes, its origins, etc. This presentation led me to think of my own experiences with prayer,what it has meant to me, and my global out-look on how it affects the world.

Being a Roman Catholic, I am most experienced with Catholic prayers, most especially the Rosary. Having been raised in the Baptist Church, I was only vauguely familiar with Catholic prayers. When I transfered to a Catholic highschool to begin my Sophomore year, I was itrigued by the process. I can remember going to early morning mass, before school started, and sitting in the very back of Saint Mary's. I would sit and listen to the early rising parishoners as they chanted the Rosary. Later, as my confidence grew, I moved up a few pews and began to say the Rosary with them. The Rosary itself can seem very intimidating, complicated, and even a bit archaic. However, I later learned that the prayer was not a vessel of simple repetition for repetition's sake, it is actually a kind of mantra.

I found that saying the Rosary was a way to seperate myself from the world, and place all of my attention on to matters of the soul. It enabled me to go to a quiet place in my head and reflect. The general goal of the Rosary is indeed to allow you to focus all of your attention into one focal point, God. This may seem as to be a closed minded way to pray, however, that depends on what your view of God is. I think of God as a source of insight and peace; when I have questions, quandries, restlessness or dissatisfaction, I find that prayer is a wonderful way to calm my spirit...to come closer to answers. Prayer helps me to find small moments of peace that help me endure. It almost has a healing quality to it.

I think that any sort of prayer has divinity in it. Whether it be Christain, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., it has the power to do many things. I do not even think that religion neccissarily has to be involved to produce meaningful prayer. I do not think it matters what kind of reality or spirituality you believe in; prayer or focused reflection can be helpful to anyone. I think we all need moments to seperate ourselves from our often hectic lives and have a moment of silence...a moment of peace.

The Literary Art of Persuasion,

And Those Who Do It Poorly

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/25/BUSH.TMP

Our current commander and chief is making a wave of speeches with the purpose of convincing the U.S. and the world that our mission in Iraq is not a failure. He is fulfilling his duties as a politician...he is persuading...but very badly.

There are few people in the world with the gift of oratory. Interestingly enough, you can easily find this sparse population in one particular profession: politics. There are politicians that could tell you that your green sweater was blue, and you would absolutly believe them. Master orators, especially in politics, can smooth over any situation. War, scandal, anything at all that could cause ratings to go down, can be erased by the power of mindful persuasive speech.

I certainly believe that oratory gifts are wonderful things. To this very day, my father can tell me a story so vivid and belivable that I am left speachless. It is so powerful that in a sense, a story lacking very little truth, becomes real. The stories become unforgettable...ones that my children will tell to theirs. There is somthing very beautifle about the mind of an orator and the stories that they tell.

However, such gifts are often squandered. As I have referenced, many politicians use this gift to hide things...to decieve. Such practices are a perversion of a priceless gift.

I find that I am often disapointed with the oratory skills of our current president. I was certianly not surprised to see that Mr. Bush failed to convince the world that everything is okay in Iraq. He does not have the gift to hide or decieve. I have spent many hours watching the president give speeches...many hours cursing at his horrible grammer...many hours wondering why such an oratory oaf could be our president. Today, when I watched him unsuccessfully try to convince our nation that Iraq is not a failure, I was glad he is an oratory oaf. I was glad that he is not the kind of person who has the ability to decieve. I was glad that because of his oratory failures, we have been able to see truth...or at least some of it.