http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/13/83050.shtml
It's hard it improve upon perfection, so I'm not even going to attempt it outside of this suggestion.
The drive-by media is really not doing an adequate job.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Friday, August 03, 2007
The Importance of Vetting
Obama Suggests Reckless Talks
Barry Farber
Barry Farber
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
We've all seen them. We've all worked with them. We've all been one at some point too - and some of us have been one more than a couple of times. Some of us help them, others laugh quietly, some of us are friendly, while others are aloof. Sometimes they do well, sometimes great, but sometimes they don't fit in and they go on and repeat the process somewhere else.
Being the new guy isn't easy. There's a learning curve on every job - you encounter more failures than success when you start out. You have to learn the language and pace of a job. The language can be industry specific or simply the cadence. And the pace is the rhythm of the work. We've all witnessed newbies, bursting with enthusiasm and ideas, all too willing to rip the establishment because they see systems that are cumbersome or (in their eyes) don't function effectively. Generally some company veteran pulls the young upstart aside and tells them not to rock the boat so hard that it gets swamped. Contained, tempered, or measured enthusiasm is the ideal.
We deal with this everyday in the business world. Management changes, they bring in 'their team' - people they've worked with before or went to college with - and they systematically get rid of those members of the previous administration that don't ascribe to the new vision or direction of management. The new team thinks they know how to do things better or more efficiently because it worked at their last company or supposedly worked for some other company.
The trouble with this is that businesses lose oodles of knowledge when employees leave. A lot of these people were also new once - they tried their ideas, some failed, some succeeded, but they learned - and they know more than their job description, pay grade, or age belies.
This is why the whole apprentice system was invented in work - you learn the procedures and short cuts from an expert in that profession. And most of us, in lieu of apprenticeship, started out in positions much lower than a CEO or editor-in-chief. It's the same thing with school too when you think about it. We aren't born knowing things like sciences, mathematics, literature, or sports, all of these have to be learned.
We even have to learn how to socialize. There are rights and wrongs in every culture. From the proper etiquette, to proper language appropriate to our surroundings, to couture...all of it has to be learned or else there is too much social discord or disruption.
Disruption - social disruption - is the precursor to change in many historical instances. Now, I'm a believer that some change is good, and challenges to the social norms are needed from time to time - either to test the merit of social law, or to ferret out those that seek to destroy the whole for personal benefit. But wholesale anarchy? Never, unless you're ruled by a dictator or tyrant.
So, when is it okay to rock the boat? Logic and compassion dictate that it should be when the fewest amount of people would be harmed, and most would find benefit. Say, the change from long skirts to shorter skirts, or from horses to cars, or from cars to mass transit. Granting women the right to vote, overnight delivery to fax, and fax to internet...things like these are all 'good' change.
And this brings us to Barack Obama. His degrees from two prestigious universities indicate he's smart, but I've known 4.0 students that needed maps to get home, so the degrees - while impressive - don't matter. We know he's a charismatic speaker and has an innate ability to charm an audience that candidates in both parties would die for. I'm sure he's a nice guy to hang out with, and heck, I'm certain a majority of the people in this country would prefer to go to a BBQ at his place versus all the other current candidates. It seems like he's a great family man, and clearly takes his faith seriously, unlike some of the religious posers out there on the stump.
But that being said, we're not hiring a guy to be class president or leader of a social welcoming committee. We're in the process of hiring a President. It is fitting that the process leading up to employment takes as long as four years, and that the personality examination covers a candidates entire lifetime. Candidates have to go through this long, drawn out political vetting to prove they are the best choice for the job. The media scrutiny, the lack of sleep, the personal sacrifice, and the constant crush of humanity are a mere shadow of a precursor to the daily realities of the office. If a candidate develops cracks during this phase, he or she gets passed over, like Howard Dean and his primary implosion of 2004.
Being the leader of a nation - any nation - is perhaps the toughest job in a country. Being the leader of the United States is that much harder because of our global reputation as a leading democracy founded on a culturally rich and diverse immigrant base. We are a beacon of what can be when cultural and social divisions are willing set aside for the greater good. Thus, the leader of our nation has to be a person that has a precisely balanced sense of right and wrong, has an empathy for humanity, has the ability to see beyond tomorrows headlines, has the innate ability to see multiple angles of problems and solutions, has the fortitude to handle criticism with dignity and admit errors when appropriate, and has the ability to make decisions based on facts - not political or party agenda. It is not surprising that very few citizens of our great nation care to take up the challenge. The white hot spotlight of the world is permanently focused on the office. It's like that MTV show 'The REAL World', only the cameras are on for 1461 days straight, or 2922 days if you are good enough to get invited back.
Back to the boat rocking - Obama's recent international policy 'faux pas' are indicative of someone who fails to understand that the establishment he wishes to disrupt.
He's the new guy - we get that.
He wants to shake things up - we get that.
But his reckless statements (talks with Cuba, nuke option off the table, and let's invade Pakistan) show how politically naive this junior Senator really is. And, he has a degree in political science with a concentration in international relations! Say what you will about Hillary, she looks like a beacon of international light next to his dim policy ideas. Obama will impress the impressionable, but he leaves those of us with an understanding of global relations feeling very, very cold inside. The 'what if he were president' is almost to horrific to imagine given his current skill set and charisma.
Obama needs to invest more time is being a Senator, and perhaps he should join a few committees to get a better understanding of Washington and the global importance of the office of President. He needs to be an apprentice first; he is verbally reckless which is not a leadership quality. Only time on the job can give him the proper skill set to take the next step. He may not recognize his own deficiency, instead relying on his multicultural background to give him the illusion of a mental leg up in international politics. He parentage does not give him any super ability to understand cultures - his experience is his own - not his father's or his mother's. It would be like me having an inborn understanding of Germany because of my father, who is a naturalized citizen, was born there. I've never been to Germany or speak the language.
Mr. Farber is being polite when he uses the word reckless.
I see something more dangerous than the power crazed and ethically bereft Clinton's, the hypocritical 'poor man' Edwards, and that sufferer of chronic mental and verbal diarrhea, Howard Dean.
Here is someone with no grasp of the enormity of the position he seeks. Frivolous words haphazardly tossed out have the potential to incite our enemies and alienate our allies. Our media and foreign media can twist those words around to their benefit. The media sells papers and advertising in times of strife, so always keep in mind their financial objectives! Obama seems clueless about this, sort of like the new guy making political blunders - shaking hands with a snarly, anti-social CEO. Or being friends with two sworn office enemies, or showing up a superior to impress someone higher on the food chain, or not knowing enough to replace the empty water cooler bottle.
Yes, Mr. Farber, Barack Obama is reckless. But I would also call him clueless.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Perspective
CNN's Iraq Story Backfires
Link: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/7/19/102035.shtml
I was cruising around the TV and actually caught a portion of this CNN piece. I can only speak to what I saw.
I agree with Mr. Farber that CNN completely missed the message. Here were supposedly 'average' Iraqi's complaining about how it isn't safe and what a lousy job the troops were doing.
From all the cuts, it looked as though they were heavily edited. I guess we should expect this from CNN. I'd like to see the unedited , raw footage...and hear the questions. What do you think the chances of that are? Truthfully, we have a better chance of Putin renouncing the recent anti-West tact he's been on. I'm sure that footage is buried in a vault or had an unfortunate encounter with V8. Do you think CNN asked leading questions? And do you think it was translated correctly? I think we can make an assumption that CNN carefully selected who they spoke to and what they broadcast.
What ended up being shown was exactly as Mr. Farber described - Iraqi's complaining about the lack of security. What in the world was CNN trying to get across to their audience? I really think they hoped we would be left with a lingering feeling of anti-troop feeling of disgust.
Now I'll freely admit that I didn't like the Iraqi's cavalier attitude about our soldiers. They were basically saying 'send more' while failing to appreciate the soldiers' and our collective sacrifice. Maybe this was the deeper message - disgust with the Iraqi's - that CNN wanted. It does seem to be in line with the leftists in government and those Iraqi benchmarks they're always screaming about.
Like it or not, any 'benchmarks' set are going to fail. Iraq is a socially complex region. Divisions go back eons, and these social fractures can not be set and healed in the space of 5 or 15 years. Iraq needs at least a generation and a half, maybe 30 to 40 years, and a few politcal equivalents of George Washington and Abe Lincoln, to set their foundation, and then a hundred years of 'nip / tucks' to hide to political scars. Our short term politicians are looking for a quick fix to use as a bullet point on their resumes!
Take a quick look at the United States after we declared independence - do you think things were perfect here? It took decades to get the states to think as a country. Sure, we now see ourselves as Americans, but dig a hair deeper and people take a certain pride in their State. Even now, we still have divisions that conjure up specific emotions - North, South, West Coast, East Coast, rural, urban, mountain, and coastal. And these are just regions! The social geography is more emotional - racial, ethnic, and religious differences have almost torn us apart at times.
Asking the Iraqi's to pull it together quickly after years of a brutal dictatorship, with their religious divisions, is utterly ridiculous. Imagine having to create a country, complete with national pride, while you're dodging car bombs! Put in this context, I can almost understand the 'average' Iraqi's frustration with security. The average guy on the street is only thinking of three things - his family, his ability to transact business, his safety. His idea of 'country' is probably defined by his religion - excluding or limiting the power of those who don't ascribe to the same beliefs. It's only natural - his religion is the largest group he recognizes. He isn't going to fully grasp what it is we're sacrificing, but he certainly knows things could be a whole lot worse if we were not there. He can't begin to fathom our feelings about this war and why we fight with such passion until he feels a similar passion for his country.
I find that Mr. Farber's mention of John Reed particularly poignant. Perhaps only ardent socialists and those of us vehemently opposed to socialism know who Reed was. For Joe Average, Reed was probably a paragraph in a Social Studies textbook years ago. For those unfortunate enough to experience our post-secondary education systems of late, they may have been required to read 'Insurgent Mexico' or 'Ten Days that Shook the World.' Reed is, according to Wikipedia, portrayed as an American Journalist. Perhaps it is fitting that he is embraced by the left and held aloft as a hero of his craft. Here was a man who was born into wealth and affluence, studied at the best schools, and lived a life of privilege - that is, he didn't have to labor at job to put food on the table. It is interesting to note that John Reed was a rabid supporter of labor, and encouraged this group to radicalize on a global scale. He crossed the line between reporting and involvement...he became part of the story versus merely reporting it. So much for objective observer! This hypocrisy is a hallmark of the left, but in Reed's case - he actually went out and truly participated in causes in Mexico, the U.S., and Russia. He was a mixture of elitist and reporter. He should be called a journalist and agitator. He was one of the first, modern, limousine liberals - or, if you prefer, country club communist, or high society socialist. Anyway you put is, this man was actively involved with swaying public opinion to his way of thinking, which caused huge social strife in his era, and who's lingering effect is felt to this day. That he is romanticized by those on the left should come as no surprise. He was pure propaganda. Perhaps his final years were an example of divine justice.
So where does this leave us with CNN attempt at an anti-Iraqi, anti-troop piece?
If you answered 'laughing at CNN', ding-ding-ding. 'What a bunch of maroons' as Bugs Bunny would say. They sought to push us one way, but ended up proving the opposite.
Regrettably, there are people out in TV land who will take CNN at face value and see this piece as reinforcing their particular viewpoint. I guess the drive-by media has a drive-by viewer. If you want a news analogy - it's McDonald's vs a home cooked meal. Do you like your news quick, simple and off a pre-written menu, or do you prefer nutritious, hearty, and a foundation for prolonged conversations?
In closing, I think I'll offer a solution to the concerned Iraqi's.
The number one task at hand is security. More allied and Iraqi troops will handle this.
How then can we create national pride - the type of national pride that transcends race, religion, ethnicity? How can we bring all the good people of Iraq together? How can we develop a deep pride that shows itself on the world stage, exponentially growing as it achieves success? How do we foster something that is uniquely Iraq, and not the United States?
One word. One solution.
Soccer.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070729193532.3lhy0gi0&show_article=1
Link: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/7/19/102035.shtml
I was cruising around the TV and actually caught a portion of this CNN piece. I can only speak to what I saw.
I agree with Mr. Farber that CNN completely missed the message. Here were supposedly 'average' Iraqi's complaining about how it isn't safe and what a lousy job the troops were doing.
From all the cuts, it looked as though they were heavily edited. I guess we should expect this from CNN. I'd like to see the unedited , raw footage...and hear the questions. What do you think the chances of that are? Truthfully, we have a better chance of Putin renouncing the recent anti-West tact he's been on. I'm sure that footage is buried in a vault or had an unfortunate encounter with V8. Do you think CNN asked leading questions? And do you think it was translated correctly? I think we can make an assumption that CNN carefully selected who they spoke to and what they broadcast.
What ended up being shown was exactly as Mr. Farber described - Iraqi's complaining about the lack of security. What in the world was CNN trying to get across to their audience? I really think they hoped we would be left with a lingering feeling of anti-troop feeling of disgust.
Now I'll freely admit that I didn't like the Iraqi's cavalier attitude about our soldiers. They were basically saying 'send more' while failing to appreciate the soldiers' and our collective sacrifice. Maybe this was the deeper message - disgust with the Iraqi's - that CNN wanted. It does seem to be in line with the leftists in government and those Iraqi benchmarks they're always screaming about.
Like it or not, any 'benchmarks' set are going to fail. Iraq is a socially complex region. Divisions go back eons, and these social fractures can not be set and healed in the space of 5 or 15 years. Iraq needs at least a generation and a half, maybe 30 to 40 years, and a few politcal equivalents of George Washington and Abe Lincoln, to set their foundation, and then a hundred years of 'nip / tucks' to hide to political scars. Our short term politicians are looking for a quick fix to use as a bullet point on their resumes!
Take a quick look at the United States after we declared independence - do you think things were perfect here? It took decades to get the states to think as a country. Sure, we now see ourselves as Americans, but dig a hair deeper and people take a certain pride in their State. Even now, we still have divisions that conjure up specific emotions - North, South, West Coast, East Coast, rural, urban, mountain, and coastal. And these are just regions! The social geography is more emotional - racial, ethnic, and religious differences have almost torn us apart at times.
Asking the Iraqi's to pull it together quickly after years of a brutal dictatorship, with their religious divisions, is utterly ridiculous. Imagine having to create a country, complete with national pride, while you're dodging car bombs! Put in this context, I can almost understand the 'average' Iraqi's frustration with security. The average guy on the street is only thinking of three things - his family, his ability to transact business, his safety. His idea of 'country' is probably defined by his religion - excluding or limiting the power of those who don't ascribe to the same beliefs. It's only natural - his religion is the largest group he recognizes. He isn't going to fully grasp what it is we're sacrificing, but he certainly knows things could be a whole lot worse if we were not there. He can't begin to fathom our feelings about this war and why we fight with such passion until he feels a similar passion for his country.
I find that Mr. Farber's mention of John Reed particularly poignant. Perhaps only ardent socialists and those of us vehemently opposed to socialism know who Reed was. For Joe Average, Reed was probably a paragraph in a Social Studies textbook years ago. For those unfortunate enough to experience our post-secondary education systems of late, they may have been required to read 'Insurgent Mexico' or 'Ten Days that Shook the World.' Reed is, according to Wikipedia, portrayed as an American Journalist. Perhaps it is fitting that he is embraced by the left and held aloft as a hero of his craft. Here was a man who was born into wealth and affluence, studied at the best schools, and lived a life of privilege - that is, he didn't have to labor at job to put food on the table. It is interesting to note that John Reed was a rabid supporter of labor, and encouraged this group to radicalize on a global scale. He crossed the line between reporting and involvement...he became part of the story versus merely reporting it. So much for objective observer! This hypocrisy is a hallmark of the left, but in Reed's case - he actually went out and truly participated in causes in Mexico, the U.S., and Russia. He was a mixture of elitist and reporter. He should be called a journalist and agitator. He was one of the first, modern, limousine liberals - or, if you prefer, country club communist, or high society socialist. Anyway you put is, this man was actively involved with swaying public opinion to his way of thinking, which caused huge social strife in his era, and who's lingering effect is felt to this day. That he is romanticized by those on the left should come as no surprise. He was pure propaganda. Perhaps his final years were an example of divine justice.
So where does this leave us with CNN attempt at an anti-Iraqi, anti-troop piece?
If you answered 'laughing at CNN', ding-ding-ding. 'What a bunch of maroons' as Bugs Bunny would say. They sought to push us one way, but ended up proving the opposite.
Regrettably, there are people out in TV land who will take CNN at face value and see this piece as reinforcing their particular viewpoint. I guess the drive-by media has a drive-by viewer. If you want a news analogy - it's McDonald's vs a home cooked meal. Do you like your news quick, simple and off a pre-written menu, or do you prefer nutritious, hearty, and a foundation for prolonged conversations?
In closing, I think I'll offer a solution to the concerned Iraqi's.
The number one task at hand is security. More allied and Iraqi troops will handle this.
How then can we create national pride - the type of national pride that transcends race, religion, ethnicity? How can we bring all the good people of Iraq together? How can we develop a deep pride that shows itself on the world stage, exponentially growing as it achieves success? How do we foster something that is uniquely Iraq, and not the United States?
One word. One solution.
Soccer.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070729193532.3lhy0gi0&show_article=1
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Trust, but Verify
Mr. Farber's recent column, Derailing Terrorists, offers a very good solution to a very real problem.
Trust is a necessary element for any group.
A company trusts it's employees not to sell or tell company secrets.
A counseling group promises not to talk about individuals outside of their group discussions.
A football team trusts that members won't give their playbook to the competition.
A defendant trusts his lawyer not to tell others that he or she actually committed the crime they are charged with.
A stockbroker can not act, or tell others to act, on insider information.
A policeman trusts that his partner will back him up in a shoot out.
A fireman trusts that his buddies will be there to pull him back if he gets into an impossible situation.
A consumer trusts that a vendor is selling a quality product at a fair price.
A driver or airplane pilot trusts that others on the road or in the air are sober and sane.
All around us, trust is necessary for society to function. Without some modicum of trust, we would still be living in caves or isolated homesteads - killing outsiders or those encroaching on our land.
Trust is the foundation of all human societies and behavior.
Trust is what elevated us from small groups of 10-30, to large specialized groups of millions.
If you want a long dissertation on how societies formed, leave a comment...and I'll write it - this is what I know best.
The ability to trust others is what defines us a civilized people. Even within the most primitive groups - say those living in the highland of Papua New Guinea - trust those within their own group. They don't trust anyone else, but then, they don't know other groups other than their neighbors...and their neighbors are the most likely to kill them, hence the limited trust of all outsiders.
All groups, therefore, are capable of trust. Humans made a great leap forward - and out of the animal realm - when we learned to trust other enough to divide labor. What do I mean by that? Men did hunting, women handled the bulk of child rearing, farmers did farming, traders traded, doctors healed, weavers wove, entertainers entertained, builders built, etc. These people were not tied to cultivating crops or raising livestock unless they were specifically farmers. And farmers weren't out healing the sick or entertaining or building pyramids or cities because they were tending to their fields and flocks. Dividing labor involves a higher level of trust - you trust others to do what you can not do.
Side note: if you look at Neanderthal skeletons, you would see that males and females have the same types of bone breaks, fractures, and muscle structure. The Neanderthals did not have a division of labor - women were equals to men. Modern humans, on the other hand, practiced a division of labor. What happened with these two strategies? Because women joined men in hunts - they probably experienced lower birth rates due to injury and life loss of the mother (primary food source) than modern humans.
This specialization has lead us (collective 'humans') to a higher level of understanding of the world around us. Freed from the tedious chore of supplying food for our bodies, we have been granted the opportunity to utilize our brains in ways our fellow living creatures have not been able to. Think of all the art, poetry, music, religion, and written works created by mankind! Think of science and the path of understanding we have begun to traipse down!
All of this is achieved because we have learned to trust others. Despite all the just and horrible wars, the killings and the bombings...we still trust. We still desire and crave trust. We want to believe and we do believe in the beauty of a trusting and open society. Perhaps it is uniquely American to feel this way, but if that is true, I would be deeply saddened.
And so, we come to the thrust of Mr. Farber's article. Do we trust a group in our midst? I would rather not repeat the 1940's decision to inter Americans of Asian decent, although I can understand the reasoning given the cultural climate and challenges of the times. If we accept Executive Order 9066 as a worst case scenario, I see Mr. Farber's version of an, as he phrases it, "internal White Letter" as a reasonable solution. If the American Muslim community adopts this policy now and self-police themselves, they can avoid the dark side of human nature from rearing its ugly head in America.
What will transpire in the next 20 years will probably determine whether or not this nation - under God, of the people, by the people - will perish from this earth. (credit to A.L.) I like to think of Americans as above the cultural fray, but in truth, we are not.
My favorite president, Ronald Reagan, had a motto, 'Trust, but verify.'
Now is the time for verification before we tumble into the depths of human nature.
Trust is a necessary element for any group.
A company trusts it's employees not to sell or tell company secrets.
A counseling group promises not to talk about individuals outside of their group discussions.
A football team trusts that members won't give their playbook to the competition.
A defendant trusts his lawyer not to tell others that he or she actually committed the crime they are charged with.
A stockbroker can not act, or tell others to act, on insider information.
A policeman trusts that his partner will back him up in a shoot out.
A fireman trusts that his buddies will be there to pull him back if he gets into an impossible situation.
A consumer trusts that a vendor is selling a quality product at a fair price.
A driver or airplane pilot trusts that others on the road or in the air are sober and sane.
All around us, trust is necessary for society to function. Without some modicum of trust, we would still be living in caves or isolated homesteads - killing outsiders or those encroaching on our land.
Trust is the foundation of all human societies and behavior.
Trust is what elevated us from small groups of 10-30, to large specialized groups of millions.
If you want a long dissertation on how societies formed, leave a comment...and I'll write it - this is what I know best.
The ability to trust others is what defines us a civilized people. Even within the most primitive groups - say those living in the highland of Papua New Guinea - trust those within their own group. They don't trust anyone else, but then, they don't know other groups other than their neighbors...and their neighbors are the most likely to kill them, hence the limited trust of all outsiders.
All groups, therefore, are capable of trust. Humans made a great leap forward - and out of the animal realm - when we learned to trust other enough to divide labor. What do I mean by that? Men did hunting, women handled the bulk of child rearing, farmers did farming, traders traded, doctors healed, weavers wove, entertainers entertained, builders built, etc. These people were not tied to cultivating crops or raising livestock unless they were specifically farmers. And farmers weren't out healing the sick or entertaining or building pyramids or cities because they were tending to their fields and flocks. Dividing labor involves a higher level of trust - you trust others to do what you can not do.
Side note: if you look at Neanderthal skeletons, you would see that males and females have the same types of bone breaks, fractures, and muscle structure. The Neanderthals did not have a division of labor - women were equals to men. Modern humans, on the other hand, practiced a division of labor. What happened with these two strategies? Because women joined men in hunts - they probably experienced lower birth rates due to injury and life loss of the mother (primary food source) than modern humans.
This specialization has lead us (collective 'humans') to a higher level of understanding of the world around us. Freed from the tedious chore of supplying food for our bodies, we have been granted the opportunity to utilize our brains in ways our fellow living creatures have not been able to. Think of all the art, poetry, music, religion, and written works created by mankind! Think of science and the path of understanding we have begun to traipse down!
All of this is achieved because we have learned to trust others. Despite all the just and horrible wars, the killings and the bombings...we still trust. We still desire and crave trust. We want to believe and we do believe in the beauty of a trusting and open society. Perhaps it is uniquely American to feel this way, but if that is true, I would be deeply saddened.
And so, we come to the thrust of Mr. Farber's article. Do we trust a group in our midst? I would rather not repeat the 1940's decision to inter Americans of Asian decent, although I can understand the reasoning given the cultural climate and challenges of the times. If we accept Executive Order 9066 as a worst case scenario, I see Mr. Farber's version of an, as he phrases it, "internal White Letter" as a reasonable solution. If the American Muslim community adopts this policy now and self-police themselves, they can avoid the dark side of human nature from rearing its ugly head in America.
What will transpire in the next 20 years will probably determine whether or not this nation - under God, of the people, by the people - will perish from this earth. (credit to A.L.) I like to think of Americans as above the cultural fray, but in truth, we are not.
My favorite president, Ronald Reagan, had a motto, 'Trust, but verify.'
Now is the time for verification before we tumble into the depths of human nature.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Doppler Shift
There has been a blue freight train approaching for many years. And a few weeks ago, it passed us in a whoosh, leaving us in it's red wake.
Twenty-three years ago I was a member of student government at a small college in Upstate NY. Outside of enjoying marginal power when it came to funding, I really didn't do much except to make sure paperwork was in order for the various activities for clubs. Most funding decisions were made during regular business hours, and larger distributions were always discussed and decided at large, full board or full council, meetings.
At this particular college there were two main Spring events - Spring Weekend and Black Spring Weekend. Both had festivities and celebrations - music, fun, and activities. Due to the increasing number of clubs and sports asking for funds, the monies for these two spring traditions were becoming less and less. There was a big push by the white members of the executive council to lump all the funds into a huge, well funded, multi-cultural weekend, where everyone had a least some representation. It would have been great - rap was at it's infant stage and very fresh, rock was coming back, and disco was on the decline.
Enter blue shift.
Not surprisingly, the black student leaders were utterly threatened by this suggestion, claiming it was (I'm paraphrasing it) akin to the evil white machine taking away their traditions and it was grounds for taking matters into their own hands. In a move that shocked me, the black leaders called a secret meeting, inviting only those people necessary to get a quorum. I happened to hear about a meeting...and as a staff member, I always attended. When I walked into the room, I was one of two white faces in the room. I didn't feel uncomfortable in that, but I was utterly sick to me stomach when I realized what was going on. Under the watchful gaze of the faculty advisor (the other white person) the meeting was rapidly called to order, and in a matter of minutes, funding was allocated and approved - with seemingly no discussion.
I was floored - here was politicking and backroom dealing at its worst. I had never witnessed people being so greedy and have utter disregard for doing things above board. I got harsh looks when I tried to protest, and I seem to recall being told that this is how it's always done and how it has to be done. I was hushed up because I dared to speak, and I recall one female member took great delight in dressing me down - practically calling me a racist for daring to oppose the motion. I prided myself on honesty, truth, and true equality. Yet here were people saying no, we want to be separate and have our own celebrations with no ties to anyone else. They wanted equal funding to Spring Weekend, even though the black population on campus was only 25%. What could have been a great event - two groups coming together, true unity - was turned into the something ugly. Very ugly.
The senior ranking member of the executive council - whose girlfriend had ripped me to shreds - pulled me aside within minutes of the meeting being adjourned. He said he knew I wasn't a racist and that his girlfriend was out of line. She just didn't know me, and had a thing against white people. But, he further explained, this is how black people have to gain power in order to achieve equality.
And just like that, I experienced red shift.
Equality.
Power.
Two very interesting social constructs.
What is equality? What is power? It depends on where you are standing.
If you're angry others for injustices (real or imagined) - you gain power to dictate equality.
If you're honest - you use your talents to gain financial equality and get social power.
If you're honest - equality means giving people a fair shot, not because of their skin color but because of their character and quality.
When Imus said his remark - one he has said before, mind you - Sharpton and Jackson brought the full force of their power to bear on his employers and sponsors. MSNBC and CBS, perhaps looking for a way to unload Imus, immediately ditched him. There wasn't even a pretense of standing up to Sharpton...they just caved. Or as Imus would put it - folded like a cheap camera. Imus has probably had some sort of protest coming for years - mostly from women. How he has escaped being noticed is no secret - who watches or listens? Okay - name any women you know who do. Very few, right?
What could have been a springboard to a great racial discussion ended in a power flex, and an all too predictable outcome.
So, who has the power? That's obvious.
How are they using it? I haven't seen much in the way of discussion outside of what Sean Hannity is doing with Sharpton.
Like it or not, we're living in red shift until this whole racial thing balances out.
How are we going to change this? Raise your children to celebrate and respect difference, and above all - celebrate with others.
What does this mean for society at large, and stepping back into Mr. Farber's column, this means the mob rules.
And that, my friends, is a frightening concept.
Farber on WABC
Note to all: Barry Farber will be on WABC Sunday, April 29th at 7PM filling in for Brian Whitman.
Campus Safety Net
After more than a year of not writing, it's time again to pick up the laptop and start blogging away. I'll start from the latest Barry Farber column and work my way back.
Campus Safety.
Like Mr. Farber, I agree that there are some relatively simple, low tech ways to get the word out to instructors and students on university campuses. Even with a minimal security force, campus and local police can be deployed in groups of two or four to buildings and conduct sweeps. Loud speakers on police vehicles, megaphones, alarm systems, or simply runners...there were several ways last weeks tragedy could have been minimized after the first two deaths in the residence hall.
But I want to go beyond his argument and look at two underlying problems I see in this case.
First, directly after the two slayings in the residence hall, the investigators thought they were dealing with a murder / suicide. Unless I'm mistaken, there is usually a weapon close by the alleged murderer's body. In the absence of this, it is probably best to err on the side of caution and assume that a killer is on the loose. I realize at the time that the police were given some erroneous information about the person or persons involved with the first shooting. Regardless, at this moment SOMEONE should have suggested locking down the residence halls - all of them, not just the one where the murders took place. In theory, this could have been done by 8:15 AM...the residence director of AJ calls the RD's of neighboring dorms, and they, in turn , inform their staff and other dorms. Residence Life is trained to handle these crisis's. They can't get the job unless they've gone though rigorous vetting and show an aptitude for handling those social outliers.
Lock down phase #1 done. The academic buildings are another matter, and this could have been done with the suggestions listed above.
This brings me to my other problem with this horrific incident. And that is, where was the Resident Assistant / Adviser on Cho's floor? RA's are the first line of defense, and offense - as witnessed in the death of Ryan Clark. RA's are responsible for knowing the people on their floors, dealing with social and personality issues, as well as maintaining some sort of parental-like watch over their residents. You'd have to be blind not to notice that this guy was odd, and it's the sort of thing that would come up at a weekly, or monthly staff meeting IF everyone was doing their job correctly. If Cho's dorm would have gone into lock down, there is a chance that the staff in his dorm might have been able to alter the outcome of the day - but it probably would have come at the expense of their lives. Cho was bent on killing, and it was just a matter of how many.
Safety Net
My daughter is an RA at a large, metropolitan college. She has a student on her floor that she has expressed concern about in the past, far before Virginia Tech. She noticed that this person had no friends, which is very odd on her campus. She did the everything she's been trained to do - spoken in depth, one on one with this person, shared meals, suggested counseling, and has watched to see if this person has developed friendships throughout the year. When VT happened, this person is the first one she thought of, and she made sure to check up during the next few days. She reports that all is fine.
My sister-in-law is a middle school, creative writing teacher. A couple of months ago, one of her students wrote a graphic, violence filled story and submitted it to the student publication she directs. She told me that this story went beyond anything she ever read before, and the violence was directed at the child's authority figures and spoke of harm inflicted upon the child. The very next day, she marched into her superiors office and announced 'We have a problem.' Within short order, the child was interviewed, and placed in a facility that could better deal with his social and personality problems.
Our safety nets are often those who are outside the judicial and law enforcement realms. They are regular people - our extended family, our neighbors, our friends, our bosses, our co-workers, our teachers, and on and on. They are people who raise their hands and say, 'whoa' regardless of the consequences.
If more people had said 'whoa' in the last 100 years, how many lives would have been spared?
Campus Safety.
Like Mr. Farber, I agree that there are some relatively simple, low tech ways to get the word out to instructors and students on university campuses. Even with a minimal security force, campus and local police can be deployed in groups of two or four to buildings and conduct sweeps. Loud speakers on police vehicles, megaphones, alarm systems, or simply runners...there were several ways last weeks tragedy could have been minimized after the first two deaths in the residence hall.
But I want to go beyond his argument and look at two underlying problems I see in this case.
First, directly after the two slayings in the residence hall, the investigators thought they were dealing with a murder / suicide. Unless I'm mistaken, there is usually a weapon close by the alleged murderer's body. In the absence of this, it is probably best to err on the side of caution and assume that a killer is on the loose. I realize at the time that the police were given some erroneous information about the person or persons involved with the first shooting. Regardless, at this moment SOMEONE should have suggested locking down the residence halls - all of them, not just the one where the murders took place. In theory, this could have been done by 8:15 AM...the residence director of AJ calls the RD's of neighboring dorms, and they, in turn , inform their staff and other dorms. Residence Life is trained to handle these crisis's. They can't get the job unless they've gone though rigorous vetting and show an aptitude for handling those social outliers.
Lock down phase #1 done. The academic buildings are another matter, and this could have been done with the suggestions listed above.
This brings me to my other problem with this horrific incident. And that is, where was the Resident Assistant / Adviser on Cho's floor? RA's are the first line of defense, and offense - as witnessed in the death of Ryan Clark. RA's are responsible for knowing the people on their floors, dealing with social and personality issues, as well as maintaining some sort of parental-like watch over their residents. You'd have to be blind not to notice that this guy was odd, and it's the sort of thing that would come up at a weekly, or monthly staff meeting IF everyone was doing their job correctly. If Cho's dorm would have gone into lock down, there is a chance that the staff in his dorm might have been able to alter the outcome of the day - but it probably would have come at the expense of their lives. Cho was bent on killing, and it was just a matter of how many.
Safety Net
My daughter is an RA at a large, metropolitan college. She has a student on her floor that she has expressed concern about in the past, far before Virginia Tech. She noticed that this person had no friends, which is very odd on her campus. She did the everything she's been trained to do - spoken in depth, one on one with this person, shared meals, suggested counseling, and has watched to see if this person has developed friendships throughout the year. When VT happened, this person is the first one she thought of, and she made sure to check up during the next few days. She reports that all is fine.
My sister-in-law is a middle school, creative writing teacher. A couple of months ago, one of her students wrote a graphic, violence filled story and submitted it to the student publication she directs. She told me that this story went beyond anything she ever read before, and the violence was directed at the child's authority figures and spoke of harm inflicted upon the child. The very next day, she marched into her superiors office and announced 'We have a problem.' Within short order, the child was interviewed, and placed in a facility that could better deal with his social and personality problems.
Our safety nets are often those who are outside the judicial and law enforcement realms. They are regular people - our extended family, our neighbors, our friends, our bosses, our co-workers, our teachers, and on and on. They are people who raise their hands and say, 'whoa' regardless of the consequences.
If more people had said 'whoa' in the last 100 years, how many lives would have been spared?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
