Monday, June 30, 2008

Being Critical and Realistic

I have been and still remain a Ron Paul supporter. I feel that I, unlike many people in this country, still support him despite certain ideological differences. I agree with him on the eradication of the IRS, the decriminalization of certain drugs, and his views on helping the current state of the economy. However, there remains a difference between Dr. Paul and myself. I refused to comment on how I felt about his foreign policy until I read some of his book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom". I've read a lot of this book and see how consistent he has been during his time in office. He, unlike most or all politicians, has never swayed back and forth on his political views based on the current state of things in America. He goes by what the Constitution says and lays out. From reading his numerous speeches, I have to say that he is very well read and very intelligent. However, I disagree with him on one very crucial aspect: American foreign policy and intervention. Dr. Paul believes that the world would run efficiently if countries only had economic relations with each other and did not intervene in each other's autonomy. That sounds great, but it won't work in today's world. Why do I say that? Take a look at WWII. Both Germany and Japan were imperialistic powers looking to broaden their influence and their hegemony. Being a pacifist, isolated world superpower would not have worked. Other countries have shown their quest for more power and look to war as a means to their ends...more land and power. Dr. Paul's assessment would work if every country and every leader were to sign a global treaty promising that each country only be involved in their own business and not to intervene in others. However, this would do great damage to what the United States is and represents. Many people criticize the US government for a number of things that it has done in the past. What many people fail to recognize is that they are living in a country that is only what it is today because of those choices in the past. Sure, training Afghanistan to fight the Soviet invasion backfired on us. But doing this prevented the deaths of many US soldiers and the possible declaration of war between the US and the Soviet Union. In other words, it could have been a lot worse. Making a decision during the climax of a situation isn't easy and could ultimately be wrong. However, I would rather choose to get involved to deter a possible problem than to deal with it after it has become extremely powerful and detrimental to the interests of the United States. That is why I disagree with Dr. Paul on this issue. President Harry Truman, on March 12th, 1947, stated, 'I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures". This was the beginning of American intervention throughout the world in the name of freedom. It was also the end of what Dr. Paul and the forefathers believed, no entangling alliances. Sure, this aggressive foreign policy hasn't worked 100% of the time, but then again, what foreign policy has? The answer to that is none.
McCain has flip-flopped on his stance on torture, his view towards the Christian elites, etc. Obama has flip-flopped on his stance on gun control, Israel, foreign policy, and campaign funding. If any of this is confusing, you haven't been paying attention and fulfilling your duty as a citizen. You see, neither of these candidates have stuck to their guns. Each of them have swallowed their pride and gone against their beliefs in order to gain electoral support. History tends to repeat itself. With that in mind, I ask "How do you know that Obama or McCain will follow through on their promises and their policies when both of them have a history of flip-flopping"? I still think that Dr. Paul is the best candidate that is running for president and I wish that other voters were just as critical towards their candidate as I am with mine.

Monday, June 23, 2008

Makes Me Sick

How many times have you witnessed someone taking advantage of a tragedy or death simply to make a profit? I know that I have. After 9/11, Americans came together to heal and take care of one another. We also brought out our US flags and other patriotic items. Somewhere in the United States, despite the pain that we were all feeling, there was a sick-minded person saying to himself, "It's terrible that 3,000 people died and I'm going to take pride in my country along with every other American. Thank God I own a flag production company. Cha-ching!". I remember all of the commercials on television advertising flags and other patriotic items. This was one of the many disgusting things that I remember about 9/11. However, I remember standing in line to donate blood and seeing the faces of all the potential blood donors willing to endure a needle prick and the feeling of lightheadedness so that others could get the blood that they needed. Many of us got turned away, but it was the willingness to act that gave me hope about people in this country. I also remember dropping out of college only to drive straight down to the recruitment office to sign up for the military. I felt that I needed to do something for my country and going to college wasn't the way to do it. That fell through because of what the recruiter told me about a number of things, but I was proud of myself for wanting to make that choice. I look back now and realize how glad I am that I didn't enlist. There were and are plenty of Americans like me who realize that tragedy calls for people to step up and sacrifice. Which brings me to my main argument.
I happened to be watching a video clip of George Carlin last week and I wanted to find a shirt on Ebay with a quote of his on it. I distinctly remember how many George Carlin items were listed on Ebay at the time...74 total items. Many of you know that The Great Mr. Carlin passed away yesterday and I just happened to take a curious look at Ebay once again. Not to my surprise there were and are now 524 George Carlin items for sale and that doesn't include the hundreds that were purchased with the "Buy It Now" feature. They even have "Remember George Carlin" black ribbons to place on your car or fridge selling for $7 each. Can you see where I'm going with this? People saw an opportunity to make a quick buck and they jumped on it. Is that how we honor a comedic legend like Mr. Carlin? By financially profitting on his death? The people choosing to do this should be ashamed of their actions. I'm all for private businesses and people trying to be successful in life. However, as with situations like this, I oppose certain actions based on something called MORALS. I used to buy tickets to concerts and sell them to other people for a profit. I made a lot of money doing this. However, I came face to face with a man who changed my way of thinking. His name was Chris and he was a happy, upbeat drummer from a great sounding band. We decided to meet up at Starbucks and have a cup of coffee and exchange my two tickets to see The Police for $800 in cash. The two tickets only cost me $385. After sitting down with him and talking about music for roughly an hour we proceeded with the transaction. I gave him the two tickets and he handed over the 40 $20 bills. I shook his hand and he left with the look of pure gratification on his face. He was going to take his son to see the band that he grew up loving and to show his son his inspiration for making and loving music. You can imagine how bad I felt as we both drove home. I soon realized that he could have done all of this for $415 less. I still feel guilty to this day and it was because of him that I have made the decision to never do that purely for financial gain. I have sold tickets to shows that I have been unable to attend for slightly more than what I paid for them (due to calculated interest accrued on my credit card), but that has only happened a few times. Most of the time I sell them for what I paid or much less than what I paid. I have taken more losses than gains and I'm fine with that.
This is why I refuse to work for any business that revolves around sales. Sure, I work at Safeway, but with Safeway it's different. How? Safeway sells food, which is a staple item necessary for living. I am opposed to businesses and people who prey on others for a profit. I know that nearly all of it is legal, but I have a MORAL problem with it. If I can purchase a pair of jeans made by hardworking Americans and not from overworked Chinese/Central American slave labor...I'll do it and I have no problem paying a few dollars more for those jeans. I understand that this is hard for a lot of people to do because of financial problems. I don't hold people who struggle accountable for their actions because if I had to decide whether to pay more for clothes out of pride or feed my family I'd choose the latter and not the former. However, I do blame those who can afford to choose the former over the latter and decide not to.
Most people will step on others, will manipulate information, take advantage of others, and stab someone in the back just to make an extra dollar. I can't embrace or respect that sort of business ethic. I also can't respect people who make a profit off of a tragedy or someone's death, like Mr. George Carlin. There comes a point where "supply and demand" shouldn't matter. They call it a matter of economics, but I call it a matter of moral obligation and respect. Rest in peace Mr. Carlin. I hope you, Richard Pryor, and Bill Hicks are making God smile.

Monday June 23rd

First day of summer classes. I didn't sleep well at all last night. This trend appears to follow me whenever I have something to look forward to. I woke up this morning looking like Don Imus after a 5 day meth/coke and hooker binge. I'm tired, but motivated. I was the only person in a class of 35 to purchase the textbook so I know that I already have a headstart on everyone in class. Classes will be daily from 9:30 to 11:30. It seems intense, but having to focus on only one class could help me improve my GPA by the fall quarter. I'm taking Arabic in the fall along with China-US relations and a class on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Goodbye social life and hello black eye rings and crow's feet wrinkles around my eyes.

I made the Dean's List last quarter which surprised even me. I know that I did good on all of my finals and final papers, but I didn't expect to do as well as I did. I received a 3.6 in Critique and Theory, a 3.5 in Russian Politics, and a 3.5 in Ancient Political Theory. I received my associate's degree with honors, but I've never made a dean's list or honor roll because I've never been able to attend school full-time due to the fact that I've always had a job.

I've discovered a new band named Mogwai and I really love their stuff. I also have a chance to see David Cross perform stand-up on July 11th, but I have to see about a few things. I'm also leaning towards attending the weekend long Sub-Pop 20th Anniversary festival at Marymoor in Renton. Green River (early Pearl Jam), the Vasolines (one of their 3 US shows EVER and Cobain's writing influence), Kinski, and Mudhoney are all slated to appear. It's also music that has influenced and put Seattle on the music scene. I'm sure Nirvana would play this show if Kurt was still around today. Their first label was Sub-Pop.

I'll close with this. A lot of reading awaits me and my eyes are starting to get heavy. Tully's Fair Trade coffee might help me a little, but it tends to wear off quickly.

Thursday, June 5, 2008

For I Am

I bow my head in shame, for I am no better than you,
You beg for money, talk politics, trying to make enough to eat,
I hide my eyes from yours, trying so hard to ignore you,
The poorly tuned guitar strums notes of equality and injustice,
I bow my head in shame, for I am no better than you,
I work and have an education, my accomplishments cause me to swell in pride,
I buy excessive material things, I ignore the truth,
You hang your head in shame, cardboard sign states "Vietnam vet",
I drive by apathetically, for I am no better than you,
You have no material possessions, a simple coin donation makes you smile,
I laugh at the handicapped and complain about the quality of my food,
I scowl because I'm tired, you slept on the sidewalk in the rain,
I park my car and pay the meter, "no change man, I'm sorry",
Frustration sets in, my cell phone service has failed me again,
You sit alone, wondering what past choices you'd wish to change,
Meter maid slowly rolls up, no time left, "Where is he?" you wonder,
You insert your only quarter into the slot, I ignore you as I get into my car,
I mock you amongst my friends, you remember the days when you had friends,
I see you as I leave the bar, laughing and stumbling I proceed,
Seeing you removes my smile, for I am no better than you,
Ordering my lunch, short .75 cents, debit card left at home,
Three old quarters rattle on the counter, your daily earnings disappear into the register,
I take out the trash, glance and see you sleeping in the corner,
I hang my head as I walk by, for I am no better than you,
While on my cell phone, I drop my wallet as I walk by you,
Tap on my shoulder, a smile, my wallet has been returned,
Walking home after dinner, doggy bag full of warm leftovers,
Hoping I don't see you, for this bag is my lunch for tomorrow,
It's not that I don't like you, but it's the guilt that I feel,
And this guilt causes me to hang my head, for I am no better than you,
Finally, my lunch break has arrived, I sprint to the burger joint,
Busy lunch hour, only seat left is sitting across from you,
I contemplate leaving, but our eyes once again meet,
I show an indifferent smile, I order a #5, make that two #5s please,
Waiting for my food, you quietly sit, observing others around you,
The food arrives, you get up to leave, "Hey man, hold up",
"Hold that table for me", you're confused as I walk up,
"Sit down, man. Are you hungry?" I say, you look surprised,
"This is the least that I could do", "Tell me about yourself",
Time passes by, two new friends enjoy an unplanned meal together,
Ideas, memories, ideologies, and jokes, an unexpected connection,
A "thank you", a hand shake, a smile, and a newly embraced friendship,
"Don't bow your head as you pass, you have nothing to be ashamed of",
"Oh" I say, "if only you knew of the guilt I feel",
"If only I knew what that felt like, my shame greatly outweighs your guilt",
"That is why I bow my head as I pass, for I am no better than you".

My Letter to the University

Below is a copy of the letter that I sent to the person in charge of the University of Washington's newspage.


Dear ***** *******,

I am the student that had the letter printed in the Seattle PI regarding the possibility of students being able to carry weapons on school grounds. Despite the fact that I appreciate the Seattle PI printing my letter, I was a little upset to find out that they completely changed the direction of the article in which I had originally intended. What do I mean by this? Well, if you were to read my letter in the opinion section of the Seattle PI you can see that I sound like someone making the same pro-gun argument that we have heard and grown tired of over the years. However, I completely disagree with the manner in which my article was handled. The reason that I say "article" and not "letter" is because of the fact that another newspaper printed my article in its entirety (The News Tribune). The Seattle PI, in my opinion, manipulated my article and my argument in the way that they saw fit. I respect the fact that they are allowed to do this based upon certain business practices by newspapers; however, I feel that, by doing so, they missed the point in which I was trying to convey. My goal, in writing the article, was to suggest a change to and to challenge the current weapons policy of the University of Washington. I was not doing this to gain recognition or to irritate those whose opinions differed with mine. I wrote this article because I really care about this university and I want to help make it better for future generations. I understand that a lot of people may disagree with the stance that I have taken. However, what good is a policy if it has not been challenged?

I have read the listings that you have on the UWnews.org section and I only saw the letter that I had in the Seattle PI and not my article that the News Tribune printed. I just felt that people seeing this page would only see my "manipulated" letter and not the article that did, in fact, portray my actual views and concerns. I feel that this issue deserves to have a balance of views supporting and opposing the current University of Washington weapons policy. In my opinion, it's only fair. I will provide a link to my article that the News Tribune printed on May 25th. Thank you for your time and I hope to hear back from you regarding this issue.

Sincerely,

Matthew Thomas Cornwall

LINK: http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/insight/story/372089.html

Yet More Criticism

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer took my article and cut it down into the length of a "letter to the editor". In doing so, they removed the basic argument that I was trying to convey. My goal for writing this article was to persuade the University of Washington to consider changing their policy on concealed weapons on campus. However, they changed and manipulated it to the point where my letter made me appear as an overly-sensitive gun owner. I have written letters to the Seattle PI in the past and have had no complaints...until now. In the past, I wrote letters praising the Muckleshoot Tribe, urging the necessity of political focus towards global climate change, voter apathy, helping the Mexican economy, and my lack of faith in the available political candidates for the next presidential election. My views, in the items I just described, were a bit leftist. Apparently, the Seattle PI praises these types of views and gladly prints them. However, I do not consider myself a leftist-thinking individual and my article concerning concealed weapons on campus supports the fact that I am an individual who has a vast array of political beliefs. It is very difficult to place me into a certain political party or a certain sterotypical political group. After the events that have transpired I have no other choice but to believe that the Seattle PI does not print letters or articles that differ from their own political beliefs. However, they do print letters or articles from readers that have been manipulated with the hope of making conservative political views seem illogical, far-fetched, and open for public criticism. In doing so, the Seattle PI prints multiple letters to the editor criticizing the conservative letter or article, thus strengthening their own personal and unbalanced, liberal views. It wasn't until my article (printed in its entirety by the News Tribune and the University of Washington's THE DAILY...both extremely appreciated by me) was cut down into the length of a "letter to the editor" and manipulated to change the overall direction of the article, that I truly realized the true political nastiness that certain media outlets embrace and practice. How many letters did the Seattle PI receive that supported my views and wanted to let others know about this particular issue? We'll never know. The reason is simple: the Seattle PI only prints letters differing from their own political views with hopes of the "manipulated" letter angering their liberal readers and motivating them to write responses that belittle and reject the conservative views that they truly despise. I always used to scoff at the notion made by right-wing politicos that the media was, in fact, liberal or at least leftist thinking. I now understand this particular argument. The good thing about this is that I am not a leftist thinker, nor am I a conservative thinker. I embrace both sides and construct arguments that I feel represent the vast number of Americans who feel alienated by certain media outlets that openly embrace and display their right or left wing political views. What we have here is a clear example of distortion and manipulation by a historically proven newspaper supposedly not associated with either right or left-wing political views. This action speaks loudly to me and many others like myself who have experienced criticism and political thrashings due to unfair and unprofessional manipulations of the truth and political views. Below is yet another letter to the Seattle PI in opposition to my manipulated article.

Possessing a weapon will not keep you safe

The beliefs of Matthew Cornwall about allowing students to carry guns on college campuses are erroneous and dangerous (Monday letter).

Many believe that possessing a gun will keep them safe. Statistics generally prove the opposite. Unless you are trained in the use of deadly force, usually military or police kill-or-be-killed training, chances are you will have your own weapon used against you. That happens because you either hesitate, giving the assailant the advantage, or you pull the weapon and issue a threat instead of just shooting. Either scenario can get you killed by your own gun.

Add to that the real possibility of being prosecuted for murder if you can't prove self-defense or being sued for wrongful death by the victim's family or sued by the victim for injuries if you don't kill him. It happens every day.

Use of non-lethal weapons, such as pepper spray, give you a better chance for surviving an attack. Pepper spray will drop an attacker in his tracks; guns don't always stop an attacker before he can hurt you.

Dave Keizur
Renton

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Responses to My Article

I've had a lot of responses to my article that was printed in 3 separate newspapers (News Tribune, The Daily, and the Seattle PI). They printed 3 letters that were a direct response to my article. I also had a fellow University of Washington student respond to my article with one of her own. I'll post them here in their entirety.



Letters to the Editor
WEAPONS AT UW


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Campus full of gun-toting students won't make it safer

This is response to Matthew Thomas Cornwall's Monday letter. Having a campus full of gun-toting students will not make the University of Washington campus safer. The very idea is absurd. To use a simile with car safety: Air bags occasionally suffocate and kill people when activated. But far more lives are saved by air bags than die because of them. But because there are cases of accidental death from air bags, no one would suggest manufacturing cars without them.

Countries that have strict gun control laws and outright handgun bans have a fraction of the gun-related violence compared with the United States. More guns make situations more dangerous. That is obvious. Cornwall is far more likely to die driving his car to campus than to be assaulted by a gun-wielding lunatic on campus.

If the gun is really for safety reasons, it would make more sense for Cornwall to give up driving and worry less about villains on campus. Even if he did have a gun when assaulted, that does not necessary mean his life would have been spared.

John Whitmore
Maple Valley


Having more guns doesn't equal less shooting

Matthew Thomas Cornwall makes the tired claim that "violent crimes involving guns are not carried out by responsible, registered gun owners." Let's leave out the "responsible" part for a moment and look at "registered." Seung-Hui Cho was a registered gun owner, who purchased his two firearms via legal means. And the alleged shooter at Folklife managed to purchase one in a legal way. If you want to talk about "responsible" gun owners, then describe what makes someone responsible -- someone who doesn't use his gun in a violent crime? I don't have a firearm, and have never committed a violent crime -- so that makes me a responsible ... what, exactly?

To quote the FBI: "Among handgun homicides, only ... 2.3 percent ... were classified as justifiable homicides by civilians."

If you own a handgun, you are three times more likely to either kill or be killed by a member of your own household than in homes where there are no guns present.

When do more guns somehow equal less shooting?

Here's a thought: Maybe if we weren't afraid of everyone, we wouldn't think it necessary to purchase handguns. Why is it, in the most advanced industrial society on Earth, we kill each other in such numbers?

I prefer that we have more places where guns are banned. Keep campuses free of weapons, legal or otherwise. And yes, I'm a naïve liberal.

Sten Ryason
Seattle


State law does not require registration

I found Mathew Thomas Cornwall's letter one of the most clearly written on the subject of guns on college campuses that I have read in a long time. I agree with nearly every thing said. I am curious about one thing, though.

Cornwall states that he owns a "registered handgun." Washington state law does not require the registry of any handgun, so with whom is his firearm registered?

Dene Leach
Kent


Advocating vigilantism won’t increase safety

ASHLEY FENT Puyallup
Published: May 31st, 2008 12:00 AM
“Students with guns could save lives” (Insight, 5-25).

As a fellow student at the University of Washington, I find Matthew Thomas Cornwall’s “solution” to violence extremely troubling.

First, for someone so concerned for his own safety, he completely fails to mention university services like Husky NightWalk, which provides a police escort for those afraid for their safety. These services are not perfect, but if student safety is truly a concern, Cornwall should work with the UW police to improve these programs rather than advocate student vigilantism.

Second, his proposed “safety” measures make campus unsafe for many students who feel that guns facilitate violence. Like many universities, UW has been working to increase safety precautions in the wake of violent campus crimes. The time and money that would be required for university officials to ensure that weapons are properly registered would be better spent on campuswide programs to protect all students.

There are many alternatives to arming students: walking with friends, calling for a police escort, taking self-defense classes that provide strategies for avoiding conflict. And while working together for a safer campus, we must also address more pervasive forms of violence in this society – the violence of racism, sexism and heterosexism, the violence of war and the violence of poverty.


This is a response to her article from an avid News Tribune reader:

Ashley, you’re a little fuzzy on vigilantism. A vigilante is someone who illegally usurps the powers of law enforcement and judges. A legally armed citizen is someone exercising a constitutional right for self defense in total accordance with federal, state and local laws (even if the worst happens and they are forced to take a life).
Matt most likely can’t see the sense in paying taxes for a man who has a gun and has been trained in how and when to use it to protect him (part time, on campus) when he can buy a gun, a permit, and training in how and when to use it and have protection 24/7 nearly everywhere in the state (without a 15 minute response time).
You aren’t complaining about the armed citizens like Matt that you walk past every day off campus. What profound transformation occurs when they step on campus that makes them dangerous despite years of safe carry? What is the difference between walking past Matt on the sidewalk and sitting with him in a lecture hall - except that (under the current rules) if some madman were to open fire on the street, Matt would be armed and could try to stop him (either succeeding and saving your life or at least drawing fire and making your escape easier), whereas if the madman showed up in class all Matt could do is die beside you. Matt isn't demanding that you exercise your right to self defense, he's asking permission to exercise his right.
The actual level of safety on campus is what’s important, not the perception of safety of a group of students who can ignore pertinent facts like the successful history of campus carry in Utah and Colorado, the insignificant crime rates of carry permit holders or the reduction of violent crime in every state that passes carry laws.
The state already handles permits (with background checks and fingerprints) and registration, everything needed except a UW memo and paper for copies of permits in student and teacher files.
Matt offered a solution to a problem, and I’ll give you the same chance.
How, exactly, would anything you’ve mentioned have kept you alive if you were in that VT classroom when Cho entered?