Caution: Obligatory graduation post ahead

DAVID WHITESOCK — Almost there, well, not me specifically, I have another full year, but for many of you, this it and Saturday is the BIG day. Or is it?

We all have our separate paths which we’ve traveled to get to graduation day. Some of our stories are typical rural Midwestern middle-class graduation stories — mom, dad, 2.2 kids and 2.2 cars and a mound of federal financial aid. For others, our path has been rocky, or adventuresome. There are single mothers working part-time, taking 12 credits a semester trying to get that degree to give a better life to their young child — and themselves. There’s that guy who loved partying at the “frat” too much the first time around in college and had to work construction for 10 years before deciding he was tired of that work and wanted something different. Or, how about that gal you know who often takes a semester off to work because she can’t get a loan for school so she has to work and save to pay for the whole tuition right then and there. It took her 6 years, but she’s going to graduate on Saturday and it is going to be one heck of a day for her and anyone else around her who appreciates the accomplishment.

Accomplishment. Graduating college, no matter how smart you are or how you did it, is an accomplishment. It’s really easy to break out the broad brush and say that there too many who will graduate on Saturday and it will just be another day. Mom and dad paid for their tuition, their rent, pizza and beer, and whatever else was needed to get through this four-year hell, and for them, all that matters is that their dad has a connection for a job and that he’s throwing a kegger for a reception party that night. Others though, will have deep gratitude for the work their parents did to make sure they could get the education and hurray for you.

As a self-admitted people-watching addict, I tend to hear all kinds of conversations. I do nothing with these conversations except store them in my cranium somewhere for retrieval when I decide to write my memoirs some day. Interestingly though, I’ve heard too many conversations from people who are annoyed by the fact that they will have to sit for 3+ hours on Saturday, in an ugly bright red robe just so they can shake President Abbott’s hand and get a fake diploma — “all for what?” they say.

Many say they have complained to their parents that it’s not worth the long drive; they’ll mail the diploma, and we can have a party then. Others I’ve heard claim that getting the undergrad degree is not that big of a deal, that when they get that masters, that J.D., or that M.D.; now that will be worth it. Yes, that will, but for the time being, you don’t have that degree, and who says you’re actually going to finish the next 2 to 3 years — grad school is hard, and many get weeded out of programs. Good luck, you’ll need it.

Regardless of what anyone thinks, graduation day is a BIG day. Forget all the bluster that you are going to change the world and humanity is better off because you spent (or borrowed) tens of thousands of dollars for a quality higher education. No, the real story on Saturday will be about perseverance and character. Who’s overcome what obstacles to get to this day? How will that affect them and what they do in the future? For many families still, you just might be the first in your family to get a college degree. How incredible of a thought is that? Despite all the turmoil in the world and difficulties in our own backyard, you went to college, hopefully learned all you could about everything you could, and now you are ready to contribute to yourself and your community.

We all walk down different paths. But for one day, many of you will converge on the same path of accomplishing something that still too many in the United States don’t have the fortune to get or too many take for granted. Go, walk across that stage, it might be annoying to you, and damn it all if the batteries on your iPod go dead; but just know that there are friends and relatives sitting way up there in the stands of the Dome, proud as hell of you. Some of us made that rough journey already and others of us are still on it, but we all say, “Way to go, kid!”

This isn’t high school people

Lauren Hollister - I was privileged to miss out on this little bit of drama earlier today otherwise I probably would have gone into some sort of flaming rage.  Band in itself is full of drama, I don’t think it’s unique to any other club or organization as far as the amount it has, but being in it exposes me to it just about every day.  And looking back on it, this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.  But anyway, it basically happened like this.  Some guy takes some other girl’s music stand.  When she asks for it back he pulls “seniority” by saying that since he’s a senior and she’s a freshman he gets first choice of stands.  I guess it must be really difficult to walk the extra 5 or so feet to go grab one off the wrack, especially for someone as dignified and wise as this so-called “senior”.  The girl, incredibly, was the mature one in this situation and didn’t try to pursue any sort of argument, nor did she do anything like shoving his stuff off her stand and taking it back (which I probably would’ve done).  But seriously, who does that?  Who actually pulls seniority in college of all places?  As if high isn’t ridiculous enough, you have to bring stupid high school attitudes and traditions to college.  What’s even worse is it’s some guy in his 4th year of college, it’s not like he’s some freshman just out of high school, trying to pull seniority on a person just because she hasn’t been in college as long.  Who does that?  We might as well bring back all the high school hazing stunts if we’re going to start pulling seniority on freshmen and sophomores just because we are too lazy to do something ourselves.  Whatever, it just bugs the hell out of me that people actually behave this way still.  Grow up!

What have we learned?

DAVID WHITESOCK — From all the “debate” on the abortion issue over the last week or so, what have we been able to parse out and learn? Anything? I don’t know about you, but I haven’t really learned much. It’s a topic which comes tandem with lighting bolts, and all that seems to happen is that everyone goes back to their corners, saliva dripping from there mouths still wild with fury.

A few things I do know. Angie Buhl and I disagree, but her form of argument is to insult and not necessarily debate. Kelsey Collier-Wise, who is extremely intelligent and whom I greatly respect, took me to task, and obviously we do not agree either, but at the end of that sparring I feel like we’ve essentially agreed to disagree. And, there are more than two sides to this issue. However, most don’t see it that way.

I re-read through many of the comments on Brian’s column and the comments on the blog here, and at the end I was simply tired. It is a very demanding issue. But, before I went to bed last night, I pulled up some late night reading, the Supreme Court opinion in Roe V. Wade. One passage in particular from Justice White’s, albeit short dissent, sums up my opinion on the matter, and I will leave it at that, but I do suggest everyone read the full opinion of the Court, so that we are all on the same page regarding where the courts really are with abortion.

The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. Whether or not I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court’s judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court’s exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.

Gay marriage and you

DAVID WHITESOCK — Looks like this is what the Opinion Blog is going to become, a back and forth between Matt Hittle and I. Both of us are libertarian in philosophy, but as issues get parsed out, I’m coming to realize that we are on extreme ends of the libertarian spectrum.

Take his recent web column on gay marriage for instance.

Matt is almost there. He gets on that gay marriage-libertarian road, but takes the exit right before suggesting an actually solution to the issue. This is no fault of Matt’s per se, it just happens to be the way political discourse goes in this country.

What needs to be addresses, which both comments on the article touch on, is this notion that marriage is a “right.” No, marriage is not a right. Marriage is a privilege, a luxury, an extra-curricular choice to life, if you will.

The problem with the gay marriage debate is we have all seemed to zip past what the proper place of marriage is in a political society, especially ours, and what is its definition.

I think we should all agree that marriage is, and for a long time has been, an institution of organized religion. Unfortunately, the United States government has bastardized the institution and made it a function of our tax code. Which creates the problem.

Like it or not, the connotation with the word marriage is a union between man and woman under the auspices of religion. Why should there be any change in this definition? Organized religion is a greater sham on people than governments are, but marriage belongs to that realm, so be it.

Governments, particularly the U.S. government, recognized at some point, that the institution of marriage could be a viable political football. It was recognized that the segment of the population which was married was a large one, and in order to keep this group of voters happy, maybe there should be incentives within the tax code for entering into this “moderately stable institution.” And eureka, tax credits for married folks were created.

The problem with this, however, is that if we agree that marriage is a religious institution, then the meddling of government in this sphere is not necessarily proper. I happen to disagree with the Supreme Court on the separation of church and state and the banning of all (or most) religious functions from public schools and such, which has been an extreme misinterpretation of Thomas Jefferson’s original intent in his “wall of separation” letter to the Danbury Baptists.

It may begin to appear that I am stepping on my own toes with this argument, but hear me out. Jefferson’s main concern with religion and government was merely the fear that the government would sanction one form of religion or another and enforce that religion upon the people. The involvement of religion, generally, within the government is not necessarily a bad thing, and I presume Jefferson would agree.

However, regarding marriage, government has chosen to benefit a certain group of people over another, when such a benefit is not at all necessary. Having a marriage tax credit or exception within our tax code could be done away with and this issue in relation to gay marriage would be solved.

There is another layer to this issue which essentially clouds the whole debate. Because marriage between a man and a woman is “sanctioned” by the federal government through the tax code, states have taken that lead and extended other benefits or legal protections. These legal protections do not extend to unmarried couples nor gay couples… but gay couples feel the burning desire to have access to those protections. That is understandable, but as the system is set up currently, only marriages are recognized.

What many states have chosen to do is to allow for these legal protections to be extended through civil unions. Not only does this feeble attempt at a solution not solve anything, it makes the problem between federal and state law even more muddy. Because the federal government has made marriage a part of its purview, they now feel that civil unions established by the states are an infringement on their Constitutional powers.

Here, the federal government (as is mostly the case) is wrong and the states are right.

The federal government never should have sanctioned marriage through the tax code, that was an unconstitutional move. The federal government cannot create a so-called ban on gay marriage. It doesn’t exist. What the states can do, however, and Jefferson would agree, is create for themselves a civil union law which would be the measure for all couples — male/female, male/male, female/female — who wish to enter into a contractual partnership for certain legal protections. This is what should be offered to all people.

Government, both state and federal need to wipe marriage exceptions from their tax and legal code. Marriage must be returned to the sanctuary for which it belongs — religion — and governments could concentrate on establishing a legal framework which would answer all the problems relating to living wills, power of attorney, property rights, etc.

This is a long post, but this issue always gets short-shrift, which does the debate more harm than good.

A disagreement with David

MATT HITTLE — I read David’s post about the woman at the center of the Wal-Mart litigation. I disagree that Wal-Mart is acting deplorably.

The woman signed a contract and, according to the article, failed to read the fine print. Is it Wal-Mart’s duty to make sure she understands a contract before she signs it? No. It’s her problem. If this weren’t such an emotionally-charged situation, it wouldn’t have even made the local news. Everyone’s getting bent out of shape over this because she’s permanently disabled.

This may sound very cold, but she signed the contract. It is within Wal-Mart’s legal rights to act on the contract.

The evil side of Wal-Mart

DAVID WHITESOCK — The story about Debbie Shank and her lost legal battle with Wal-Mart is disturbing on so many levels. Mostly, it is disturbing because of what it says about humanity in our society. Here’s the backstory:

Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart’s health and benefits plan.

Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.

It was the beginning of a series of battles — both personal and legal — that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart’s health plan.

Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank’s long-term care.

Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank’s medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family’s trust.

First, for Wal-Mart, a company who had a net income of $11.2 billion dollars in 2006, fighting for $470,000 is utterly absurd. It’s almost like you or I taking a 5-year-old to small claims court for stealing your pocket change. Second, this is the reason the law and corporate America has a terrible reputation. Wal-Mart likes to promote the fact that it donates millions of dollars to the communities it has stores in and to other charitable efforts across the country ($44 million dollars in 2006), but when it comes to one of their own employees, they seem to loose their charitable side.

Why are lawyers and judges hated, especially those working on the civil trial side of things? This is why! It’s funny, when I tell people I want to go to law school, the reactions are priceless. Mostly there is a physical repulsion. The individual physically backs away from you, but then at the same time, verbally they respond with a “really?” Or a sarcastic, “why?” This is why. There is so much bad law being practiced, and it is predicated with a massive loss in common sense. The law has completely detached itself from the community and society has a whole. There is no feeling left for the people the law is meant to impact, or better yet, protect.

In the end, there is a moral question here. When corporations act in deplorable ways, should we collectively boycott them? I know, that’s a rhetorical question with an obvious answer considering the capitalist system which we have. However, how many people will actually consider that a moral imperative exists? I definitely think it does, and because of their actions I will no longer shop at Wal-Mart, at least not until they rightly remedy this situation.

It will be very difficult avoiding Wal-Mart. In Vermillion, there really isn’t anything else. There is a Pamida, and when I am in a pinch that is where I will go, but from here on out, I will have to consciously plan out my purchases that I would normally make at Wal-Mart (school supplies, food, household goods, etc.) Being the store is open 24 hours, the convenience is ripe for a college student, however, I will be strategically making a monthly trip to Sioux Falls in order to avoid Wal-Mart. The 45 minute drive is definitely an inconvenience, but more so is the cost of the drive with gas prices the way they are.

As you can see, there are so many excuses for overlooking the moral imperative behind boycotting Wal-Mart. However, making the right moral choices is never easy.

————–

For more, here was Keith Olbermann’s take last night on Countdown:

————–

Cross-posted at Fuglyville

Who embodies the spirit of the U?

DAVID WHITESOCK — Over the last day or so, I have been thinking long and hard about two things: Student Government Association at USD and the murder of University of North Carolina Student Body President Eve Carson.

The murder of the 22-year-old college student at UNC is incredibly tragic and also eye-opening for a number of reasons. After reading the stories and watching the video and slideshows, learning about this person’s thirst for life, it makes you contemplate what you are doing with your own life. Are you making the best out of what you have at your disposal? Are you living your life not just to satiate your own needs, but to help make the lives of others around you better? Hopefully these are questions we all contemplate daily, not just when tragedy strikes, but we all know that is far from true.

However, what really has me thinking are the stories I’ve read about Eve Carson’s enthusiasm for UNC and how she carried the love for that university into all of her activities, especially in her role as Student Body President. All the stories talk about the “Carolina Way,” and how Carson always asked with each decision, “Is this the Carolina Way?” Never did it seem (from what I have read) that she had a personal agenda as SBP or made decisions based on a strictly political agenda. Not only is this unique in the political arena, it’s highly unique in a college political setting.

And so, considering the current state of our embattled Student Government Association in the context of the passion which Eve Carson had for her student government, I ask the question: Who here has that passion and embodies the spirit of the U?

There is no doubt that Jay Chicoine, Terry Liggens and Alyssa Floyd have passion and love this university, however, their stewardship of the organization, with the exception of Ms. Floyd, leaves much to be desired. Both Liggens and Chicoine were impeached. Regardless of the motives of the Student Senate or the alleged or proved violations, the fact that two impeachments in a row took place is abhorrant. We, as a student body, should not tolerate this.

Now, we have an election for a new Student Body President and it isn’t even a contest … with just one candidate. The phrase uttered repeatedly regarding this debacle has been: “What a joke!” SGA has become a punchline; unfortunately, the jokes just keep coming.

There are suggestions to scrap SGA. Some say we do not need the organization. Considering the disconnect which already exists between the administration and the student body, not having an organization to represent our interests would be foolhardy. Students need SGA. We need to reclaim this organization as ours and accept the fact that it is a professional organization with major responsibilities and influence on both the student body and the administration.

There are many at USD who love their experience here. They are making the most of it and when it is all said and done, will be remarkable ambassadors for the U. Maren Colon was one of these individuals involved in SGA, but we all know what happened there. However, what this campus is missing from it’s most visible leadership position is someone with an exuberance and enthusiasm for this university which is second to none (except President Abbott). This does not mean that what we need is a mere cheerleader. Unfortunately, that criticism is beset upon the overly fervent student government hopefuls.

We do not need someone who has a political agenda either. Terry Liggens went into his administration with one thing in mind — U.Bounce. Sorry, but the next president better not mention that phrase — ever.

What we need is a student whose sole mission is to embody the spirit of USD and take that spirit into everything they do — including SGA. They need to return SGA into the professional organization it once was — that means dressing professionally. We need a representative who will ask the question: “Will what we do be the best for all students AND for the university as a whole?”

Who has this spirit and who wants to take it to the students? As much as I’ve refrained to this point from making the connection, what we need is a Barak Obama — someone with that type of charisma and unfettered hope who will visit with as many students as possible — even those that “don’t care,” and get them involved in the process. If no major projects are accomplished over the course of this person’s administration, but the organization is returned to one of civility, professionalism and respect, then maybe SGA will no longer be a punchline, but a place for solutions and inspiration.

Recycling

LAUREN HOLLISTER — You know with Earth Day coming up I’ve been thinking a lot about how USD has tried to change its policies regarding recycling over the past couple years. Students have taken the initiative and have created recycling centers in all the dorms, which amazingly, a majority of students actually take advantage of. And yet, with all the efforts being made towards becoming a more “green” campus, I was amazed to find out this little tidbit of information the other day.

You know those little plastic containers that Aramark food comes in, like for the salads and cakes and so on? Yeah, those can’t be recycled. They aren’t the right type of plastic. You just have to throw them away so they can go sit and not rot in a dump for years and years and years.

If USD was really serious and actually interested in creating a more environmentally friendly campus then why not ask Aramark to change the packaging of their food products? That way students can recycle their plastics rather than just create more waste by throwing them away.

I know a person who just recently went on a trip to a university somewhere in Canada. Apparently this school has become ‘carbon neutral’. This means that they don’t produce any excess carbon through electricity, garbage, etc. If one university can do, one that’s a whole lot bigger than ours by the way, then why can’t USD? It sounds like it was easy for them to do and inexpensive as well. With global warming looming over our heads every day I don’t see why USD can’t do more than just creating a few recycling centers in the dorms and instead start taking the first steps toward creating a more carbon neutral campus.

Silly.

KELSEY COLLIER-WISE — I’m loving the online poll on the Volante site.

 ”Would you work for minimum wage if you had to?”

If I had to? No, I’d just starve to death under a bridge.

A nation of laws?

DAVID WHITESOCK — Every day debate over the Iraq War consumes offices, coffee shops, and all other corners of human occupancy. One issue least debated are the legal dealings of our prisoners of terrorism being held at Guantanamo Bay. Numerous cases have been heard and decided by the United Supreme Court, stating more clearly with each case that the rule of law must take precedence over any national security claims by the government. In Rasul v. Bush (2004), the Supreme Court ruled that those imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay had a constitutional right to access the federal courts, via habeas corpus and otherwise. Additionally, they had a fundamental right to challenge their detention and conditions of confinement (CCR).

Despite the rulings of the Court, the Bush administration has further continued to block access to lawyers and ultimately the courts. With Zacarias Moussaoui — supposed conspirator of the September 11 attacks — the government is restricting access to evidence.

Moussaoui was not allowed to see the classified evidence against him and was shut out from closed-door hearings in which that evidence was laid out. His lawyers could advise him, but they could not discuss everything — only the evidence preapproved by prosecutors or the judge.

Defense lawyers say they were barred from even discussing with Moussaoui evidence that could help prove his innocence. They say Moussaoui faced an unconstitutional choice: plead guilty or go to trial without knowing the evidence. (MSNBC)

The government has stated that they wish to make these court proceedings against the Guantanamo Bay detainees a respected process of military law. Of course, drawing a distinction between what is so-called military law and what we all know as the law laid out by the Constitution. The Bush administration’s position is as simple as their president, the Constitution does not exist in the war on terror. Forget about being frightened by terrorists. This notion that the Constitution can, and has been, suspended in part and in whole by President Bush against all the principles which this country was founded upon.

Moussaoui’s attorneys are applying a simple principle in return to the Bush administration. They suggest that if the government wishes to treat these trials as proper criminal proceedings, then the fundamental right to question the evidence against you should be given to the defendant — Moussaoui. In every criminal case in this country, if you are a defendant, you have access to all the evidence the state has against you. You have this right in order to prepare a defense. You know the adage, “Innocent until proven guilty.” However, this is not the case at Gitmo. There, they are guilty and they must prove their innocence, yet, the government will not allow them a reasonable chance to pursue that innocence.

Regardless of any national security concerns, if the government is so sure of their evidence, then why not allow access to that evidence by the Gitmo detainees? Let them establish a defense. What does it matter? Considering the government has set up special military tribunals with judges hand-picked by Bush’s Justice Department, guilt is certainly assured.

I don’t know if the United States was ever looked upon by the world’s countries as a bastion for the rule of law, what with slavery, treatment of Native Americans and the continued use of the death penalty, but that notion is what we were taught in our early civics classes in government schools. America is a nation of laws, we were told. And today as taxpaying adults, we are still told that it is the law you will follow or you will lose your right to property and liberty. We have sacrificed our freedom for a sense of security. In the process we have proved to the world that we are not a nation of law, but one of dictates.

Cross-posted at http://fuglyville.davidwhitesock.com