Stunning violence continues to plague our neglectful generation

By Eric Rollins

Obviously nothing I say here can do justice to the tragedy and horror of what happened this past Monday. While we at UMass Dartmouth were enjoying a day off to lounge around on a rainy day, students at Virginia Tech were entrenched in fear and chaos. Even after Columbine and the shooting in Texas in 1966, which will closely linked to the shooting at Virginia Tech, school shootings aren’t any easier to comprehend or get over. The fact that they continue to happen indicates that things haven’t changed, and the alienated youth who betrayed my mainstream America is still angry and motivated.

Will this cause our government to look inward at the violent feelings we have towards each other instead of how badly other countries want us dead? No. Will over-generalized, stereotypical entertainment that depicts anyone with amoral tendencies as a freak end? No. Nothing will change, as it didn’t after Columbine. Crying mothers and friends will be plastered on the television, only accelerating the feelings of sorrow and hopelessness in our generation. Shootings will only be mocked and fictionalized further; the reality of the situation will be lost in the overwrought media blitz of interviews, retrospectives and editorials.

I’d like to look at this shooting differently, as I hope all people will. Look around you and ask questions. Do you know anyone who has deep, passionate anger boiling up about someone or something at your school? Talk to them about it; let them know they aren’t outcasts. Usually, resentment towards a few leads to the disregard of all; we all end up as targets even when one is the originally hunted.

We might have thought we were safe at college; how could we be so blind as college students, and how could anyone be so beleaguered by inner turmoil and resentment at a place as free and open as a college campus? We were wrong to think that, as I did. The kind of middle class depression that plagues high schools is being carried onto college campuses now, and this is the proof.

As I write this I don’t have any information about who the shooter was. I can only assume he or they were bothered by the same social and mental problems that determined the Columbine killers’ actions. As a high school freshman then, and a college senior now, the issues have come to fruition, and will stand as the book ends to my career as a student in secondary education. These shootings are embarrassing really; I don’t think I’ve ever had the nerve to admit that to myself. We live in an age of such excess and spoil and such incredible standards of living that death on this scale in a serene academic landscape like a university is unthinkable. Even though it’s unthinkable, it still happens, and that’s a problem, wouldn’t you say?

It’s embarrassing to me because I didn’t do enough, we didn’t do enough to make social life more hospitable to everyone, and we didn’t have mass rallies forcing stricter gun laws or changes to how materialism and perfection are portrayed on screen and online. We didn’t do anything but sit back in awe at the audacity and mental imbalance of the shooters and weep for the innocent victims. There’s nowhere else to look; they aren’t killing others for economic purposes, they aren’t murdering for hire or profit. They hate, they feel the energy of holding a gun and they like to play God. We didn’t become more conscious of the problem; we ignored it, as we will again.

This kind of event doesn’t hinder our everyday lives, but it should. I wish we would have a national day of mourning, something that provides an impetus for people to slow down, step back, and say “Hold on, things aren’t alright here.” But we won’t, the onus will be placed on moving on and not letting the fear take hold, like we were warned about after Columbine and 9/11.

Teachers should stake out some time in their classes to talk about it with students. I agree discussions could get carried away, so make an agreement to set apart either one class (if it’s a 50 minute class) or some of it (any longer than that). If the students don’t want to talk about it then I guess no time is needed. If you don’t care and you’re a college student, I really have no advice for you besides wake the hell up.

I’d like to make this section available to all and any opinions on the shooting, whether it’s about why someone would be motivated to do it, the problem of guns, how the media is covering it, or any other aspect you’d want to comment on. Within the parameters of good taste and respect, I’ll have an open mind about anything I have sent to me. Again, my e-mail is u_erollins@umassd.edu.

Editor’s note: Most of these comments are based on reports that do not involve knowledge of who the gunman was or why he or they did it. I was interviewed by the Standard Times about the shooting after the piece was written and expressed similar opinions as you may see in their publication. I apologize if I misrepresent any UMD students.

Why not give these guys a chance?

The lesser-known candidates in the Presidential Race

By Lee Lukoff

Everyone is talking about the big names: John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney on the Republican side and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards for the Democrats. To the naked eye everyone is guessing which of these guys are going to be slugging it out come 2008. However, out of fairness to all the other candidates in the field I felt like I should give the other lesser-known candidates some props. It’s still technically possible that the leading candidates in each party could fumble their opportunity, opening the door for some of the lesser known candidates. If you decide to break the spell of apathy that pervades amongst college students here are some profiles of some of the candidates you may not be too familiar with.

Lets talk about the lesser-known candidates on the Democrat side of the aisle first. We have Ohio Congressman Dennis “the menace” Kucinich. Kucinich has had quite the stellar political career. He was elected Mayor of Cleveland at age 31 and historians later honored him with a spot in a book ranking him amongst the worst 10 big-city mayors in American history. But hey, I have got to give this guy some credit; he stayed in the 2004 Democratic primary to the bitter end, even though he came in dead last in just about every single state primary.

Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel is also in the race. He served in the US Senate form 1969-1981. Being 78 years old, Gravel is the grandpa candidate. In his platform Gravel advocates for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, single payer universal healthcare, a national sales tax and gay rights. Gravel sounds like he could become the darling of the left-wing of the Democrat party - if hell freezes over. A recent Washington Post/ABC News nationwide poll shows Gravel with 0% of the vote. This guy’s campaign has already sunk to rock bottom; at 0% it can’t possibly get any worse. But hey, when your last name is Gravel, it’s tough being a rock in a hard place.

Delaware Senator Joe Biden is running. Biden is semi-credible in my opinon. He is currently the chairman of the foreign relations committee and has served in the US Senate for 34 years. Biden showed up at the St. Patrick’s Day Brunch in Boston this past year. He had some funny jokes that I liked. He chided John Kerry as being “for this brunch before he was against it.” Unfortunately a lot of his other jokes aren’t funny. He started out his 2008 campaign by calling Barack Obama “the first credible black candidate” ever running for president. This racially insensitive comment failed to mention other African American candidates like Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes and Al Sharpton that ran credible campaigns in past elections. Way back in 1988, Biden ran for the presidency but fizzled out early. Biden was publicly embarrassed after it was revealed that he had plagiarized a paper while in law school.

Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd is in the race. His snow white hair makes him look old, and he really brings nothing special to the field of candidates. He recently supported Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria and has been too cozy with the likes of John Kerry for my liking. During his early campaign events Dodd prides himself for meeting voters face to face, a form of campaigning known as retail politics. Unfortunately for this guy, his message isn’t selling. He is ahead of Mike Gravel though; he probably has about 1% of Democrats in his corner.

The most credible of the lesser-known democrats is former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. Richardson has a lengthy resume of public service having served as UN Ambassador, Congressman and Governor. With $5 million on hand, Richardson seems to be the most credible amongst the lesser-known Democrats. With his experience in government I wouldn’t be surprised if Richardson plays it nice in the debates and gets the nod as Vice-President under Hillary, Obama or Edwards.

The Republican side of the aisle has a wide variety of characters. Kansas Senator Sam Brownback is in the race. His resume includes a stint as President of the Future Farmers of America. In the Senate, where he shows up for work less than 50% of the time when votes come to the floor, he has sponsored legislation that proves he is a force to be reckoned with in Republican primary. Brownback sponsored the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005. This law tried to curb the proliferation of “mail order brides.” Brownback’s stance on mail order brides places him amongst the creme de la creme of the Republican candidates.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is in the race. He was elected as Arkansas first republican Lt. Governor since reconstruction in 1993. In 2003 he was diagnosed with diabetes, having tipped the scale at over 300lbs. One day Huckabee saw Jared from Subway and decided that he needed to change his way of living. He lost over 100lbs training day and night like Rocky Balboa. He ran in the New York Marathon and after 11 years as governor of Arkansas, he decided to throw his hat in the ring. He has little chance of winning but whether or not his feel good story will turn into votes is another question. He registers at less then 5% in every major poll and has little or no campaign organization.

Californian Congressman Duncan Hunter is in the race. A Vietnam veteran and ex-chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Hunter is staunchly pro-war and supports President Bush’s troop surge. Once Hunter declared for the presidency, he vacated his congressional seat. His son Duncan Duane is running for his seat from Iraq, where he serves in the Marine Corps. Hunter placed third in a straw poll recently in South Carolina. His strong conservative credentials resonate with voters, however he has little or no money with which to spread his message. Hunter sits deep on the bench of Republican hopefuls even though he has had a good political career.

Two other Congressmen are also in the race: Tom Tancredo of Colorado and Ron Paul of Texas. Tancredo is fiercely anti-illegal immigrant. Tancredo led a caucus of over 100 congressmen that blocked the passage of the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty Bill. When Jay Leno roasted the front running candidates for their lucrative fundraising, he cited that all Tancredo had raised were two children. Ron Paul is running as well. A former obstetrician Paul is among the few citizen politicians running for the presidency. He is the only real libertarian republican in the race. Amongst libertarians Paul is seen as the ideal candidate. One of his biggest supporters in New England happens to be a columnist for The Torch. His messages of fiscal discipline and individual liberties have landed him a spot in the debates where he hopes to frame debate away from big government liberalism.

The cast of characters on both sides of the aisle will make for some interesting debates in the upcoming primaries. With big name candidates sucking up national media exposure only political nerds like myself take the time to focus on the little guys. However, when the debates start this May these candidates will be thrown into the mainstream with the big timers. While it may be unlikely that any candidate I mentioned will become president, you never know what may happen. Hell may freeze over, a plane may crash, or a scandal might emerge that may result in a situation where one these little guys may become the next President of the United States.

Why it's OK for South Park and not for Don Imus

By Ben Tansey

Recently, Don Imus was canned both from his radio show on CBS Radio and his televised simulcast on MSNBC. The motivation for this was that, when discussing a female college basketball game, he referred to the girls who played for Rutgers University as “nappy headed hoes.” The media uproar was epic in scale. Imus apologized to Al Sharpton on his radio show, apologized to the basketball team, apologized to just about anyone he could find who would listen. Clearly, it was no use. He was fired in short order and without ceremony.

Over the course of this incident, many have begun to wonder: Why Imus? Certainly shows like South Park and films such as Borat get away with far, far, worse material, of both racial and non-racial types without censure. The Catholic League of America protested an episode of South Park that featured a statue of the Virgin Mary deficating blood on Pope Benedict’s face. Nobody cared. The Catholic League was widely perceived as whining, not demanding social justice, and South Park produced another episode this season mocking them. The Anti-Defamation league was all over Mel Gibson for his anti-semitic drunken rant some months ago, but an event from the film Borat, the “Running of the Jews” received barely any major media attention. Is there any rhyme or reason to this? Are advocacy groups just picking victims at random and ruining their careers for kicks? I do not believe this is the case

It is my view that the difference between, on one hand, a South Park and a Borat, or a Don Imus and/or Mel Gibson on the other, goes as follows: Shows like South Park have raised their bigotry to such a level that it is an art form. No sane human being could seriously entertain the notion that South Park or Borat are to be taken seriously. Besides the fact that these people are all fictional characters, they also engage in majestic feats of bigotry that a mere mortal can only dream about. It then becomes clear: The reason we love this stuff is because it makes no bones about its hatred, it makes clear that its content is meant not to mock those who are bigoted against, but the bigots themselves. Finally, when it is called out, it refuses to apologize.

South Park’s normal reaction to outside criticism is to create an episode that truly annihilates the critic in question in the most horrifying possible ways. Don Imus, by contrast, clearly wants to be taken as a serious commentator. While he is also a comedian, he has made his career out of being taken seriously when he advances a view. His show has become a regular pit stop for politicians and presidential candidates, and a venue for some of the most popular talk on the issues of our day that currently exists in American media. So when Don Imus says something, Don Imus is usually gong to be taken seriously. For that reason, a racist statement made by him is not something that is simply laughed off, unlike the antics of Eric Cartman or Borat. Imus presents himself as a serious person, and serious people get taken seriously. He should have realized that it is a two way street before he opened his stupid honky mouth.

SOUL SIGHTINGS

On standing up again

Two Sundays ago Christians around the world celebrated the resurrection of Jesus Christ. For Christians, this is the most important feast of the whole liturgical year. Some groups held sunrise services while more liturgical churches began the celebration with the Easter Vigil on Saturday evening when new members were accepted into the believing community. This very ancient celebration begins with the lighting of the new fire and the Easter candle that will be used at baptisms and funerals during the coming year.

Whether one is Christian or not, Easter has an important message for each of us, for it is the yearly reminder of our need to stand up again as the Greek word for resurrection, anastasis, reminds us. Another way to view Easter is as the feast of the second chance. All of us want a second chance. When we were young we sought this second chance by saying we were sorry, would not do such and such again or any of the other phrases we hoped would “let us off the hook.” But second chances are not permission to continue to act as we have in the past and hope that this time we will not get caught.

Second chances are about standing up again, about resurrections in our life. All of us have goals, hopes and dreams. To attain these there are decisions we need to make and actions we need to engage in. But there are also times when our actions and decisions do not lead to our goals, hopes and dreams. In fact they may point us in the opposite direction. We want to get good grades but don’t bother to study. We don’t want a hangover in the morning but continue to drink far too much. The list could go on and on. Standing up again, or resurrection happens when we decide we need to stop wishing life was different and begin to act in ways to bring about change. This is a true second chance.

Unfortunately, there are some situations that can only be done once; there is no second chance available so it is important to do it right the first time. A young man who lives in the same town as my mother is crippled for life because of two minutes of playing chicken on the road when he was a graduating senior. His whole life is, in his own words, “a waste- and for what, to prove what?” He cannot remake his decision over and no matter how much he may apologize or say he is sorry his physical situation will remain the same. Perhaps during this season of new life we can spend some time being mindful of our choices and their consequences. Some choices lead us to new life while others lead us where we would rather not go.

Sr. Madeleine Tacy, OP

Vonnegut and his ethos die quietly

By Eric Rollins

Kurt Vonnegut wasn’t on television, he wasn’t in movies, and he didn’t write many books in the past few decades. His death, however, resonates among fiction lovers in America, and his legacy, although a dying one, should live on in American classrooms. I read “Slaughterhouse Five” in high school, as I imagine most of you did, and was struck by how it blended the abstract with the contemporary realism at the time. I read it in tandem with “The Catcher in the Rye” that year and I felt both books shared the same themes of isolation, loneliness and lost hope, but both did it in a satirical way with certifiably insane protagonists.

Where “Catcher in the Rye” followed around a character in a modern city the way the movie “Taxi Driver” did, “Slaughterhouse Five” has no theatrical counterpart (although “Slaughterhouse Five” was made into a movie, it doesn’t compare to “Taxi Driver”). Vonnegut used time travel, split personality, and war to confuse the reader’s sense of time and setting, which focused all the attention on theme, circumstance and character; a character many could relate to at the time as well as today.

Fiction as a form of non-fiction is an art form that is dying, and unfortunately it takes the death of a great writer like Vonnegut to spark interest in it. Even if it only lasts a little while, those who want to read a Vonnegut book near his death, bringing them as close to him as they’ll ever get again, will get some sense of beauty in his style of dark humor and absurdity. The non-fiction in his works are the stories of the common American man trying to deal with his own irrational tendencies in a society designed around rational organization.

Instead of walking around with a camera or writing a memoir, which is how most writers reflect their lives these days, Vonnegut looked inward and matched the elements of fiction as they’ve been used before perfectly, and in his work you can see why fiction is so important but so difficult. Today people want the middle man removed from the theme, they want a close up of a girl’s face when she got dumped or failed a test; introspective description of emotions aren’t necessary anymore.

Vonnegut wrote fluently in the language of romantic expressionism based on real experiences, a language very few can speak these days because of how watered down and blatant art is today. Fiction gets a bad name in retrospect because it is made up. What readers don’t understand is that very little of the characters, settings, situations, or experiences are made up out of nothing; they are concocted from real life expression you and I most likely can share. Vonnegut was a prisoner of war after losing track of his battalion in the Battle of the Bulge. As a prisoner he witnessed the firebombing of Dresden, in which the aftermath lead to the incineration of civilian remains by the Nazis. The senselessness of war and the banality of life afterwards is a major theme in many of his later works, including a book named after a meat packing cellar he hid in while the firebombing took place, “Slaughterhouse Five.”

If reading novels isn’t your thing, then try to engage in some of his tertiary works. After retiring from fiction writing following the release of Timequake, the only other Vonnegut work I’ve read, he administered writing workshops at various colleges. His templates and advice for making your writing more attractive and accessible still applies today; I’ve had numerous teachers suggest his “How to write with style,” which I will forward to you at request: ericmrollins@gmail.com.

His connection to other fiction writers is a sense of cooperation and not competition like today’s authors, gives him more credibility as a man of his times. He took his inspiration from a variety of authors, mostly citing Mark Twain and Joseph Conrad as influences. While attending an event at Notre Dame, he met Joseph Heller, author of “Catch-22.” The two would become life long friends and mutual collaborators up until Heller’s death in 1999. The night was also awkwardly the night of Martin Luther King’s assassination; the decline of humanity laced their dark humor-satire style from then on. They both commonly recounted their experiences in the military in their novels, hardly ever holding it in a favorable light. Both of their most famous novels, Slaughterhouse Five and Catch-22 respectively, recount their actual experiences in combat and war.

Vonnegut also has some local relevance; he lived in Barnstable, Massachusetts for a time during his adult life. After a fire, which burned many of his original manuscripts, he left the Cape and moved to Northampton, Massachusetts. He spoke and gave workshops at many local colleges, including Smith and Harvard. For those of us at The Torch, solace can be placed in Vonnegut’s literary inspiration from writing for his high school newspaper in Indianapolis and as Managing Editor of The Cornell Daily Sun while attending Cornell University.

Kurt wrote complicated novels, although his mantra was “keep it simple.” The writing is simple, but the structure is complicated. The relationship is a mirror of his life. The complexity of emotions and experiences he felt and had are only relatable to others through words, a simple vice. Topics like death never stood in Vonnegut’s way, he tackled them head on. Maybe he was desensitized in Dresden, or maybe he felt close to it because of his mother’s suicide while he was in Europe.

Mark Vonnegut, a Milton, MA resident, Kurt’s son, said “Kurt loves to be gloomy and tragic” in an opinion piece in the Boston Globe two years ago. He wrote it in response to anti-Kurt fervor stemming from his answers in an interview about terrorism. Kurt did not vilify the terrorists like the interviewer wanted him to, he said they “must be brave people.” Kurt notably attempted suicide himself in the 1980s. Maybe in his old age he did slip from time to time, but he never let apprehension stifle him. Mr. Vonnegut was opposed to the war and was candid in his feelings about impeaching President Bush. Freedom, which Kurt attributed its essence to Abraham Lincoln’s vision, was another theme in his writing.

I hope as we revisit work by Twain, Heller, Conrad, Vonnegut, Huxley, Orwell, Salinger and lesser known authors of introspective fiction, we’ll see its value as more than a filter for non-fictional themes we all share. Understanding why we feel the way we do, coming to terms with our own mortality and nature, interpolating the grand scale with the microscopic view of one man’s experiences drive effective fiction. The voyeuristic slop pasted together (most of which is as fictional as a 1950s novel anyways) rules the airways and our collective interests as a country; only selected circles discuss fluently the impact and morality of great fiction writing. Read his novels, learn his writing style and believe in his methodology; bring back the art of fiction the way he did it so well.

RA APPRECIATION WEEK

A truly deserved recognition

We are pleased and proud to invite the campus community to join the Office of Housing and Residential Life in appreciating the tremendous efforts of Resident Assistants and Assistant Residence Directors on our campus. This week (April 17-20) has been designated RA Appreciation Week, a time for all RAs to be recognized for all of their hard work throughout the year.

If you are like most students living in UMD housing, you may know your RA as someone who asks people to quiet down at night, helps you with lockouts, or asks you to join the group for a program in the lounge. While these unglamorous tasks do not reflect the primary reasons that RAs aspired to their position, they realize that everything they do can serve a purpose in their attempt to develop a safe and comfortable community atmosphere. These student leaders have devoted a good portion of their vacations to participate in training sessions designed to help them effectively communicate and advise students dealing with such issues as personal crisis, eating disorders, alcohol abuse, sexual respect, and healthy relationships. They spend many nights “on duty” in their residence halls to develop their communities and respond to emergencies, many hours in staff meetings and one on one meetings with their supervising Residence Director, communicating and following up with Facilities to address residents’ specific needs, and countless hours positively interacting with residents.

Many people often forget that RAs are full-time students with full academic and co-curricular schedules. They experience the same pressures as other students to achieve academically, yet are asked to pay attention to the pressures experienced by the many students living on their floors. They are communty builders, helping forge connections and creating memories in their wake. Most do their jobs extremely well and without fanfare or external recognition. As a general rule, RAs are bright, personable, caring, and reliable community leaders.

The following on the right is a poem that speaks to our purpose in observing RA Appreciation Week.

If you have felt support from your RA or simply felt the positive impact that their efforts have made in your residential community, we ask you to let him or her know. We encourage you to take the opportunity to say “thanks” to your RA - as we take this week to especially appreciate their very unique and valuable contributions to our campus.

Shelly Metivier Scott

Associate Director of Residential Life