A bunch of my friends from Bradley who have not had the luxury of graduating such as I have are now sitting through Residence Hall Staff Training this week. It is an every semester ritual that divides the staff into 3 distinct camps:
-Newbies: 1st (sometimes 2nd) semester staffers who don’t know better and actually enjoy their job because they think “they will make a difference” or “they want to give back” or something like that.
-Staff who love their job: These are staff that can actually be split into two categories as well (I honestly don’t think there are any ones that I know of that fall out of these categories). One is second year RAs. The other is hall directors. A trademark of these people are the fact that the vast majority of their dealings revolves around the residence halls, be it actually doing things for the residence halls or hanging out with people in residence halls.
and finally,
-Staff who think their job is nothing more than a job: I definitely fell into this category, which I think the majority of RAs who were RAs for longer than 2 years did too. There comes a point where you just stop caring about the residents as much, and start caring that you are getting free room and board… Mind you, I still did my job (no residents getting in trouble, no major problems on my floors, no residents sent to the hospital for drinking related problems… that sounds like I did a fine job). But to me, especially after coming back from Scotland, it was merely a job to me. One where I performed the requirements, earned my wage, and said adios when the time came.
I’m not saying anyone of those 3 categories is the right category to be in, but what I will say, unequivocally is that staff training is by far the most mind numbing week of your entire existence. Hands down. I hated it from day one.
And yet, I have to go through another staff training from August 26th through August 30th. But here are the reasons why this one will be better:
1) I will not be in Peoria (I will be in Tyson’s Corner, VA, a suburb of DC)
2) I will not be in a dorm (I will be staying in a Sheraton hotel)
3) I will not be in training from 9 am until midnight (I start at 8, finish by 5)
and the best reason
4) The hotel I am staying at has a free (yes, free) happy hour which begins when I finish training and lasts for 2 hours. Free beverages and food will abound.
Yeah, I don’t miss being an RA one bit.
I don’t know how many of you actually read the Bradley Scout, but I was reading it this past week and a column really caught my eye. It was by my friend Kelly Mahoney, and even though she is my friend, I think she got it pretty wrong on this one. I would suggest you read the column here: EveryStudent.com not for everyone. In it, she talks about this website that is being promoted by Campus Crusade at Bradley that happens to have two articles written by (former) homosexuals who are now Christian (link and link).
I did a lot of thinking after reading it over the weekend and decided that I had to say something, not because of the main gist of Kelly’s column, but because of the way she portrays Christians in it. Granted, there are plenty of little things that I want to object to (and that’s what my blog is for), but the big thing is a letter to the editor I am working on…
But here’s the little things I object to: Kelly has a way with words. She has a gift, and I think she’s a great writer and persuader. She’ll make a great editorial writer someday (when she’s the editor-in-chief of the New York Times or something). I just wish she would have worded this column differently, because her word choice almost betrays her position (I’m just copying all my quotes from buscout.com).
“Both stories cite childhood sexual abuse as a reason for later sexual preference. While neither goes into detail, Parker’s tale describes how, in middle school, he had a sleep-over ‘and I woke up with him touching me, and I liked it.’ Folks, that’s not abuse. That’s experimentation among teenagers, which is normal.”
No, that is sexual abuse. If I woke up and someone was touching me, regardless of whether I liked it or not, it would be abuse. Imagine if, on Bradley’s campus, an 18-year old girl woke up with an 18-year old guy touching her. How would that go over in the news? ABUSE! Why is it different if its two boys in middle school. James Parker also says in his anecdote: “I often thought back to when I was a 5-year-old boy, and my neighborhood buddy Brian and I used to have sex parties in our forts.” I’ll just let you draw your own conclusions on that one.
“And unlike the punk music scenario, no one chooses to be gay. Scientists believe the arrangement of a mother’s genes can affect her son’s sexual orientation, according to a study published in the February Journal of Human Genetics.
Other organizations are contemplating the balance between nurture and nature. ‘Both biology and early childhood – perhaps even the hormonal environment of the womb – seem to matter in forming the complex trait that many gays say they know was fixed at a young age,’ wrote Eric Hand of The Saint Louis-Dispatch in a recent article.”
Notice the key words in that little blurb: believe and seem. That doesn’t mean its necessarily true, just that research is thinking its true… A theory, nothing more.
“No matter how hard a person prays to whatever deity he or she believes in, it’s not going to ‘cure’ them of being gay.”
Not once in either anecdote say that they “prayed hard and got cured.” As a matter of fact, never once do they use the word cure.
They are happy with who they are. Why would anyone want to be cured of a personality trait that’s not only integral to his or her life, but also makes him or her happy?
Neither of the two people who wrote their stories were happy. As a matter of fact, they both seemed pretty miserable to me. James Parker wrote: “In that moment I felt filthy and guilty beyond words. It was if I was the dirtiest person alive. I wanted to die…and I even considered it. I drove home, crawled into my dorm bed, locked the door and cried for the next 2 days straight.” Christine Sneeringer, talking about the breakup of a 7 year marriage over her affair with a woman said: “I was dealing with guilt, too, over being a home wrecker.” I don’t know, but that doesn’t sound to happy.
So, point-by-point, that’s what I think. Here’s the letter I’m submitting, but its a rough draft. There’s no paper this week, so I am going to pray about it and work on it the rest of this week. Feel free to share your thoughts, but its something I am going to go through with, because its something I feel I have to.
————–
After reading Kelly Mahoney’s column on March 3 (“EveryStudent.com is not for everyone”) and reading the two articles that it cited on the EveryStudent.com website, I was really frustrated with the ideas and standpoints she portrayed. It’s a shame that Christians today are being defined by the actions of a small minority of vocal people, people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who regularly espouse messages of hate. These ideas simply do not reflect what Christianity is all about. Not once did Mahoney actively seek a Christian (who were clearly labeled with their EveryStudent.com t-shirts around the time of that article, she even said she saw some) to ask their opinion. She just assumed it.
The problem today is that the media (including this newspaper, consciously or not) is trying to portray an us versus them theme. If you read the two articles from EveryStudent.com that Mahoney cited, you’ll find that not once did a single Christian reject them or accuse them because they were homosexual. They were loved, regardless, and that is one of the fundamental Christian teachings, unconditional love. Never once did either claim that their homosexuality was a disease or that they were “cured” of it. They changed their sexual lifestyles because they felt compelled to, and made choices on how they were going to spend their life. They were never forced into doing anything they didn’t want to. They were simply loved by Christians.
I’m not trying to say the research that Mahoney cites is wrong, because I don’t know if it is or isn’t. But I know that I don’t know, and probably never will know for sure (and if you read the words she chooses, the researchers only have theories, not facts). What I do know is that CNN or Fox News would much rather sit a conservative Christian who blasts gays across from a homosexual because it makes compelling television. Controversy breeds ratings, it’s a simple fact.
For once, I’d like for Christians to be known not for what we are against, but what we are for: unconditional love. Where was that in Mahoney’s column?
Jim Judd
Senior
I’ve used the same post the past 2 years on Valentine’s Day, and this year is no different. This year, I have a girlfriend over V-Day, which is somewhat new for me, but my thoughts are still the same. And, no, we don’t have any big plans, we’re just hanging out. She doesn’t necessarily agree whole heartedly with what I say about today, but she seems to understand where I’m coming from.
Thanks for understanding Liz!
And, in honor of Valentine’s Day, here it is, my annual positive V-Day blog.
——–
2005 post:
I wrote this last year after Valentine’s day, but decided this year I would repost it before hand. I’ve talked with a couple of people about Valentine’s Day, and I’ve come up with the fact that a) if someone needs to be shown that they are loved on one day a year by a boyfriend/girlfriend, what do the expect the rest of the year; and b) what about your friends that you love? Wasn’t St. Valentine the patron saint of love? Is that just romantic love, or any kind of love. Interesting historical note… for those of you who accuse Valentine’s day of being a strictly hallmark holiday, there is evidence of it going as far back as Roman times, and Chaucer mentions it in his Parliament of Foules. That’s pretty old. As for Mr. St. Valentine himself… There were actually 3 of them, and at least two of them were martyred for, well, love. One was killed because he was performing Christian marriages, and another was killed because he performed marriages of women to young single men in the Roman empire when it was illegal for men under the age of 30 to marry (the emperor thought they would make better warriors if they were single).
Oh, and before you ask me, no I don’t have any plans for Valentine’s Day. I just decided I don’t want to be cynical or anything about it.
So, from February 15th, 2004, a blast from the past:
——————–
2004 post
So, here’s the thing. I’ve decided I like Valentine’s Day. I don’t care what any of you say, I think its a perfectly good holiday. The problem is, people have come to have these huge expectations about it, and that’s not cool.
There’s all these people who don’t even choose to recognize Valentine’s Day, which kind of makes it awkward when you say “Happy Valentine’s Day” and they’re like, “I don’t believe in Valentine’s Day.” What the hell do you say to that?!
Or, there’s those with the huge expectations. They had some boyfriend (or girlfriend) once who showed them the greatest Valentine’s Day ever, and now they think every Valentine’s Day should be that great.
Here’s what I think. I like Valentine’s Day. Its a good day to tell your friends you love them. Its a good day to say “Hey, I like you, and as a token of that like, I will give you a piece of chocolate.” I think we could start a Valentine’s Day revolution. Just outlaw those super extravagant Valentine’s Day plans that make people not in a relationship feel like crap, and tell your friends (and your girlfriend or boyfriend) that you love them. Maybe go out to dinner, but you don’t need to do anything crazy. Seriously, to me, I want a girl who doesn’t need things like a nice dinner to know I love her. And I never want to be in a relationship where that’s what it takes a girl to tell me she loves me. Same with my friends, I don’t need THINGS to say, “hey, you’re a good guy, I like you.” All I need are words.
So there you have it. Next February, make Valentine’s day a little something different.
So, I was looking at Facebook today and had a question. Can someone please tell me what “random play” really is?
I mean, think about it: it could be as simple as wanting someone to run around and play cops and robbers or monopoly, but maybe its something a little more, shall we say, risque?
I think they need to be a little more specific with what they want/mean. You never know what someone else is going to assume you mean, and then where are you going to end up?
Its just a thought, and even with that complaint, I still think Facebook is fun.
I know… I’m getting really bad at writing in this, but I just wanted to share this article I finished reading.
While I don’t agree with everything the author says, I do think she has a good point. Its interesting how the flag has become a winner-take-all symbol. I don’t know about you, but I do associate the flag with the president, and the note about wearing a flag in Europe, that rings very true to me.
I was in Europe for the election in 2004, and it was amazing how much it took to convince people that I, along with nearly 50% of the country (at that point, many more now) did not support the Bush Administration. Its just interesting how people, not only in this country, but in most of the world, associate the flag with something it does not exactly represent, only part of it.
But when you think about it, we do the same thing. We associate flags of other countries with stereotypes of those countries. What do you think about when you see a Canadian flag? A German flag? I know most everyone is guilty of it, including me, but I have gotten better when I did experience different cultures (granted, they were all Western European), and its something I think every one should do.
So, going along with what Chelsea Ross says:
Lets make it stand for compassion, equity, opportunity and an all-encompassing sense of social justice. Now is the time (as the scandals are exposed and the indictments add up) to make the flag stand for Our America.
So go ahead, slap the Flag, our Flag, on your bumper right next to your Ignore your rights, theyll go away, and your Doin my part to piss of the religious right stickers.
And dont worry, if we all do it, no one will confuse you for one of them, because my mom was right (dont tell her I said so): its our flag too.
I found this movie earlier today. Its the story of what happened with the CIA leak (granted, from a liberal standpoint). Check it out. Its nice to step back and take a look at the bigger picture.
I found a website for Take Back Georgetown Day. They cite a study that says that something like 79% of college professors say they are liberal. I tend to agree with that study, but I have a problem with what they say it means. They say it means that conservatives are put down in their studies, and that universities are more apt to hire a liberal. Perhaps all it means is that liberals tend to go further in their education, and they also have a tendency to join the education field as opposed to the business field.
On another note: I found this site for The Right Brothers. They are putting out a single called “Bush Was Right” which the purport to show:
the FACT that WMDs *were* found in Iraq, including enriched uranium, chemical weapons agents, chemical warheads containing cyclosarin, radioactive materials in powdered form, roadside bombs loaded with mustard and “conventional” sarin gas, etc.; or the FACT of clear, uncontested, proven links between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al Qaeda; or the FACTS of all of the GOOD news that’s happening in Iraq, which the media refuses to report!
That, by the way, is from the press release from the song. Yeah. The Conservative lies continue.
Scary, huh?
Its been another few days since I’ve writen.. I know, I’m really bad about updating this, but there were a couple things that really inspired me to update today, and I hope you can live with my liberal ranting for a few minutes.
This morning someone commented on the post I did about justifying a war to yourself. It was an anonymous comment (I wish I could turn off the option of having anonymous comments. I figure if you can’t leave your name with what you write, maybe you shouldn’t be writing it in the first place). Here’s what they wrote:
So you think the US entering WW2 was a bad idea? I mean, first off, it wasn’t “our” war, well until Pearl Harbor. But regardless, is all death so bad that we should never go to war?
There are times in history when atrocities towards men that require someone to stand up, sometimes that person falls down (ala death in war), but another man/woman must stand up in their place, and another, and another. Because sometimes that’s what it takes to bring down evil, standing up.
If Iraq did have WMD would you change your mind? What if Saddam stood right in front of you with a gun pointed at you? Would you want your son/daughter to jump in the bullets way as he fires at you? HELL NO! But wouldn’t you be proud?
You have to stand up to fight, sometimes there’s a fog and its hard to see what you’re fighting for, WMD or not, ww2 era genocide or not, iraq with saddam ain’t no palm beach.
I don’t really know how to respond to that. I am of the personal opinion that there’s no way we can pull out of Iraq now without a viable exit strategy, but the reasons Iraq was sold to us was not because Hussein is evil (which I agree, he is), but that there were weapons of mass destruction which threatened America. All this was sold to us on false intelligence. I’m not saying who knew it was false, but it is undeniable now that is was false.
I completely agree that there are moments in history that require someone to stand up and say what’s going on is wrong. But why now is Hussein considered evil? It strikes me as strange that no one was saying he should be forced out of power until it was discovered that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Not a single person I know can say that they supported the war simply because Hussein was evil. That wasn’t even a blip on most conservative’s radars. It was simply that Iraq had WMDs and that they posed a threat to America proper. Nothing more, nothing less. Why now can the reasons for war change? I think its time for the administration to say “Yeah, we screwed that one up, we’re sorry. Now, let’s figure out how we can stabilize the nation and get out of there.”
That’s what I think.
On another note, I don’t know how many of you are Bill O’Reilly fans. I for one thing he is vile (as is most of the Fox News Channel). This past week, on his syndicated radio show, O’Reilly said that since San Francisco voters decided to keep military recruiters out of the schools in San Francisco, the president should withhold federal funding from San Francisco. That seems pretty typical of O’Reilly. It was what came next that surprised people. He said:
If Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we’re not going to do anything about it. We’re going to say, “look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.”
WHAT?! Did O’Reilly just give terrorists permission to attack San Francisco? That’s what it sounds like to me.
On Friday, O’Reilly defended his actions, saying:
I mean, look, everybody knows what’s going on there. What I said isn’t controversial. What I said needed to be said. I’m sitting here and I’m looking at a city that has absolutely no clue about what the world is. None. You know, if you had been hit on 9/11 instead of New York, believe me, you would not have voted against military recruting. Yet the left-wing, selfish, Land of Oz philosophy that the media and the city politicians have embraced out there is an absolute intellectual disgrace.
I guess that’s what one of the voices of conservatism has to say.
Left-Wing, Land of Oz San Francisco, eh Bill? As opposed to terrorist aware Manhattan, which, by the way, Bush lost in 2004, 86-12?
Today I was talking with my friend Grant (who is very conservative…. yes, I have conservative friends). We were discussing the war in Iraq, and I posed a question for him, one that I think is a good benchmark for whether a war should happen. I asked him (and I know there’s a lot of if’s in this question, but think about it):
If you think a war is necessary, and if you had a son or daughter in the military, would you be willing to put them on the front lines and perhaps even sacrifice their lives for this war? I have a feeling that you’ll get a lot of Yes’s from the poeple in DC, but I don’t know how many of them are genuine. I have a feeling that if congressmen on both sides of the aisle were in the situation that I described, they would not be willing to sacrifice their son or daughter to cause of the war. My opinion is, if you are not willing to take the risk of your own child being sacrificed, then how can you send someone else’s child to war?
I know that many of those people signed up for the military knowing they would be sent to war, and I have the utmost respect for them. And I am not arguing with their willingness to go to war. I am arguing that a war is definitely not justified if you are not willing to send your own children to war. Its that simple.
On another note, I’m watching Countdown with Keith Olberman, and there’s a couple of very interesting reports on tonight. Check out “A White House Without Rove?“
Supposedly, Karl Rove will resign regardless of whether he is indicted or not.
On another note, Haliburton has been doing shoddy job in Iraq (with no-bid contracts to boot). Check out this article.
And by the way… I’m glad American media is finally picking up on what is going on in Paris and the rest of France. I guess 12 nights of riots is all it takes for us to focus on something outside out borders (that doesn’t involve oil or terrorists).
Its pretty sad.
Well, one year ago today, America elected Bush to a second term. Think Progress has posted a year in review. Yeah, it pretty much does list everything that either went wrong or was controversial with this administration, but, for all you conservatives out there, what has gone well in the past year?
One part that really killed me, something I had almost completely forgotten about was this:
March 21: Bush Interrupts Vacation to Fly Back to Washington and Sign Schiavo Bill In the Middle of the Night. A bill intervening in the case of Terri Schiavo, a severely brain-damaged Florida woman, “got final congressional approval a few minutes after midnight, and was signed quickly shortly after 1 a.m. by President Bush, who had flown back to the White House from his Texas ranch to be ready to act quickly…”
It just astounds me that this administration would see fit to intervene in the private life on one citizen (something that I thought conservatives hated), but when it comes to helping more that a million people in the south following Katrina, the President and Vice President didn’t think they had to end vacations early (which, as pointed out, Bush was on the longest vacation by any President in 36 years).
Read the article for yourself. It might change your mind when you see a list of what has happened in this country without the administration trying to pry your attention away from it by raising terror alerts.
Oh man.. what I’ve missed while I’ve been in class. At 1:25, Harry Reid moved to close the Senate Session, and Dick Durbin (the pride of Illinois) seconded. This is exciting. The reason behind this is because Pat Roberts has been talking to the Senate about his dragging on the report on the Iraq War Commission. Since the election, there has been very little that has happened.
Or, as EJ Dionne says: “Has anyone noticed that the coverup worked?“
Think about it this way. When Patrick Fitzgerald (another great psuedo-Illinoisan) said in his news conference on Friday that he had hoped to finish the investigation into the CIA leak in October 2004, that would have finished it before the election. Well, Scooter Libby “threw sand in the eyes” of the investigation, and committed a crime while he was at it, and pushed it past the election, helping Bush secure his second term.
So, what does this mean? Perhaps it means we’re finally going to get answers on what happened in the pre-war intelligence. Though, you can be sure that the Republicans will never stop dragging their feet on it.
By the way, today is the first Tuesday in the month of November. On the first Tuesday of November 2004, Bush was elected…. Since then, well, let’s just let the polls be the judge.
