Well, the hammer has fallen and Tech's basketball season has come to an abrupt end. After a thrilling first-round victory over the fastest basketball team I've ever seen (George Washington), it looked like Tech was poised for another deep tournament run. But they ran into an unstoppable force called Louisville, who was not to be denied. Here's a recipe for disaster: Add a liberal amount of poor shooting by Tech, sprinkle in a majority of rebounds for Louisville, and top it off with the Cardinals shooting lights-out all night... it adds up to a beatdown, which is exactly what we got. One thing's for sure: we could have played our very best that night and still not won. Anyways, the most important thing is not the game, or even the fact that we didn't win it all (not like I ever really expected that) - but that the loss marked a major turning point for our team. With the graduation of Elder, Bynum, McHenry, Schenscher, and the probable departure of Jack, Tech's team will look completely different next year.
I've never really been a big enough basketball fan to really get attached to a team or a group of players (with the exception of David Robinson - see previous blog entry), but this team was different. There was something about them - they just had so much heart. I didn't realize how sad it would be to say goodbye to them until I realized it was coming to a close, that they'd never play in the white-and-gold again, that a major chapter in Tech sporting history was over. I think they meant so much to me because they really re-introduced me to basketball. Two years ago, I was so removed from the sport that I never watched any basketball, NBA or college, and didn't even bother with the tournament. But this team has accomplished so much, and represented our school so well, that it is virtually impossible to not love this group of fighters. I thank them for choosing Tech, for their dedication to the game, for being superb role models and true student-athletes, and most of all for their storybook run to the NCAA Championship game that I will never forget. Best of luck boys...
Now, onto more "serious" matters. There are a couple of big national news stories that are generating intense controversy, but their solutions seem so simple to me, that I can't help but share where I'm coming from. Mainly, I just want to vent about people and how they completely miss the point. Here are two case studies for your perusal - you be the judge:
Terry Schiavo
If you haven't heard this story, you must be hiding in a hole. Here are the basics: Mrs. Schiavo suffered a rare disease in 1990 that caused her brain damage and has relegated her to a permanently vegetative state. Her husband, who says that she told him (before she became ill) she would not want to be kept alive artificially, desires to have her feeding tube removed so that she can die peacefully, according to her wishes. Her parents and family, however, contest this, stating that Terry did not have any such stipulations and would want to live. They contest that she shows signs of cognizance and that she could potentially come out of her state and recover.
Politicians and conservatives from across the country are protesting the removal of the feeding tube, which has been ordered and enforced by the courts, despite numerous overturned rulings that have resulted in multiple re-insertions of the tube. It looks now that there are no more avenues and that the tube, which was removed earlier this week, won't be going back in. It will likely take two weeks for Terry to die peacefully from dehydration.
Now, usually I agree with the "religious right" - mainly because I identify myself with this group, especially in the area of social issues. I see where they're coming from, attempting to protect the sanctity of life and the rights of a woman who can't fight for herself. But in this case, I'm going to disagree with their position, and here's why. It seems pretty simple to me:
I'm amazed that the public is seeing this as "sanctioned murder". If she hadn't made her wishes clear, then that would be a different matter. If she had any hope for recovery, then that would also be a different matter. But as it stands, it's more an issue of honoring the legal status of the guardian rather than the "murder" of a defenseless woman. That's just propaganda used to galvanize the troops and gather support from those who don't really comprehend the issue. The other thing that drives me crazy is the misinformation here. Many people mistakenly think that when the feeding tube is removed that she will die of starvation, and they equate that with a painful and inhumane death. But 30 seconds of web searching reveals that, according to doctors, her eventual cause of death will be dehydration, and it will actually be extremely peaceful, although not overly rapid. And maybe that's a good thing anyways - it will give the family a (long) chance to say goodbye and make peace. But I really feel that this is a case of a family using the legal system to hold onto something that's already gone, and as such it makes me mad.
Ward Churchill
Shifting gears completely, this is a story (exposed primarily by Bill O'Reilly) of a University of Colorado professor who is distinctly anti-American. We all have a right, as citizens of this country, to voice dissent and disapproval for our nation, but Churchill seems to have gone too far. In an article written for a local newspaper, he talked about how those innocents who died in the 9/11 bombing deserved their fate, and were hardly innocent. Here is an excerpt from his article:
Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.
Now, this is crazy talk. Sure, you can make an argument that much of the antagonism directed at America is due to its capitalistic nature and its view of itself and the rest of the world. But calling the secretaries and stock brokers and businessmen inside the World Trade Center "little Eichmanns" (a reference to the Nazi "Chief Executioner") is over the line. As a result of O'Reilly breaking the story wide open, Churchill is facing a lot of heat, has already resigned his post as head of the ethics department (???), and might lose his job as a professor at Colorado.
Now, not surprisingly, many far-left crazies and members of the academia are rushing to Churchill's aide, citing the noble causes of "free speech" and "academic freedom". In fact, many schools have scheduled Churchill for paid visits to their schools to talk about his ideas! They are also hiding behind the idea of academic freedom, suggesting that they should not limit their choices of speakers because people should be allowed to say what they want. Many have argued that the school should be sued if they fire Churchill for restricting his free speech.
This kind of thinking drives me craaaaaaaaazy. I mean, how stupid are these people? This is NOT an issue of free speech! Free speech means the right to say what you want. Nobody is saying Churchill can't say what he wants. Now, if someone was threatening to lock him up in jail for his comments, then I would come to his aid under the banner of free speech. But his freedom is not in question here. So talking about free speech is a moot point. Now, onto the topic of academic freedom. In general, this is a good idea. A college campus should be a haven for diverse thought, encouraging many viewpoints and teaching students to think critically. However, the idea of academic freedom does not preclude common sense.
Academic freedom does not mean a school has to invite anyone and everyone to speak at their school. Would any school in America invite Adolf Hitler to speak, were he still alive? How about Osama bin Laden? Of course not. Some things are going too far, especially when those things threaten to ruin the reputation of the school. You can invite someone to speak about the dangers and ill-effects of American capitalism without inviting someone to equate dead innocents with Nazis. All he is doing is causing pain and suffering to the families of 9/11 victims, and these schools are perpetuating this by inviting him to their campus and paying him for the trip. What should happen is that Colorado should fire him (despite his tenure) because he has clearly demonstrated incompetence in the workplace in his inability to separate propaganda from rational thought. Will this happen? Probably not, because the ultra-liberal misfit wing of America, led by the completely misguided ACLU, will turn this into a free speech witch-hunt and will threaten the school with so much litigation that they'll have no choice but to back down.
So, any differing viewpoints out there? I'd be curious to hear some of your own thoughts on these things...
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.shaundishman.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/23