Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes but what I think they would argue that it is the item itself which can lead to greater danger in the same situation. In other words, with the same input you get a greater output. A pencil can be used as a weapon to stab, but it's not going to be as easy to cause as much damage with it as with a knife. A shotgun can be used to kill a person or persons, but it's going to be easier to kill more persons with greater ease with a fully automatic weapon.
Wally, I'm impressed – that's a really great idea, something which should probably be done at the high school and even college level as well. “Given this set of circumstances, what better ways could he have handled the situation of being picked upon?” Sounds like pretty basic stuff but evidently the basic lessons of living in a society where there is friction and people are mean to you does not get through to everyone. Granted, it sounded like this particular kid had some mental problems, but I would be that even someone like him could have benefited from being exposed to alternative methods of responding to adversity. I think at a time like this – right after a major incident – it's the best time for such as “teaching moment” so as to ward off similar acts in the future. One thing for sure is that there are plenty of kids out there getting bullied around and picked upon and probably having similar experiences to what the killer was going through before his rampage.
I don't think I'd say that the media was glad he did it, but they certainly didn't help the world much by broadcasting the images all over like they did. What better way to give some kid out there the impression that the killer went down in style. Irresponsible, irresponsible.
Well, don't let my warning scare you out of a topic of study. International issues are really quite interesting. I can remember before I started studying them I kind of laughed at the notion of a “human rights” course, thinking it would be an exercise in touchy-feelyness. But when I got around to taking such a course I enjoyed it quite a bit. For example, in that class I wrote a paper on the problem of extrajudicial killings in Ecuador, whereby police would execute people on their own authority (e.g. on the side of a road or whatnot). I went into the possible origin of it in the “caudillismo” attitude of early Latin American countries where executive power was the big thing, rather than judicial or legislative power. A class I took in Global Business was quite fascinating, and it's there that I realized how much we could really help the world simply by eliminating agricultural subsidies in the U.S. We spend millions on subsidies to keep some farmers afloat in the U.S., but this has a price point effect of shutting out farmers in poor countries who could take control of the market. Meanwhile we spend how many hundreds of million dollars to these same poor countries in the form of foreign aid?
I think it totally depends. International Studies could cover a lot of area. I've taken courses in international issues on some different topics and I know there's probably a lot out there. The classes I've taken include International Commercial Arbitration, Global Business, International Human Rights, Comparative Constitutional Law, International Problems with Stolen Art and Artifacts….these were graduate level courses rather than undergrad. If I were to make an assumption as to undergrad courses in IS I would guess they'd cover issues like human rights across the globe, the formation of the U.N. and other global entities, international trade, important issues on the various continents….interesting stuff if you ask me, but watch out if classes are taught by agenda-setting professors. Could turn into a gripe session against you know who.
I saw these over at Drudge. Use for ammunition:Scientist: Warming not caused by humansClimate change skeptics say it's hard to get heardBased on my reading of the first article the title is misleading; I don't see where he said GL is not man-made, but rather that we don't really know why at this point.
I saw a story linked from Drudge in which some bloggers have been pondering a terrorism link because of the killer's use of the term “Ismail Axe”:
As for the term's meaning, one popular theory spreading across the web comes from a story in the Koran, the holy book of Islam, about Ibrahim and his son, Ismail. This theory picked up speed because many bloggers wondered if the actions at Virginia Tech could be related to terrorism.]As for the term's meaning, one popular theory spreading across the web comes from a story in the Koran, the holy book of Islam, about Ibrahim and his son, Ismail. This theory picked up speed because many bloggers wondered if the actions at Virginia Tech could be related to terrorism.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/ismail-ax-sparks-web-frenzy/2007/04/18/1176696889800.html?s_cid=rss_ageRight now I think it's too premature to conclude this. Besides, the story I cited also presents other plausible theories on the origin of the phrase. Right now nothing I've heard would lead me to connect the killings with Islamic terrorism.
But then how do you account for the “love lost” component to it? Even if it were a member of Hezbollah involved I don't think it would necessarily be terrorism here because the “love rage” that went on is independent from the desire to make a socio-political statement of fear and intimidation. At least this is based on what I have learned about the shooting. If there was some socio-political motivation that I haven't heard about then I may be wrong.
Are you saying this because of the ethnic/racial component to the shooting? I haven't heard that he actually targeted non-Asian people in the shootings, but I may have missed it in the news. From what I have heard so far it sounds like a deadly rage sparked by jealousy. I don't think this would be “terrorism”.
Yes, welcome aboard. So what area of history are you most interested in? Civil War/Old West is my guess…
There's actually a movie about Sherman's march coming out pretty soon….at least I think it's a movie, but could be a TV show. Looked pretty good from the previews.
But who would be searching for those particular words? An academic rival? A potential employer? An anonymous fan? Mystery is in the air!
I think that the WWI to WWII connection has taught the world a great lesson: if we bomb, we rebuild. Even today we are investing hundreds of billions of dollars (exact figures I do not have) into Iraq after we removed Sadaam from power. Had we left a month or two after we had him removed Iraq would have fallen into a quagmire where a leader or leaders may have emerged which would have taken the country in the wrong direction. Hitler was able to do this with his skillful communicating and bold vision. While he was a probably a unique figure, I don't think that his methods are necessarily uncopiable.
My understanding more or less coincides with both your opinions. I doubt that WWII was inevitable, and I do think that Hitler was singular in his vision and activities, but here was probably a decent chance that a leader would play on sentiment against the oppressions of post-WWI to gain or hold on to power. Hitler just happened to do this with another angle of ruthlessness.
