more comments...
« Racer50 wrote on Wednesday, Apr 03 at 11:33 PM »
It's being reported Ms. Roberts has tapes
« brad12345 wrote on Wednesday, Apr 03 at 11:00 PM »
Very thoughtful and well written article....thanks!
« itb0001 wrote on Friday, Mar 29 at 03:59 PM »
I'm sure the writer of this letter had good intentions, but if you took the time to go through Slum City you'd understand that you've made grand assumptions about its impact. And you know what they say about assuming. A representation of where people live does not reinforce a negative stereotype. The signs there did not say "This is what ALL of Kenya looks like." Frankly, I've been to places that look exactly like what was set up on the concourse. And in reality what was set up on the concourse was a lot nicer than what most people live in. I understand you acknowledge poverty exists here in the states and want to challenge students to take action, but what you've accomplished in this letter make a comparison that isn't fair and discredited all the hard work put into this event. First, not everyone is going to look at a student constructed simulation and say "This must be what ALL of Kenya, India, and other third world countries look like." This might be the case for some people, but that's there were volunteers there to talk them through the different exhibits. There is no "false distance". This logic of false distance, seeing a trailer park and seeing Auburn or Alabama flags hanging from them, one could assume all Auburn or Alabama fans live in trailers. They're surrounded by multimillion dollar roads and not far off from multibillion dollar cities, but they must just be poor. I don't think what you have said is fair to the organizations that put this little event together. And saying you think they had a good heart in it doesn't hide the unfairness of your statement. Comparing any poverty in the U.S. to poverty in third world countries is like saying the Super Bowl is the same as the Sun Belt championship. There is no comparison. If you took the time to go through what they had set up on the concourse you would have seen that they were partnered with SIFAT, Servants in Faith and Technology, which is an organization that focuses on long-term development to people in need, instead of short-term relief. This event was meant to open peoples eyes to how good we have it here and possibly gain some recruits to help people out in need. If it made you uncomfortable at the concept of poverty in other countries, as well as in the U.S., then I think the event accomplished exactly what it was supposed to do.
« ceciladkins wrote on Saturday, Mar 23 at 07:09 PM »
Since when do women play basketball? I guess I should get out more.
« Atlas_Shrugs wrote on Friday, Mar 15 at 10:41 AM »
In response to Bearclaw's 11 March comment: That is factually incorrect. In DC v Heller (June 2008), the Supreme Court ruled that individuals do indeed have a right to self-defense with firearms. This was further supported when the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled (December 2012) that Illinois' total ban on carrying firearms outside the home or business for self-defense was unconstitutional. Secondly, the militia is a separate entity from the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force. It is a defensive force organized at the state level, occasionally being called to national duty. The 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to stockpile weapons and ammunition to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. Self-defense against criminals, hunting, and other sporting purposes, while not the original intent of this right, are wonderful after effects. No wording of the 2nd Amendment refers to "muskets," nor would it have. By the time of the Revolutionary War, smooth-bore muskets were known by Appalachian settlers and frontiersman to be inferior in range and accuracy to the Kentucky long rifle, which possessed a rifled barrel. Keep in mind that the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1789, six years after the war. To have limited the 2nd Amendment to muskets at that time would have been anachronistic and ill-suited. Furthermore, while our Founding Fathers possessed incredible foresight, they could not have conceived of the weapons technology that would come about nearly two hundred years later with the Armalite Rifle, commonly known as the AR-15, and its many variants. Your desire to limit defensive firearms to one shot and reload (in the style of muzzle-loaders) proves that you have never been exposed to a military environment or defensive situation where such limitations would threaten your life. Such an argument, is once again, anachronistic and ill-formed.