My employer's response to VT tragedy

I hope I don't get in trouble for this.

As I have eluded to many times on this blog, I work for a small University. I work in an administrative capacity and my teaching responsibilities are almost entirely performed online. I took, and continue to take, the news from Virginia Tech very seriously.

On April 16, we received an email from the president of the school I work for. We received this email late in the afternoon, long after the tragedy at Virginia Tech occurred. The pertinent part of the email is as follows:

The tragic deaths of students at Virginia Tech on Monday are a reminder that the welfare and safety of our students are a priority that should be uppermost in our minds and never taken for granted. [name of university withheld] stands with all colleges and universities in seeking to provide a secure environment for our students. While we are thankful that our students are safe, our hearts and prayers are with the Virginia Tech students and their families and loved ones.

While my condolences and prayers do go out to the students and families affected by this tragedy, I'm left wondering just how seriously the administration at my school takes my safety.

In many ways, my school is very much like VT. The hopolophobes have instituted HR policies and student conduct policies that expressly deny citizens the right to carry any kind of weapon in self-defense. The typical academic arguments are made that a safe learning environment requires absolute and total disarming of the students, faculty, and staff. That the right of people on campus to feel safe trumps the rights of people to provide the means by which to make them safe. As is all too often the case in modern academia, feeling trumps practicality and pragmatism. I'm told by my employer that I should feel safe because they have done everything possible to make me safe.

Yet, I don't feel safe. My office is a cubicle that sits in the back corner of a modified classroom. There is one door to this room which is surrounded by drywall-covered concrete block walls. There are no egress points except for the two windows on the other side of a six foot cubicle wall. Outside the window is a two story drop. A crazed gunman like Cho can burst into this room and take all of us down with absolutely no possibility of escape.

Unlike VT, my school does not employ an armed security force. Our security force is armed with walkie-talkies and a data reader that scans the bar codes of the stops on their patrol routes. Not only are all students, staff, and faculty herded into single exit rooms, the local security force isn't equipped with the tools necessary to stop an armed intruder.

In effect, my campus is even less safe than VT was 10 days ago. We have no means of defending ourselves other than to wait for the police to arrive. The only bright spot is that we're only a few blocks from the main police building in our city (at this location anyway). Needless to say that doesn't fill me with a lot of hope should someone come shooting on my floor.

All of this begs the question, just how serious is my employer about my personal safety? Here in Michigan we do allow people to carry concealed handguns with a permit. Our faculty, staff, and students already spend time rubbing shoulders with people who are armed in supermarkets, theaters, and just walking down the sidewalk. They climb into cars without hesitation when a coworker is driving to lunch. They drive on highways where speeds are in excess of 70 mph and think nothing of the person driving the car less than three feet from theirs. We drive down two lane high ways three feet away from other drivers where the combined speed easily nears 130 mph. They trust those people and complete strangers with their lives and the lives of their family. Why is it that they won't trust people to carry concealed at the place they spend the vast majority of their waking hours? It must require some kind of reasoning, faith, or fear that I am simply incapable of to answer that question.

I respectfully submit that my employer doesn't care one whit about my personal safety. I think my employer is proud of our "no weapons" policies and doesn't plan to lift a finger to try and change it. I think some of my coworkers have swallowed the kool aid of fear concerning the utter, and unreasonable, lack of trust some in our society has for people who wish to be armed.

I think 32 people in Virginia bear now silent witness to the fact that disarming the good people in our society will not deter the evil people in our society. Evil people will always prey upon good people's good intentions. Those with murder in their hearts will always find the means to carry out their grisly plans. I'm sure every one of the victims felt safe right up to the moment Cho started shooting. The grim reality is that their feelings had no real grounding in reality and the promises from our various school administrations are just empty promises. We have built a house of safety founded on the sinking sand that says if we just ban guns from our midst, we will be safe. When the rains come and the wind beats on that house, as Cho did 10 days ago, the house collapses because the foundation is not as solid as we claim it is. Until we realize this, these kinds of tragedies will continue.

How many dead students will it take to finally learn this lesson? How many workplace shootings? 32 former students of VT demand an answer. As someone who works in a school not unlike VT, I demand an answer.

Some movie fun

I've seen this meme cropping up all over the place so I thought I'd take a shot at it for all my loyal readers.

1. Name a movie that you have seen more than 10 times.

Star Wars (all six movies actually)

2. Name a movie that you’ve seen multiple times in the theater.

I usually don't see a movie multiple times in the theater. However, I did see The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King in the theater multiple times.

3. Name an actor who would make you more inclined to see a movie.

I personally find Will Farrell to be hilarious. Anything with Keiffer Sutherland, Hugh Jackman, or Christian Bale has a better than average shot at being on my list.

4. Name an actor who would make you less likely to see a movie.

Leonardo DiCapprio, Tim Robbins, or Tom Cruise (after M:I 1).

5. Name a movie that you can and do quote from.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail. We have to quote the entire movie from memory in order to be a part of the geek culture.

6. Name a movie musical that you know all of the lyrics to all of the songs.

None. Anyone who knows me knows how much I loathe the entire genre of musicals.

7. Name a movie that you have been known to sing along with.

Breakin 2: Electric Boogaloo. Just kidding. Does it count when you sing "Knights of the Round Table" from the movie mentioned in number 5?

8. Name a movie that you would recommend everyone see.

Cars. Great movie about how egocentric we've become and how slowing down and caring for others helps us win in life.

9. Name a movie that you own.

The Lord of the Rings (both versions, the entire trilogy).

10. Name an actor that launched his/her entertainment career in another medium but who has surprised you with his/her acting chops.

Will Smith, though I worried about him when he did "Fresh Prince of Bell Aire".

11. Have you ever seen a movie in a drive-in? If so, what?

The only movie I remember seeing in a drive-in is Star Wars. I was 3 at the time.

12. Ever made out in a movie?

Oh yeah.

13. Name a movie that you keep meaning to see but just haven’t yet gotten around to it.

300

14. Ever walked out of a movie?

Wanted to walk out on Platoon, but it was for a class and I'm sure the professor wouldn't have taken kindly to a walk out.

15. Name a movie that made you cry in the theater.

None. But Brian's Song made me cry when they showed it in class. Of course my dad had died of cancer a little over a year before.

16. Popcorn?

Salt, no butter.

17. How often do you go to the movies (as opposed to renting them or watching them at home)?

Not as much as I'd like. I really do enjoy going to the theater to see a movie. Having children cuts back on how often you can do this.

18. What’s the last movie you saw in the theater?

Wild Hogs

19. What’s your favorite/preferred genre of movie?

Movies that don't attempt to get blatantly political. Good stories are preferred regardless of genre. I prefer science fiction and action films, but they have to be good stories.

20. What’s the first movie you remember seeing in the theater?

Star Wars, though it was a drive-in.

21. What movie do you wish you had never seen?

Matrix Revolutions. Talk about taking an amazing story and just flushing it down the toilet.

22. What is the weirdest movie you enjoyed?

Napoleon Dynamite. I just can't begin to describe that one. It requires multiple viewings and must be some kind of cultural thing.

23. What is the scariest movie you’ve seen?

Poltergeist. When the guy peels his face off I think I was scarred for life. Of course, I was only 12 at the time.

24. What is the funniest movie you’ve seen?

This is a tough one. I could be sarcastic and say "An Inconvenient Truth", but the truth is, I haven't seen that move, but I've heard its just hilarious. I'd have to say that Talladega Nights made me laugh so hard I had tears in my eyes at a couple of points. If its the funniest movie I've seen, I don't know. Tommy Boy was also very funny.

Virginia Tech

My condolences go out to the families of the victims of today's shooting.

As someone who was an educator when Columbine went down, I know full well that the subject of many meetings to come will be this shooting and how the elimination of guns will prevent such occurrences from happening in the future.

This is not the time for more policies, more regulations, and more laws.

Guns did not kill those 32 people today. A human being did. A human being that thought his grievances were more important than the lives of 32 people.

The usual suspects will be on the airwaves in time for prime time news shows denouncing our culture's "insane love affair with guns" or some other such nonsense. They will play on our heartstrings parading before us the one argument everyone has difficulty responding to, the victims. They'll advance the absurd notion that if only the Second Amendment were repealed or tougher gun laws were in place this never would have happened. As my wife likes to say "guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat." The usual suspects will spout that only police should have guns because they're the only ones trained in their use. The majority of gun owners I know spend significantly more time at the range than the cops I know.

I prefer to turn the tables on the gun control advocates. What about the employees (or *gasp* students) of Virginia Tech who wanted to carry a firearm to the campus for personal protection but were prevented from doing so because of HR policies designed to circumvent state laws allowing for concealed carry? I would dare say this incident is a better argument for loosening restrictions on those who would like to carry than passing even more restrictions. Why is it that these maniacs target schools? Could it be that they know that there is little risk of having fire returned? This maniac would have acquired a gun regardless of the laws that are in place. They always do.

The law abiding can do nothing inside these victim dis-armorment zones we call our schools and universities. They can only cower in fear waiting for law enforcement that simply cannot be everywhere at once. We give the criminals and the mentally unstable all the power when we refuse to allow the law abiding the ability to fight back.

For those who aren't aware, there are three types of people in this world: sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves. Wolves feed on sheep, but sheepdogs protect the sheep with their lives. Sheepdogs look a lot like wolves, and that makes the sheep nervous. Unfortunately, in modern times, the sheep have stopped seeing the difference between sheepdogs and wolves and have done their best to cast (or in many cases turn) sheepdogs as wolves. It was a lack of sheepdogs that directly contributed to the tragedy that occurred today. When there are no more sheepdogs, the sheep will have nothing to protect them from the wolves. Just ask the UK how well gun control is working out for them.

Disarming the public is a great way to see more of these incidents occur. 'Twas ever thus and ever thus shall be.

American Idol - The Sanjaya Factor

It seems every good TV show on American airwaves eventually becomes a parody of itself.

I am a regular watcher of the show, but I have no real interest in who wins. My wife, however, really enjoys it (even voting some weeks) and some weeks I actually let her enjoy it in peace. To me, the show has always seemed flawed, and yet perfect for our mob-mentality culture. Anyone can audition and anyone can vote. Unfortunately, what was originally a talent search has morphed into a sad parody of what it means to be a pop star. Just like "America's Funniest Home Videos", American Idol has lost its purity and with it a certain amount of its appeal.

Currently, the sixth season of American Idol is whittling down the contestants. As with all such talent shows, people with genuine talent must be dropped in order to crown a winner. Yet, this season, there is a contestant who is still in the running to win who is plainly without talent whose only draw seems to be his big stupid teenager grin that he can't ever seem to shake. For those who don't know, I'm referring to Sanjaya.

I'm willing to concede that being a pop star is not all about musical talent. There are too many N'Sync, and Brittney Spears clones in pop music today to testify to that effect. What bothers me about that is that musical talent should factor in at some point. This is part of the reason pop music no longer appeals to me. People like Brittney Spears are performers, not musicians. They look good on stage and that seems to be their only real talent. If you disagree, just ask yourself if someone like Phil Collins, Eric Clapton, or Elton John could become pop stars today or if groups like Led Zeppelin could ever become popular if they had to start out today. Each are great vocalists and play multiple instruments, but aren't exactly the most beautiful people in the world.

This is the problem with Sanjaya. He's got a certain boyish charm. His audition was great. He does have a good singing voice (though I thought his sister was better). But his performances just seem to be getting worse as time goes on. His performances lack soul and his vocals are not distinctive enough to warrant him being in the top 10 of a nation-wide talent search. I won't even discuss his radical hair alterations that, to me, speak volumes about his immaturity.

Sanjaya has received two very important endorsements that are keeping him in the show. A celebrity and a prominent American Idol blog. The first is Howard Stern whose motivations are a little unclear for me. The second is the blog, votefortheworst.com. This website is devoted to keeping the least talented person in the show as long as they can. I'm not sure if it is for entertainment purposes (keeping the show amusing by having someone terrible persist through the show), or more noble (keeping someone whose singing can't land them an independent contract like Clay Aiken or others who have not won American Idol). In either case, a celebrity and a popular web site are enough to keep you in the running for a while.

This spells trouble for the producers of American Idol. If this web site and celebrity endorsement prove formidable enough to keep Sanjaya in the show through to the final four or five contestants, American Idol's premise will have forced a jump the shark moment for the show. If Sanjaya lasts through to the final four or five, expect to see more celebrity endorsements of contestants with little talent next year.

All is not lost though, Sanjaya could get voted off next week. However, since he wasn't even in the bottom three this week, I don't expect that to happen. I do have a modest proposal that could end up saving the show.

Instead of everyone being able to vote as often as they like, I would humbly propose the following to the producers of American Idol: sell a subscription to the show. Not in a pay per view sense, but more along the lines of what conservative talk radio has done. You can still listen to Rush for free on the radio, but if you want podcasts, then you have to subscribe to his website (Rush 24/7). Of course you get other extras, but everyone will have their own reasons for subscribing. The primary reason will be voting rights. Only subscribers will be allowed to vote. The real value for the subscription will be early release of the CD made by the winner of that season which every subscriber will receive.

If you set the price point right, say about $20, you'll weed out those who vote only to screw things up for the show. Additionally, you'll give people a vested interest in who they vote for. Will I really want this person's CD in my collection? Will I really want the ridicule of my friends when they see a Sanjaya CD on my shelf or in my iPod? It doesn't even have to be a CD that is delivered. Allow a special gift card to go out to iTunes users so they can download it.

I don't propose this to help keep the show on the air. As I've said, I have no vested interest in the show other than the fact that my wife likes it. The reason is that I hate to see good people loose out when a supposedly talent-based competition really becomes a popularity contest, or even an anti-popularity contest.