Editorials and Commentary
I have found, in recent times, that both myself and a good friend of mine are being hosed over by NDSU, and by the English department specifically. Mike Vacha and I are in similar situations with the English department: we both could easily finish English degrees if it were not for the stupid ass 2-years-of-a-foreign-language requirement. Why is that a requirement? Simply because the English department does not grant a B.S. degree, only a B.A. Why do they do that? Apparently to screw over college students who do not wish to put up with a foreign language that may or may not EVER benefit them in any way later in life.
Aaron W. Beseler, Webmaster, Hanson and Beseler Online 2006
January 19, 2006
Opinion: Open the English major to more possibilities...
Seriously, let’s say I were to take 2 years of Spanish or German here at NDSU. Unless I plan to move to the southwest (which I don’t), or over to Spain, Germany, or Mexico, am I ever really going to need to speak that language? Never. Not once.
Now let’s look at the realistic aspects of getting an English degree with a minor attached to it. Let’s say, in my case (and I believe Mike would be eligible as well) that I were to get an English degree with a corresponding music minor. I am currently getting a music degree with an English minor, so why not a double major with corresponding minors? That makes sense to me, and is practical. In fact, the English department individual I spoke with last year implied that an English degree with a music minor is, in fact, applicable. IT IS NOT! I found out this fall that my belief from that conversation is actually a complete fallacy.
Looking at another side of the issue, I will address the legitimacy of graduating with a Music and English double major with corresponding minors. Music is the universal language, a tool that has been used for eons to communicate, pass on history, and for enjoyment, amongst other aspects. I believe completing a Music major is far above and beyond any normal 2-year foreign language requirement and will be something that will stay with someone as opposed to a forced foreign language course that one will forget the moment one is not enrolled any longer.
As for jobs, having 2 years of a foreign language will very rarely ever have an impact on acquiring employment. There are the rare cases where an employer may want you to be able to speak a foreign language, but outside of an internationally-traveling career or an educational career, I do not see the legitimacy of that argument. On the other hand, having a music minor (in Mike’s case, and mine if I were to be granted an English major) is knowledge that will stay with you and can possibly be utilized in combination with that English degree for a career, especially if one were to be involved with writing reviews of musical literature. Granted, that is a specialized field, but there is just as much opportunity for someone in that position as there is for someone with only 2 years (obviously not enough to be fluent) of a foreign language.
In summation, I feel that NDSU should re-evaluate their foreign language requirement, especially considering the fact that simply broadening the options for a major such as English would attract many more individuals to that area as well.
When I packed up all of my belongings and moved back to Fargo, North Dakota some five and a half years ago, I imagined that I would be walking into an area of the state that would provide me with many opportunities to perform as a musician. With four years of practice and experiance down in San Antonio, I envisioned Fargo as the artful center of the state with all sorts of music and entertainment. With three major colleges and universities, I figured there would be a huge wash of styles of music, and that I would find many ways to get into it as a lot of young musicians had done in Texas.
Christopher Hanson, Webmaster, Hanson and Beseler Online 2005-2006
September 25, 2005
Opinion: Let the young musicians take a ride for once...
What I was greeted by was a shock to me. After a short year back home, I found that the "good ole' boy system" was truly at work in this town, and that was the way everything ran, most notably in the jazz scene, which was limited at best in the first place.
Now, I'm not one to criticize most of these players who belong to that 'club'. Many of these cats are great musicians and with their skill and experience, they deserve to have jobs. However, what I think is being missed is the fact that there is so much young talent in the area who have no way of getting exposure. Their only chance to play is in college bands and such, and not very many of those members of the "good ole' boy system" are coming to see them play. These great musicians with such bright talent are being ignored.
In my life, I have learned that the best way to become a better performer is to have the on-the-job experience. Trial by fire is most certainly one of the best ways to learn how things are. Getting in there as a nervous wet-behind-the-ears musician is the most excellent way to do things. Playing on the gig brings more experience to a musician than any class in college could ever do. Going to school is about getting the tools to understand how to make music. Making music is learned in the field, and no arguement anywhere will ever change my mind on that aspect of music.
I'm not asking all of the top-call musicians in town to give up all of their gigs, mind you. But, I think a little help from them would go a long way. Give these kids a chance to play somewhere once in a while. My first thought goes immediately to Basie's on 42nd where the same couple of combos have been playing nearly non-stop for the past five years. While I respect the combos and the musicians in these groups, I have to admit that I quit going to Basie's because each time I went, I basically heard the same songs and the same styles from the same set of players that I heard the time before and the time before. I think others have probably felt the same- Basie's sound has grown somewhat stale. The solos are great and the players are great, but the sound is always the same, and I crave something different and fresh from time to time. I suspect the Fargo-Moorhead area feels the same. If this keeps up, no one is going to attend those shows anymore, and another fine venue will be lost as many have been in this town. Changing things up and keeping some variety is key. Basie's has enjoyed success for several years, but I fear that this success will fade in the near future. Allowing other groups to play once in a while, even just once a month or so, would change things up and give younger musicians a chance to show what they have.
The reasoning behind the "good ole' boy system" is actually understandable to a point. These musicians have been in the area for a long time and have erned the respect of their peers. Most of these musicians are knowledgable and good players. But, as they think about their next gig, I think they accidently forget about the young musician who could make a difference. They have forgotten that many of them for their starts in Fargo, too.
It's hard now days to get a start with so many venues closing or dropping their musical programs by the month. For rock and roll cats, losing Kirby's and Ralph's was a huge blow. For the jazzers, there was once many places to hear jazz, whether that was at the Spirits, the Empire, 25th Street Market, or the Treetop. There were many reasons for the falling of these venues from eminant domain closings to lack of advertising. It's sad and unfortunate.
My biggest beef, however, comes with some of the top-call musicians basically slamming the doors on the young musicians in the first place. There are the musicians who want to leave the young out in the dark due to the venue issue. While I don't doubt the skill and experience of these musicians, I do take issue with their attitude that they must "hold the musical quality to a high bar". While I do believe that this does need to be done, they simply don't awknowledge the fact that young musicians in the area can indeed play at the level they are holding the bar to. They are in turn slamming the door on the potential and talent and ignoring the fact that those young players could do just as much as themselves. To me, this is simply ignorance, and it's not acceptable.
A bit of understanding could change these ways, but the opinion and the way things are done around Fargo are very set and will be hard to change. Young musicians will continue to be forces to somehow create their own image and venues, which is an incredibly difficult thing to do in a small city like the one I speak of. The young musician will simply have to move on somewhere else, and the loss of this talent in Fargo is something that saddens me to no end. It will be too late when people and musicians finally notice this in the future. Hopefully the "good ole' boy club" will realize this in the near future and give young musicians a chance in this town. To those of you out there who foster growth and opportunity to our young musicians, and there are a good handful of you, thank you for the chance. To the rest of you, please think about this and those people, and make a change for the better. The future of music in Fargo depends on it.
I'm starting to get annoyed by the (Gold Star) band's blog. A select few people have ideas about what should be happening with the band program, and as soon as someone else (mainly me) starts questioning or has a different idea, BAM! They're yelled at and critized like they have no say in the matter. I'm
really starting to see what others see- the band is begining to be more and
more political. Definately not good for a band, no matter the size. It
seems that most of the ideas are being spearheaded by one individual (I'm
not saying it's not a good thing to start better things happening), but I
think they're starting to get a bigger head than they should. Sure, they want
all of these great things to happen, but it will take time. The way some people talk is like they want it to happen NOW. Like I told this person before they started, they're here to get things going, and I'm here to hold them back. I know, I know... "If you don't like it, don't read it." Believe me, if this starts getting worse, I won't.
A Guest Editorial by Zach Steele, Webmaster, Marching Mann
July 8, 2005
Opinion: What is happening with the GSB web blog?
To quote from The Fargo Forum on June 2, 2005:
Christopher Hanson, Webmaster, Hanson and Beseler Online 2004-2005
June 9, 2005
Opinion: What in the world was Rev. Dennis Anundson thinking when he wrote his editorial?
There is one evil so prevalent that few, if any, preachers have mentioned, and that is: women dressed in men's apparel. It is an evil that is evident in women of all ages, shapes and sizes. Very seldom do you see a woman or a girl wearing a dress.
The word of God says in Deuteronomy 22:5, "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment. For all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."
Being an abomination to God carries the penalty of eternal hell fire. For we read in Revelation 21:8, "But the fearful and unbelieving and the abominal and murderers and whoremongers and sorcerers and idolators and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."
Now I think all women should be told this, so they can give up this abominable practice so they will not lose their souls over it.
Rev. Dennis Anundson
Hannaford, N.D.
What in the world was this all about, and what brought this on? I was in absolute shock when I read this editorial in The Fargo Forum. What pocessed the paper to even run this letter? What is wrong with this man? This editorial actually made some press on other web sites and newspapers around the world. Only in North Dakota would we find someone like this, stuck back in an age where women were oppressed once again.
There was a time when women were expected to wear dresses. That was right about the time when women were also expected to stay at home at all times with the duites of cleaning the house and raising the children. That was right about the time when women were not allowed to vote. That was right about the time when women were seen more as a possession. Well, guess what, Mr. Anundson- times have changed, just in case you didn't notice over the years.
This letter was just absurd. When did clothing become a basis as to if we are going to heaven or hell? When was it that God stopped looking at person when it came to their wardrobe? The all-loving God in the religion that the Rev. Anundson stores so much faith in over this insane letter looks within a person and loves that person for who they are and for what they stand for, not for what kind of clothing he or she wears. How could he not see beyond appearance? This letter is one of the dumbest things I've ever read in my life.
Mr. Anundson's opinion based on the bible and his old-fashioned "to the words" interptitation of the bible show how shallow he is. While the bible may quote this, we must also remember that God see's much deeper into our lives than what is on the surface. If God know's everything about all of us, why would this clothing even be an issue of any sort at all? If I were a woman, I would be insulted by this letter, as his opinion revives his belief that women should still subjected to that kind of unequal treatment. Women have worked hard for their rights, and his letter is simply a step back in the wrong direction.
Anundson's letter and opinion are far off the mark, and while I have no idea what drove him to write this ridiculous letter, we should not let closed minded people affect the direction we continue to move toward today in an equal world of equal rights for women and men alike.
I was alarmed to hear about a tragic story while I was listening to the Sean Hannity Show on AM radio on April 27th. Hannity told of a law in California that was put on the books in 2000 which was called Proposition 21. Included in this proposition was something called Deferred Entry of
Judgment Punishment. It was voted on by the people of California and passed through all of the right channels in a lawful procedure. The proposition was in good faith put together to give juveniles a second chance if they committed a crime during their youth. This was applied to juveniles who committed any type of crime with a judges approval.
Christopher Hanson, Webmaster, Hanson and Beseler Online 2004-2005
April 28, 2005
Opinion: While this law provides minors and youth a second chance in life, this law must be altered immediately in some cases for the common good.
Apparently, this new system had been working well overall. Those who were "punished" with a deferred entry of judgement were required to go to school, stay away from victims or potential victims, and adhere to a curfew. In return for following these rules, the juvenile was guaranteed to have his or her record washed clean of the felony once they entered the adult world.
Hannity went on to tell the story about a juvenile in Kern County who apparently was charged with five counts of sexual assault on two girls, one being 12 and other being 14. He used date rape drugs to take advantage of these two girls. The crime was reported and the juvenile was immediately charged with the five counts of felony sexual assault. He plead guilty, and the judge apparently chose to give him a deferred entry of judgement based on the fact he was a minor who had confessed to his crimes.
What kind of punishment is this for someone who raped two little girls? I don't care how old this sexual predator was at the time, he deserved a much stiffer penalty than this. How can we allow judges and juvenile probation officials to allow such things to occur? Rape is a very serious charge. There's no other way of looking at this situation- the system let this monster off with a simple slap on the hand.
So the boy admitted right away that he had done these horrific acts. That's nice. Now, lock him up and take him off the streets. Sure, there's a certain amount of honor in confessing and admitting your guillt. However, how can common sense miss the target here? The boy's actions were premeditated. He put drugs in these girls' sodas. He then took advantage of them and raped them. This is not a kid that made an honest mistake. This is a monster in the making, and the judge simply let the kid go. Worse than that, the five acts will be wiped clean off of his record when he turns the age of 18. This is unbelievable.
To end the segement, Hannity played audio of one of the girls pleading with California lawmakers to somehow amend or change this law. To my horror, I heard responses from law makers in California who felt that the law should not be changed or altered in any way. They admitted that this a case that was unfortunate, but said that overall, the judges in the state had displayed fine judgement, and that the deferred entry into judgement plan was working well for most troubled youths.
I'm not saying that the whole program should be terminated or taken down. What I do believe is that judges should not have this much liberty in such a serious crime. I was thankful to see that someone agreed in California. SB 520 was introduced in the California senate earlier in the month, and it sounds as if it is gaining some national attention. Sean Hannity's feature on the bill was a big help, and I most certainly hope that more people hear about this situation. To read more about this, go to Around the Capitol- SB 520 and find out how someone is trying to combat this madness.
Simply put, the deferred entry into judgement seems like a good plan for some youth who get themselves into trouble. However, for the most heinous crimes, how could we allow judges to use this new "punishment"? While this boy did admit to his wrongdoing and technically fall within the rules for imposing the deferrment, his crime was way beyond that of this punishment. The acts and planning leading up to the crime show that this was not just a mistake or an error judgement, this was an evil crime that had his mind made up. Proposition 21's deferred entry into judgement does not need to be repealed, but it must have new stricter rules written for the judges to adhere to.
Terri Shiavo- After the Fight
Christopher Hanson, Webmaster, Hanson and Beseler Online 2004-2005
April 15, 2005
Opinion: Her death was somewhat of a moral mistake under the circumstances, however, the government's attempts to step in were unfair as well.
It's been just over two weeks now since Terri Shiavo passed away after her feeding tube was removed by a court order and the hands of her husband. The issue caused a ripple in the nation that will no doubt be debated for years to come. The attention that it brought to the nation caused many to begin researching living wills and such. The impact of her death triggered off strong moral and political opinions that none of us can probably sidestep.
As far as my political and moralistic views are concerned, I admit that I've taken steps toward the liberal side of the world over the past few years. However, arguably my most conservative position was over the events that lead up to Terri's death. I took a strong stance towards keeping Terri alive. While I do understand that a husband and wife's bond and union is something that is traditionally strong, I felt that in the abscence of a living will or something to prove to the world that Terri wished to die, he had no right to take her off that feeding tube. Her husband holds a legal standing as her official guardian, and I can't argue with that fact. However, I took great displeasure in his choice to remove her from world.
The arguement that her parents put forth was that they felt she wouldn't want this. They also pointed out that Terri's husband had moved on in life and found a new love, and had even had children with this woman. Did this play a part in his decision as Terri's legal guardian? I can't help but think that it did. He pointed out that Terri had told him that she wouldn't want to live this way hooked up to machines. If this was her wish, I could understand that. But, it was a war of words between Terri's husband and Terri's parents- what did she wish for? Without anything such as a document stating her wishes, it was a trivial point which the courts were left to decide. I felt that this was wrong.
A friend of mine pointed out something to me that struck me as very logical and honest. He stated that there is no greater right in one's life than the right to live. If one does indeed want to end their life, this is their right. It's not something that any of us encourage anyone to do- end their life, but in black and white, it's anyone's choice to end their own lives no matter what the conditions are. Terri didn't leave any proof that she wanted to in fact end her life, and though a conversation may be something that her husband used as the basis for his decision to end her life, words are not enough proof for me, and I feel that his choice and intentions were honest at best, but not enough to justify his actions. I think his choice was fundamentally and morally wrong.
Where I did take a strong discent, also, was in the governments attempts to get involved in the case in the first place. For an administration that talks about leaving the governent out of people's lives, why did they choose to get involved in one of the most intimate of issues? It seemed like such a double-standard to me. The arguement came down to the wishes of Terri's husband and Terri's family, and this point went to court because of this arguement. The court heard the arguements and made a decision based on what everyone had to say. Though I can't say I agreed with the decision, the courts did rule, and we were all forced to respect that decision. The government's choice to step in and try to interfere seemed like a wrong decision based on their beliefs, and ultimately, they found out that what they did was probably wrong in the first place. The desperate charge to subpoena Terri was ill-fated and illogical, afterall, everyone knew she wouldn't be able to testify in front of congress, or in front of anyone for that matter. It was ridiculous for them to even try to get involved and undermine the courts and their decisions. All of the appeals and court dates were justified as outlined in the system, but the government was not right to attempt to foil in this issue.
Nothing will bring Terri back to the world now, for she has passed on. This is a sad fact, but something that happened based on the steps through fate and life for herself and through the doors and chambers of the courts based on the issue of who was right. I am sad for the outcome, and feel that morally, the wrong choice was made. However, I do respect the courts and their decisions, and this is the way it will have to be. Nothing can excuse the senators and congressmen who attempted to intervene on an issue that goes to the right of life and the decisions of the family, though. This is the place where the government is not welcome. Even if they did agree with my thoughts on the matter, I still do not believe they acted on Terri's behalf, but rather, on their own behalf on an issue that would seperate our people even more. Only the future can tell us what will happen on either end of my thoughts.
The Debate of the Power Hour
Christopher Hanson, Webmaster, Hanson and Beseler Online 2004-2005
March 17, 2005
Opinion: How is this new legislation going to change anything?
Let's think about one thing real quick here when we talk about the concept of a power hour. Who out there thinks that drinking twenty-one shots of liquor could possibly be deemed as fun?
I have found myself a little confused about the new legislation that is going through in Bismarck pertaining to not allowing new twenty-one year olds to be able to have a drink until 8:00am on their 21st birthday. As the Fargo Forum put it, the theory of the bill is that when people become of age, they won't have to hurry to pack their drinking into one hour. While I can partially understand this thinking, I can't help but to point out a couple of things that would prevent people from doing power hours in the first place.
It's called common sense amoungst both the person celebrating the birthday and the friends that are with he or she. It's about bartenders and bar servers watching out for their customers and not serving people who are much too drunk. It's about seeing through the peer pressure and understanding the logic behind it all. A person who has never drank before can probably still understand easilly that trying to down 21 shots in one hour- or in one night, or even in one day, is a really dumb thing to do.
I am sympathetic to the situation in which Anne Buchanan is facing for the rest of her life. Her son died from drinking on his power hour. I feel awful for her and the family which must live with this devestating loss. But, common sense should have played a part somewhere within this situation. Common sense should have prevailed within his corps of friends who were there with him buying him the shots. Responsibility must be put on the servers who kept bringing the shots to the table. Personal responsibility is something in this case that needs to be highlighted even more in the wake of this tragedy. I just don't think these aspects are brought home enough.
People need to understand that these power hours are not necessary. To be honest with you, when I thought about a power hour, I never thought of is as an hour to drink as much liquor as possible. I always thought it was that one famed hour that you could finally go to a bar and have some drinks. With all of the so-called power hours that I've been in attendance at, including my own some years ago, I would've never even dreamt of allowing any of thsoe people to even attempt to drink 21 shots.
It's about education, it's about common sense, and it's about self-control. I don't see how those eight hours are going to help. If people are so out of touch with the reality on the lack of logic in a power hour, who's to say those people won't encourage their friends to just drink all day starting at 8:00am? And, who's to say that those new twenty-one year olds won't fall right into that trap? I fear that much more than anything.
Jason Reinhardt's death was and is still a tragedy. For something like this to happen in our hometown is hard to deal with, and the lessons we all learned as a community were important. Why it takes an event like that to open people's eyes, I just don't know.
The President Visits Fargo
Christopher Hanson, Webmaster, Hanson and Beseler Online 2004-2005
February 4, 2005
Opinion: The President's visit and speech were respectable and appreciated.
As many of you know, I'm one of the more critical people you'll meet when it comes to our current President of the United States. I make it no secret that I disagree with some of his choices and his conservative nature. I've calmly sparred with some on the war, and gotten a bit more angry about what I consider his religious crusade when it comes to the law. I've never been a big fan of George W. Bush in a lot of respects.
With that said, I had the chance to perform at President Bush's visit to Fargo on February 3. When first offered the chance, I responded that I did not want to participate. But after some brief thought, I changed my mind, realizing that perhaps it would be good for me to be present. First of all, I wanted to support the band in it's requested mission, but most of all, why would I be so unreasonable as to not give the President a chance to speak to our citizens and myself.
And so I went to that event, and I feel better for choosing to do so. The anticipation of the arrival of the President was intense, and even I felt it despite my disapproval of some of that President's policies. When he did arrive, I clapped and was excited to see him in my hometown, in my college.
His speech seemed very personal to me, not a written up presentation that one of his writters whipped up on Air Force One. It seemed to me that he was actually speaking to the people, not at them. His demeanor was light and polite, and his sense of humor was present in many ways. I was delighted to be a part of that, and I did enjoy his conversational style during this session.
Though I am skeptical of his Social Security reform because it seems much too general and not specific enough in nature to me at this time, I still enjoyed most of the time he spent on stage. I did get upset with one comment, but it wasn't something he said. It was actually something one of the other speakers on the stage said. Mr. Bush's words did seem sincere at most points, and I was willing to respect what he had to say and listen. Even if I didn't agree with some of the things he said, I felt the need to listen to the other side.
I get very passionate about politics from time to time, and I do sometimes feel a serious disdain for President Bush. However, his speech was something that I felt satisfied about for being present at it. My views have not changed, and I still have my opinions and thoughts about the issues which don't often mirror those of our President. However, I found his visit to North Dakota to be a success and a good thing for everyone, including myself.
The Great Northern- Doomed Again?
Christopher Hanson, Webmaster, Hanson and Beseler Online 2004-2005
December 10, 2004
Opinion: If the management at Great Northern continues on as they have thus far, the doors will close yet another time.
One of the first places I ever made my way to when I first moved to Fargo was a place that had come highly recommended to me by other bar hoppers around town. When I asked where one could get a tasty microbrew, more responded that I should visit the Great Northern. One cold snowy night, I did just that, and I was impressed with what I found. The fully-restored train depot was absolutely beautiful, and the atmosphere of the bar was overwhelming. The food was good, and the beer was incredible. I realized that this bar, despite it being located across town from where I was living at the time, should become one of my regular spots.
However, bad management closed the place down just as summer was coming in, and to my dismay, I could no longer enjoy the ambiance that this establishment provided. The place sat vacant for a handful of years. Each time I drove by the empty building, it was a reminder of how wonderful that place could be.
To my excitement, the place was reopened under new ownership and management in July of 2004. Over the years it had been closed, I had moved my way into the Fargo music scene, and word through the grapevine was that well-known musician Deb Jenkins was booking bands to play. I, like many other musicians, rushed to her to try to get bookings at the new-found hot spot downtown. When the Great Northern reopened, live music became the center of attention, as Deb was booking all sorts of different groups. It seemed like this was the missing link that the Fargo music scene had been lacking for quite some time- a place for new and talented musicians to play. The Fargo Forum even ran a front-page article about the Great Northern and what they were doing for downtown Fargo. Things looked bright for musicians for once.
But, much like all things that have to do with young people and the arts in Fargo, the good news could only last so long. After only four months, Deb Jenkins was fired from the Great Northern, along with all acts that she had booked for the upcoming months. Many of Fargo's finest musicians were dismayed with the news, and if they were anything like myself, who also had bookings cancelled, they were all just a little bit angry about the management's choices.
I made an attempt to call the new person in charge of booking, whom I never actually got to talk to. I left a few messages with no replies, then was finally refered to the general manager of the establishment. There, she attempted to explain to me that she had lost a lot of money on the endeavor, and that cancelling all existing commitments was what she had to do. I tried to explain to her that it was possible to get the revenue rolling in, but that it took time. The Great Northern was playing a signifigant role in inflating the chances for young talent to be heard, and in time, the losses would turn to large gains. Music, along with the wonderful bar, food, and microbrews would be quite a combination if she would just hold out. However, she held tightly to her choice. I was incredibly disappointed, and self-imposed on myself a boycott of the Great Northern.
Just a few days ago, I went back. I was missing the microbrews, and figured it wouldn't hurt to go there for that. As the night went on, a good friend of mine came in who is active in the arts scene in Fargo-Moorhead. He made his way to a table where the general manager was apparently hanging out and talked to her about my frustrations about the Great Northern. She then made it a point to come over and introduce herself to me.
She introduced herself to me as a 'person I probably didn't want to talk to'. To be honest, that wasn't far from the truth. She then explained to me everything that she had already told me on the phone. I tried once again to tell her how if she gave the music a chance, it would be work out. She then asked me where I was from. I told her I was from Minot. She scoffed at that a little bit, which offended me. She told me she was a graduate student from the east coast, as if that was supposed to be a credidential. Rick reminded her that I was an established musician in Fargo. She didn't seem to care. Basically, she made me feel like my age along with where I was from meant I didn't really understand anything about music, the arts, or how things were run in the 'real world'. I wasn't the only person feeling that way- Tim and Ruth were right there with me.
It is in my opinion that with management like that, coupled with their botched promise to bring a musical uprising to the downtown area and their 'better-than-you' attitudes are going to be the end of their endeavors, which will result in yet another closing of a place that really should've been a clear-cut success in the first place. Sadly, I don't think this place will be open any more in a year.
Heather and the management of the Great Northern are now eating crowe, though they won't want to admit that. They proclaimed themselves as the answer to young musicians in the area in the press. They took the first good steps of doing that by hiring a high-profiled person such as Deb Jenkins to take care of the talent search. They allowed good bands to play. Where they went wrong was not managing these things effectively from their side of the tracks. They took the first steps to making it happen, but then stopped and thought it would all work out with minimal maintenance. They gave up quickly, and did a disservice to all those who believed in the Great Northern when they opened. For these reasons, this is why I believe that the Great Northern, much to my sad heart, will not thrive, and will close once again.
Tom Hassenstab is a freakin' moron...
Christopher Hanson, Webmaster, Christopher Hanson Online 2004
November 22, 2004
Opinion: Who in the hell is in charge of hiring opinion writers at The Spectrum?
A majority of you who read this site and this commentary section are probably NDSU students or alumni from the music program. You've all spent some time relaxing in the music lounge reading the official college publication, also, The Spectrum. And, for those of you who have been around for the last couple of years, you've probably noticed that the quality of the paper has taken a true turn for the worst as of late.
I've been around here long enough to be associated with really good editors and such that all worked at The Spectrum, most notably guys like Chamberlin, Gion, and Tompkins, whom I all knew from various situations at the campus. These cats knew how to put together a good publication with noteworthy news clips, opinion articles, and updated stories about campus sports, events, and happenings.
I've continued to read the paper regularly to this day, although it sometimes pains me to even get through the first few pages. While some of the news happenings are credible enough, it's when I get to that opinion section that I begin to wonder just what it is that makes me want to even try reading this paper.
We all remember from earlier this year when The Spectrum went through it's motions with one Allison Moorhead. While I didn't really think much of how she wrote her article, I didn't advocate the idea of her being censored from the paper altogether. I found her section to be a bit harsh and nasty and not so much an informative sex article, but rather a chance for her to get some attention by not putting her thoughts into a tasteful form of context. While the concept for having a sex column was fine and just, her way of conveying her opinions and thoughts were probably not in the best intrests of The Spectrum. I figured at worst, she should've been told to curb her work or at least write it in a respectable context that would inform people in a tasteful fashion, rather than going for the shock value in which got her kicked out of the office altogheter.
But, really, in my opinion, it's these jackass opinion columnists that The Specturm continues to publish that should get the real ax, folks. Have you been paying attention to these people? We shouldn't have to, but each Tuesday and Friday of the week, I have to open up my "official college publication", and read about the dumb ass things they have to say. Would most of it qualify as a well-written opinion? Not even close, people.
First of all, a big complaint I have is the lack of knowledge these people have about some of the issues they wrote about. For instance, there were several opinion sections on the run up to the elections. If you want to write about supporting a cantidate, please be my guest. But, please use all facts to back up your choice. I saw both Kerry and Bush supporters spouting their thoughts off about the matter and the sides of these cantidates, when often the author's own feelings and opinions were what they were using to try to back up their work.
We had the column that criticized PC's and praised Mac computers when she didn't really know at all what she was talking about in what I guess you would have to say "technical terms" for lack of a better way of putting it. Do your homework, do your research, THEN you can tell us why Mac is better than PC's.
But, I guess what really got me truly worked up was an "opinion article" (and I use this term loosly, mind you) written by Tom Hassenstab. It seems that he isn't a big fan of NASCAR racing. That's fine, I don't like golf or hockey, but that's a personal preferance. I don't make fun of the people who enjoy golf or hockey. I go on with my day with no problems with these people.
But, I guess from his opinion article, I have now found out that I have many traits that I wasn't aware of as a supporter of NASCAR racing for the last 15 years or so. First of all, I am a "redneck southerner" who is cross-eyed from watching races and wears clothing that I got from redeeming stuff by sending in cigarette UPC codes. He tells me that drivers are really, really stupid and "deserve to die". Very nice opinion article. It most certainly enlightened me to what kind of people enjoy racing and what kinds of people enjoy driving race cars. Oh, and it most certainly enlightened me to what kind of person I am.
Now, I'm not here to say that Tom is a bad person for penning his little "rant" about NASCAR. What I'm really pissed off about here is how he has so many broad generalizations about people who participate in or stay current with the sport. Just because this sport originated in the south and because most of the drivers are from the south doesn't mean they're all stupid and/or rednecks. That's quite a generalization in the first place since in a way, Tom is saying that EVERYONE in the south is a redneck, which just isn't true no matter how many Jeff Foxworthy jokes America has been subjected to.
No one deserves to die for doing something they enjoy doing. No one deserves to die for doing what they consider a job. Race car drivers know their job is dangerous, but they take that risk. If someone is seriously injured or killed in a racecar, people mourn the event, but understand the risks that are taken in that sport. People take the same risks in mountain climbing, downhill skiing, hockey, football...you can name any sport where there's possibility of serious injury. No one deserves to die from these things, and I take great issue with his usage of such a thought or belief.
Dale Earnhardt was one my favorite drivers, and a favorite of many. His death saddened many, but we all knew that this was a possibility for any of the drivers, and we went on with our sport. I took offense to Tom's ignorance in making fun of fans paying tribute to one of the finest race car drivers of all time. It's just plain old rude to make that sort of statement no matter what the situtaion of the people involved.
Just a couple of other thoughts- NASCAR does have road course races which have left and right turns, just in case you didn't bother to check on that. Also, there are millions of fans of NASCAR all around the world (not just in Mississippi and Arkansas), and the sport has over thirty races, all of which had attendances of no less than 75,000 people per race.
If Tom doesn't like NASCAR, that's fine, but he should write in a more professional standard than that of which he did last week. Opinion articles are supposed to contain some sort of facts to back up their thoughts if you want to convince others of the same point of view, and all I saw was mean and non-tasteful crap in Tom's article. If Tom was going for a "humorous approach", then fine, go ahead and do that, but do it in the entertainment section. When I read opinion pieces, I want to read something that CONVINCES me of a point of view. I don't care to see someone mocking other people. I thought perhaps the opinion editor might understand that idea, but apparently not. Shame on The Spectrum for allowing itself to stray so far off the path.
The Election is Forthcoming
Christopher Hanson, Webmaster, Christopher Hanson Online 2004
October 24, 2004
Opinion: George Bush has not made me feel he deserves another term as president.
At no other point and time in the 10 years I have been legally able to vote have I ever seen anything like the leadup to this years elections. The campaings of Bush vs. Kerry and vice versa have been overpowering in the days leading up to the election is about one week. I have taken a lot of time to listen to both sides of the arguement and I have taken the time to listen to and read through the four debates between our presidential and vice presidential nominees, and I have made a decision on this.
While I do see where John Kerry may be liberal and may have changed his opinions over time on certain issues, I can not see how George Bush has earned a chance to be commander-in-chief once again. Simply put, based on my beliefs and how I think, I just can not cast my vote for him.
George Bush is the pilot of a war in Iraq that he justified for certain reasons to the people of America. These reasons are slowly turning out to be distorted, fabricated, and sometimes downright false. While I think there are many other reasons we could've gone to war in Iraq and while I do agree that the world is safer without Saddam around, I can not support or trust a president who misleads his country. Basically, the result I can agree with, but the justifications I can not.
I can not support a president who used religion to justify many of his stances, laws, and proposals. While I maintain that there is nothing wrong with any citizen of America holding a belief in any God or religion (after all, it is guaranteed in the Constitution), our law was not set up with the intent of allowing religious belief to decide what is on the lawbooks. The arguement has gone forward that strong Christian beliefs are what the country was founded on, and I don't disagree with that. However, with our sets of freedoms, we should not have to obey a law that has been determined by one religion, as it may violate the beliefs of someone who doesn't practice it- in this case, Christianity. The Gay Marriage proposals all over the nation are fueled heavily by Christians, conservatives, and those who do not accept homosexuality, and want to shun them from society. While I am not gay nor do I share their preferences, they are still human beings that should not be punished for their private lives. Though supporters of this ban keep telling us they are not about restricting cival rights, that's exactly what they're doing, and they're doing it in the name of their religous views and beliefs which define to them what 'marriage' is. Guess what- the bible isn't everyone's "good book", and by way of the constitution, it doesn't have to be.
George Bush will not accept responsibility for the many failures in Iraq. Over a thousand soldiers, Marines, airmen, and sailors are dead. A simple apology on TV will not justify their deaths to me, many of the American people, and most certainly their families. I support our troops, for I was one of them for some time. They go forth and serve as their country asks them to do. When I see the violence growing worse overseas while seeing no steps in a peaceful direction, I wonder why the president simply says they will continue business as usual, and not somehow take action or at least accept that he has failed at certain points in this war. Does you want reasons why I feel that way? I'll give you over a thousand reasons why.
I agree with some of what the Bush administration says and does sometimes, and I won't go so far as to say I oppose the entire Republican Party and what they stand for. However, the striclty conservative tone they carry has clashed with my desire for the people of America to have an open mind to all situations, and this is something most of my conservative friends do not share with me. Someone once told me they were a "clear-thinking conservative", and I sort of laughed at the time. But, then I realized they were clear-thinking in their minds in the respect that they had a set way they wanted things and were not receptive to change whatsoever, and if you weren't with them, you weren't considered sane or American. That's simply how I feel it is today. After all, what was it Mr. Bush once said...if you're not with 'us', you're the enemy? Who is 'us' and am I the enemy? I respect my conservative friends and their opinions and choices and agree that we all have the right to believe and interpret anything, but if this is what you call 'bringing the American people together', I'll take my chances with a new president.
Which Trumps Which- Religion or Law?
Christopher Hanson, Webmaster, Christopher Hanson Online 2004
August 31, 2004
Opinion: Once again, when did religious beliefs begin to dictate the law of the land?
With the presidential race heating up after the DNC last month and the RNC going on in New York as I write this, I think I've made it pretty clear which way I plan on voting. It's going to be a tight race for both cantidates, and I would easily tell you that it's really just too close to call at this moment. Each cantidate is coming out with their stances on all of the key issues for the election, mainly the war on terror and the econony and such.
But, it's not so much those issues that seem to bother me so much as the issue on how marriage should be defined. I'm still pretty shocked that anyone would want to make a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages, and I fear that if this is passed, the government will have crossed the lines into personal lives and choices, restricting rights for certain people who don't fit the traditional mold. It's something that really does scare me, the potential for government and law to be influenced by that which it truly has no right to be influenced by.
I question not the validity of religious beliefs. We all have the right to believe what we want in the issue of gay marriage whether it's based on a religious belief or not. But, does a majority population of Christian's have the right to decide whether gay marriage is legal or illegal? I can simply tell you that I don't believe it does. When did religion become a trump card for the laws of our land? When did the religious sect begin to dictate law? Wasn't our constitution set up to protect a choice in religious freedom and beliefs?
I was put to the test at the church in which I perform at each Sunday. At this particular Sunday gathering spot, members of the congregation were seeking signatures for a petition to put the gay marriage issue to the ballots. Many of the members of the church, whom I have no quarrels with at all, were encouraging everyone else to sign this petition. I was asked to sign it and declined. I was met with some dirty looks and comments.
I was asked by one person, "You do understand that our Lord has deemed it immoral to homosexual, don't you?" My reply to that was that though perhaps the bible may say such a thing, the issue of gay marriage should not be banned based on religious scripture. I was the subject of many scowls and apparent discontent people as I declined to sign three petitions presented before me.
The constitution provides protection for all to be able to practice their own religion, whatever it may be. It protects those who do not practice religion, as well. Why would be prepare a law that is based on religious belief when not everyone in America may believe in the very book these people are using to justify their decision? How can we establish a law indirectly based on a religious view when it may discriminate against others who don't share the same stance on the issue or who may not believe in the same subject matter in their own choice of religion? How fair is this really?
I'm not gay nor do I plan on being gay anytime in the future. I do practice the Christian faith. I have no quams with our homosexual community, and I regard them as human beings just as I do all heterosexuals. I don't treat anyone different based on their sexual preferance. To watch these strong conservative Christians say what they say and do what they do saddens me, and it makes me wonder how they can truly believe that Jesus loved everyone no matter what their sins are or were. To watch people pass such judgement on a group of people makes me wonder if the Lord is looking down on us right now shaking his head in disbelief. The people who push for this sort of goofy "reform" based on the bible are truly, as our president keeps saying, "turning the corner and not going back".
Political Views- Mine and Yours...
Christopher Hanson, Webmaster, Christopher Hanson Online 2004
April 7, 2004
Opinion: No one really has the right to tell the other that their views are wrong.
As it is an election year and all, I've found that political interests are peaking in America right now. Myself, I am no different, although I do pay close attention to the politics of America on a regular basis. But, the big thing that I've noticed from myself all the way up the ranks to our potential presidential nominees is that everyone is telling everyone else that they're wrong.
Now, the way I've always viewed things is that one's political view may be different from my own, but I've never labeled anyone as being wrong. You will seldom hear me tell a conservative that he or she is wrong. The only way I'll do so is if they state something that is truly wrong in the eyes of current law or policy.
As a moderate, which I consider myself generally, I've been told that upon hearing my opinion on things, I'm apparently wrong for doing so. I ask the question- when did it become wrong to have a view and an opinion? That last time I checked, these things could not be considered wrong or right. They're just preferences. Don't we all have the freedom to speak of what we think? When did our opinions become right or wrong? I don't believe they've ever been either or.
This seems to be one of those things that gets heavilly applied to social issues in which sides are very passionate about. We hear liberals telling people that guns in the hands of citizens is wrong. We hear right to life activists telling us that abortion is wrong. We hear people on the left telling us that the death penalty is wrong. We hear conservative types tell us that taxes are wrong.
But, what is the barometer that determines whether these things are "right or wrong" in the first place? Do we not have a law of the land for all of these issues? What happened to the political process in which states that these issues should be lobbied upon based on facts and opinions? Who is really wrong or right in these situations?
I hear it everyday coming from both sides of politics. I hear it coming from the middle folks, as well. I find it repulsive when one in power uses his or her personal opinions as the sole basis for determining law and policy, not truly looking at everything the American people feel. When a person like this determines and even says that those disagreeing are wrong, I feel as though a certain amount of the American people have been cheated out of their right to choose, and I find it disrespectful to America and the rights and laws that we built this country upon.
It's not just those high ranking politicians, though, it's the common folk, and I'm tired of hearing that I'm wrong. We have a right to feel however we want, and we have the right to speak about it if we so choose. But, respect opinions for what they are. You don't have to agree, and you can even present your own opinion to the other. But, don't be angered and proclaim your opinion king and supreme. Many things have changed in the hundreds of years since we penned our Bill of Rights and Constitution, but the principle of choice and the freedom to choose has not. Don't disrespect anyone by telling them that their opinion is so very wrong.
Vocalists vs. Instrumentalists
Christopher Hanson, Webmaster, Christopher Hanson Online 2004
January 27, 2004
Opinion: Why is this some sort of a war?
There’s something that I’ve noticed over the years during my time here at NDSU in the music department what has steadily gotten worse and worse as time has gone by. I’m talking about this odd war between our instrumentalists and our vocalists. The leaders of that war, particularly in the instrumental camp, have verbally voiced their discontent for the vocalists more and more this past year. I don’t really know what the vocalists have to say about us, although I have caught a few thoughts here and there of what they think of our partying habits.
I guess as an instrumentalist, I understand a lot of the gripes that the instrumentalists have. I get annoyed sometimes when vocal majors sit in the lounge and sing. How would they like it if I went in there with a tuba and started practicing a couple of odd lines from a song? It’s all of the little things that they’re getting irritated with, and yes, I don’t always care for those thing, either, but in the long run, these are small things. Of course, I also know that choir people probably have the same sorts of gripes about us horn players, as well. I don’t get mad over it, and I don’t complain a whole lot about it. To me, these things are all small stuff, and they’re not going to bother me to the point where I won’t sleep at night.
But, I guess the event that has really upset me the most is the new scheduling of the SAI Formal Dance. I don’t know the president of the organization real well, but what I do know is that they’re not an organization officially recognized by the NDSU campus, and I don’t think they have an official advisor, or if there is one, it’s the director of choral studies. It turns out that the choral sorority, whom has in the past co-sponsored a very enjoyable formal dance with our instrumental sorority, TBS (for which I have performed and had a blast), decided to part ways with their sister organization and run their own dance. That was no big deal to me, overall, although I never heard exactly what it was that caused the breaking of ties. Anyhow, the sorority planned their dance for a Saturday evening- February 7, to be exact, at 8:00.
It turns out that this particular night is the same night as the NDSU Jazz Festival, which is a very big event for the NDSU instrumental department and by the far the most important night for the NDSU Jazz Ensemble. Our festival to the jazz band is of the same magnitude as Madrigal dinners are for the Madrigals, or what the concert choir festival or Baroque Festival is to the concert choir. A simple look at the music department calendar would have shown SAI that this jazz festival was that same evening.
What this turned out to be to us instrumentalists was a slap in the face of sorts. It was not in the sense that we weren’t going to be able to attend, after all, only the choir really received an invitation to be at the SAI Formal, but it was an insult in the fact that this basically was saying that choir members should not support their brother and sister musicians in one of our biggest events of the year. Many of us have attend the concert choir’s performances on a regular basis. I attend not solely based on the requirement to have a certain amount of performance attendances, but rather on the fact that I truly enjoy the choir’s sound, skill, and selections. I understand that in my instrumental background of education, it is good to hear and listen to choral music, as it will help me with my own understanding of the many styles of music.
I feel that there is no way that the officers of SAI could’ve not known the NDSU Jazz Festival was going on at the same time as their planned formal. Traditionally, the formal had been held in the courtyard of Festival Concert Hall, and of course, that wasn’t an option for February 7, as Jazz Festival was taking place in the hall. Was the choice of date based on the idea that the jazz festival didn’t mean anything? This is certainly how it looks. What kind of message did the scheduling send out to other musicians? I feel there is an unwritten disrespect in the planning of the event.
I don’t want there to be this strange unacknowledged war between the two separate performance and education groups, but this really was a punch in the stomach as far as the jazz ensemble is concerned. What does this say about your respect toward our group? It just seems odd that their advisor (if they have an advisor, I’m not completely sure that they do) or president didn’t see the conflict, and it seems to me that if the officers did indeed notice the conflict, but didn’t care, there is an enormous amount of disrespect. What does this do? I hope it doesn’t widen the gaps between fellow student performers, but if it does, I guess I wouldn’t be surprised.
The Democratic Race...
Christopher Hanson, Webmaster, Christopher Hanson Online 2004
December 31, 2003
Opinion: Democrats are hurting their chances at winning an election.
As the year is closing out, we continue to watch in the media the mad race for the nomination by the Democratic party. I have watched the mad rush for the last few weeks, and my hopes of seeing a president I don't support strongly being beaten by the Democrats is souring as each passing hour goes by.
I really have no idea honestly who I favor out of the bunch. I have a strong inclination to endorse Wesley Clark, as he is a decorated soldier who has shown dedication to his country by serving in high command posts in the US Army. His views on supporting our military service members, our veterans, and our country win me over in a heartbeat. He seems to be a man of moral character who does indeed care about the country and the people who cherish their rights and freedoms.
I have no doubts that General Clark would be a fine leader and listen to Americans if elected to the Oval Office. But, does his inexperiance in the true political realm harm him? Will common Americans feel that he is qualified to be the leader of our political headquarters? If you make it to the rank of General in the military service, you probably know a thing or two about politics and such, but how will Clark look into our budget? How about the serious issues that are hampering our Senate and Congress? Will Clark be the man to bring Democrats and Republicans together to listen to each other instead of slinging massive quantities of angry mud at each other?
It seems to me that Howard Dean would have the political know-how to become a somewhat descent president. But, the last few weeks have weakened his hard-line opinions on issues that the president must face right away. Dean will immediately point out his disdain for Clark and his lack of experiance. Everyone is chipping away at everyone.
To tell you the truth, the only Democratic cantidate that has actually tried to stop a lot of the bickering between all cantidates is the Rev. Al Sharpton. He actually asked the other Democratic boys to stop their bickering and work together to reach a common goal- defeat George Bush. Of course, though, the idea of getting along would get in the way of their huge egos. It almost seems more like these guys are fighting to be president and have a title, not change the way things are in this country. In this way, I can only feel hopeless that they are all hurting each other with their fighting.
Of the nine or ten guys and gals running, I have no idea who to support. There are so many of them, I can't even keep track of who supports what, who's goals are which, and why they're even running in the first place. I think it's a mistake to see this many people running for the Democratic nomination, and in the end, it's going to hurt the entire party.
The Turf
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
September 22, 2003
Opinion: The Liquor Commission’s decision is crazy.
I was bothered to read the headlines in the Fargo Forum last week talking of the Fargo Liquor Commission’s new decision to revoke the liquor license from The Bison Turf, one the most popular bars and restaurants in Fargo. After being cleared of criminal charges, Chris Sabo, the owner of The Turf, has been told that his liquor license will be revoked on October 31, 2003. The Liquor Commission voted last week to overturn it’s prior recommendation of probation after receiving new evidence from the Fargo Police Department, which had been conducting an investigation into why a new 21-year old almost died from consumption at The Turf earlier in the spring of 2003.
It turns out that there was a video shot of the ill-fated 21-year old trying to drink 21 shots of liquor that evening. It was his “power hour”, and he was trying to consume all of those shots in one hour. The video shows him at The Turf drinking. Keep in mind that this young man was legal at the time.
Let’s take a closer look at some of the members of the Fargo Liquor Commission, the body who has the power to issue and revoke liquor licenses in Fargo. First of all, every kid’s favorite police officer, Chief of Police, Officer Chris Magnus, is on the commission. Also on the commission is a man who owns a large share of bars and liquor stores in the Fargo area (mainly The Empire, Woody’s, and Empire and Royal Liquor Stores). We should take a closer look at this. First of all, Chris Magnus has been hardcore against liquor licenses in the Fargo area, and has been working hard to make “Fargo safer”. His “Party Patrol” was found to be unconstitutional, and received criticism from many young adults and older adults alike. The second person mentioned has a lot to gain from The Turf losing it’s license- like more business for his own bars.
The commission watched the video in a meeting, and immediately, they voted to revoke the license from Sabo, citing that no bar should be allowed to have power hours and the such happening. The commission members acted as if they had never seen this sort of thing happen before. The concept of a power hour was unheard of in that meeting.
First of all, Magnus is a lame duck if he’s saying that he had no idea these things were happening at bars in Fargo. For crying out loud, he’s been an officer in Fargo for some years. Certainly, he’s heard of the concept in a community that has three large college campuses. Magnus knows that this sort of thing happens at most bars in town. Most college students turn twenty-one during their junior years of college. How could he not know these things were happening in town, after all, his Party Patrol idea was aimed at targeting young people who drank. Must have missed the memo on power hours.
The gentleman who owns several bars knows what’s happening in his bars. I can tell you right now that The Empire is a place where people go to get drunk, and I’m not talking just a little drunk- I mean they go there to get tanked on a regular basis. Don’t even begin to tell me that this videotape in questions was a surprise to him.
I realize that bars have the right to refuse service to people that they believe are too drunk or unable to control themselves. Bartenders and cocktailers are required to attend classes put on by Cass County. It is true that the servers at The Turf perhaps could’ve used better judgement in serving the young man who almost died from alcohol poisoning. Every bar needs to be watching out for that sort of thing. However, did anyone ever consider how irresponsible that young man was in wanting to drink that much in one night? Do we ever consider how irresponsible many college students are when drinking in the bars? It seems that the commission wants The Turf to take the brunt of the responsibility for how this event turned out.
If the commission is punishing The Turf for having people who drink too much, (after all, they can’t blame it on criminal charges, Sabo was found not guilty in that case), then we mind as well shut down all of the bars in town. Take down The Old Broadway, Rooters, Sports Bar, Lauerman’s…you name it, we better shut them down. No double standards, right?
The decision of the Fargo Liquor Commission seems biased and tainted in my opinion, and I feel that this fine establishment is being held to some sort of a higher standard than anyone else. This just seems to me that it’s just another big chance for Chris Magnus to “make an example” out of somebody. I think it’s a shame. For these reasons, we may lose the very enjoyable privilege of going to a long-standing place of business that has been a place of memories for many NDSU students, friends, and alumni. All of this so a greedy bar owner can make more money and so that a lame police chief can prove another point.
The War is Over?
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
August 11, 2003
Opinion: It has been months since the "combat" phase ended in Iraq, why are our servicemen still dying if the war is "over"?
Does it not bother you that every time we turn on the evening news, we have to hear about another soldier being killed in Iraq? Does it not bother you that we're supposibly through the war phase in Iraq and that we're supposed to be working with the Iraqi people to build a great free country, but it is those people whom are causing uproars all over Iraq, rebelling against our forces and killing our American servicemen? Doesn't it bother you that we still haven't managed to fine WMD's in Iraq? Does it not bother you that our government has admitted that their information about uranium being sold to the Iraqi's was a guess? Does it not bother you that the war was sold on these "allegations", which were presented to us as stone-cold evidence of reasons to go to war?
There are a lot of questions that I seem to be asking these days based on the war in Iraq. Much of what we hear, I do understand, and some of the reasons we went to war I can agree with. Saddam Hussein is not a nice guy. He treated his people like dirt. He was a dangerous man, and with him not ruling the country, I can live with. But, it's the principle of honesty that we're looking at here. Everything is based on the "facts" that our own President used to justify war. His poplularity rose because we as a country believed in what he was saying. We supported a war that was based on his words, backed by security and intellegance officials, backed by the CIA. We were told that WMD's would be found. We were told that there would be proof.
So, where's the proof? And, what's up with the sudden shyness from the CIA? Why is everyone in the White House simply not answering any questions anymore? The American people have a right to know what the hell is going on. We have a right to know why our soldiers are in such grave danger in Iraq. Our own state has lost two soldiers. One life is too many, but 57 since May 1st?
I continue to support our military. I continue to support our cause and their mission, as I know that they have orders to obey and a mission to carry out, not matter what their beliefs, and they carry out that mission diligantly with the pride only an American can hold in their hearts. But, answers need to be on the horizen. Someone must speak up in the White House and tell us the complete truth as to what is going on. If our government does not do so soon, they hold a harsh disregard for the American people, and moreso, our troops deployed in Iraq.
The Supreme Court Speaks...
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
July 1, 2003
Opinion: How ridiculous will the right get with this?
I was alarmed to see in my e-mail in-box today a note with the subject title "URGENT: High Court Kills Marriage". I knew right away what this was about. I wasn't surprised to see a note like that, but I was surprised to see just how fast everyone is jumping all over this landmark decision.
The following is the part that most troubled me. This is word for word from the e-mail, and also straight from http://www.grassfire.net
"With this ruling, there are no existing safeguards remaining in our
legal system to protect marriage from being overrun by the radical homosexual agenda. Now that homosexual sex has been constitutionalized in all 50 states, it’s just a matter of time before homosexual marriage is legalized in every state in the nation. The only way to stop this runaway, radical agenda and save marriage is to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as "one man and one woman."
Wait a minute, you want to talk about "radical"? How about amending the constitution for that reason? That sounds a little radical. What's outragous about this is that even if homosexual marriages are legalized, how will this pose a threat to Christian marriages? And, speaking of the whole Christian agenda, since when did we start amending the constitution based on a conservative Christian belief? What about that seperation of church and state theory? Sure, the right can disguise their agenda as protection for marriage being defined as a union of a man and a woman, but when it comes down to it, it's religious self interest, and I don't buy into religious beliefs changing a the law of the land which promises that the government won't be run in line with religion. Besides, doesn't the constitution guarantee our right to living free regardless of religious preference, or even the choice to practice religion in the first place? I'm not being ignorant- I'm just telling you how I see the constitution and how I read into it. Wouldn't an amendment charged by religious fury deprive those who don't believe in that particular religion or any religion at all or their freedom? Especially if they were homosexual, I presume. How fair is that?
The homosexual community is not going to be asking to have their hopeful marriages consecrated in a church. They just want to be able to have a legal union. It has nothing to do with religion, and as far as I can see, they're not some big conspiracy trying to destroy heterosexual and Christian marriages. I believe in God, I go to church, and I'm heterosexual. I have no interest in being homosexual, but I don't judge them for that choice. They are human beings, after all. In a Christian religion that asks for us to not judge and to accept all people even if you don't agree with them, or if even they're "in violation of God's law" (as homosexuality is defined in the bible), I find it amazing that right Christians would err in their understood and most simple principles.
This is all outragous, and I'm ashamed of some of the American population for being the way that they are. You don't have to agree with homosexuality. However, don't condemn them for their practices. Sex is a private issue, and we should let everyone do as they please, whether it's heterosexual or homosexual. This is not some sort of revolution that is going to take over the world and change everything. Basically, I guess I'm saying that we should all mind our own businesses, and allow American's to live out their lives with the freedoms that we have been guaranteed.
The Most Ridiculous Thing I've Ever Heard
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
June 25, 2003
Opinion: The defense has turned to an all-time low in defense...
If any of you have been watching the news lately or perhaps been reading a newspaper, you've probably stumbled upon the newest media craze involving a court trial. Now that CNN and FOX has managed to dry up every last possible moment on the Peterson trial in California, and now that a gag order has cut off all of the "leaks" of that trial, we've begun to see the case which is being infamously called the Windshield Murder Trial.
For those of you who are not familiar with this case, let me give you a little bit of background. Chante Mallard was driving her vehicle home when she struck a homeless man with her car. She was going fast enough where the victim flew up and crashed head first through the windshield of her car.
Mallard could have stopped the car, phoned for help, and tried to calm the man whom was bleeding to death, lodged in her windshield. Common sense would have told anyone to do so. However, Mallard chose to drive her car over a mile to her home with the man stuck in her windshield. Upon parking in her garage, she pulled him out her windshield, apologized, left him in the garage for several hours, than allegedly dumped his body in a nearby park.
Now, the defense isn't contesting anything that that that the state is presenting as far as the sequence of events. But, what the defense is attempting to do is clear Mallard of any wrongdoing, for to them, this was just an accident. They say that her judgement was impaired by the fact that Mallard had been smoking pot, doing Ecstacy, and drinking.
An accident? Sure, I guess. But, under the influence of drugs and alcohol, possibly during the time of the accident and definatley during the planning on what to do with the body? Is this really a defense? How can any court in America accept this sort of behavior? You're going to use the an illegal set of acts to void out the very crime that was committed? I was at a loss for words when I heard about this. We should forgive the fact that Mallard critically injured a man with her car, drove home with him dying, lodged in the window of the car, left him to die in her garage, and then dumped his body in a park- all because she was drunk and high?
If Mallard gets off from these charges, I will weep for the system, for apparently, it would be no joke that justice is indeed quite blind.
A Response to an Opinion
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
June 2, 2003
Opinion: If the bible teaches us to not judge people, why are some moral Christians so willing to judge?
Now, I'm certainly not here to flame the world and other people's opinions, but something sort of starting bothering me as I read over some backlogged work on the site. We, the webmasters, were presented with a questions pertaining to pre-marital sex a few months ago. I was the first to respond and give my thoughts and opinions on it. Shortly after, Dano put his thoughts on the site.
I am willing to listen and understand Dano's opinion, where he basis his thoughts and opinions on the bible and what it says, and that's fine. I agree with some points, and I don't agree with others. I'm not coming at anyone right now to "flame" them, as Dano puts it, but I have one big beef with what was written in his thoughts. Sure, I can accept his opinion, and I won't badger him for it, it's his right to have the opinion that sex should wait until marriage. However, it's the little side comment at the end that we see often from a lot of people who are quick to judge those who disagree with their religions standings.
The quote in question is this..."Others who wait on sex and aren't afraid to wait, and can keep their desire in check, are on a level of respect with me like no other. It's a curious thing, not that I don't respect someone totally based on whether or not they've slept with somebody, just that those I know who have made the choice to hold off, and a difficult one it can be from time to time, have a little bit of extra credit in my book."
The feeling and the thoughts are fine and understandable, but it's how I feel that I'm being judged by him as a "less respected person" based on my opinions. The moral right do this all the time. Take a look at the abortion debate. Look at the gay rights debate. They use the bible to dictate law in a nation that guarantees the right to freedom of religion and the seperation of church and state and government matters. This sort of rhetoric bothers me, and the fact that certain people don't look at things with a clear view of understanding regarding just exactly what an opinion is bothers me to no end.
Dano- your opinion is fine, and I'm not trying to light you on fire, as your segement was really a minor example. I'm just trying to enlighten the world to the bigger picture.
Love of the Lord or Love of the Law?
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
May 21, 2003
Opinion: How can one practice certain principles of their religion, but also respect everyone's right to freedom of religion?
Sitting at the last two weeks in a row of church, I have found myself questioning a few things that come with being a Christian. It is not a question of whether I believe in the Lord or the teachings which I go to hear and understand each week. I do believe in Jesus Christ, and I have been confirmed and am a member of the church. I attend services, and even play music for them. I read the bible at least a few times a week. But, there is one thing that had begun to bother me over the last few services.
Now, I try to not editorialize religion- it's just one really big fight waiting to happen, so I will try to make my point clear. I'm not bashing on religion or Christianity. However, I have begun to wonder about the main theme I have heard over the last few visits to church. I have been told by two seperate preachers that it is our job as Christians to go out and spread the word. That part is fine. I don't do a lot of it, but if anyone asked or wanted to know more, I would be happy to share my thoughts. However, the overriding theme as of late is that we as Christians should be out converting everyone else to our beliefs, and that if we don't do that, those people that are not like us are going to hell.
The bible tells us of this very much. Though I don't have a bible right in front of me, I'm sure you could look in there and find a passage or twenty based on that theme. Now, I find myself trying to choose between the religious beliefs of the bible and the sacred rights of our constitution- one which states that it is our freedom to choose any religion we like, or it is also our freedom to not worship at all. What right do we have as Christians to trample on the constitution? I respect the law of the land, and as a citizen of one of the greatest countries in the world, I respect that freedom.
But, in a service last week, the preacher told us that we must convert people. It is our understood duty and "commision", as he stated it. He cited examples of those who were in other religions, those whom were not "on the right path". My first instinct was to wonder what right I had as a worshiping Christian in America to force my thoughts and judge others because of their religions which did not "jive" well with my own. I found myself troubled that there was such a judgemental shadow casted over my house of worship.
So, I find it difficult to understand just what it is I should do. I am being told that if I do not carry out my commision, I am wrong and that God will not look favorably upon me and my life. I also understand that everyone in this nation has the right to worship whomever they want, or not worship at all, and their rights are protected from me badgering them into anything else. I feel that it is my duty to worship my Lord, and understand the scriptures and teachings for how it will strengthen my spirituality, and that it's my private session, and I don't need to bother others with it if they want no part in it. Allow the people to choose what they can do, for it is a guaranteed right. If they want to know about Christianity, tell them. If they don't ask, let them decide for themselves.
Bring Our Troops Home Soon
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
May 1, 2003
Opinion: Now that the combat phase is over, bring our soldiers home.
Tonight, President Bush will go on national television to announce from the USS Abraham Lincoln that the combat phase is over in our operations in Iraq, and that though he has not ended the war officially, we will move into a new phase of rebuilding a democracy in Saddam's old land. This is fine, and I am happy to hear of this news. We went in there and accomplished most of the mission, most importantly to rid Iraq of it's leadership under Saddam, and now it's time to do what is right- get our troops back home to their husbands, wives, and children.
It's not just the mission that makes me feel that the troops need to come home, but it's because of the attitudes that still linger over our good-will mission overseas. Iraqi's are glad for what we have done for them, which is much more than I ever expected out of them, but they want to run their own country, and I think we should let them. Should the US and the UN help out and get things rolling? Absolutely. But, should we have a huge pressence of military forces hanging around? This, I believe, we should not. We promised that we wouldn't go in there and make Iraq some sort of an American-run country, and we know no one in the Middle East wants that. We need to get the soldiers home and begin to deal with the issues in our country, which I feel we have ignored much too long as war time mounted and was executed.
It's time to deal with our own issues. We need to deal with a new budget now that the war has cost us so much money. We need to deal with education. We need to deal with the new nominations for our highest courts. We need to deal with all of the domestic issues that have taken a backseat to hunting down the regime in Iraq.
Bring our brave men and women home, and do it quickly. We remember those who have lost their lives for doing their duty, and we'll sleep just a little bit easier knowing that our soldiers are coming home to the safe arms of support and love from their own people.
Am I a Bad American?
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
February 13, 2003
Opinion: Just because someone doesn't agree with President Bush does not make them bad people.
I read this week yet another opinion piece in the Fargo Forum about how so many Americans are “Bad Americans” for not supporting President Bush’s strong urge to wage a war on Iraq. All of the letters scold certain Americans for not following in the footsteps of our President, stating loudly and proudly that only bad Americans could have anti-war sentiments or have doubts about why we may be going to war in the Middle East. Even Dan makes these claims loud and clear in one of his opinion pieces on this very same web page. Well, I’m tired of hearing about it, and I’m going to go ahead and say a few things that liberals and conservatives alike actually agree on, but seem to be quite “selective” to apply our constitutional rights to.
Has anyone read about our first amendment rights lately? I think it’s something called the freedom of speech. It says that you can have your own opinions about anything. It’s the same amendment that allows bigots to rally against any and all minorities, all of which they truly hate and want everyone to know. It’s the same amendment that allows people to burn flags as a “form of expression”. It’s the amendment that allows anti-abortionists a chance to stand outside schools when they dismiss for the day, and hold jars with embryos in them to promote their cause.
Though I don’t agree or like these methods of demonstration, the fact of it is that it’s their freedom of expression, and they’re allowed to express these thoughts, which are protected by our constitution. You don’t have to agree with them, but based on the principles of our law of the land, we must allow these people to express their views. That’s why I find it amusing that all of these other war backers and constitutional law supporters are being “selective” in how they feel some Americans are so wrong about their thoughts about not following our president to the brink of war.
The fact of the matter is that we have the right to not want war without being labeled such bad people. I see nothing wrong with a nation, who somehow managed to elect a president who lost by over 100,000 votes to his opponent, to voice a disagreeing opinion of what that very guy is thinking of doing. I support our troops and our military in whatever they may doing wherever they are, as they are the guardians of freedom, serving unselfishly for a country that they love. I love my country and I have served my country, and I will never give up hope in our nation. If war comes, I will continue to support the service men and women overseas. It’s true that I would like to avoid war, as I would have to see a single life lost on fighting. However, I am an American, and I support America. I am not a bad American for not wanting war, and I find it completely insane that anyone would call me a bad person for thinking such a thing.
The first amendment is one of the strongest points our country was founded upon, and the freedom of expression is one of the most precious things we have. Do not infringe on any American’s right to think for themselves. It is our right to do so, and it does not make us “bad Americans”.
Take This Into Account
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
January 23, 2003
Opinion: Think about your people before you go all the way...
Some people think I'm unpatriotic. They think that just because I'm not completely sold on a war in Iraq and that I don't agree with our president, that makes me less of an American. Well, I certainly won't back off of my stand point that I'm wary of war, but I will admit that as the process goes on, I am more sure that we will indeed go to war. The reasons are mounting, and I do think that it's only a matter of time before Saddam does something to harm our people, and war will be unavoidable.
So, I caution our president to at least make every effort to avoid war if possible. A peaceful resolution is supported heavily by many countries in NATO, and I think we need to be respectful toward their thoughts and opinions. We can go at this alone, without any friends or support. Sure, we have Britain, but that's about it. All the other Middle Eastern countries are pretty much against war. Germany and France want us to wait it out for a while.
But, my main concern are the troops at this time. We're gone into a mass-deployment of soldiers, Marines, sailors, and air men, and I'm nervous about it. We're building a mass military group in the desert, and they're ready to strike or defend at a moments notice. They're the best trained in the world, and they're ready to give their lives. But, if we can avoid having any of our brave citizens killed in action, this is something that I wish for. Think about the families of these people. I have active duty friends acvtivated, and many ready to go at a moments notice. I have National Guard friends that are leaving after two days of notice to deploy. I don't want these people to die, even though I know they're willing to do so, and I would, too, if called to do my duty.
So many Americans are saying, "Yeah, but it's war, and people die, and that's how it works." Well, that's easy for you to say- you're watching the war and the casualties on CNN and FOX News. You're not there. You've never served with the worlds best. So, at this point when war seems to close, and with a president who can't go three minutes without threating to attack Iraq, I ask him and the rest of America to think about those service men overseas, and pray for peace. Mr. President- please do everything you can to make sure we don't lose any of our brave Americans. Haven't we lost too many already?
War in Iraq...
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
January 3, 2003
Opinion: Show Us Some Proof
Alright, let us get a few things straight right away. Some Americans, Dan Johnson, and President Bush want to go into Iraq and blow some stuff up. They want to be rid of Saddam. They say he's a bad man. They say he doesn't like America. They say we went into Iraq in 1991 to take care of the business, and we did, except for that little part about getting rid of the man in charge. You know what? Most of America, including myself, agree with those statements. We know Saddam is bad. We know he hates us, after all, we did go in and destroy his country, which was perfectly justified. We know the world might be just a little bit better if he was somewhere else- prefably in a pile of rubble.
However, it seems to me that George Bush, other Americans, and Dan Johnson don't seem to care if the country knows what we're going in there for, specifically. If we use the same manner of thought that these people do, I guess we mind as well go in and kill a few other million people, too. There are a lot of people in the world who hate America and what we stand for. The big problem here is that we're not sure if there's a reason to go in there at this moment. We have assumptions as to why we would like to send people in there, but we don't know for sure. You know why we don't know? The Bush administration isn't telling us anything. The UN people are out there doing their jobs, and the Bush camp isn't letting them get to the bottom of the pile. They just keep saying things on public record that contain phrases such as "nuclear and biological weapons" and "terrorism". They tell us that they are 99% sure he has the stuff. Well, guess what? We agreed to let the UN inspectors go in there and do their work and let us know what they find, and Bush isn't really letting them finish it up. It's like Bush thinks he already knows and is vocal about that. But, has he been there himself? Has he seen the proof? Has he seen the weapons? No, and he's not going to go there, because it's not practical. Can we not trust the UN inspectors? That's what I think Bush is saying by his actions. No wonder the world thinks we're a bunch of brutes, that's how our government is portraying us.
Show me proof that we should go in there for our (and our allies) personal welfare. "Thoughts" and "possiblities" don't cut it. A ten-minute speech just before we go in there doesn't really cut it, either. Tell us now what you know and can prove, and I, as well as much of America, will support the country. Call me unpatriotic, go ahead. Try me. I served in the active duty military for four honorable years. Did George Bush? Did he have any battle buddies? No, and for me to picture some of my best friends who are serving right now go fight in a war that we have no reason to be fighting, and fighting alone because other countries didn't back us because they didn't feel it was the right time to attack, I don't want to think about. Do I think this could be another Vietnam? Yes, if we go in there without knowing why we're really there. I am offended that I am being told that if I don't agree with our President, I am trusting in a brutal leader in Iraq. Do not question my patriotism EVER. You serve, and then maybe, just maybe you can tell me that I'm not patriotic.
Bottom line is this- we need proof- not a huge amount of it, just physical proof from the UN inspectors or refusal by Iraq to comply with UN orders. If America and the Bush administration go to war with any less than that, our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and air men will shed their blood and their lives, and I will shed tears for not understanding why personnal interest by an administration killed it's own brothers.
War in Iraq...
Dan Johnson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
January 2, 2003
Opinion: The American people show more confidence in Radical foreign leaders than their own president. What are we coming too?
Lately, there has been much talk in the US about war. To start with, it was war with Iraq. We'll also start there.
Some people are angry with George Bush for considering a new war with Iraq. Why does G.W. Want to go in there? Simple. Saddam Hussein is a radical anti-US leader who is developing biological and chemical weapons and also weapons of Mass Destruction (nukes) To possibly use against the US or it's friends nearer to Iraq. Where I get fuzzy, is WHY do people seem to think this isn't a valid threat against homeland security? WHY is this not a valid front on the war against Terrorism? Our direct threats are from whacko leaders such as Hussien that have ties to terrorists and could very easily in a short amount of time raise major hell in the United States. Beleive it people. Ok, so we let the UN sent their "weapons inspectors" into Iraq. Why do people beleive Saddam when he says "oh, you can look here, but not here" It's obvious that he's just moving around whatever the heck he's hiding so the inspectors can't find it. Oh, sure.. they come up with odds and ends here and there, but not the real dough. Why? CAUSE HE'S SMART!! And the American people believe him when he says that Iraq isn't doing that stuff, and then when our own Commander in Chief says "look, they have this and this and this, we need to carry this out" People doubt him. Come on folks, do you trust a whacko or our own president? This is a time for people to put there petty picking on war and just support the country. This will be another Vietnam (as far as events in this country are concerned) if people don't get their heads out of their butts and start looking to their own leader instead of some whacko in Iraq. Who are you supposed to beleive, your best friend or a stranger who has a history of being "naughty"? Common sense folks.
Sure, war sucks, I don't think it's always a solution, and I also don't like to see my friends and fellow countrymen sent off to die, but it thats the solution, thats the solution. NO, I have never served, but if I were called, I would do my duty. The citizens of this country should do theres and unite behind our leaders.
New Republican Control, What's Next?
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
November 14, 2002
Opinion: I guess we give them a chance to change things...for the better?
The elections on November 5th seemed to go pretty smoothly, this time without any real huge voting errors that we know of. Issues were put to the vote, and representatives were elected to various offices, just as they have been for hundreds of years in our nation. As far as that all went, I was happy to see democracy working.
But, to say that I was happy about the overall outcome of the election, that I was not. The conservative Republican stronghold is back, with them holding power over both the house and the senate, and to be perfectly honest, that scares me just a little bit. I have always claimed myself a very moderate Republican in that I'm pretty liberal overall, but share some Republican social opinions on core issues such as abortion, welfare, the death penalty, "gun control", powers of the state, and big government. My moderate views include the environment, taxation, and the economy. My downright liberal views go toward social security issues, big business, personal intrest in the government, equal rights for all genders and backgrounds, rights for all regardless of sexual preference, diplomatic solutions, war, and the seperation of church and state and religions who discriminate against those who do not agree with them. I try to look to the past and the constitution to help me make my decisions, although into todays day and age, it's getting harder to use it as a reference.
I don't have a problem with a lot of what the Republicans stand for. The Republican oath, which I have read a number of times, has some good ideas in it, really. However, as time has gone by over the last three years as the conservatives have taken over the show in DC, I've began to question some of the oath. You can go to GOP.com to read the whole oath.
There is only one line that I wonder about in the oath, to be honest, but it's the one that really is most important to me. It reads,"I believe we must retain those principles worth retaining, yet always be receptive to new ideas with an outlook broad enough to accommodate thoughtful change and varying points of view." Now, I don't know about you, but I see conservatives as very closed minded and not open to change at all. Hell, look in the dictionary, it'll tell you that. Most conservatives will even tell you that they have an opinion and they believe in it, and there's nothing that will change their minds. Listen to the "debate" in the house and the senate when conservatives support a bill. Is there really debate? More like some people trying to point out things they don't agree with, then the conservative author brushing them aside because they aren't going to change anything. Even take a look at the agreement between Iraq and the UN yesterday. I saw this is a landmark moment for the world, as it showed that Iraq was willing to give a little and in turn, we didn't send our brothers and sisters to war. So, as the UN rejoiced at the agreement and the world sighed a sigh of relief, what did George W. Bush have to say through Ari Fleischer about the landmark moment? "The President is unimpressed with the resolution". What? Does Goerge W. want peace? Sure doesn't look like it to me. I really do feel like he just wants to go blow up a nation. Why is war so important to him? I hope he realizes that war is not what everyone in this country wants.
Well, enough of that, I'm willing to give the new senate a chance. If things get messed up, then I can rant and rave at the Republicans and put blame where it should be, and maybe be believed by my Republican friends. Well, probably not, they'll still blame it on me and my liberal counterparts, but that's politics, right?
Limit the Powers of Our Attorney General...Please!
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
October 2, 2002
Opinion: Is John Ashcroft overstepping his power and side-stepping the Republicans opinion that states should have the right to govern themselves and make their own decisions?
So, here we go again. John Ashcroft is out there running around sticking his big fat conservative nose in everyone's business- this time, in the process which allows states to govern themselves to an extent. First, we had his threat to uphold the state's decision to allow assisted suicide in Oregon. Now, he's hitting a little closer to home- he wants to be able to allow punishment by death, or capital punishment, even in states where capital punishment isn't in effect. Ashcroft is taking a look at some state cases and hinting that he'd like to step in allow death as a penalty if he so feels it's deserved, even in spite of what states have chosen to do- not punish by death.
This whole scenerio isn't anything new to me. When Ashcroft voiced his intention to get involved in the Oregon decision, I found myself agreeing this Ashcroft's intentions and opinions, but not agreeing with his desired plan- to uphold a law that the state's citizens voted on. Republicans believe in smaller government and allowing states to do their own thing and make their own decisions, and here we have the most Republican of Republicans making his own decision in spite of the "standard" he has risen in the cabinet to hold true. Why is his arrogance and personal adgenda playing such a role in his decisions, when he should be making decisions in the best intrests of America and it's citizens. The US is not your own little fantasy video game, Mr. Ashcroft. You don't make the decisions of the people based completly on your own opinions, sir.
So, here's the capital punishment deal coming into play. I agree with capital punishment, but I respect the state's decision to not have it. That's fine. If the people don't want it, so be it. But, Mr. Ashcroft wants to but in there and decide when it's ok and where it's ok. Stop taking the rights away from the states and it's citizens, and work on upholding current law and standards. Your job is not to change everything for the "better" of your desire, but to uphold justice, peace, and law in our country as a whole.
Be ashamed, Mr. Attorney General, take care of your own job and issues, not the states. Stand by the standards you claim to abide by.
Another Smoking Ban? Why?
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
August 16, 2002
Opinion: Again, I ask, when did it become a crime to smoke in America?
I look in the newspaper and turn on FOX News to see yet another annoying headline- Mayor Bloomberg to ban smoking in restaurants and (of all places) bars and pubs. No more non-smoking or smoking sections, just all non-smoking. Great, here we go again.
I know I've said this before, but when did it become illegal to smoke? Was it not tobacco that became a great industry in America some years ago? Is it now a crime to be a smoker? Do all smokers now have to light up under a blanket in the a dark corner of their basement with the smoke detector ripped out of the ceiling in order to not be scrutinized? Give me a break, folks, this is (again) going too far.
Year back, we let you have the airplanes smoke free. Fine. Then we let you have your own closed off section for non-smokers and smokers. A little annoying, but fine. Smoking was banned from certain distances from differant locations. Fine. But, now you want smoking out of the bar? And, why, because it's bad for you? What about that Martini in your hand? That's not really good for you. Maybe that Philly Cheese Steak you're eating along with that Coors Light? Healthy? Not really? I'm looking for some consistancy here. You're going to tell smokers they can no longer smoke in the bar, but you can drink seven Morgan Cokes and then drive home? How safe are you being? Let's be sane here, folks. Let's be consistent. Let's not be stupid.
On a Hymnsong of Chris Magnus...
Jason Siebels, Guest Editorial
June 12, 2002
Opinion: Chris Magnus- Still a Moron...
I was reading your backlogs of opinions, and came across
the Liquor Control Committee editorial rant. In there you sited a Magnus
quote that I wasn't aware of...that an example was made of the Tropics night
club owner, and the fact that he burned down his club as a reason to be
fairly hesitent about dishing out liquer licenses. I find it interesting(especialy not that this issue is dead and gone
in most circles) that the chief is either extremly forgetfull, or just
plain ignorant of past arson infractions. The first example that comes to
mind was the Kabo House arson that came through five or six years ago. (Namely,
an owner of a resturant decided to torch their place, and then blamed
it on "white supremists" who tied her up, and set the place on fire.) Less
then a week later it was discovered that the owner torched the place in
order to collect insurance on the place.
More importantly, I believe that there are somewhere between 20-30
cases of arson in the FM area every year. And if I remember correctly, close
to 80 percent of those cases involve some sort of "inside operation", usually an owner or employee who decide to torch a place.
Now what amazes me isn't the fact that people like this are appointed
to these positions...heck, take one look at the Fargo board of
commisioners and you'll see how that happens. Rather, it's that the people in this town sit by with that glassed over look upon their face and keep letting
morons like this stay there. Granted we can't give him the boot
ourselves...but if you were to say...form a political group, and put some heat on the commision (and I do mean serious heat) you'd be amazed what the fear
of THEM being kicked out of office will lead to.
Just a breaze of anarchy for you guys...It's good for the college
mided focks to consider.
Jason is the director of the Nightfire Drumline, and is director of marching percussion at North Dakota State University.
Who Killed Chandra?
Christopher A. Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
May 30, 2002
Opinion: To the Media- Shut Up!
I'm so tired of hearing about Chandra Levy at this point. Am I sad that she tragically died? Of course, I'm sad to hear whenever anyone dies. The world should grieve for her and her family. That's just the humane thing to go.
Is it wrong for CNN to report on this? I suppose not, I mean, it is news, and it was a high profile case, yes. But, is it ok for the media to speculate what happened? Is it their job to guess that there was foul play and run polls to see who America thinks killed her? Absolutely not.
I want to put the media in the Levy's shoes for just a minute. How do you think they feel when they turn on FOX and Friends in the morning, and across the screen are big letters that say, "WHO KILLED CHANDRA?" How do you think they feel when they see that viewers can call in and guess who did it, and then vote in a poll to see who the most popular guess was? I think it's ludicrous, and even though FOX News is my station of choice, I can not believe the media is doing this!
It's about sensativity, folks, and the media has none of it, and that bothers me to the point of paranoia. I want to walk over to my local FOX affiliate and give the news room manager a piece of my mind. Let the police take care of the Chandra Levy matter, and don't report of every possible way it could go based on your "experts" thoughts. You know what they're saying to me? All suspects are guilty until proven innocent. Look at Gary Condit. He lost his job thanks to speculation. Speculation generated by the media. What a bunch of lunitics.
Who Killed Chandra?
Dan Johnson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
May 30, 2002
Opinion: To the Media- Shut Up!
Ok, I would just like to write a few comments on this as well. I agree with Chris all the way. The media is not being very helpful in this arena. They should have reported the Chandra Levy news, and left it for the police to finish and figure out who killed her. That is their job. besides, the media isn't as qualified as they make think they are to make the assumptions they do.. They don't know everything. The media is beginning to think they are almighty. Heck, I bet if we gave the media the chance to make up a couple laws, they would appoint themselves as a whole the supreme leaders of the US.. hands down. They need to keep out of things, just as they should have stayed out of the Clinton Scandal. Yes, it needed to be reported, yes it needed to be covered thourghly, but speculating and this stuff is dumb. I'll almost even go as far as to say that even September 11th was overdone. Yes, we all wanted constant updates as to what was going on. But don't sit on their and speculate all the time. You'll speculate yourself to death. No one I knew was close to the situation, one person we all know very well could have been, thankfully, nothing happened to his family member.. In anycase, it's all stupid. The Media should stay out of things. They don't dictate how are country is run, People do. And they media is becoming more powerful because people are on the verge of not deciding for themselves, but allowing the media to dictate how they live, vote, and even possible worhip in their religion. It's Bull, and thats the bottom line.
Christopher Hanson, Webmaster, Hanson and Beseler Online 2004-2005
April 15, 2005
Opinion: Her death was somewhat of a moral mistake under the circumstances, however, the government's attempts to step in were unfair as well.
It's been just over two weeks now since Terri Shiavo passed away after her feeding tube was removed by a court order and the hands of her husband. The issue caused a ripple in the nation that will no doubt be debated for years to come. The attention that it brought to the nation caused many to begin researching living wills and such. The impact of her death triggered off strong moral and political opinions that none of us can probably sidestep.
As far as my political and moralistic views are concerned, I admit that I've taken steps toward the liberal side of the world over the past few years. However, arguably my most conservative position was over the events that lead up to Terri's death. I took a strong stance towards keeping Terri alive. While I do understand that a husband and wife's bond and union is something that is traditionally strong, I felt that in the abscence of a living will or something to prove to the world that Terri wished to die, he had no right to take her off that feeding tube. Her husband holds a legal standing as her official guardian, and I can't argue with that fact. However, I took great displeasure in his choice to remove her from world.
The arguement that her parents put forth was that they felt she wouldn't want this. They also pointed out that Terri's husband had moved on in life and found a new love, and had even had children with this woman. Did this play a part in his decision as Terri's legal guardian? I can't help but think that it did. He pointed out that Terri had told him that she wouldn't want to live this way hooked up to machines. If this was her wish, I could understand that. But, it was a war of words between Terri's husband and Terri's parents- what did she wish for? Without anything such as a document stating her wishes, it was a trivial point which the courts were left to decide. I felt that this was wrong.
A friend of mine pointed out something to me that struck me as very logical and honest. He stated that there is no greater right in one's life than the right to live. If one does indeed want to end their life, this is their right. It's not something that any of us encourage anyone to do- end their life, but in black and white, it's anyone's choice to end their own lives no matter what the conditions are. Terri didn't leave any proof that she wanted to in fact end her life, and though a conversation may be something that her husband used as the basis for his decision to end her life, words are not enough proof for me, and I feel that his choice and intentions were honest at best, but not enough to justify his actions. I think his choice was fundamentally and morally wrong.
Where I did take a strong discent, also, was in the governments attempts to get involved in the case in the first place. For an administration that talks about leaving the governent out of people's lives, why did they choose to get involved in one of the most intimate of issues? It seemed like such a double-standard to me. The arguement came down to the wishes of Terri's husband and Terri's family, and this point went to court because of this arguement. The court heard the arguements and made a decision based on what everyone had to say. Though I can't say I agreed with the decision, the courts did rule, and we were all forced to respect that decision. The government's choice to step in and try to interfere seemed like a wrong decision based on their beliefs, and ultimately, they found out that what they did was probably wrong in the first place. The desperate charge to subpoena Terri was ill-fated and illogical, afterall, everyone knew she wouldn't be able to testify in front of congress, or in front of anyone for that matter. It was ridiculous for them to even try to get involved and undermine the courts and their decisions. All of the appeals and court dates were justified as outlined in the system, but the government was not right to attempt to foil in this issue.
Nothing will bring Terri back to the world now, for she has passed on. This is a sad fact, but something that happened based on the steps through fate and life for herself and through the doors and chambers of the courts based on the issue of who was right. I am sad for the outcome, and feel that morally, the wrong choice was made. However, I do respect the courts and their decisions, and this is the way it will have to be. Nothing can excuse the senators and congressmen who attempted to intervene on an issue that goes to the right of life and the decisions of the family, though. This is the place where the government is not welcome. Even if they did agree with my thoughts on the matter, I still do not believe they acted on Terri's behalf, but rather, on their own behalf on an issue that would seperate our people even more. Only the future can tell us what will happen on either end of my thoughts.
Let's think about one thing real quick here when we talk about the concept of a power hour. Who out there thinks that drinking twenty-one shots of liquor could possibly be deemed as fun?
Christopher Hanson, Webmaster, Hanson and Beseler Online 2004-2005
March 17, 2005
Opinion: How is this new legislation going to change anything?
I have found myself a little confused about the new legislation that is going through in Bismarck pertaining to not allowing new twenty-one year olds to be able to have a drink until 8:00am on their 21st birthday. As the Fargo Forum put it, the theory of the bill is that when people become of age, they won't have to hurry to pack their drinking into one hour. While I can partially understand this thinking, I can't help but to point out a couple of things that would prevent people from doing power hours in the first place.
It's called common sense amoungst both the person celebrating the birthday and the friends that are with he or she. It's about bartenders and bar servers watching out for their customers and not serving people who are much too drunk. It's about seeing through the peer pressure and understanding the logic behind it all. A person who has never drank before can probably still understand easilly that trying to down 21 shots in one hour- or in one night, or even in one day, is a really dumb thing to do.
I am sympathetic to the situation in which Anne Buchanan is facing for the rest of her life. Her son died from drinking on his power hour. I feel awful for her and the family which must live with this devestating loss. But, common sense should have played a part somewhere within this situation. Common sense should have prevailed within his corps of friends who were there with him buying him the shots. Responsibility must be put on the servers who kept bringing the shots to the table. Personal responsibility is something in this case that needs to be highlighted even more in the wake of this tragedy. I just don't think these aspects are brought home enough.
People need to understand that these power hours are not necessary. To be honest with you, when I thought about a power hour, I never thought of is as an hour to drink as much liquor as possible. I always thought it was that one famed hour that you could finally go to a bar and have some drinks. With all of the so-called power hours that I've been in attendance at, including my own some years ago, I would've never even dreamt of allowing any of thsoe people to even attempt to drink 21 shots.
It's about education, it's about common sense, and it's about self-control. I don't see how those eight hours are going to help. If people are so out of touch with the reality on the lack of logic in a power hour, who's to say those people won't encourage their friends to just drink all day starting at 8:00am? And, who's to say that those new twenty-one year olds won't fall right into that trap? I fear that much more than anything.
Jason Reinhardt's death was and is still a tragedy. For something like this to happen in our hometown is hard to deal with, and the lessons we all learned as a community were important. Why it takes an event like that to open people's eyes, I just don't know.
The President Visits Fargo
Christopher Hanson, Webmaster, Hanson and Beseler Online 2004-2005
February 4, 2005
Opinion: The President's visit and speech were respectable and appreciated.
As many of you know, I'm one of the more critical people you'll meet when it comes to our current President of the United States. I make it no secret that I disagree with some of his choices and his conservative nature. I've calmly sparred with some on the war, and gotten a bit more angry about what I consider his religious crusade when it comes to the law. I've never been a big fan of George W. Bush in a lot of respects.
With that said, I had the chance to perform at President Bush's visit to Fargo on February 3. When first offered the chance, I responded that I did not want to participate. But after some brief thought, I changed my mind, realizing that perhaps it would be good for me to be present. First of all, I wanted to support the band in it's requested mission, but most of all, why would I be so unreasonable as to not give the President a chance to speak to our citizens and myself.
And so I went to that event, and I feel better for choosing to do so. The anticipation of the arrival of the President was intense, and even I felt it despite my disapproval of some of that President's policies. When he did arrive, I clapped and was excited to see him in my hometown, in my college.
His speech seemed very personal to me, not a written up presentation that one of his writters whipped up on Air Force One. It seemed to me that he was actually speaking to the people, not at them. His demeanor was light and polite, and his sense of humor was present in many ways. I was delighted to be a part of that, and I did enjoy his conversational style during this session.
Though I am skeptical of his Social Security reform because it seems much too general and not specific enough in nature to me at this time, I still enjoyed most of the time he spent on stage. I did get upset with one comment, but it wasn't something he said. It was actually something one of the other speakers on the stage said. Mr. Bush's words did seem sincere at most points, and I was willing to respect what he had to say and listen. Even if I didn't agree with some of the things he said, I felt the need to listen to the other side.
I get very passionate about politics from time to time, and I do sometimes feel a serious disdain for President Bush. However, his speech was something that I felt satisfied about for being present at it. My views have not changed, and I still have my opinions and thoughts about the issues which don't often mirror those of our President. However, I found his visit to North Dakota to be a success and a good thing for everyone, including myself.
The Great Northern- Doomed Again?
Christopher Hanson, Webmaster, Hanson and Beseler Online 2004-2005
December 10, 2004
Opinion: If the management at Great Northern continues on as they have thus far, the doors will close yet another time.
One of the first places I ever made my way to when I first moved to Fargo was a place that had come highly recommended to me by other bar hoppers around town. When I asked where one could get a tasty microbrew, more responded that I should visit the Great Northern. One cold snowy night, I did just that, and I was impressed with what I found. The fully-restored train depot was absolutely beautiful, and the atmosphere of the bar was overwhelming. The food was good, and the beer was incredible. I realized that this bar, despite it being located across town from where I was living at the time, should become one of my regular spots.
However, bad management closed the place down just as summer was coming in, and to my dismay, I could no longer enjoy the ambiance that this establishment provided. The place sat vacant for a handful of years. Each time I drove by the empty building, it was a reminder of how wonderful that place could be.
To my excitement, the place was reopened under new ownership and management in July of 2004. Over the years it had been closed, I had moved my way into the Fargo music scene, and word through the grapevine was that well-known musician Deb Jenkins was booking bands to play. I, like many other musicians, rushed to her to try to get bookings at the new-found hot spot downtown. When the Great Northern reopened, live music became the center of attention, as Deb was booking all sorts of different groups. It seemed like this was the missing link that the Fargo music scene had been lacking for quite some time- a place for new and talented musicians to play. The Fargo Forum even ran a front-page article about the Great Northern and what they were doing for downtown Fargo. Things looked bright for musicians for once.
But, much like all things that have to do with young people and the arts in Fargo, the good news could only last so long. After only four months, Deb Jenkins was fired from the Great Northern, along with all acts that she had booked for the upcoming months. Many of Fargo's finest musicians were dismayed with the news, and if they were anything like myself, who also had bookings cancelled, they were all just a little bit angry about the management's choices.
I made an attempt to call the new person in charge of booking, whom I never actually got to talk to. I left a few messages with no replies, then was finally refered to the general manager of the establishment. There, she attempted to explain to me that she had lost a lot of money on the endeavor, and that cancelling all existing commitments was what she had to do. I tried to explain to her that it was possible to get the revenue rolling in, but that it took time. The Great Northern was playing a signifigant role in inflating the chances for young talent to be heard, and in time, the losses would turn to large gains. Music, along with the wonderful bar, food, and microbrews would be quite a combination if she would just hold out. However, she held tightly to her choice. I was incredibly disappointed, and self-imposed on myself a boycott of the Great Northern.
Just a few days ago, I went back. I was missing the microbrews, and figured it wouldn't hurt to go there for that. As the night went on, a good friend of mine came in who is active in the arts scene in Fargo-Moorhead. He made his way to a table where the general manager was apparently hanging out and talked to her about my frustrations about the Great Northern. She then made it a point to come over and introduce herself to me.
She introduced herself to me as a 'person I probably didn't want to talk to'. To be honest, that wasn't far from the truth. She then explained to me everything that she had already told me on the phone. I tried once again to tell her how if she gave the music a chance, it would be work out. She then asked me where I was from. I told her I was from Minot. She scoffed at that a little bit, which offended me. She told me she was a graduate student from the east coast, as if that was supposed to be a credidential. Rick reminded her that I was an established musician in Fargo. She didn't seem to care. Basically, she made me feel like my age along with where I was from meant I didn't really understand anything about music, the arts, or how things were run in the 'real world'. I wasn't the only person feeling that way- Tim and Ruth were right there with me.
It is in my opinion that with management like that, coupled with their botched promise to bring a musical uprising to the downtown area and their 'better-than-you' attitudes are going to be the end of their endeavors, which will result in yet another closing of a place that really should've been a clear-cut success in the first place. Sadly, I don't think this place will be open any more in a year.
Heather and the management of the Great Northern are now eating crowe, though they won't want to admit that. They proclaimed themselves as the answer to young musicians in the area in the press. They took the first good steps of doing that by hiring a high-profiled person such as Deb Jenkins to take care of the talent search. They allowed good bands to play. Where they went wrong was not managing these things effectively from their side of the tracks. They took the first steps to making it happen, but then stopped and thought it would all work out with minimal maintenance. They gave up quickly, and did a disservice to all those who believed in the Great Northern when they opened. For these reasons, this is why I believe that the Great Northern, much to my sad heart, will not thrive, and will close once again.
Tom Hassenstab is a freakin' moron...
Christopher Hanson, Webmaster, Christopher Hanson Online 2004
November 22, 2004
Opinion: Who in the hell is in charge of hiring opinion writers at The Spectrum?
A majority of you who read this site and this commentary section are probably NDSU students or alumni from the music program. You've all spent some time relaxing in the music lounge reading the official college publication, also, The Spectrum. And, for those of you who have been around for the last couple of years, you've probably noticed that the quality of the paper has taken a true turn for the worst as of late.
I've been around here long enough to be associated with really good editors and such that all worked at The Spectrum, most notably guys like Chamberlin, Gion, and Tompkins, whom I all knew from various situations at the campus. These cats knew how to put together a good publication with noteworthy news clips, opinion articles, and updated stories about campus sports, events, and happenings.
I've continued to read the paper regularly to this day, although it sometimes pains me to even get through the first few pages. While some of the news happenings are credible enough, it's when I get to that opinion section that I begin to wonder just what it is that makes me want to even try reading this paper.
We all remember from earlier this year when The Spectrum went through it's motions with one Allison Moorhead. While I didn't really think much of how she wrote her article, I didn't advocate the idea of her being censored from the paper altogether. I found her section to be a bit harsh and nasty and not so much an informative sex article, but rather a chance for her to get some attention by not putting her thoughts into a tasteful form of context. While the concept for having a sex column was fine and just, her way of conveying her opinions and thoughts were probably not in the best intrests of The Spectrum. I figured at worst, she should've been told to curb her work or at least write it in a respectable context that would inform people in a tasteful fashion, rather than going for the shock value in which got her kicked out of the office altogheter.
But, really, in my opinion, it's these jackass opinion columnists that The Specturm continues to publish that should get the real ax, folks. Have you been paying attention to these people? We shouldn't have to, but each Tuesday and Friday of the week, I have to open up my "official college publication", and read about the dumb ass things they have to say. Would most of it qualify as a well-written opinion? Not even close, people.
First of all, a big complaint I have is the lack of knowledge these people have about some of the issues they wrote about. For instance, there were several opinion sections on the run up to the elections. If you want to write about supporting a cantidate, please be my guest. But, please use all facts to back up your choice. I saw both Kerry and Bush supporters spouting their thoughts off about the matter and the sides of these cantidates, when often the author's own feelings and opinions were what they were using to try to back up their work.
We had the column that criticized PC's and praised Mac computers when she didn't really know at all what she was talking about in what I guess you would have to say "technical terms" for lack of a better way of putting it. Do your homework, do your research, THEN you can tell us why Mac is better than PC's.
But, I guess what really got me truly worked up was an "opinion article" (and I use this term loosly, mind you) written by Tom Hassenstab. It seems that he isn't a big fan of NASCAR racing. That's fine, I don't like golf or hockey, but that's a personal preferance. I don't make fun of the people who enjoy golf or hockey. I go on with my day with no problems with these people.
But, I guess from his opinion article, I have now found out that I have many traits that I wasn't aware of as a supporter of NASCAR racing for the last 15 years or so. First of all, I am a "redneck southerner" who is cross-eyed from watching races and wears clothing that I got from redeeming stuff by sending in cigarette UPC codes. He tells me that drivers are really, really stupid and "deserve to die". Very nice opinion article. It most certainly enlightened me to what kind of people enjoy racing and what kinds of people enjoy driving race cars. Oh, and it most certainly enlightened me to what kind of person I am.
Now, I'm not here to say that Tom is a bad person for penning his little "rant" about NASCAR. What I'm really pissed off about here is how he has so many broad generalizations about people who participate in or stay current with the sport. Just because this sport originated in the south and because most of the drivers are from the south doesn't mean they're all stupid and/or rednecks. That's quite a generalization in the first place since in a way, Tom is saying that EVERYONE in the south is a redneck, which just isn't true no matter how many Jeff Foxworthy jokes America has been subjected to.
No one deserves to die for doing something they enjoy doing. No one deserves to die for doing what they consider a job. Race car drivers know their job is dangerous, but they take that risk. If someone is seriously injured or killed in a racecar, people mourn the event, but understand the risks that are taken in that sport. People take the same risks in mountain climbing, downhill skiing, hockey, football...you can name any sport where there's possibility of serious injury. No one deserves to die from these things, and I take great issue with his usage of such a thought or belief.
Dale Earnhardt was one my favorite drivers, and a favorite of many. His death saddened many, but we all knew that this was a possibility for any of the drivers, and we went on with our sport. I took offense to Tom's ignorance in making fun of fans paying tribute to one of the finest race car drivers of all time. It's just plain old rude to make that sort of statement no matter what the situtaion of the people involved.
Just a couple of other thoughts- NASCAR does have road course races which have left and right turns, just in case you didn't bother to check on that. Also, there are millions of fans of NASCAR all around the world (not just in Mississippi and Arkansas), and the sport has over thirty races, all of which had attendances of no less than 75,000 people per race.
If Tom doesn't like NASCAR, that's fine, but he should write in a more professional standard than that of which he did last week. Opinion articles are supposed to contain some sort of facts to back up their thoughts if you want to convince others of the same point of view, and all I saw was mean and non-tasteful crap in Tom's article. If Tom was going for a "humorous approach", then fine, go ahead and do that, but do it in the entertainment section. When I read opinion pieces, I want to read something that CONVINCES me of a point of view. I don't care to see someone mocking other people. I thought perhaps the opinion editor might understand that idea, but apparently not. Shame on The Spectrum for allowing itself to stray so far off the path.
The Election is Forthcoming
Christopher Hanson, Webmaster, Christopher Hanson Online 2004
October 24, 2004
Opinion: George Bush has not made me feel he deserves another term as president.
At no other point and time in the 10 years I have been legally able to vote have I ever seen anything like the leadup to this years elections. The campaings of Bush vs. Kerry and vice versa have been overpowering in the days leading up to the election is about one week. I have taken a lot of time to listen to both sides of the arguement and I have taken the time to listen to and read through the four debates between our presidential and vice presidential nominees, and I have made a decision on this.
While I do see where John Kerry may be liberal and may have changed his opinions over time on certain issues, I can not see how George Bush has earned a chance to be commander-in-chief once again. Simply put, based on my beliefs and how I think, I just can not cast my vote for him.
George Bush is the pilot of a war in Iraq that he justified for certain reasons to the people of America. These reasons are slowly turning out to be distorted, fabricated, and sometimes downright false. While I think there are many other reasons we could've gone to war in Iraq and while I do agree that the world is safer without Saddam around, I can not support or trust a president who misleads his country. Basically, the result I can agree with, but the justifications I can not.
I can not support a president who used religion to justify many of his stances, laws, and proposals. While I maintain that there is nothing wrong with any citizen of America holding a belief in any God or religion (after all, it is guaranteed in the Constitution), our law was not set up with the intent of allowing religious belief to decide what is on the lawbooks. The arguement has gone forward that strong Christian beliefs are what the country was founded on, and I don't disagree with that. However, with our sets of freedoms, we should not have to obey a law that has been determined by one religion, as it may violate the beliefs of someone who doesn't practice it- in this case, Christianity. The Gay Marriage proposals all over the nation are fueled heavily by Christians, conservatives, and those who do not accept homosexuality, and want to shun them from society. While I am not gay nor do I share their preferences, they are still human beings that should not be punished for their private lives. Though supporters of this ban keep telling us they are not about restricting cival rights, that's exactly what they're doing, and they're doing it in the name of their religous views and beliefs which define to them what 'marriage' is. Guess what- the bible isn't everyone's "good book", and by way of the constitution, it doesn't have to be.
George Bush will not accept responsibility for the many failures in Iraq. Over a thousand soldiers, Marines, airmen, and sailors are dead. A simple apology on TV will not justify their deaths to me, many of the American people, and most certainly their families. I support our troops, for I was one of them for some time. They go forth and serve as their country asks them to do. When I see the violence growing worse overseas while seeing no steps in a peaceful direction, I wonder why the president simply says they will continue business as usual, and not somehow take action or at least accept that he has failed at certain points in this war. Does you want reasons why I feel that way? I'll give you over a thousand reasons why.
I agree with some of what the Bush administration says and does sometimes, and I won't go so far as to say I oppose the entire Republican Party and what they stand for. However, the striclty conservative tone they carry has clashed with my desire for the people of America to have an open mind to all situations, and this is something most of my conservative friends do not share with me. Someone once told me they were a "clear-thinking conservative", and I sort of laughed at the time. But, then I realized they were clear-thinking in their minds in the respect that they had a set way they wanted things and were not receptive to change whatsoever, and if you weren't with them, you weren't considered sane or American. That's simply how I feel it is today. After all, what was it Mr. Bush once said...if you're not with 'us', you're the enemy? Who is 'us' and am I the enemy? I respect my conservative friends and their opinions and choices and agree that we all have the right to believe and interpret anything, but if this is what you call 'bringing the American people together', I'll take my chances with a new president.
Which Trumps Which- Religion or Law?
Christopher Hanson, Webmaster, Christopher Hanson Online 2004
August 31, 2004
Opinion: Once again, when did religious beliefs begin to dictate the law of the land?
With the presidential race heating up after the DNC last month and the RNC going on in New York as I write this, I think I've made it pretty clear which way I plan on voting. It's going to be a tight race for both cantidates, and I would easily tell you that it's really just too close to call at this moment. Each cantidate is coming out with their stances on all of the key issues for the election, mainly the war on terror and the econony and such.
But, it's not so much those issues that seem to bother me so much as the issue on how marriage should be defined. I'm still pretty shocked that anyone would want to make a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages, and I fear that if this is passed, the government will have crossed the lines into personal lives and choices, restricting rights for certain people who don't fit the traditional mold. It's something that really does scare me, the potential for government and law to be influenced by that which it truly has no right to be influenced by.
I question not the validity of religious beliefs. We all have the right to believe what we want in the issue of gay marriage whether it's based on a religious belief or not. But, does a majority population of Christian's have the right to decide whether gay marriage is legal or illegal? I can simply tell you that I don't believe it does. When did religion become a trump card for the laws of our land? When did the religious sect begin to dictate law? Wasn't our constitution set up to protect a choice in religious freedom and beliefs?
I was put to the test at the church in which I perform at each Sunday. At this particular Sunday gathering spot, members of the congregation were seeking signatures for a petition to put the gay marriage issue to the ballots. Many of the members of the church, whom I have no quarrels with at all, were encouraging everyone else to sign this petition. I was asked to sign it and declined. I was met with some dirty looks and comments.
I was asked by one person, "You do understand that our Lord has deemed it immoral to homosexual, don't you?" My reply to that was that though perhaps the bible may say such a thing, the issue of gay marriage should not be banned based on religious scripture. I was the subject of many scowls and apparent discontent people as I declined to sign three petitions presented before me.
The constitution provides protection for all to be able to practice their own religion, whatever it may be. It protects those who do not practice religion, as well. Why would be prepare a law that is based on religious belief when not everyone in America may believe in the very book these people are using to justify their decision? How can we establish a law indirectly based on a religious view when it may discriminate against others who don't share the same stance on the issue or who may not believe in the same subject matter in their own choice of religion? How fair is this really?
I'm not gay nor do I plan on being gay anytime in the future. I do practice the Christian faith. I have no quams with our homosexual community, and I regard them as human beings just as I do all heterosexuals. I don't treat anyone different based on their sexual preferance. To watch these strong conservative Christians say what they say and do what they do saddens me, and it makes me wonder how they can truly believe that Jesus loved everyone no matter what their sins are or were. To watch people pass such judgement on a group of people makes me wonder if the Lord is looking down on us right now shaking his head in disbelief. The people who push for this sort of goofy "reform" based on the bible are truly, as our president keeps saying, "turning the corner and not going back".
Political Views- Mine and Yours...
Christopher Hanson, Webmaster, Christopher Hanson Online 2004
April 7, 2004
Opinion: No one really has the right to tell the other that their views are wrong.
As it is an election year and all, I've found that political interests are peaking in America right now. Myself, I am no different, although I do pay close attention to the politics of America on a regular basis. But, the big thing that I've noticed from myself all the way up the ranks to our potential presidential nominees is that everyone is telling everyone else that they're wrong.
Now, the way I've always viewed things is that one's political view may be different from my own, but I've never labeled anyone as being wrong. You will seldom hear me tell a conservative that he or she is wrong. The only way I'll do so is if they state something that is truly wrong in the eyes of current law or policy.
As a moderate, which I consider myself generally, I've been told that upon hearing my opinion on things, I'm apparently wrong for doing so. I ask the question- when did it become wrong to have a view and an opinion? That last time I checked, these things could not be considered wrong or right. They're just preferences. Don't we all have the freedom to speak of what we think? When did our opinions become right or wrong? I don't believe they've ever been either or.
This seems to be one of those things that gets heavilly applied to social issues in which sides are very passionate about. We hear liberals telling people that guns in the hands of citizens is wrong. We hear right to life activists telling us that abortion is wrong. We hear people on the left telling us that the death penalty is wrong. We hear conservative types tell us that taxes are wrong.
But, what is the barometer that determines whether these things are "right or wrong" in the first place? Do we not have a law of the land for all of these issues? What happened to the political process in which states that these issues should be lobbied upon based on facts and opinions? Who is really wrong or right in these situations?
I hear it everyday coming from both sides of politics. I hear it coming from the middle folks, as well. I find it repulsive when one in power uses his or her personal opinions as the sole basis for determining law and policy, not truly looking at everything the American people feel. When a person like this determines and even says that those disagreeing are wrong, I feel as though a certain amount of the American people have been cheated out of their right to choose, and I find it disrespectful to America and the rights and laws that we built this country upon.
It's not just those high ranking politicians, though, it's the common folk, and I'm tired of hearing that I'm wrong. We have a right to feel however we want, and we have the right to speak about it if we so choose. But, respect opinions for what they are. You don't have to agree, and you can even present your own opinion to the other. But, don't be angered and proclaim your opinion king and supreme. Many things have changed in the hundreds of years since we penned our Bill of Rights and Constitution, but the principle of choice and the freedom to choose has not. Don't disrespect anyone by telling them that their opinion is so very wrong.
Vocalists vs. Instrumentalists
Christopher Hanson, Webmaster, Christopher Hanson Online 2004
January 27, 2004
Opinion: Why is this some sort of a war?
There’s something that I’ve noticed over the years during my time here at NDSU in the music department what has steadily gotten worse and worse as time has gone by. I’m talking about this odd war between our instrumentalists and our vocalists. The leaders of that war, particularly in the instrumental camp, have verbally voiced their discontent for the vocalists more and more this past year. I don’t really know what the vocalists have to say about us, although I have caught a few thoughts here and there of what they think of our partying habits.
I guess as an instrumentalist, I understand a lot of the gripes that the instrumentalists have. I get annoyed sometimes when vocal majors sit in the lounge and sing. How would they like it if I went in there with a tuba and started practicing a couple of odd lines from a song? It’s all of the little things that they’re getting irritated with, and yes, I don’t always care for those thing, either, but in the long run, these are small things. Of course, I also know that choir people probably have the same sorts of gripes about us horn players, as well. I don’t get mad over it, and I don’t complain a whole lot about it. To me, these things are all small stuff, and they’re not going to bother me to the point where I won’t sleep at night.
But, I guess the event that has really upset me the most is the new scheduling of the SAI Formal Dance. I don’t know the president of the organization real well, but what I do know is that they’re not an organization officially recognized by the NDSU campus, and I don’t think they have an official advisor, or if there is one, it’s the director of choral studies. It turns out that the choral sorority, whom has in the past co-sponsored a very enjoyable formal dance with our instrumental sorority, TBS (for which I have performed and had a blast), decided to part ways with their sister organization and run their own dance. That was no big deal to me, overall, although I never heard exactly what it was that caused the breaking of ties. Anyhow, the sorority planned their dance for a Saturday evening- February 7, to be exact, at 8:00.
It turns out that this particular night is the same night as the NDSU Jazz Festival, which is a very big event for the NDSU instrumental department and by the far the most important night for the NDSU Jazz Ensemble. Our festival to the jazz band is of the same magnitude as Madrigal dinners are for the Madrigals, or what the concert choir festival or Baroque Festival is to the concert choir. A simple look at the music department calendar would have shown SAI that this jazz festival was that same evening.
What this turned out to be to us instrumentalists was a slap in the face of sorts. It was not in the sense that we weren’t going to be able to attend, after all, only the choir really received an invitation to be at the SAI Formal, but it was an insult in the fact that this basically was saying that choir members should not support their brother and sister musicians in one of our biggest events of the year. Many of us have attend the concert choir’s performances on a regular basis. I attend not solely based on the requirement to have a certain amount of performance attendances, but rather on the fact that I truly enjoy the choir’s sound, skill, and selections. I understand that in my instrumental background of education, it is good to hear and listen to choral music, as it will help me with my own understanding of the many styles of music.
I feel that there is no way that the officers of SAI could’ve not known the NDSU Jazz Festival was going on at the same time as their planned formal. Traditionally, the formal had been held in the courtyard of Festival Concert Hall, and of course, that wasn’t an option for February 7, as Jazz Festival was taking place in the hall. Was the choice of date based on the idea that the jazz festival didn’t mean anything? This is certainly how it looks. What kind of message did the scheduling send out to other musicians? I feel there is an unwritten disrespect in the planning of the event.
I don’t want there to be this strange unacknowledged war between the two separate performance and education groups, but this really was a punch in the stomach as far as the jazz ensemble is concerned. What does this say about your respect toward our group? It just seems odd that their advisor (if they have an advisor, I’m not completely sure that they do) or president didn’t see the conflict, and it seems to me that if the officers did indeed notice the conflict, but didn’t care, there is an enormous amount of disrespect. What does this do? I hope it doesn’t widen the gaps between fellow student performers, but if it does, I guess I wouldn’t be surprised.
The Democratic Race...
Christopher Hanson, Webmaster, Christopher Hanson Online 2004
December 31, 2003
Opinion: Democrats are hurting their chances at winning an election.
As the year is closing out, we continue to watch in the media the mad race for the nomination by the Democratic party. I have watched the mad rush for the last few weeks, and my hopes of seeing a president I don't support strongly being beaten by the Democrats is souring as each passing hour goes by.
I really have no idea honestly who I favor out of the bunch. I have a strong inclination to endorse Wesley Clark, as he is a decorated soldier who has shown dedication to his country by serving in high command posts in the US Army. His views on supporting our military service members, our veterans, and our country win me over in a heartbeat. He seems to be a man of moral character who does indeed care about the country and the people who cherish their rights and freedoms.
I have no doubts that General Clark would be a fine leader and listen to Americans if elected to the Oval Office. But, does his inexperiance in the true political realm harm him? Will common Americans feel that he is qualified to be the leader of our political headquarters? If you make it to the rank of General in the military service, you probably know a thing or two about politics and such, but how will Clark look into our budget? How about the serious issues that are hampering our Senate and Congress? Will Clark be the man to bring Democrats and Republicans together to listen to each other instead of slinging massive quantities of angry mud at each other?
It seems to me that Howard Dean would have the political know-how to become a somewhat descent president. But, the last few weeks have weakened his hard-line opinions on issues that the president must face right away. Dean will immediately point out his disdain for Clark and his lack of experiance. Everyone is chipping away at everyone.
To tell you the truth, the only Democratic cantidate that has actually tried to stop a lot of the bickering between all cantidates is the Rev. Al Sharpton. He actually asked the other Democratic boys to stop their bickering and work together to reach a common goal- defeat George Bush. Of course, though, the idea of getting along would get in the way of their huge egos. It almost seems more like these guys are fighting to be president and have a title, not change the way things are in this country. In this way, I can only feel hopeless that they are all hurting each other with their fighting.
Of the nine or ten guys and gals running, I have no idea who to support. There are so many of them, I can't even keep track of who supports what, who's goals are which, and why they're even running in the first place. I think it's a mistake to see this many people running for the Democratic nomination, and in the end, it's going to hurt the entire party.
The Turf
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
September 22, 2003
Opinion: The Liquor Commission’s decision is crazy.
I was bothered to read the headlines in the Fargo Forum last week talking of the Fargo Liquor Commission’s new decision to revoke the liquor license from The Bison Turf, one the most popular bars and restaurants in Fargo. After being cleared of criminal charges, Chris Sabo, the owner of The Turf, has been told that his liquor license will be revoked on October 31, 2003. The Liquor Commission voted last week to overturn it’s prior recommendation of probation after receiving new evidence from the Fargo Police Department, which had been conducting an investigation into why a new 21-year old almost died from consumption at The Turf earlier in the spring of 2003.
It turns out that there was a video shot of the ill-fated 21-year old trying to drink 21 shots of liquor that evening. It was his “power hour”, and he was trying to consume all of those shots in one hour. The video shows him at The Turf drinking. Keep in mind that this young man was legal at the time.
Let’s take a closer look at some of the members of the Fargo Liquor Commission, the body who has the power to issue and revoke liquor licenses in Fargo. First of all, every kid’s favorite police officer, Chief of Police, Officer Chris Magnus, is on the commission. Also on the commission is a man who owns a large share of bars and liquor stores in the Fargo area (mainly The Empire, Woody’s, and Empire and Royal Liquor Stores). We should take a closer look at this. First of all, Chris Magnus has been hardcore against liquor licenses in the Fargo area, and has been working hard to make “Fargo safer”. His “Party Patrol” was found to be unconstitutional, and received criticism from many young adults and older adults alike. The second person mentioned has a lot to gain from The Turf losing it’s license- like more business for his own bars.
The commission watched the video in a meeting, and immediately, they voted to revoke the license from Sabo, citing that no bar should be allowed to have power hours and the such happening. The commission members acted as if they had never seen this sort of thing happen before. The concept of a power hour was unheard of in that meeting.
First of all, Magnus is a lame duck if he’s saying that he had no idea these things were happening at bars in Fargo. For crying out loud, he’s been an officer in Fargo for some years. Certainly, he’s heard of the concept in a community that has three large college campuses. Magnus knows that this sort of thing happens at most bars in town. Most college students turn twenty-one during their junior years of college. How could he not know these things were happening in town, after all, his Party Patrol idea was aimed at targeting young people who drank. Must have missed the memo on power hours.
The gentleman who owns several bars knows what’s happening in his bars. I can tell you right now that The Empire is a place where people go to get drunk, and I’m not talking just a little drunk- I mean they go there to get tanked on a regular basis. Don’t even begin to tell me that this videotape in questions was a surprise to him.
I realize that bars have the right to refuse service to people that they believe are too drunk or unable to control themselves. Bartenders and cocktailers are required to attend classes put on by Cass County. It is true that the servers at The Turf perhaps could’ve used better judgement in serving the young man who almost died from alcohol poisoning. Every bar needs to be watching out for that sort of thing. However, did anyone ever consider how irresponsible that young man was in wanting to drink that much in one night? Do we ever consider how irresponsible many college students are when drinking in the bars? It seems that the commission wants The Turf to take the brunt of the responsibility for how this event turned out.
If the commission is punishing The Turf for having people who drink too much, (after all, they can’t blame it on criminal charges, Sabo was found not guilty in that case), then we mind as well shut down all of the bars in town. Take down The Old Broadway, Rooters, Sports Bar, Lauerman’s…you name it, we better shut them down. No double standards, right?
The decision of the Fargo Liquor Commission seems biased and tainted in my opinion, and I feel that this fine establishment is being held to some sort of a higher standard than anyone else. This just seems to me that it’s just another big chance for Chris Magnus to “make an example” out of somebody. I think it’s a shame. For these reasons, we may lose the very enjoyable privilege of going to a long-standing place of business that has been a place of memories for many NDSU students, friends, and alumni. All of this so a greedy bar owner can make more money and so that a lame police chief can prove another point.
The War is Over?
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
August 11, 2003
Opinion: It has been months since the "combat" phase ended in Iraq, why are our servicemen still dying if the war is "over"?
Does it not bother you that every time we turn on the evening news, we have to hear about another soldier being killed in Iraq? Does it not bother you that we're supposibly through the war phase in Iraq and that we're supposed to be working with the Iraqi people to build a great free country, but it is those people whom are causing uproars all over Iraq, rebelling against our forces and killing our American servicemen? Doesn't it bother you that we still haven't managed to fine WMD's in Iraq? Does it not bother you that our government has admitted that their information about uranium being sold to the Iraqi's was a guess? Does it not bother you that the war was sold on these "allegations", which were presented to us as stone-cold evidence of reasons to go to war?
There are a lot of questions that I seem to be asking these days based on the war in Iraq. Much of what we hear, I do understand, and some of the reasons we went to war I can agree with. Saddam Hussein is not a nice guy. He treated his people like dirt. He was a dangerous man, and with him not ruling the country, I can live with. But, it's the principle of honesty that we're looking at here. Everything is based on the "facts" that our own President used to justify war. His poplularity rose because we as a country believed in what he was saying. We supported a war that was based on his words, backed by security and intellegance officials, backed by the CIA. We were told that WMD's would be found. We were told that there would be proof.
So, where's the proof? And, what's up with the sudden shyness from the CIA? Why is everyone in the White House simply not answering any questions anymore? The American people have a right to know what the hell is going on. We have a right to know why our soldiers are in such grave danger in Iraq. Our own state has lost two soldiers. One life is too many, but 57 since May 1st?
I continue to support our military. I continue to support our cause and their mission, as I know that they have orders to obey and a mission to carry out, not matter what their beliefs, and they carry out that mission diligantly with the pride only an American can hold in their hearts. But, answers need to be on the horizen. Someone must speak up in the White House and tell us the complete truth as to what is going on. If our government does not do so soon, they hold a harsh disregard for the American people, and moreso, our troops deployed in Iraq.
The Supreme Court Speaks...
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
July 1, 2003
Opinion: How ridiculous will the right get with this?
I was alarmed to see in my e-mail in-box today a note with the subject title "URGENT: High Court Kills Marriage". I knew right away what this was about. I wasn't surprised to see a note like that, but I was surprised to see just how fast everyone is jumping all over this landmark decision.
The following is the part that most troubled me. This is word for word from the e-mail, and also straight from http://www.grassfire.net
"With this ruling, there are no existing safeguards remaining in our
legal system to protect marriage from being overrun by the radical homosexual agenda. Now that homosexual sex has been constitutionalized in all 50 states, it’s just a matter of time before homosexual marriage is legalized in every state in the nation. The only way to stop this runaway, radical agenda and save marriage is to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as "one man and one woman."
Wait a minute, you want to talk about "radical"? How about amending the constitution for that reason? That sounds a little radical. What's outragous about this is that even if homosexual marriages are legalized, how will this pose a threat to Christian marriages? And, speaking of the whole Christian agenda, since when did we start amending the constitution based on a conservative Christian belief? What about that seperation of church and state theory? Sure, the right can disguise their agenda as protection for marriage being defined as a union of a man and a woman, but when it comes down to it, it's religious self interest, and I don't buy into religious beliefs changing a the law of the land which promises that the government won't be run in line with religion. Besides, doesn't the constitution guarantee our right to living free regardless of religious preference, or even the choice to practice religion in the first place? I'm not being ignorant- I'm just telling you how I see the constitution and how I read into it. Wouldn't an amendment charged by religious fury deprive those who don't believe in that particular religion or any religion at all or their freedom? Especially if they were homosexual, I presume. How fair is that?
The homosexual community is not going to be asking to have their hopeful marriages consecrated in a church. They just want to be able to have a legal union. It has nothing to do with religion, and as far as I can see, they're not some big conspiracy trying to destroy heterosexual and Christian marriages. I believe in God, I go to church, and I'm heterosexual. I have no interest in being homosexual, but I don't judge them for that choice. They are human beings, after all. In a Christian religion that asks for us to not judge and to accept all people even if you don't agree with them, or if even they're "in violation of God's law" (as homosexuality is defined in the bible), I find it amazing that right Christians would err in their understood and most simple principles.
This is all outragous, and I'm ashamed of some of the American population for being the way that they are. You don't have to agree with homosexuality. However, don't condemn them for their practices. Sex is a private issue, and we should let everyone do as they please, whether it's heterosexual or homosexual. This is not some sort of revolution that is going to take over the world and change everything. Basically, I guess I'm saying that we should all mind our own businesses, and allow American's to live out their lives with the freedoms that we have been guaranteed.
The Most Ridiculous Thing I've Ever Heard
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
June 25, 2003
Opinion: The defense has turned to an all-time low in defense...
If any of you have been watching the news lately or perhaps been reading a newspaper, you've probably stumbled upon the newest media craze involving a court trial. Now that CNN and FOX has managed to dry up every last possible moment on the Peterson trial in California, and now that a gag order has cut off all of the "leaks" of that trial, we've begun to see the case which is being infamously called the Windshield Murder Trial.
For those of you who are not familiar with this case, let me give you a little bit of background. Chante Mallard was driving her vehicle home when she struck a homeless man with her car. She was going fast enough where the victim flew up and crashed head first through the windshield of her car.
Mallard could have stopped the car, phoned for help, and tried to calm the man whom was bleeding to death, lodged in her windshield. Common sense would have told anyone to do so. However, Mallard chose to drive her car over a mile to her home with the man stuck in her windshield. Upon parking in her garage, she pulled him out her windshield, apologized, left him in the garage for several hours, than allegedly dumped his body in a nearby park.
Now, the defense isn't contesting anything that that that the state is presenting as far as the sequence of events. But, what the defense is attempting to do is clear Mallard of any wrongdoing, for to them, this was just an accident. They say that her judgement was impaired by the fact that Mallard had been smoking pot, doing Ecstacy, and drinking.
An accident? Sure, I guess. But, under the influence of drugs and alcohol, possibly during the time of the accident and definatley during the planning on what to do with the body? Is this really a defense? How can any court in America accept this sort of behavior? You're going to use the an illegal set of acts to void out the very crime that was committed? I was at a loss for words when I heard about this. We should forgive the fact that Mallard critically injured a man with her car, drove home with him dying, lodged in the window of the car, left him to die in her garage, and then dumped his body in a park- all because she was drunk and high?
If Mallard gets off from these charges, I will weep for the system, for apparently, it would be no joke that justice is indeed quite blind.
A Response to an Opinion
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
June 2, 2003
Opinion: If the bible teaches us to not judge people, why are some moral Christians so willing to judge?
Now, I'm certainly not here to flame the world and other people's opinions, but something sort of starting bothering me as I read over some backlogged work on the site. We, the webmasters, were presented with a questions pertaining to pre-marital sex a few months ago. I was the first to respond and give my thoughts and opinions on it. Shortly after, Dano put his thoughts on the site.
I am willing to listen and understand Dano's opinion, where he basis his thoughts and opinions on the bible and what it says, and that's fine. I agree with some points, and I don't agree with others. I'm not coming at anyone right now to "flame" them, as Dano puts it, but I have one big beef with what was written in his thoughts. Sure, I can accept his opinion, and I won't badger him for it, it's his right to have the opinion that sex should wait until marriage. However, it's the little side comment at the end that we see often from a lot of people who are quick to judge those who disagree with their religions standings.
The quote in question is this..."Others who wait on sex and aren't afraid to wait, and can keep their desire in check, are on a level of respect with me like no other. It's a curious thing, not that I don't respect someone totally based on whether or not they've slept with somebody, just that those I know who have made the choice to hold off, and a difficult one it can be from time to time, have a little bit of extra credit in my book."
The feeling and the thoughts are fine and understandable, but it's how I feel that I'm being judged by him as a "less respected person" based on my opinions. The moral right do this all the time. Take a look at the abortion debate. Look at the gay rights debate. They use the bible to dictate law in a nation that guarantees the right to freedom of religion and the seperation of church and state and government matters. This sort of rhetoric bothers me, and the fact that certain people don't look at things with a clear view of understanding regarding just exactly what an opinion is bothers me to no end.
Dano- your opinion is fine, and I'm not trying to light you on fire, as your segement was really a minor example. I'm just trying to enlighten the world to the bigger picture.
Love of the Lord or Love of the Law?
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
May 21, 2003
Opinion: How can one practice certain principles of their religion, but also respect everyone's right to freedom of religion?
Sitting at the last two weeks in a row of church, I have found myself questioning a few things that come with being a Christian. It is not a question of whether I believe in the Lord or the teachings which I go to hear and understand each week. I do believe in Jesus Christ, and I have been confirmed and am a member of the church. I attend services, and even play music for them. I read the bible at least a few times a week. But, there is one thing that had begun to bother me over the last few services.
Now, I try to not editorialize religion- it's just one really big fight waiting to happen, so I will try to make my point clear. I'm not bashing on religion or Christianity. However, I have begun to wonder about the main theme I have heard over the last few visits to church. I have been told by two seperate preachers that it is our job as Christians to go out and spread the word. That part is fine. I don't do a lot of it, but if anyone asked or wanted to know more, I would be happy to share my thoughts. However, the overriding theme as of late is that we as Christians should be out converting everyone else to our beliefs, and that if we don't do that, those people that are not like us are going to hell.
The bible tells us of this very much. Though I don't have a bible right in front of me, I'm sure you could look in there and find a passage or twenty based on that theme. Now, I find myself trying to choose between the religious beliefs of the bible and the sacred rights of our constitution- one which states that it is our freedom to choose any religion we like, or it is also our freedom to not worship at all. What right do we have as Christians to trample on the constitution? I respect the law of the land, and as a citizen of one of the greatest countries in the world, I respect that freedom.
But, in a service last week, the preacher told us that we must convert people. It is our understood duty and "commision", as he stated it. He cited examples of those who were in other religions, those whom were not "on the right path". My first instinct was to wonder what right I had as a worshiping Christian in America to force my thoughts and judge others because of their religions which did not "jive" well with my own. I found myself troubled that there was such a judgemental shadow casted over my house of worship.
So, I find it difficult to understand just what it is I should do. I am being told that if I do not carry out my commision, I am wrong and that God will not look favorably upon me and my life. I also understand that everyone in this nation has the right to worship whomever they want, or not worship at all, and their rights are protected from me badgering them into anything else. I feel that it is my duty to worship my Lord, and understand the scriptures and teachings for how it will strengthen my spirituality, and that it's my private session, and I don't need to bother others with it if they want no part in it. Allow the people to choose what they can do, for it is a guaranteed right. If they want to know about Christianity, tell them. If they don't ask, let them decide for themselves.
Bring Our Troops Home Soon
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
May 1, 2003
Opinion: Now that the combat phase is over, bring our soldiers home.
Tonight, President Bush will go on national television to announce from the USS Abraham Lincoln that the combat phase is over in our operations in Iraq, and that though he has not ended the war officially, we will move into a new phase of rebuilding a democracy in Saddam's old land. This is fine, and I am happy to hear of this news. We went in there and accomplished most of the mission, most importantly to rid Iraq of it's leadership under Saddam, and now it's time to do what is right- get our troops back home to their husbands, wives, and children.
It's not just the mission that makes me feel that the troops need to come home, but it's because of the attitudes that still linger over our good-will mission overseas. Iraqi's are glad for what we have done for them, which is much more than I ever expected out of them, but they want to run their own country, and I think we should let them. Should the US and the UN help out and get things rolling? Absolutely. But, should we have a huge pressence of military forces hanging around? This, I believe, we should not. We promised that we wouldn't go in there and make Iraq some sort of an American-run country, and we know no one in the Middle East wants that. We need to get the soldiers home and begin to deal with the issues in our country, which I feel we have ignored much too long as war time mounted and was executed.
It's time to deal with our own issues. We need to deal with a new budget now that the war has cost us so much money. We need to deal with education. We need to deal with the new nominations for our highest courts. We need to deal with all of the domestic issues that have taken a backseat to hunting down the regime in Iraq.
Bring our brave men and women home, and do it quickly. We remember those who have lost their lives for doing their duty, and we'll sleep just a little bit easier knowing that our soldiers are coming home to the safe arms of support and love from their own people.
Am I a Bad American?
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
February 13, 2003
Opinion: Just because someone doesn't agree with President Bush does not make them bad people.
I read this week yet another opinion piece in the Fargo Forum about how so many Americans are “Bad Americans” for not supporting President Bush’s strong urge to wage a war on Iraq. All of the letters scold certain Americans for not following in the footsteps of our President, stating loudly and proudly that only bad Americans could have anti-war sentiments or have doubts about why we may be going to war in the Middle East. Even Dan makes these claims loud and clear in one of his opinion pieces on this very same web page. Well, I’m tired of hearing about it, and I’m going to go ahead and say a few things that liberals and conservatives alike actually agree on, but seem to be quite “selective” to apply our constitutional rights to.
Has anyone read about our first amendment rights lately? I think it’s something called the freedom of speech. It says that you can have your own opinions about anything. It’s the same amendment that allows bigots to rally against any and all minorities, all of which they truly hate and want everyone to know. It’s the same amendment that allows people to burn flags as a “form of expression”. It’s the amendment that allows anti-abortionists a chance to stand outside schools when they dismiss for the day, and hold jars with embryos in them to promote their cause.
Though I don’t agree or like these methods of demonstration, the fact of it is that it’s their freedom of expression, and they’re allowed to express these thoughts, which are protected by our constitution. You don’t have to agree with them, but based on the principles of our law of the land, we must allow these people to express their views. That’s why I find it amusing that all of these other war backers and constitutional law supporters are being “selective” in how they feel some Americans are so wrong about their thoughts about not following our president to the brink of war.
The fact of the matter is that we have the right to not want war without being labeled such bad people. I see nothing wrong with a nation, who somehow managed to elect a president who lost by over 100,000 votes to his opponent, to voice a disagreeing opinion of what that very guy is thinking of doing. I support our troops and our military in whatever they may doing wherever they are, as they are the guardians of freedom, serving unselfishly for a country that they love. I love my country and I have served my country, and I will never give up hope in our nation. If war comes, I will continue to support the service men and women overseas. It’s true that I would like to avoid war, as I would have to see a single life lost on fighting. However, I am an American, and I support America. I am not a bad American for not wanting war, and I find it completely insane that anyone would call me a bad person for thinking such a thing.
The first amendment is one of the strongest points our country was founded upon, and the freedom of expression is one of the most precious things we have. Do not infringe on any American’s right to think for themselves. It is our right to do so, and it does not make us “bad Americans”.
Take This Into Account
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
January 23, 2003
Opinion: Think about your people before you go all the way...
Some people think I'm unpatriotic. They think that just because I'm not completely sold on a war in Iraq and that I don't agree with our president, that makes me less of an American. Well, I certainly won't back off of my stand point that I'm wary of war, but I will admit that as the process goes on, I am more sure that we will indeed go to war. The reasons are mounting, and I do think that it's only a matter of time before Saddam does something to harm our people, and war will be unavoidable.
So, I caution our president to at least make every effort to avoid war if possible. A peaceful resolution is supported heavily by many countries in NATO, and I think we need to be respectful toward their thoughts and opinions. We can go at this alone, without any friends or support. Sure, we have Britain, but that's about it. All the other Middle Eastern countries are pretty much against war. Germany and France want us to wait it out for a while.
But, my main concern are the troops at this time. We're gone into a mass-deployment of soldiers, Marines, sailors, and air men, and I'm nervous about it. We're building a mass military group in the desert, and they're ready to strike or defend at a moments notice. They're the best trained in the world, and they're ready to give their lives. But, if we can avoid having any of our brave citizens killed in action, this is something that I wish for. Think about the families of these people. I have active duty friends acvtivated, and many ready to go at a moments notice. I have National Guard friends that are leaving after two days of notice to deploy. I don't want these people to die, even though I know they're willing to do so, and I would, too, if called to do my duty.
So many Americans are saying, "Yeah, but it's war, and people die, and that's how it works." Well, that's easy for you to say- you're watching the war and the casualties on CNN and FOX News. You're not there. You've never served with the worlds best. So, at this point when war seems to close, and with a president who can't go three minutes without threating to attack Iraq, I ask him and the rest of America to think about those service men overseas, and pray for peace. Mr. President- please do everything you can to make sure we don't lose any of our brave Americans. Haven't we lost too many already?
War in Iraq...
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
January 3, 2003
Opinion: Show Us Some Proof
Alright, let us get a few things straight right away. Some Americans, Dan Johnson, and President Bush want to go into Iraq and blow some stuff up. They want to be rid of Saddam. They say he's a bad man. They say he doesn't like America. They say we went into Iraq in 1991 to take care of the business, and we did, except for that little part about getting rid of the man in charge. You know what? Most of America, including myself, agree with those statements. We know Saddam is bad. We know he hates us, after all, we did go in and destroy his country, which was perfectly justified. We know the world might be just a little bit better if he was somewhere else- prefably in a pile of rubble.
However, it seems to me that George Bush, other Americans, and Dan Johnson don't seem to care if the country knows what we're going in there for, specifically. If we use the same manner of thought that these people do, I guess we mind as well go in and kill a few other million people, too. There are a lot of people in the world who hate America and what we stand for. The big problem here is that we're not sure if there's a reason to go in there at this moment. We have assumptions as to why we would like to send people in there, but we don't know for sure. You know why we don't know? The Bush administration isn't telling us anything. The UN people are out there doing their jobs, and the Bush camp isn't letting them get to the bottom of the pile. They just keep saying things on public record that contain phrases such as "nuclear and biological weapons" and "terrorism". They tell us that they are 99% sure he has the stuff. Well, guess what? We agreed to let the UN inspectors go in there and do their work and let us know what they find, and Bush isn't really letting them finish it up. It's like Bush thinks he already knows and is vocal about that. But, has he been there himself? Has he seen the proof? Has he seen the weapons? No, and he's not going to go there, because it's not practical. Can we not trust the UN inspectors? That's what I think Bush is saying by his actions. No wonder the world thinks we're a bunch of brutes, that's how our government is portraying us.
Show me proof that we should go in there for our (and our allies) personal welfare. "Thoughts" and "possiblities" don't cut it. A ten-minute speech just before we go in there doesn't really cut it, either. Tell us now what you know and can prove, and I, as well as much of America, will support the country. Call me unpatriotic, go ahead. Try me. I served in the active duty military for four honorable years. Did George Bush? Did he have any battle buddies? No, and for me to picture some of my best friends who are serving right now go fight in a war that we have no reason to be fighting, and fighting alone because other countries didn't back us because they didn't feel it was the right time to attack, I don't want to think about. Do I think this could be another Vietnam? Yes, if we go in there without knowing why we're really there. I am offended that I am being told that if I don't agree with our President, I am trusting in a brutal leader in Iraq. Do not question my patriotism EVER. You serve, and then maybe, just maybe you can tell me that I'm not patriotic.
Bottom line is this- we need proof- not a huge amount of it, just physical proof from the UN inspectors or refusal by Iraq to comply with UN orders. If America and the Bush administration go to war with any less than that, our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and air men will shed their blood and their lives, and I will shed tears for not understanding why personnal interest by an administration killed it's own brothers.
War in Iraq...
Dan Johnson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
January 2, 2003
Opinion: The American people show more confidence in Radical foreign leaders than their own president. What are we coming too?
Lately, there has been much talk in the US about war. To start with, it was war with Iraq. We'll also start there.
Some people are angry with George Bush for considering a new war with Iraq. Why does G.W. Want to go in there? Simple. Saddam Hussein is a radical anti-US leader who is developing biological and chemical weapons and also weapons of Mass Destruction (nukes) To possibly use against the US or it's friends nearer to Iraq. Where I get fuzzy, is WHY do people seem to think this isn't a valid threat against homeland security? WHY is this not a valid front on the war against Terrorism? Our direct threats are from whacko leaders such as Hussien that have ties to terrorists and could very easily in a short amount of time raise major hell in the United States. Beleive it people. Ok, so we let the UN sent their "weapons inspectors" into Iraq. Why do people beleive Saddam when he says "oh, you can look here, but not here" It's obvious that he's just moving around whatever the heck he's hiding so the inspectors can't find it. Oh, sure.. they come up with odds and ends here and there, but not the real dough. Why? CAUSE HE'S SMART!! And the American people believe him when he says that Iraq isn't doing that stuff, and then when our own Commander in Chief says "look, they have this and this and this, we need to carry this out" People doubt him. Come on folks, do you trust a whacko or our own president? This is a time for people to put there petty picking on war and just support the country. This will be another Vietnam (as far as events in this country are concerned) if people don't get their heads out of their butts and start looking to their own leader instead of some whacko in Iraq. Who are you supposed to beleive, your best friend or a stranger who has a history of being "naughty"? Common sense folks.
Sure, war sucks, I don't think it's always a solution, and I also don't like to see my friends and fellow countrymen sent off to die, but it thats the solution, thats the solution. NO, I have never served, but if I were called, I would do my duty. The citizens of this country should do theres and unite behind our leaders.
New Republican Control, What's Next?
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
November 14, 2002
Opinion: I guess we give them a chance to change things...for the better?
The elections on November 5th seemed to go pretty smoothly, this time without any real huge voting errors that we know of. Issues were put to the vote, and representatives were elected to various offices, just as they have been for hundreds of years in our nation. As far as that all went, I was happy to see democracy working.
But, to say that I was happy about the overall outcome of the election, that I was not. The conservative Republican stronghold is back, with them holding power over both the house and the senate, and to be perfectly honest, that scares me just a little bit. I have always claimed myself a very moderate Republican in that I'm pretty liberal overall, but share some Republican social opinions on core issues such as abortion, welfare, the death penalty, "gun control", powers of the state, and big government. My moderate views include the environment, taxation, and the economy. My downright liberal views go toward social security issues, big business, personal intrest in the government, equal rights for all genders and backgrounds, rights for all regardless of sexual preference, diplomatic solutions, war, and the seperation of church and state and religions who discriminate against those who do not agree with them. I try to look to the past and the constitution to help me make my decisions, although into todays day and age, it's getting harder to use it as a reference.
I don't have a problem with a lot of what the Republicans stand for. The Republican oath, which I have read a number of times, has some good ideas in it, really. However, as time has gone by over the last three years as the conservatives have taken over the show in DC, I've began to question some of the oath. You can go to GOP.com to read the whole oath.
There is only one line that I wonder about in the oath, to be honest, but it's the one that really is most important to me. It reads,"I believe we must retain those principles worth retaining, yet always be receptive to new ideas with an outlook broad enough to accommodate thoughtful change and varying points of view." Now, I don't know about you, but I see conservatives as very closed minded and not open to change at all. Hell, look in the dictionary, it'll tell you that. Most conservatives will even tell you that they have an opinion and they believe in it, and there's nothing that will change their minds. Listen to the "debate" in the house and the senate when conservatives support a bill. Is there really debate? More like some people trying to point out things they don't agree with, then the conservative author brushing them aside because they aren't going to change anything. Even take a look at the agreement between Iraq and the UN yesterday. I saw this is a landmark moment for the world, as it showed that Iraq was willing to give a little and in turn, we didn't send our brothers and sisters to war. So, as the UN rejoiced at the agreement and the world sighed a sigh of relief, what did George W. Bush have to say through Ari Fleischer about the landmark moment? "The President is unimpressed with the resolution". What? Does Goerge W. want peace? Sure doesn't look like it to me. I really do feel like he just wants to go blow up a nation. Why is war so important to him? I hope he realizes that war is not what everyone in this country wants.
Well, enough of that, I'm willing to give the new senate a chance. If things get messed up, then I can rant and rave at the Republicans and put blame where it should be, and maybe be believed by my Republican friends. Well, probably not, they'll still blame it on me and my liberal counterparts, but that's politics, right?
Limit the Powers of Our Attorney General...Please!
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
October 2, 2002
Opinion: Is John Ashcroft overstepping his power and side-stepping the Republicans opinion that states should have the right to govern themselves and make their own decisions?
So, here we go again. John Ashcroft is out there running around sticking his big fat conservative nose in everyone's business- this time, in the process which allows states to govern themselves to an extent. First, we had his threat to uphold the state's decision to allow assisted suicide in Oregon. Now, he's hitting a little closer to home- he wants to be able to allow punishment by death, or capital punishment, even in states where capital punishment isn't in effect. Ashcroft is taking a look at some state cases and hinting that he'd like to step in allow death as a penalty if he so feels it's deserved, even in spite of what states have chosen to do- not punish by death.
This whole scenerio isn't anything new to me. When Ashcroft voiced his intention to get involved in the Oregon decision, I found myself agreeing this Ashcroft's intentions and opinions, but not agreeing with his desired plan- to uphold a law that the state's citizens voted on. Republicans believe in smaller government and allowing states to do their own thing and make their own decisions, and here we have the most Republican of Republicans making his own decision in spite of the "standard" he has risen in the cabinet to hold true. Why is his arrogance and personal adgenda playing such a role in his decisions, when he should be making decisions in the best intrests of America and it's citizens. The US is not your own little fantasy video game, Mr. Ashcroft. You don't make the decisions of the people based completly on your own opinions, sir.
So, here's the capital punishment deal coming into play. I agree with capital punishment, but I respect the state's decision to not have it. That's fine. If the people don't want it, so be it. But, Mr. Ashcroft wants to but in there and decide when it's ok and where it's ok. Stop taking the rights away from the states and it's citizens, and work on upholding current law and standards. Your job is not to change everything for the "better" of your desire, but to uphold justice, peace, and law in our country as a whole.
Be ashamed, Mr. Attorney General, take care of your own job and issues, not the states. Stand by the standards you claim to abide by.
Another Smoking Ban? Why?
Christopher Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
August 16, 2002
Opinion: Again, I ask, when did it become a crime to smoke in America?
I look in the newspaper and turn on FOX News to see yet another annoying headline- Mayor Bloomberg to ban smoking in restaurants and (of all places) bars and pubs. No more non-smoking or smoking sections, just all non-smoking. Great, here we go again.
I know I've said this before, but when did it become illegal to smoke? Was it not tobacco that became a great industry in America some years ago? Is it now a crime to be a smoker? Do all smokers now have to light up under a blanket in the a dark corner of their basement with the smoke detector ripped out of the ceiling in order to not be scrutinized? Give me a break, folks, this is (again) going too far.
Year back, we let you have the airplanes smoke free. Fine. Then we let you have your own closed off section for non-smokers and smokers. A little annoying, but fine. Smoking was banned from certain distances from differant locations. Fine. But, now you want smoking out of the bar? And, why, because it's bad for you? What about that Martini in your hand? That's not really good for you. Maybe that Philly Cheese Steak you're eating along with that Coors Light? Healthy? Not really? I'm looking for some consistancy here. You're going to tell smokers they can no longer smoke in the bar, but you can drink seven Morgan Cokes and then drive home? How safe are you being? Let's be sane here, folks. Let's be consistent. Let's not be stupid.
On a Hymnsong of Chris Magnus...
Jason Siebels, Guest Editorial
June 12, 2002
Opinion: Chris Magnus- Still a Moron...
I was reading your backlogs of opinions, and came across
the Liquor Control Committee editorial rant. In there you sited a Magnus
quote that I wasn't aware of...that an example was made of the Tropics night
club owner, and the fact that he burned down his club as a reason to be
fairly hesitent about dishing out liquer licenses. I find it interesting(especialy not that this issue is dead and gone
in most circles) that the chief is either extremly forgetfull, or just
plain ignorant of past arson infractions. The first example that comes to
mind was the Kabo House arson that came through five or six years ago. (Namely,
an owner of a resturant decided to torch their place, and then blamed
it on "white supremists" who tied her up, and set the place on fire.) Less
then a week later it was discovered that the owner torched the place in
order to collect insurance on the place.
More importantly, I believe that there are somewhere between 20-30
cases of arson in the FM area every year. And if I remember correctly, close
to 80 percent of those cases involve some sort of "inside operation", usually an owner or employee who decide to torch a place.
Now what amazes me isn't the fact that people like this are appointed
to these positions...heck, take one look at the Fargo board of
commisioners and you'll see how that happens. Rather, it's that the people in this town sit by with that glassed over look upon their face and keep letting
morons like this stay there. Granted we can't give him the boot
ourselves...but if you were to say...form a political group, and put some heat on the commision (and I do mean serious heat) you'd be amazed what the fear
of THEM being kicked out of office will lead to.
Just a breaze of anarchy for you guys...It's good for the college
mided focks to consider.
Jason is the director of the Nightfire Drumline, and is director of marching percussion at North Dakota State University.
Who Killed Chandra?
Christopher A. Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
May 30, 2002
Opinion: To the Media- Shut Up!
I'm so tired of hearing about Chandra Levy at this point. Am I sad that she tragically died? Of course, I'm sad to hear whenever anyone dies. The world should grieve for her and her family. That's just the humane thing to go.
Is it wrong for CNN to report on this? I suppose not, I mean, it is news, and it was a high profile case, yes. But, is it ok for the media to speculate what happened? Is it their job to guess that there was foul play and run polls to see who America thinks killed her? Absolutely not.
I want to put the media in the Levy's shoes for just a minute. How do you think they feel when they turn on FOX and Friends in the morning, and across the screen are big letters that say, "WHO KILLED CHANDRA?" How do you think they feel when they see that viewers can call in and guess who did it, and then vote in a poll to see who the most popular guess was? I think it's ludicrous, and even though FOX News is my station of choice, I can not believe the media is doing this!
It's about sensativity, folks, and the media has none of it, and that bothers me to the point of paranoia. I want to walk over to my local FOX affiliate and give the news room manager a piece of my mind. Let the police take care of the Chandra Levy matter, and don't report of every possible way it could go based on your "experts" thoughts. You know what they're saying to me? All suspects are guilty until proven innocent. Look at Gary Condit. He lost his job thanks to speculation. Speculation generated by the media. What a bunch of lunitics.
Who Killed Chandra?
Dan Johnson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
May 30, 2002
Opinion: To the Media- Shut Up!
Christopher A. Hanson, Co-Webmaster, Dano and Chris Online
March 30, 2002
Opinion: Doesn't this seem like it's going too far?
Now, we have to sit and watch all of these commercials on our TV. They basically use harsh and even sarcastic forms in their 30-second time slots to scrutinize smokers and the tobacco industry. It's not an educational commercial to tell us anything, it's a 30-second time slot to harass the millions of people who have made a decision despite all of the information they have received in the past, to use tobacco products. It's a 30-second time slot to scrutinize the tobacco industry, who has bent over backwards to warn people of what smoking can do to a person. They have paid billions of dollars on cival agreements to make the non-smokers happy.
So, I see all of this, and I think to myself, hey, isn't it legal to smoke in this country? Is there any law that says that if you smoke, you should be subject to all sorts of public material and media coverage that tells you that you're an idiot and that the companies that make this stuff are killers?
This is going too far, folks. It really is. The "truth" people have a website you can go to and read up on what they do and why. It's http://www.thetruth.com. (Make sure you don't try to go to http://www.truth.com, that's a hardware store website) There, they explain that it's their so called "responsibility" to expose "the truth about tobacco companies" and their "questionable advertising", which "the truth" explains is that tobacco companies have been lying to get people to smoke.
So, the tobacco industry hasn't already had enough new limitations yet, huh? There are dining establishments here in Minot where people have to go to their own closed off room to smoke, now. Huh, sounds a little like segregation to me. You took smoking off the airplanes, and smokers didn't get too mad, they just accepted it. You made the tobacco industry pay a huge settlement for being "irresponsible", even though people all over the world have known for many years that the usage of tobacco is hazerdous to your health. You made the tobacco industry take all of their advertising off the TV, and made them take a good portion of their advertising out of magazines. You put huge warnings on the packs and cartons of cigarettes. Good Lord, what was next?
Ah, yes, the public harassment of citizens- smokers or non-smokers. Watch the commercials, and tell me they weren't harassing people, generally smokers. Watch the "truth's" commercial showing their version of a CEO of a tobacco company talking about the dangers of smoking. The "truth" will have you believe that the CEO is mocking smokers and non-smokers alike, that they're suckers to some sort of crazy advertising that simply lies to the public. We've seen CEO's on real commercials following the orders of their settlements to talk about the hazards of smoking, and here's the "truth" telling everyone that these commercials are lies. Talk about damned if they do, damned if they don't. How right is this practice of "the truth" to mock big tobacco's attempts to meet the guidelines in their settlement?
Smoking is a health risk, yes. So is drinking alcohol. So is eating too much. So is skydiving. I don't see people trying to mock them. Let's mock a fat guy who ate at a buffet, because eating too much fatty food is bad for the heart. As a matter of fact, we should attempt to mock people when they come out of buffets...or any dining establishment. Maybe post some cameras in a jumpzone of a professional skydiving training center, make fun of those people when they land. "This is dangerous", we'll tell the trainers. "How dare you put these people's lives at stake". They'll say, "It was their decision to try this, and this is perfectly legal", and we'll say, "Tough, we will mock you anyhow, ha ha!"
You know, when it comes down to the bottom line, smoking is legal, and companies have taken all sorts of measures in the past five years to educate young people. They've sacraficed largely viewed advertisements, and paid billions of dollars out to all fifty states. But, when it comes down to it, it's a personal decision to smoke. You can choose to smoke and I won't come down on you for it. You can choose not to smoke, and I won't say that you're not cool. Just don't harass me or anyone else, and don't infringe on my or anyone else's basic right to make their own decisions- especailly when we're violating no laws whatsoever. Shame on "the truth" for their insane methods of trying to get some sort of a point across. Shame, shame, shame.
Dan Johnson
Chris Hanson
Chew both of us out at the same time