Pensivity

A few things have happened since I wrote here last. If I may, I'd like to reflect upon them.

Most notably, the Virginia Tech shootings. Normally, I'm one of the first to hear about breaking news. This isn't bragging on my part as much as a reflection of the eye I keep on the media. I want to know what's going on. Once upon a time, I wanted to be a reporter. And every so often, something that happens you will remember the rest of your life. I like to know when those things happen. That Monday, however, I did not know about the shooting until after my 12-1 class. I had heard the words "Virginia Tech" at one point, but nothing else made me suspect that something had happened. When I was made aware of the massacre, I threw myself into it. I watched with wonder and dread the video a student captured on his phone. I heard the pat pat pat of guns firing.
It's weird, juxtaposing actual shooting with the blam-blam action of Hollywood movies. If someone pulls out an assault rifle and sprays bullets everywhere, nobody blinks. But if an actual person fires a handgun, I'm rendered immobile. Perhaps we're not as desensitized to violence as we like to think we are. If so, that has to be a good thing, right?
The United States is a country of roughly 300 million people. 33 died that day in Blacksburg, Virginia. That's .000011% of the population. Yet the death of that .000011% of the people in this country is enough to completely stop us. We're stunned. We're shocked. I was so upset by what happened that I didn't go to my class at 3 p.m. I was genuinely disturbed and frazzled by this. I didn't know anyone shot that day, but it still got to me.
Why? Is it the intrinsic value we place in a human life? Is it the reminder of our mortality? Is it the feeling of helplessness, the inability to do anything but stand aside and watch tragedy unfold? It's likely it's some combination of all of that. The death of a single person is enough to shock a community. We really do find worth an value in every life. Shootings like this, like the shootings at Columbine, in Pennsylvania, they remind us that we're never truly safe, that at any moment, something can happen. And really, there's nothing we can do to stop it.
Rest assured, people will try and claim otherwise. People are already falling over themselves to try and use this incident to further their own goals. We need more guns. We need less guns. We should build walls. We should install land mines. We need laser-equipped robots. Certainly, there are changes that need to be made. There always are. Virginia would be well-served to take a hard look at its gun laws, and the federal government would be equally well-served look at interstate gun sales (the gunman got his pieces from eBay).
The striking part is the compromise of what we thought were safe institutions. We think schools are safe. We think a campus is safe. Reality is much different. If anything, they're more dangerous than walking through downtown Detroit at night. You have teenagers and young adults under a lot of stress and a myriad of other problems running around.
We have a bifurcation in regards to what we consider acceptable deaths. When someone dies in war, that's somehow easier to take than when an "innocent" person is killed. On one level, it's hard for me to understand how we can send people to their deaths (that is what a soldier's fate is) and take it in stride instead of someone suddenly being killed. On another, it makes sense. The death of those at war is never surprising. We brace ourselves for that. We're never ready for someone to run around and kill 32 strangers.

The psychology of this episode is interesting. It's a lot easier to understand what happens in a high school setting. It's fairly straightforward. But this is much different. We don't know if the shooter knew anyone, even the first person he shot down. The video he made complicates the matter further. What was he talking about in that rambling declaration? Why did he do this? Why complete strangers? I know criminologists are pursuing the victim angle, but that's a very superficial answer. What did he feel victimized by? Does it have to do with the fact that he's Korean? Is it something else?
We also have to face the fact that on some level, we failed that man. We could not get him the help he needed before it was too late. It seems as though he felt this was his only option.
The grief of the Virginia Tech community has been well documented. I can't imagine what they're going through. But what about the family of the shooter? I have to believe they're even worse off than the families of the victims. At least the parents of slain students can feel like their children were taken from them. They can live through positive memories. The parents of the shooter will forever be haunted by the fact their son is a mass murderer. That's the final memory of him. He's an infamous figure now. There's no way to put a positive light on that.

Like I said, I was watching the news all day that day, refreshing stories on the Web constantly. I had it on CNN nearly for the next 24 hours. In general, I thought the coverage was solid and done well. However, I started to see graphics declaring "Virginia Tech Massacre" in bold fonts and menacing music playing in the background. This is what I have a problem with. We don't need these things played up. Life is not a video game. It doesn't need to be made more exciting. If any story can speak for itself, it's this one. It doesn't need CNN's help in hyping it up. The American media is so far gone, though, that it can't recognize when such sensational marketing goes beyond even insensitivity and straight into hurtful.

Boris Yeltsin died Monday. And for the life of me, I can't understand why this wasn't a bigger deal. His death passed incredibly quietly. We're talking about one of the most important figures of the late 20th century. I would argue that he was more important than Bush and Clinton in the 90s. Taking Russia from the smoldering ruins of the USSR to democracy and the "shock therapy" free markets was no small feat. There were a lot of people who did not want that to happen. Perhaps history will be kinder to him as time goes on, because he's not getting his due right now.

David Halberstam, a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer, also died Monday. Admittedly, I was surprised to hear the likes of Peter Gammons calling him the greatest sports journalist of his lifetime. I had never even heard of the guy. But when writer after writer talks about how amazing and wonderful the guy was, I owed it to myself to look him up. And after reading a few pieces of his, I'm wishing it hadn't taken me so long to find him. He truly is a gifted writer. He writes with a liquid smoothness and manages to write some profound things in a very accessible way. He strikes me as a high-class writer than anyone can read and appreciate. Note that I didn't say he lowers the intelligence of his writing or panders to the lower denominator. He is one of those people who is able to communicate intelligent things in a way a lot of people can understand. It's a very rare talent indeed.
A column of his that stood out to me was his musings on sports and 9/11. He wrote it in 2002, a year after the attack on the World Trade Center. He mused on the tendency for people to characterize sports as a way to unite a town, a country, a people, to lift them up and make them feel better in the face of hardship. We certainly did this in 2001, turning to sports as a way to heal our wounds. New York attached itself to the Yankees' World Series run in October. Halberstam said, though, sports are nothing more than a distraction. They don't heal any real hurts, and they don't really unite anyone. And he argued anyone that the more obsessed a fan is, the more his life is probably lacking. You know, there's a lot of truth to that. Everyone knows I'm a huge Bobcat fan... but more and more, I wonder how much it defines me and how much it should define me.
When I was in high school telling people I wanted to go to OU to study journalism, people said, "Oh, you're going to be a sportswriter?" with notable frequency. After a while, I became snippy at this. Why, I said, do people automatically assume I would be a sports reporter? There were more important things in life, more meaningful things. Sports does not define who I am. It doesn't matter in the long run. It's nice when your team wins, but does it really make your life better? And yes, I'm fully aware of the probably hypocrisy currently spouting from my fingertips.
I wonder... if pro sports went away tomorrow, would my life actually improve? It just might.

Easter Meditations

I'm sitting here simultaneously hungry and not hungry. You know that feeling? It's a weird feeling. I should probably make myself something to eat, but I just want to sit here for a while. In fact, that's what I'm doing. There was about five minutes between those two sentences. And another five between this and the previous. Hmm.

Easter is my favorite holiday. I know Christmas is part of the cultural zeitgeist, but I've never been that big on Christmas for reasons I've illustrated before. Easter, though, does it for me. It represents everything that is wonderful about the Faith and about Jesus. At church today, the pastor talked about Easter being a time for God to rejuvenate us. I agree. I usually come away from Easter feeling more energetic, more excited about my faith. For those that don't share the Faith, I can tell you that it's a weight. It grinds. It can wear you down. It's good, then, to have days like these to recharge us.

And I do feel recharged. Heck, I was able to get out of bed at 9:30 on a Sunday. That's a good sign, and evidence enough for me that God is working through me. You think I could've gotten up on my own after falling asleep somewhere around 6?

I'm also feeling very reflective, though. Today is about rejoicing for Jesus and His Rising, but I can't help but think of other things on this day. I've been thinking on the past year. What have I done? Who have I helped? Have I kept the Faith? Am I impacting people in a positive way or a negative way? Am I making myself better? Am I doing what God has set me out to do? How can I improve over the next year?
To be sure, these are weighty questions. They're not lightly taken. So I'll probably spend much of the day in thought and prayer... again, a good thing. I just hope that I and my friends can help lead me down the correct path for this coming year.

Spin it Fast, Spin it Straight

The other day, someone asked me what I thought people's greatest misconception is about me. It's an interesting question and worth thinking about. So obviously, I gave it some thought.

I decided that people don't get what I'm saying often and take it the wrong way. Most commonly, people often think I'm joking when I'm serious and think I'm serious when I'm joking. When people take something I mean seriously as a joke, it's often just an annoyance for me. When it happens the other way 'round, it can cause some problems for me.
Admittedly, this is mostly my fault. I use sarcasm so often and so fluidly, most people don't know when I'm being sarcastic and when I'm not. It's something I try to do, to be less sarcastic. But it's hard because I've done it for so long. It's been a defensive mechanism for so long, I can't just flip a switch, however much I want to.

The other side of the problem is that people often don't take what I say at face value. If you know me, you know I'm a straight shooter. I come right out. I say what I mean. Now, there's a difference between saying you speak your mind and you use that as a shield to insult others, and I hope I'm on the right side of that.
But people often look for an angle or a meaning or the "truth" behind what I say... and there isn't really one. This happens with women especially. They can't seem to accept that I'm an honest person, that I actually mean what I say. I've been told they're naturally suspicious of guys because they're used to being lied to... so essentially, I get punished for doing things the right way. And it sucks because people will attach meaning I never intended on to things I say. I observe and I note... and often, that's all there is to it. But people don't believe that to be true, so it makes interactions harder with people (again, especially women. They always seem to think there's something "more").

So... honestly, I don't know what to do. I could start lying, I guess, but that's a pretty large compromise of my character. And how do I "prove" I'm honest? How do I prove I'm not angling for anything? This sort of thing gets me into trouble all the time, and I don't know how to stop it. Most often, people takes it to mean that I'm hitting on/flirting with people... I'm usually not. Maybe that's why I find a fair number of my friends falling for me. I don't know.

Low Pressure, High Pressure, Pressure, Pressure, Pressure

You know, I really would like to just forget about Carolyn. Just bury her and leave her behind. However, that seems to be just impossible, considering where I live and who I interact with. It just gets brought up. I don't like bringing it up, I don't enjoy talking about it, but it happens. And then I get thinking about it, and the whole thing makes me mad. Seriously, how does someone decide to hate you for reasons they made up in the first place? Bah!

And then... oh man. Near the end of last quarter, we went to Rio Grande for dinner. Love that place. After all, they make their own chips and salsa and you get as much of it as you want for free... you can't beat that! Plus, all the people work there are Mexican. Half of them are even legally in the country. So we had a good time there. At the end, the waiter tried to get me to do a shot of Tequila... and I didn't want to do it. I don't have a reason, I just didn't. But he was determined; he even got the entire restaurant to chant, "Drink it! Drink it!" A couple boys started doing it, but their mom immediately pulled their arms down, which was pretty funny. Needless to say, I dug my heels in. He ended up drinking the stuff himself, and I had a very red face.
When we were coming back, completely out of the freaking blue, one of my female friends goes, "You don't find me attractive, do you?" WHAT THE CRAP?!?!? Seriously, it was all I could do not to fall over the stairs. Listen, ladies, there is absolutely NO good answer to that question. Don't ever ask it. I was mortified. I don't think I even was able to form words in response. Of course, she took this to mean my answer was "no" (when really the only think I could think was, "JUMP THROUGH THE CLOSEST WINDOW!"). So she got all hurt and got that tone of voice girls get when they're hurt but pretend like they're not... oy. Plus, she has a boyfriend! So what the heck! Ugh. I'd like to just bash my head against something sharp and hard, please. It would all just be so much easier.

Speaking of women, I went to a reception for the Japanese students that are here for the quarter. I wasn't feeling especially gregarious, so I just sort of did that standing around awkwardly thing I'm really good at. However, Hiroki seemed to appreciate my appearance, and that's why I did it in the first place. I do have to say, though, that there was a handful of comely Japanese ladies. So that was nice. I almost even talked to one of them.

It's taken forever just to write this much and I have a lot of work to do, so... I'm cutting this short.

Crusade of Cynicism

As I've discovered, I'm not too old for 12-hour Dungeons & Dragons sessions. I started running a game on Thursdays. Last week, we started at 8 p.m. and ended at 8 p.m. It was fun, to be sure, but it was also quite exhausting. And of course, it threw my sleep schedule completely out of whack. So I'm working on about four hours of sleep because that whole class thing forced me to get up at a decent hour.

I was watching SportsCenter yesterday, and they had a feature of sorts on Bob Knight, the former coach of Indiana and the current coach about Texas Tech (this isn't really about sports, I promise). The report was filed by Jeremy Schaap, one of ESPN's top "issue" reporters and the son of sports journalism icon Dick Schaap. Part of the way through the story, Jeremy mentions the interview he had with Knight after he was fired from Indiana University. It shows Knight getting surly with Schaap and refusing to shake his hand after the interview concluded. Makes Bobby K look pretty bad, right?
Well, the voiceover immediately says something along the line of the thing that stuck out to him (Schaap) the most was Knight's "personal attack" on him (Knight was getting mad for Schaap interrupting him and said, "You've got a long way to go to be like your father"). And this is the problem I have. First of all, it wasn't really an insult. But Schaap is a whiny sissy, and he frequently injects himself into the story. Schaap has developed a history of interviewees getting hostile with him. Is it asking the tough questions, or is it provocation? It's a fine line, to be sure, but I don't believe he comes down on the correct side of it.
He's also one of those people who feel the need to tell the viewers what they should think, why something is so terrible and that you should be outraged, offended, or saddened by it. And I hate that. Schaap is emblematic of the generation of journalists that make the story about themselves as much as the angle. You get their opinions on things. You see them "confronting" their interviews.
If you've seen "Shattered Glass," you know what I'm talking about (and if you haven't, do yourself a favor and watch it). There's this class of reporters out there that are trying to make themselves more important than the story. They think they're the vanguards of what they cover. The importance isn't what they cover, but the fact that they're covering it.
That is wrong.
Journalism hasn't really changed in theory. The landscape of the profession has- as much as any has in the last 10 to 15 years- but the idea has not. Report the story, present the facts. The problem is that people have come along who have twisted the game and have stuck themselves between the truth and the consumer. And in the process, that truth gets distorted. The idea is that the story speaks for itself. Now, the reporters are speaking for themselves. That ideal of objectivity (which I think is crap, but that's another rant) gets destroyed in the process.
That's why I love how the BBC does things. British journalism, sadly, is far superior to American journalism in some respects. In the US, journalism is all about the story. What's the angle? What's the hook? In England, it's about the facts. Here's what's going on, here's what a couple people said... draw your own conclusions. And you know what? It works. It's more reliable. It's more trustworthy.
This is the system we used to have. Why don't we go back to it? Our journalists shouldn't be the guardians of morality or culture. I don't care what Neil Cavuto thinks about the Anna Nicole Smith saga- or, for that matter, why she's dominating the headlines. But once again, the media's obsession with stupid celebrity stories is another rant.