Posted on May 19 at 10:34 p.m.Suggest removal

Among the developed nations of the world, America is by far the most violent. According to The Economist (April 28-May 4, 2012, p. 68), deaths of 10- to 24-year-olds due to violence is 18 times higher in the U.S. than in the United Kingdom. This is per 100,000 population, so it accounts for the difference in total population. This is beyond shameful. Now, I don't know which side of this debate is correct. There are good arguments on both sides. I will propose a different hypothesis - it really won't matter, at the bottom line, either way. I suspect that the gun laws, either liberal or conservative, aren't really going to change anything. The problem is something that is far more difficult to fix, and something that most people don't want to face. The problem is a fundamental problem with America. The problem is the culture. We are a violent people.

On

Posted on August 31 at 10:04 a.m.Suggest removal

"Why should NATO have sponsored the Libyan Revolution while studiously ignoring democratic movements elsewhere in the Arab world?"

Perhaps because in Egypt and Tunisia, the military were not unleashed to kill, rape, and pillage on a massive scale.

"The difference between Mubarak and Gadhafiis the difference between Batista and Castro: one dictator was a willing scion of Western imperialism while the other was not."

This is a highly misleading statement. The fundamental difference, within the context of this situation, is that Gadhafi unleashed the full force of the military against a civilian populace. Despite his other flaws, Mubarak did not do that. Mr. Smith doesn't seem able to recognize these nuanced distinctions.

NATO made it clear from the start that action was being taken to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe that would have been caused by a military campaign waged against a civilian populace. There were isolated episodes of violence in Tunisian and Egypt, but not on a genocidal scale.

Do you think that the western powers want to take the risk of getting entangled in a conflict in North Africa? These things are extremely messy (Iraq, Afghanistan). However, when faced with the very real probability of a massive humanitarian disaster on the other side of the Med, with a flood of refugees into southern Europe, these countries felt compelled to take action to limit, to the extent possible, Gadhafi's ability to wage a war against the civilian populace.

There was no need for this kind of intervention in Egypt and Tunisia. Furthermore, in Syria, the capabilities of the Syrian military make intervention a completley different situation, with a different set of pros and cons to be weighed. The Syrian military can fight back in a way that the Libyan military could not. The geography of the area around Syria, relative to North Africa, also makes a wider regional a more likely outcome of intervention. All these things factors have to be weighed and balanced.

Perhaps these things are a little more complicated than Mr. Smith suggests. This article almost borders on conspiracy theorist hysteria. The world is a very complex and dynamic case. Even in western societies, there are many competing interests and pressures. Oil, though important (because our entire civilization would grind to a halt without it), is not all encompassing and the only motivation for action for the west. Let's resist the temptation to boil everything down to a cynical, jaded, and sophomoric analysis.

I sense a real double-standard when it comes to western intervention in places like the Middle East. If we didn't take action in Libya, Mr. Smith would have been first in line to heap criticism on the west for sitting by and allowing a humanitarian catastrophe to unfold in Libya. We took action, and now Mr. Smith criticizes the west for having perverse motives and behaving in an imperialistic fashion. The inconsistencies and double-standards are glaring.

On

Posted on August 25 at 9:43 a.m.Suggest removal

I have read the Oklahoma Daily for years, and I agree with several comments that have been made in response to this most recent letter from the Editorial Board.

"Yeah, the article got people talking. But the reason why people were talking is because she attacked hundreds of girls on campus. There are much more tasteful ways to get people talking." Renowned Genius

"Ellisor's opinion piece was an immature rant, not a well-reasoned editorial." Miche

"You're doing your job when you write a responsible, thought-provoking piece that inspires discussion and critical thinking." skeptical

These comments strike at the heart of the problem. Editorials in the Daily, especially those that are about controversial issues, are rarely thought provoking, balanced, and well written. They are typically inflammatory, insulting, and irresponsible. Most of them are written to be as offensive as possible to the readership with a different opinion and to bring about the maximum negative emotional response possible. There is nothing in that kind of writing that informs or promotes productive dialogue. The result is only to contribute to greater polarization and lack of understanding, and to the continued coarsening of civil discourse.

The Editorial Board has a responsibility in this process. You can demand certain standards and use better judgement. In my opinion, you have failed to do your job, and the cost has been the credibility of the Daily.

You mention in your letter that the Editorial Board desires to present a wide spectrum of beliefs and perspectives. This is fine, but I don't think it addresses the issue. The problem is that the writing needs to be lifted out of the gutter. If you want to be respected as a serious newspaper, present articles that are designed for something more than just verbally punching someone in the face. Otherwise, the editorial section of your paper will remain about as respectable as a tabloid.

On

Posted on May 11 at 7:04 p.m.Suggest removal

"The birther movement was never about Obama’s place of birth, but his race at birth — such a controversy never would have flourished if he were white"

This just doesn't quite hold up. There are multitudes of conspiracy theories about white guys.

"Then again, is anything sufficient coming from the Obama administration?"

Whoever holds the highest executive office in the country will always inspire conspiracy theories from the fringe, without any regard to race. I don't think Pres. Obama has been more of a target than any of these theories than any of his predecessors.

George Bush's administration was the target for endless conspiracy theorizing. Every heard of a little conspiracy theory about 9/11 being an inside job??? There are countless others out there.

In fact, especially these days, for conspiracy theorists on the Left and Right (and yes, both sides have plenty of them), white, wealthy Wall Street bankers play the central role in most conspiracy theories.

Perhaps conspiracy theorizing has more to do with economic class than race.

The racism argument just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I would have liked to have seen an article that addresses the real reason why American society generates these ideas and has a segment of the population that buys into them. Racism is really getting a bit tired as an explanation for everything.

On

Posted on March 8 at 8:50 p.m.Suggest removal

What is this? A column in the OU Daily about religion that doesn't mention the Westboro Baptist Church? I didn't even see the words "homosexual" or "abortion" once. This can't be.

By the way, this can't be a "newsworthiness fail". This is an opinion piece because this is actually the opinion section. It isn't the news section.

I love how if you write anything positive or encouraging in the OU Daily, you get crucified. All Mr. Keiser is saying is that this time of year is a season for Christians to reflect and make an extra effort to grow spiritually. He went on to state that everyone could benefit from making such an effort. Is that really so bad?

It is an opinion piece, and he stated his opinion in a rather respectful way. If you don't like it, move on with your day, but spare the vitriolic, cynical comments.

On

Posted on February 12 at 11:08 p.m.Suggest removal

This is a very informative article. This is the kind of thing that actually impacts the lives of people and that we need to know about.

It is impressive what you guys can accomplish when you're not wasting space with articles about homosexuality, abortion, guns, and the existence vs. non-existence of God.

On

Posted on December 9 at 8:12 a.m.Suggest removal

"Any group that brainwashes its followers to believe proven lies and absurd ideas should be considered a cult and not have the freedom that other religions have."
Posted by anonymous / korkio on December 8, 2010 at 4:45 p.m.

It is statements like this that are disconcerting. The reality is that our Constitution does guarantee freedom of thought and speech to these groups. It doesn't matter how absurd, bizarre, bigoted, or ignorant you may find their beliefs to be. We all have the freedom to make up our own minds about what we believes and to choose our own ideas. We also have a right to teach those values and beliefs to our children. This is a fundamental, universal human right.

Yes, it means that some people, possibly a very sizeable proportion, are going to embrace ideas that are not true. However, it would be far worse to live in a society where people think they have the intellectual freedom to choose their own beliefs but are actually only free to choose beliefs that have been pre-approved by an elitist establishment.

Who gets to say what is absurd? Who gets to decide what is and what is not brainwashing? Who gets to say what is a proven lie? The state? Given the option of allowing intellectual freedom and accepting that some people are going to go off the deep end, or allowing the government to decide for us what views we can hold, I will go with freedom and take the consequences. They are preferable to tyranny.

Do I personally believe that the ideas espoused by this group are true? No. I think they are absurd, and I personally find this amusement park distasteful. As a result, I won't be going to it. However, I will fight for their freedom to believe what they wish and to teach their beliefs to their children. That is what citizenship in America is all about. If you aren't willing to stand up and defend the right of other people to choose their own beliefs and express ideas that might make your blood boil, you just don't get it.

On

Posted on September 4 at 6:14 p.m.Suggest removal

Let's keep try to keep this in perspective and not blow it out of all proportion (as OU students typically tend to do, probably to have something to write about, but that is another issue).

The Quran burners represent a small, radical fringe in American society. Their views and practices are well outside the mainstream of conservatism.

We are constantly told that we should not judge all Muslims because of the actions of a radical minority within that religion. I strongly agree. However, I think the same standard should be applied in the West as well. We should not hold Western society to a higher and more rigorous standard. To do so would be to show a subtle bigotry against Islamic societies.

If Islamic cultures should not be judged negatively because of the actions of Al Qaeda, then Western societies, and American society in particular, shouldn't be negatively judged because of the actions of the Quaran burners. This is especially true since the Islamic fringe shows its crazy side by killing thousands of innocent people and the right-wing trailer park fringe in America shows its crazy side by burning books.

Perspective, people, please.

On

Posted on August 14 at 10:52 a.m.Suggest removal

"It is people like Westboro who make Christians look like hypocrites, people who supposedly preach love yet show nothing but condemnation."

Seriously? How can WBC make Christians look like anything? There are 10 of them, and they're from Kansas...f'ing Kansas!

Every contemporary and traditional Christian group in North America and Europe - Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox - have thoroughly and unambiguously condemned WBC. The WBC in no way represents any form or strand of Christianity except its own narrow agenda. It has no connection with the rest of Christendom, and they're actions and words are actually designed to be as outrageous to believing Christians as they are to everyone else.

WBC is nothing. If it wasn't for the media - YOU - giving them a bull horn, nobody would know who they are.

On

Posted on May 6 at 4:04 p.m.Suggest removal

Mr. Gibbons,

Even without any consideration for the actual argument being made, this is one of the most poorly written articles I have read in the Daily. It is garbage. It is incredible that something like this was actually presented in the Daily. Actually, it is embarassing.

"Why do I write about the Bible? The Bible is the foundation of many Christian’s beliefs. It is a book that many Christians derive their teachings from, their ways of life and even what they teach their children.

I believe that few people understand that the Bible is not a book that was passed down from an all encompassing being to man. Rather it was written by man for man."

Mr. Gibbons, what is your point? Nothing you could possibly say is going to change the minds of the hundreds of millions of people on this planet that believe the Bible is, to some degree, a revelation from God. There isn't a single coherent argument in this piece that would compel any religious person to reevaluate their beliefs. Furthermore, it is so sophomoric and poorly structured that the only thing any reasonable peron would ask themselves after reading it is "why do they let these %*#@ers write articles at OU?".

This is nothing more than an attempt to get people worked up. There is nothing informative or thought-provoking in this. It is sad to see the Daily used for nothing more than insulting as big a segment of the population as possible for no other purpose than for some pompous jerk to feel like part of an enlightened minority.

How about informing the public about important, relevant, timely issues and focusing less on troling for emotional reactions?

Please, at least for a while, no more articles about homosexuality, abortion, or God.

D

On