Social Chat

So, it’s early Monday morning here in the Bay. I just got back from a nice walk down to the water for a little exercise. It was cold, but nice.

I’m changing topics this week. I saw this article and though it might spark some interesting discussion. The article focuses on a recent Elton John interview regarding gay rights and religion. Elton has some pretty harsh things to say about organized religion. He says that organized religion has historically been spewed hatred toward homosexuals around the world and proposes a world-wide ban of organized religion.

I feel like I’m a spiritual person (notice I didn’t say religious). I believe in God, attend church, etc. Some of John’s quotes ring true with me unfortunately, as organized religion has not shown the gay community much love over the years. I wonder what God thinks of the churches job in this regard?

Banning organized religion? I’m not really sure I’m ready for such a move. I would like to see organized religion reach out the gay community in love, however. In my mind, THIS is what organized religion should be striving to do. What do you think?

So it’s another Saturday morning and I’m in “The Bay” watching the Food Network (Yes, I like to watch some cooking shows!). As usual, I’m also surfing the Internet looking for some CJ articles and found a “doozy”

This article reports on a “Sex for Contraband” scandal in the State of Florida. Check it out.

We’ve been talking alot about the positive and negative aspects of prison in class so I figured this would be an interesting current events article. Anyway, what do you think?

I’m sitting in Caribou Coffee Shop in Lake Geneva on a beautiful Saturday afternoon (I love free wireless internet in coffee shops). While surfing the Internet, I found an interesting article I thought I’d blog about.

The article I linked above focuses on Jeffrey Skilling, one of the executives of Enron. Recall Enron at one time was a top 10 company in the US and worth billions. However, some time ago, the company went bankrupt and lost approximately 1 billion in retirement assets for all its employees. Imagine you work all your life at a company only to lose your retirement a couple of years from retirement because a couple of executives “cook the books.”

Both Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling had been in trial for some time although Lay’s trial was dismissed, as he died of a major heart attack (now that sucks for the victims). Skilling was only recently found guilty of 18 counts of white collar crime (i think it was fraud-type charges). So what do you think, did the punishment fit the crime?

Good morning. It’s a really nasty Sunday morning here in the Bay. It’s cold, rainy and windy. I can take (and actually enjoy) the cold, but rain sucks. And wind just makes outdoor activity impossible.

I found a short interesting article this morning on CNN’s website. The article tells of a 59-year old man who has apparently twice rejected being paroled in Germany. Yes, you heard me correctly. German officials have twice offered him parole and he has twice (presently and back in 1992) refused. Apparently, he was convicted of murder and sentenced to Life in Prison (with the possibility of parole). He’s spent 34 years locked up. What’s up with that? Maybe prison life isn’t that bad…what do you think?

So, I’m sitting here in “The Bay” on Sunday just chillin with the familiy and watching the New Orlean Saints beat the Ealgles. Wouldn’t it be neat to see the Saints win the Super Bowl this year?

Anyway, back to the blog. I found this interesting website on the Internet that allow users to connect with female prisoners. Click HERE to check it out.

What do you think of this idea? I must admit I’m not sure how I feel about it. Let me know.

Good morning! We finally have a Saturday filled with blue skies and nice temperatures-yes. My wife and I (and our mutts) are going to UWW to watch some sporting events this afternoon. We plan to take in some men’s’ lacrosse and women’s’ tennis. I used to play a mean game of tennis many years (and pounds) ago. I still hit the ball ’round, but at a much slower pace and with a bit less consistency. Anyway, enough about me…

More school violence, what’s up with that? This has really been a bad couple of weeks for our educational institutions, hasn’t it? I read an article this week (about 3pages) that I think is appropriate for our blog. Click here to read it.

The Amish are an interesting people. In my humble opinion, their culture provides one with some interesting lessons for life. Much of our society reacts with hate to crime. Communities tend to uncoil with questions of mistakes and negligence that result in finger-pointing campaigns, more police officers, metal detectors, etc. I wonder if all this helps.

Don’t misunderstand I might very well be one of those persons spewing hate if my children had been executed. And I certainly have no way of comparing the emotional loss these individuals are going through. Still, we do choose the emotional reactions we have and this article brings to light a unique and less often seen reaction of forgiveness and love for fellow man-even the perpetrators.

I’d urge you to read this article, as it really contains some alternative concepts for criminal justice values. Most of society will write this off as another quirky trait of a society that is simply out of touch with reality. As a sociologist, I believe this type of attitude is severely short-sided and wrong-headed. We will talk about a concept in the coming days (restorative justice and peacemaking criminology) that addresses some of these reactions. Anyway, what do you think?

It’s Saturday evening, check out this additional story about the Amish by clicking here

No surprises about the topic of discussion this Saturday morning, right? High schools have become interesting places over the past couple of years. Hopefully, you’ve seen the latest headlines of school violence occurring in our own backyard (In case you’ve been marooned on a deserted island for the past week, you can click on the word “headlines” to find out what I’m referring to).

A Wisconsin freshman shot and killed a principal and also wounded a janitor at Weston High School in Cazenovia, WI. We don’t really know what happened to prompt such violent behavior (and I’m certainly not going to speculate). However, it’s truly tragic for all parties. For all I know, Cazenovia may be your hometown.

Several topics are worthy of addressing from such a situation. There’s the certifying of this kid as an adult for these crimes. This, in my opinion, is a hot topic; however, I will save it for another time. We might also want to address the topic of gun control after such a situation occurs, as one might well claim guns are much too easily accessible by kids in the US of A. Positing such a case, we could use this argument to further argue that the presence of guns in our society necessarily results in more severe bloodshed (One might argue that if guns we banned in the USA that at least kids would have a harder time locating a shotgun and pistol to use at school). Still, this is an argument for another time (and by the way, I am a gun owner [I AM FROM TX, YOU KNOW]).

My interest in this topic is more macro-level (larger level). So here’s my question: What is ultimately behind the violence on our high school campuses? Don’t misunderstand I’m well aware that high school campuses are, for the most part, safe places so I’m not attempting to paint high school campuses as a war zone. That said, this instance along with others beg us to answer the question of what is causing these outbursts of violence that are resulting in death and destruction.

What is my opinion? There is a multiplicity of possibilities. First, we could say this level of anger has always been around, but is only recently rearing its head due to an overabundance, accessibility, and emphasis of guns within our society. We’ve all been pissed at the principal one time or another in our lives, right? Maybe younger students are being over-socialized to using guns to solve problems (too much TV, video games, etc.).

Second, we could simply blame the kid. It may be that he’s got issues in his life (psychological, physiological, etc.) that made him “snap” and engage in this deadly behavior.

Last, maybe we should be looking at what’s occurring in and around this child’s surroundings. School campuses can be treacherous places with the cliques nowadays. Teenagers can be awfully rude and condescending, right? Can we consider this a factor that leads to violence in schools? Sure, but how much of a factor did it play in causing this violence is the larger question?

In the end, I guess I’m more interested in why this type of violence is playing out AT SCHOOL. Is there something taking place in our schools that leads to this type of violence or is it more of a case that this is where kids spend a great deal of their time (they’re either at home or school). Many questions…not a lot of concrete answers unfortunately. What do you think?

It’s another rainy weekend and I’m sitting around with my dogs. By the way, here are some pictures of my mutts if you’d like to check them out. So I found a rather interesting video clip this morning that shows a professor trash a students cell phone during class (Please note that the video can only be viewed with Quicktime). The video shows this younger professor lecturing when suddenly a cell phone rings. The camera then moves over to a student who has answered and is talking on the cell phone during class. The professor walks over to the student and asks for the phone and then throws the cell to the ground. I’m sure the phone was ruined.

A couple of questions: (1) Who do you think is more in the wrong? Obviously, neither a doctorate degree nor tenure gives one license to destroy another’s property. Still, it’s well known that cell phones should not only be shut off, but also never answered during class lecture. So which is worse?

The professor could actually be charged in many states with malicious destruction of private property, which is normally a fairly serious offense. Moreover, he could have to pay restitution back to the victim for the price of the phone, which could be costly (hope it wasn’t a Blackberry).

The student could definitely be reprimanded and possibly kicked out of the class. That’s probably it. It’s an interesting question, right? As a student, I’d never think of answering my phone during class. What kind of idiot does this? Still, in the end, the professor has got some serious problems. He probably should consider another field of work, if deviant students set him off that easy, right? What do you think?

So, here I am again at my home in “The Bay” chillin with my pets. My wife has been gone for approximately 2 weeks due to a death in the family. Yep, it’s pretty boring around the Gregory home. That is, until I rec’d a stimulating email from a student regarding our recent discussion of War Metaphors. Here are some of her/his comments:

One thing that I wanted to add about declaring war on social problems is how humorous it is that so many presidents have tried and failed and yet it still happens. You would think that after the bad publicity the past social wars have recieved when they failed that government officials would try and prevent further war symbolism from being used. Is it really that our leaders don’t really care about the long-term goal that their “war declaration” insists and they really only care about rallying people behind their policies for their own gain as a politician… is it a coincidence that a presidential term is only 4 years…. maybe they see a social war as a way to gain support for their term without having to deal with the long-term consequences. Also do u think that certain wars on social problems maybe only result as a response to an outcry by the nation about crime, drugs, etc… and in bush’s case the threat of terrorism post 9/11?

Great comments! Why didn’t you make these comments during our class time? I’m kidding. Let me offer some thoughts on these comments/questions:

Your question about the use of war metaphors that seem to fail is a good one. I think, as you alluded to, one explanation goes to motive. Let’s remember that war metaphors are a form of social policy. They are, at the very core, a use of language. There are no real written declarations of war on cancer, crime, or terror. As a result, what ARE the possible motives of presidents and their administrations for declaring wars on social problems?

Let’s be fair. Politicians are not evil. Many of their intentions are good. President Nixon was definitely interested in stopping cancer when he declared war on the disease. And yes, Dubya really wants to defeat individuals who participate in terrorist activities around the globe. We must start here.

That said, Richard Nixon, Dubya, Clinton, and others don’t lack intelligence. Moreover, the individuals in their cabinet certainly don’t lack intelligence. Dubya was more than aware of the implications of uttering the words “War on Terror” prior to his speech days after 911. Again, one has to view this subject in terms short and long-term goals and administration and public motives.

First, war metaphors garner support in the short-term. There’s simply no argument about it. People rally behind such language in the short-term. Governments tend to act in unity (which is a miracle in itself) and the public rallies behind the government. As a result, these types of metaphors are terrific for solving “solvable” problems. However, the complete eradication of social problems is another topic altogether. The comparison (real wars with social wars) is a bad one, as real wars normally have tangible end, whereas, social one’s don’t.

Second, one must also look at why I call administration politics versus public motives. Let’s face it most politicians all want the same thing: another term in office. And war metaphors, as I stated earlier, bring much needed public and political support to the office. This, in my opinion, is a larger problem embedded within politics. That is, political offices tend to be more concerned with survival instead of “doing the will of the voters.” As a result, politicians selectively choose “safe” topics, while often avoiding “hot” topic issues around election time. What does this mean for our argument about war metaphors? Well, one could posit that administrations might forego using war metaphors when they understand that they are doomed to fail in the long-run. In the end, one must weigh the costs versus benefits FOR THE PEOPLE, NOT THE ADMINISTRATION.

Last, you are right! Many politicians feel compelled to use strong language such as war metaphors as a result of public sentiment. The outcry to go find Bin Laden after 911 was huge and somewhat justified. To what extent should we carry this mission with the realization that we cannot fully wipe out all terrorist organizations in the world? That is the question I pose to you?

I got up this cool Saturday morning and was chillin on my sofa with my two pooches. While sitting on my comfortable couch, watching TV, and surfing the Internet, I found an intersting article about corrections. The main subject of the article focuses on “No Frills Prison.” Essentially, some lawmakers feel prisons/jails should not have the everyday niceties enjoyed by normal law abiding citizens. Frills in prison refers to a number of educational, recreational, psychological treatment, or physical fitness programs and equipment. The frills label has been applied to college courses, access to cable TV, excercise equipment, etc. One of the main arguments in favor of “No Frills” is that prisoners should fare no better than the least advantaged individuals in society. As a result, if disadvantaged or low income individuals don’t have cable TV, excercise equipment, and the like, then neither should prisoners. Of course these same individuals propose that prisons/jails are meant to be both punitive and deterrent. Thus, they believe frills tend to distract from inmates from “doing their time.”

So why do we have frills in prisons/jails? Well, many believe that educational, treatment, and recreatoinal programs keep inmates busy and help them develop life skills. Such frills, some propose, tend to keep inmates busy thus reducing tension and agression, thereby preventing problems such as riots and other forms of prison/jail violence. Moreover, say these proponents, society should be striving to provide such educational, treatment, and recreational activities to all in society. And let’s face it, no matter what type of chair you sit in, the existence cable or not, jails/prisons are by no means places anyone would want to stay at for any length of time.

Interesting arguments. It seems really important that we do whatever necessary to ensure that prisons/jails remain peaceful institutions and gaurantee inmate safety. That said, I must admit as I sit in my comfortable couch with my laptop watching HBO that I do feel a bit uneasy at the thought of inmates/prisoners spending their Saturdays doing the same. What do you think?