Conservative Rumblings

Section: Features
Published: Waubonsee Insight, July 2007 Issue

Let’s be honest; when you click “Agree,” and check the box that says, “I have read the above license and agreement and agree to abide by its terms,” how many of those times have you really read whole thing? Once? Twice? Seen one, seen them all?

It’s ok to admit it; we are all guilty of it at times. License agreements used to be standard affairs and you could get away with it; the old pattern included a part about it not being the company’s fault if you were stupid and misused the program, a part about not reverse engineering and stealing the program, and then a part about not transferring the program to a country the U.S.A. currently had a trade embargo on.

But now, every company (scrupulous and not) is sculpting their agreements in different ways to reach their goals, and the end user (you and me) has to be more cautious then ever.

Companies creating programs such as the virus-filled file-downloading utility called Kazaa bank on the fact that most people don’t really want to read 15 pages of legal mumbo jumbo about reverse engineering and copyright infringement information that does not even apply to the vast majority of users. So, deep down in their agreement, they hide the nefarious little lines of text that can cause so many problems.

Unfortunately for those who’d rather just slap the next button as fast as they can, software developers have grown smarter, and now they are making sure that they cover themselves from potential lawsuits by having the user essentially say, “Yes, please install much spyware on my computer.” Because, when you click “Agree,” that is exactly what you are doing; you are agreeing with everything written in that license, whether you have read it or not.

I have worked cleaning viruses and spyware infections from computers for the last six or seven years, and I can say easily that the vast majority of infections are not caused by downloading some mysterious file that accidentally gets installed; the infections are caused by programs intentionally installed by the user, but programs with loopholes and security risks in the license agreements that the user did not read.

Obviously, there are a lot of programs of ill-repute (such as Kazaa) that are teeming with these license agreement add-ins, because that’s what the programs are all about. What is becoming a disturbing trend is how many legitimate programs have dangerous things hidden in their license agreements.

I recently ran into a license agreement that totally blew me away. I was installing a copy of Iolo Technologies’ System Mechanic 7, which is a tool for fixing a myriad of issues on your computer, when I almost clicked Next as usual at the 300 million page license agreement.

After all, it was a legit program. It’s not like I was installing a file-sharing tool or something else that you would expect to be laden with open doors for viruses and spyware.

Something caught my eye in the first paragraph, however, just a small wording difference from the usual agreement. My interest was piqued, so I continued to read the entire document. Lo and behold, buried beneath many pages of gibberish that means nothing to the average legal user, was the disturbing nugget of information. The license agreement, under the heading of “Software Data Collection and Monitoring” stated the following: “The SOFTWARE contains features that allow iolo and/or third parties to collect data from, control, and/or monitor computers and devices running or interacting with the SOFTWARE in order to prevent unlicensed or illegal use of the SOFTWARE.”

The English version of that is that Iolo is allowed to take information from your computer, including what other programs you are using, in order to make sure that you are not pirating the software.

Talk about a security risk! Even the fact that the program (which is supposed to be doing things like defragmenting the hard drive and fixing registry errors) would have the ability to do such a thing is beyond anything that would have been seen in a license agreement five years ago. Obviously efforts taken to prevent software piracy are commendable, but not at the expense of your user’s privacy.

You can argue that a legitimate security company like Iolo is not going to do something illegal, but giving any company the permission (not just the ability, but the permission) to take hold of your computer is simply asking for problems. Who is to say that a dishonest employee of the company couldn’t take control of your computer for his or her own purpose? What would stop the company from simply spying on you? It’s pretty far-fetched, granted, but is it a risk that you really want to plunge into without reading about it first?

We live in a day and age of fine print. You see it in T.V. commercials and magazine ads, you hear it in that really fast talking guy’s voice at the end of radio commercials, and now, you are seeing it in the license agreements of that new piece of software you just bought.

The difference, however, is that you don’t store personal information in your T.V. or your radio. Read your license agreements and read them well. I am not advocating that you don a tin-foil hat and never install another program because it might be dangerous or include some nasty text in the agreement, but it only takes one program like that to wreck a computer or steal your information, and this is a simple and painless way to save yourself from problems down the road.

Ever wondered what “business casual” really means? Do you know when it’s ok to pull out all the stops in shameless self-promotion?

What’s the best way to fend off the infamous Cubicle Invader or keep a conversation afloat that is sinking faster than Rosie O’Donnell’s career?

If these and other pressing business world questions have been weighing heavily on your mind (or you’re at least curious to know the battle plan to use against the previously mentioned Cubicle Invader) then Work 101: Learning the Ropes of the Workplace Without Hanging Yourself is the book for you.

Written by Elizabeth Freedman, M.B.A, Work 101 bills itself as the book that will give you “everything you need to know about corporate survival,” and honestly, that’s not very far off base.

The book is extremely thorough and covers a very wide variety of business topics, and it does so from a quirky, but detailed, perspective.

The book includes sections on etiquette at work, including introducing yourself (which involves a lot more than ‘my name is so and so’), surviving and thriving in workplace meetings, and a well titled and very in-depth chapter on the business standards of eating called “Your Fork Is Not Shovel, Your Knife Is Not A Saw.”
Work 101 also features sections on the best ways to network, maintain relationships and communicate, and one on the art of getting that often sought but less often received promotion.

Freedman does a good job of maintaining a fun but serious attitude throughout the book. You get the sense that she is trying to get the points across in an entertaining manner, but at the same time, she’s letting you know that some of these are very serious situations that could make or break your career.

She succeeds in both areas, as a matter of fact. Her section on what attire is appropriate and not appropriate is hilarious, especially when she is admonishing the reader to, “for the love of God,” avoid certain articles of clothing because of the…situations…that said articles can cause.

Obviously, the book isn’t going to give you the ‘be all, end all’ answers to every situation in a working environment; companies are never cut and dried in their standards, and may be more lax on some things and totally focused in on others, but overall, Work 101 is an excellent resource for anyone who is currently or plans to soon be out and about in the business world.

After the Virginia Tech tragedy last month, colleges across the nation have had to take a step back and look again at their security protocols and procedures.

Waubonsee, however, was already in the process of a security overhaul.

Insight recently sat down with David Quillen, Waubonsee Vice President of Campus Operations and Finance, and Public Safety Chief Joe Monstwillo, to discuss the safety of Waubonsee’s campus, as well as future plans to make the environment of Waubonsee even safer.

If a safety issue were to develop on one of Waubonsee’s campuses that was similar to the Virginia Tech shooting, Waubonsee’s response would be somewhat different than how Virginia Tech reacted.

“Our first response is something that was really neglected at Virginia Tech, and that is to notify as many people as possible as to the location and type of incident that is occurring,” Monstwillo explained.

He added that Waubonsee has been working on a variety of community notification strategies since before the VT tragedy. “Community notification is kind of a work in progress right now,” he said.

Quillen elaborated on that, saying that there are currently several communication devices in place, including emergency call boxes. “We do have some things that are in place, [but] we are looking at enhancing those…as we expand into other projects, we’re looking at modernizing, as well as expanding, the number of [call boxes],” he confirmed.

Quillen also stated that there would be “no limit” as to what would be done to keep students safe in the event of a security issue.

He explained that although responses would be “scenario specific,” most options would “be on the table.” These could include closing the campus, locking down buildings and many other related actions.

In that vein, both Monstwillo and Quillen encouraged anyone confronted with an emergency situation on campus to be proactive.

“I think it’s important for the members of the WCC community to understand that they are all empowered to [call 911 in the event of an emergency.] They don’t have to contact us and filter an emergency through the public safety department or through any other entity. We expect that if an emergency would develop, that time being of the essence, we would anticipate students to take the initiative to make that call,” Monstwillo said.

He went on to say that he gives the students enough credit to understand when a situation is emergent and when it warrants a 911 response.

Calling 911 does not sidestep the WCC Public Safety Department, either; the 911 dispatch center can tie directly into the radios of Public Safety personnel and dispatch them to the scene of the incident immediately.

“Everyone here is a stakeholder in the safety of the community. People should make responsible decisions based upon that,” Monstwillo added.

One situation that was brought to the forefront after the Virginia Tech shootings was the fact that Waubonsee police officers are currently not allowed by campus regulations to carry any sort of firearms.

Quillen explained that although he has only been at Waubonsee for roughly 14 months, nearly every meeting he has had with the President and the Board of Trustees has involved some sort of discussion on revamping the campus security protocols.

“[We] have been working to analyze some component, not strictly about armed or not armed, but a comprehensive review of the public safety function here,” he explained, “Is it appropriately staffed? Is it appropriately equipped? Is it the appropriate size?”

Quillen pointed out that it’s “not a one size fits all conclusion,” because Waubonsee’s Sugar Grove campus is a different environment than the Aurora campus, and the administration is also still working on the future of the Plano campus, as well as the current model of security in place at the Copley campus. “[Discussion regarding public safety officers carrying weapons] has been in process, and that will be a component piece for the Board of Trustees to consider,” he said, “The public safety department can effectively do the majority of their job without [weapons,] but they cannot effectively do all of the things they are potentially called upon without them.”

It is important for the community to understand that the security of the campus is something that is very “fluid and adaptable,” as Monstwillo explained.

“I don’t think you’d call it a science; it’s almost an art,” he stated, “One of the important aspects of security is remaining aware of and constantly assessing the number and variety of threats that are part of the environment.”

He continued, “For us to say that a certain course of action is correct today may be inappropriate a month from now or six months from now, or certain decisions that were made years ago regarding the public safety function here at the college may or may not still be appropriate for today’s environment, because you have to consider all the factors that have changed within that timeframe. Security is one of those areas where there are seldom hard fast answers that are chiseled in granite and will always be correct.”

While changes may be made to the overall security policy, Monstwillo stated that they will not be made as “knee jerk responses” to the Virginia Tech slayings.

Rather, any changes will most likely be part of the ongoing improvement process in the area of campus security.

“The Virginia Tech incident did very little to change the way we do business, because the bottom line is it is something we do behind the scenes every day and it’s something that we think about every day,” Monstwillo continued, “After eight years of Federal service, [where] scenario planning was an important part, those ‘what ifs; are always at the back of my mind whether I’m here or not here.”

According to Quillen, the college takes these security concerns very seriously. “It’s a serious circumstance, and the college takes it seriously,” he said, “As always after events like this across the country, the reassessment [and] continuous improvement thought process goes into it. One [area] I definitely feel we can do better in is communication.”

The early April snow and slush attack we weathered notwithstanding, it’s about summer time, which means it’s time to pull the helmets and gloves out and take part in one of the most popular summer pastimes: bicycling.

But if you’re tired of riding the same old trails, fear not! Thanks to Waubonsee alumni and former Insight Editor In Chief David Johnsen, bicyclists in Illinois have a veritable treasure trove of well planned rides right at their finger tips with Johnsen’s book, Biking Illinois.

Sandwiched between an attractively colorful and glossy cover, the book is only 132 pages, but it crams in an amazing amount of content. Biking Illinois spends a few pages in acknowledgements, introduction and general biking tips before it gets down to business.

The book features 60 unique rides, sorted by location, and has sections detailing each geographical area of the state (northwest, northeast, central and south). Anyone in Illinois who reads the book will probably have at least one ride in relatively close proximity, as Johnsen features rides from Rockford, to the Chicago lakefront, to Shawnee National Park and everywhere in between.

Johnsen devotes two pages to each ride, and each ride has a quick reference box that immediately gives the readers a quick “at a glance” look at what the ride will encompass. The details include the location, distance of the ride, rough amount of time the ride will take, the surface, terrain and “sweat factor.”

The rest of the first page gives a step-by-step breakdown of the ride itself, including a photo or two from along the trail. The second page devoted to each ride is a full-page map of the area, with a clearly highlighted path and well-placed marking that point out tricky areas of the trail (as well as things like rest areas and steep hills).

Each ride is very thoroughly described; on top of being able to effectively direct readers to where they need to get (not the easiest task in the world), Johnsen is also an accomplished bicyclist who knows every nuance of the rides he writes about, right down to when you need to veer a couple feet this way or that to avoid some sort of obstacle on the trail.

I’ve personally ridden on a number of the 60 trails listed in the book, and I can say that Johnsen’s descriptions of not only the trails themselves, but also the areas around them, are extremely accurate and very helpful.

It’s interesting to note that aside from the author, there is another Waubonsee connection in the book; ride number 24 in the list is the Virgil Gilman Trail, a ride that begins in the Waubonsee Sugar Grove campus parking lot.

At first read, I questioned Johnsen’s sorting method for the rides; my first impression was that sorting them by difficulty would be a better idea, because there are many different skill levels of riders and it can be a bit tedious to page through the whole book if you’re looking for a specific type of ride.

However, upon further review, I have to say that I did come around to agree with his original arrangement, which groups the rides by locale. After all, if you’re looking for a hilly, challenging ride, but the one listed in the difficulty you are aiming for is in Zion and you’re in Peoria, that doesn’t work as well as being able to search the rides around you first.

One thing I do think could have been improved is to add some more photos to the descriptions.

Don’t get me wrong here; even without photos, the book would still be extremely successful, because the descriptions of the rides are, as previously mentioned, first-rate. But on a number of the rides, there’s some empty space on the page that is just asking for another photo.

A little bit of layout nitpicking can’t detract from the overall quality of the book, however; Biking Illinois is a spectacular resource for any level of bicyclist in Illinois. On top of the fact that many bicycling books only focus on well-traveled areas and forget the lesser known and off the beaten path biking trails this book does a good job of covering, Biking Illinois is much more personable than a normal cut and dried “here’s the trail, ride this way,” biking guide.

Johnsen does a good job at making each ride interesting to read. On top of the spot-on descriptions, he also includes little tidbits of history and trivia about the towns and historical landmarks that the rides travel through.

It’s worth knowing that the author is a veteran bicyclist who has pedaled over 9000 miles in sixteen different states over the last seven years, because it shows in the book. Johnsen’s writing is descriptive and well thought out, and his obvious experience seeps through at every turn.

Biking Illinois is available at most Borders and Barnes and Noble bookstores in Illinois, and the author can be contacted through his website (www.bikingillinois.com), where he also posts updates to the book and other information on biking.

Under the direction of Maria Boundas Bakalis, the Waubonsee theater department performed Broadway, an entertaining story set in a 1930s nightclub, on April 12, 13 and 14.

Drama began to unfold when feuding crime lords (played by Will Wilson and Cameron Meuller) paid a visit to the club at the same time, sparking a less than friendly confrontation. The remainder of the play revolved around the cover up of said confrontation, especially when police detective Dan McCorn (Clint Carlton) showed up. The other major plot twist involved the love triangle between nightclub manager Roy Lane (Michael Hochstetler), crime boss Steve Crandall (Wilson) and cabaret dancer Billie Moore (Christa Foster).

On top of all the conflict between the characters, the nightclub was still a nightclub, and Lane, Moore and the other dancers were constantly flitting back and forth to perform numbers in a wide variety of costumes (props to the designers for the variety and to the actors for changing their outfits so quickly).

With regard to the acting, the award for one of the best performances of the night definitely goes to Michael Hochstetler and Will Wilson. The duo played the parts of nightclub manager and crime boss, respectively, and had a number of excellent scenes together. Both characters were trying to woo the same woman, and they were at odds for much of the play.

The performance of these two was especially interesting to watch, as they played a far different type of role in the fall 2006 play, Break a Leg, when they were insufferable comic hounds who had a one-liner response to everything.

Another highlight of the play was the spectacular set. Led by Sean Ream, the set construction crew built an amazing set that included two sets of stairs, an office, a bar, and very period-appropriate paint scheme. My hat is off to all those that put in hours of work on the set, because it turned out very nice and added a great feeling to the entire play.

While Broadway was nowhere near the laugh-fest that last semester’s Break a Leg was, there were a few laugh out loud moments and a number of smirk-inducing lines, including one said by the exasperated club owner, Nick Verdis (played by Ream), who exclaimed at one point that it “was a free country-almost.”

Broadway succeeded in the drama department, however, and aside from a few dragging moments here and there, the play was well acted, exciting, and
definitely another top-notch performance by the Waubonsee
theater department.

Years ago, computer and video games took skill. On the Sega Genesis, if you didn’t throw the ball at your receiver at the right time in College Football 97, you didn’t complete the pass. In Goldeneye 64, if you didn’t aim your gun at the enemy and pull the trigger, you didn’t kill them (believe me, I learned the latter the hard way many, many times).

Those were the days; those with skills won, and those without went home licking their wounds, swallowing their pride, and hoping to improve before the next gaming session.

Being good at a game took some effort; not a monumental/obsessive 15 hours a day practicing kind of effort, but at least someone couldn’t pick up a brand new game and be “owning” in an hour.

Those days are sadly gone. With the advent of auto-aim, auto-pass catch, and auto-everything else, games just aren’t what they used to be.

I probably sound a crotchety old guy yelling at the whippersnappers running around in front of his house with this article, but in my ripe old age of 21, that’s almost what I feel like sometimes when I see how absurdly easy new games have become, and how punk kids think they are “all that” because they can master multiplayer Halo in an hour.

Newsflash: that game is not difficult, it has no plot, and Master Chief is no match for a crowbar (inside PC vs console joke).

I will admit that I expect the easiness, to an extent, from console games. Consoles are already operating at such a handicap comparing to PC games (with regards to graphics and controls, mostly) that you have to dumb down the game a bit to make it work.

After all, when you have an X-Box controller that has, what, two-dozen buttons, and you face that against a keyboard and a mouse that has over a hundred keys and the most dynamic controller in existence, there are going to be allowances.

However, even PC gaming, the most hallowed and uncorrupted form of gaming in my book, has seen some disturbing cross pollination from the console gaming wave of luxury. The first time I played Counter Strike, I died so fast and so many times, I had no clue what was going on.

From my vantage point, enemies appeared from nowhere, my weapon never fired correctly and I spent a lot of time studying the floor and the ceiling.

I ended the game with one kill to match 25 deaths, and knew then and there that if I wanted to play the game against the type of people that just gave me a thrashing, I had to put in a bit of time to learn the ropes.

This is no the case anymore. Now, you can pick up a game and “learn” it in an hour or two. What happened to destroy gaming as we know it?

Well, the problem is something that, in my opinion, can be described in two words: “The Mainstream.” You’ve heard the term before, I’m sure. “The Mainstream” is what “everyone” is doing, don’t you know?

The “Mainstream” likes results, and they like those results quickly, with a bottle of Dasani on the side, thank you.

Counter Strike for PC was one of the most popular PC games of all time, but it never received a following from “The Mainstream” until a butchered and stripped version of the game appeared on consoles, complete with auto-aim, practice bots and simplistic weapon controls. Soon after, the butchery extended to the newest version of the PC version of the game.

It seems that now, no one wants to own a game for months before being able to be competitive; they want to sit down and immediately be a master at the game.
No one wants to put hard work into anything any more, least of all a game, and that’s just a sad development in my eyes.

I always loved the challenge of learning a new game, and I relished the ass-beatings that you have to endure on the way up the ladder.

Now, an afternoon in front of a screen and you’ve learned all you can learn from the game.

Our society’s pathetic “instant gratification” attitude is bad enough in the context of the Iraq War or other things, but now it’s even polluting our games.

By now, most people have heard this story: radio personality makes disparaging comments, and free speech gets trampled on for about the fiftieth time in as many days.

Of course, that’s not the version of the story that you’ll hear about on the evening news, but that’s the version you SHOULD be hearing.

You see, Imus made some inappropriate comments about the Rutgers women’s basketball team on his morning radio show, and it didn’t take very long for CBS to bow to political pressure and pull the plug on him, all for exercising his 1st Amendment rights.

My problem with this is that at the current rate of societal whitewashing, the not-too-distant future includes a culture that disallows anyone from making any sort of statement that may offend someone else. Essentially, everyone will be gagged from speaking his or her mind, all in the interests of not hurting someone’s feelings.
If people didn’t want to listen to Imus after what he said, they have the freedom to choose that, and they can tune him out. His show may have lost listeners, lost ratings and eventually lost funding.

Then, CBS could have cancelled it for those reasons, instead of canceling it because of the opinions stated by Imus. Of course, instead of letting that run its course, CBS chose the knee-jerk reaction of dropping the hammer on him.

Regardless of the content, I strongly believe in Imus’ right to say it. Freedom of speech is about giving people the right to say whatever he or she wants, and the right to look like a racist idiot if that’s the path they choose.

This freedom is (supposed to be) undeniable, unless the person in question is doing something illegal and abusing the free speech rights (i.e. making a call for violence).

You see, freedom is an essential and integral part of what makes this country great. Without it, we would never have risen from a colony of Britain to the only superpower in the world in 230 years.

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they added the Bill of Rights when they realized that many fundamental rights were not expressly detailed in first document. One of those rights is freedom of speech, included in the 1st Amendment.

Now, my question is, if the Founders intended for us to have a society where no one ever speaks a word that offends anyone else, why the need for the 1st Amendment?
After all, if everyone agreed with what the other said, there would be no censorship, no stifling of people or the press, and certainly no one getting offended.

Why, then, did they make an amendment to protect speech if that’s the kind of world they intended for us to live in?

The answer is that the Founders did not intend for us to be living in that world.
They did not intend for this country to become a country of fear: fear of saying the wrong thing, fear of offending the wrong person, and, perish the thought, fear of sharing your opinion. The First Amendment was made because the Founding Fathers wanted us to share our views without worrying that doing so would lead to us being persecuted, ostracized…or fired.

His firing was politically motivated, obviously; Al Sharpton, who one of my colleagues so eloquently referred to as the “D-student of the civil rights movement,” and Jesse Jackson, who is quite possibly the biggest hypocrite in the world when it comes to discussing “racism,” both saw an opportunity to get some hard-to-obtain camera time to push their own agendas, while simultaneously pushing CBS to take care of Imus, and voila, Imus is gone.

I daresay that if those two moonbats hadn’t spoke up, Imus would probably have been reprimanded and suspended, but not canned.

My point is that if we go after Imus, then we need to go after everyone. If it’s no longer acceptable to ever offend anyone, then that’s it; there are no excuses, no conditions.

Everyone who makes an offensive comment, in any medium, should be fired under this new system.

Late night comedians, columnists, bloggers, commentators; they all have to go!
Can you see the problem with this? Once the floodgates are open, there’s no stopping it.

It’s very easy to stand up for freedom of speech when you support what is being said, but the test is when someone says something you don’t agree with and you still stand up for his or her rights.

If we started policing the airwaves and taking down everyone who offends someone else, pretty soon we’d have one giant, non-stop PBS telethon, interspersed with Billy Mays and Tony Little infomercials. And I really don’t think anyone wants to see THAT.

In all seriousness, this is one of those watershed events for the subject of free speech. Today, it’s Don Imus.

Tomorrow, it’s you and me. Where does it end?

Hypocrisy always amazes me. It makes me shake my head when people who consider themselves intelligent say things that are just so absurd and hypocritical that I can barely debate the topic without having this insane urge to shove a pair of rusty nails in my ears to stop the pain.

My newest issue? Darfur. Oh yes, we all know about Darfur. Genocide, slaughter, time to donate money, blah blah, whine, whine. We know the facts (well, I shouldn’t say that; I know the facts, for sure, but I think a lot of the pro-Darfur crowd are sorely misinformed): the Janjaweed militia is killing a lot of people, and the Sudanese government is supporting them.

Now, the part I don’t get is why are the lives of those victims in Darfur more important than those same kind of victims in Iraq? Apparently, they are, at least according to the liberal activists of this country.

Saddam Hussein gassed 100,000s of Kurds in the ’90s, and his Baath party persecuted and ethnically cleansed anyone that he felt like pointing a finger at. That’s the same kind of thing that’s happening in Sudan, but the same people who are screaming for us to go into Darfur are the same ones demanding we pull out of Iraq. What gives?

Faster than Ted Kennedy can down a bottle of scotch (and that’s pretty damn fast), liberals usually come back at me when I say this with the argument of, “It was none of our business to go to Iraq.”

Why, then, is it our business to go to Darfur? It’s a simple question, but the answer isn’t nearly as simple. If you want to say that nothing is our business, than we should go back to pre-WWII isolationism, and we can pull our foreign aid from the hundreds of countries we are supporting and just bury our heads in the sand. Or, we can continue to stick our noses into situations that need to be fixed, such as Iraq and Darfur.

The problem is that a lot of the people who are clamoring for us to invade Darfur (and yes, it would be an invasion) don’t understand that by doing so, we are obligating ourselves to go fight every human rights violation in the world.
It’s terrible what’s happening in Sudan, I agree, but what was happening in Iraq was terrible, what’s happening in North Korea is terrible, and what’s happening in China is terrible.

If we are going to be the world’s police, than we must take care of the other human rights violations on the planet. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. You cannot be selective here; just because it’s vogue to bash one and support the other doesn’t mean that that course of action is right. In my experience, what’s vogue is usually the polar opposite of what’s right, but that’s just my personal cynicism.
People who think that we can make any sort of difference in Sudan by just dropping humanitarian aid are kidding themselves. Does anyone remember how badly we screwed up Somalia by doing just that? If we give the defenseless villagers supplies, the second we leave (or sooner), the army will run out of the jungle, slaughter the people and pick up the supplies.

What would end up happening is we would have to fight off these militants in order to protect the populace, and it would turn into a bloody fight through the jungles and harsh terrain of Sudan as our troops tried to fight insurgents who know the area far better. Sound familiar? You bet it does; we would be in a similar situation to Iraq, and within a few months, the people who staged hunger strikes to get us to go to Darfur would be gorging themselves to make us come back.

I guess I’m just tired of the double standards. If you slap a “Save Darfur” sticker on your car, you are a hero, but if you put one saying “Win in Iraq,” you would probably get run off the road by a ravenous pack of Prius-driving activists. It’s vogue to walk around ’supporting’ Darfur, or to donate a dollar here and there to some random Darfur charity, but in reality, all that kind of stuff does is bump up the self-esteem of those who are doing it. No one should actually believe that wearing a sticker is going to help those people over there.

Darfur is not strictly a poverty situation that can be fixed by throwing money at it; Darfur will need a military response to have any sort of positive resolution, and the anti-war activists protesting Iraq and demanding action in Darfur need to realize this.

Note: This article was written as part of a 2vs2 HeadtoHead set of opinion articles (two pro and two con, answering the question of “Should There be Limits on Capitalism?”) I wrote on the “con” side.

Setting any sort of artificial “cap” on capitalism completely takes away the very foundation of what America is. Capitalism is freedom; if you restrict capitalism, you are restricting freedom. People and businesses should have the right to own property, invest their money and expand their livelihood.
When you are talking about setting some sort of monetary cap, who would decide this cap?

Who is the one that can say, well, you’re making too much money, but you’re not making enough? You wouldn’t be able to just set some sort of arbitrary number, because different businesses and different people have different costs and needs, and what is an acceptable income for person or business may result in a catastrophically low income for someone else.

We are killing our country already by squashing the free market (which, to be honest, would regulate itself a lot better than most people give it credit for). Our country grew to where it is today by utilizing the massive industrial base and tremendous national resources that a country as big as the U.S. has at its disposal, but now we are losing ground in the worldwide market. Why? Because the restrictions being put on business are making it cost prohibitive to operate in this country. Now, we’re supposed to limit capitalism even more? While we’re at it, let’s just drop the ‘A’ from U.S.A. and add a S.R. on the end. We all know how successful THAT country was.

Right now, we are forcing businesses (well, at least businesses that want to make a profit) to either outsource or start breaking themselves apart with layoffs or by closing down parts of the company. That is hideously wrong, and terribly damaging to our country.

There’s no reason that a business or person who is successful should be stopped in their tracks and made to conform to a standard that some socialist activist came up with. The only, and I mean only, restrictions on capitalism I can tolerate are ones that protect the health and safety of the workers. After all, hurt workers don’t produce much product, do they?

Besides, regardless of that business part of the equation, without free capitalism, where is the drive to do better? In a more socialist scheme, no matter how hard you work, you’re going to get your “fair share.” There’s no point in working harder or doing something outside the box if you are going to be shut down for exceeding your lot in life, as decided by the good old government. Innovation will be crushed, and the country would never rise above U.S.S.R.-style mediocrity.

Capitalism means that the country and the economy are ruled by money, and thus, by the individual. Socialism means a state-imposed rule, and personally, I already think the government is too nosy. Now we want to let them dictate our money and livelihood as well? Please.

I’m sorry if this comes as some sort of synapse collapsing shock to anyone, but a capitalist system is actually more fair than a socialist system.
Do you know why? Because in a capitalist economy, you get what you put in. If you sit on your butt watching T.V. collecting welfare, that’s your problem, and you’re not going to get as far as someone that is out working hard.

None of the supposed “crooks” and “evil” people in this country, such as Donald Trump or Bill Gates, got there with government handouts. They got there by working hard, in a capitalist economy that did not restrict their freedom.

Capitalism obviously works; America would not have risen to be the most powerful country in the history of the world in just over 230 years if we had a flaw as huge as using capitalism over socialism, and right now, capitalism is widely considered the dominant form of economic system in the world.

Businesses and individuals will just stop trying to improve themselves if capitalism is restricted too much. After all, if they know that once they reach a certain level the government will reach in and shut them down, why even bother? Hello socialism, and good-bye prosperity.

Section: Arts and Entertainment
Published: Waubonsee Insight, April 2007 Issue

After the American Revolution, Britain was not exactly the most economically stable place on earth. The slave trade was heralded as a major source of income and the lifeblood of coastal towns, and those who stood up against slavery were called anti-establishment at best and traitors to the crown at worst. Outspoken British abolitionist William Wilberforce was one of those men.

Amazing Grace chronicles Wilberforce’s 18-year struggle in the British Parliament, as he introduced bill after bill to abolish the slave trade, only to watch them fail spectacularly.

The title for the movie comes from the song, of course, and the connection to the movie is that the author of the hymn, John Newton, was actually Wilberforce’s mentor of many years. The evangelical leader helps Wilberforce when the latter is at a very sharp crossroads in his life, and appears several times in the movie, at different points in Wilberforce’s life.

Newton is basically the moral compass and advisor to Wilberforce as he goes through troubling times where he doubts not only himself, but also his faith.
For a movie about the British parliamentary process, Amazing Grace does not drag at all. The movie clocks in at nearly two hours, but you won’t be checking your watch. The movie balances out time spent in the Parliament room with time spent in Wilberforce’s home or time spent with his activist group, the Clapham Sect.
Wilberforce delves very deeply into the abolitionist movement, and while he does things to learn for himself how slaves are treated (such as walling himself into a box the size of a berth in a slave ship), the viewers are also exposed to the horrors of slavery first hand.

There’s nothing graphic enough to scare away a weak stomach, but seeing the actual shackles, living conditions and how slaves were treated makes it more personal for both Wilberforce and the viewers he is taking with him on his journey.

Frequent jumps through time also help with the pace of the movie. When the movie starts off in the present day and quickly jumps back in time fifteen years, you can easily see the contrast between the old and young Wilberforce, and you really want to sit back and see just what happened to him in the past to put him in the position he is now in.

That said, the transitions between time periods can be rough. It’s nothing as confusing as a predestination paradox in a time travel movie, but you do have to be on your toes with some of the jumps, as a few of them leave you scrambling for a few seconds to figure out if it’s past or present.

The cast is very solid; Ioan Gruffudd (Fantastic Four, King Arthur) turns in a spectacular performance as William Wilberforce. The character goes through many changes over the course of the movie, from stalwart abolitionist, to a man unsure of his place in the world and more beyond that, but Gruffudd seemed very comfortable in each position.

I have to try very hard to think of a scene that he seemed awkward in, and the best I could come up with is a scene where he sings, but even that is excused because the song he’s singing is the name of the movie.

Another notable performance is Rufus Sewell (I think he’s best known for his portrayal of the arrogant love-to-hate character of Count Adhemar in A Knight’s Tale, but he also played Armand in The Legend of Zorro). He plays Thomas Clarkson, a noted anti-slavery advocate who had a huge influence on the historical Wilberforce.

In Amazing Grace, Clarkson at times plays the role of Wilberforce’s emotions; it almost seems like an internal struggle of emotion versus logic during some of the scenes they share.

Clarkson is around to remind Wilberforce about the stark side of the human element involved in slavery, and he helps to drive the legislation into Parliament through his hard work and determination behind the scenes of the abolitionist movement.

Wilberforce’s love interest, Barbara (relative unknown Romola Garai, Vanity Fair), could have been developed further, and if the movie had been about a lighter topic than slavery I would say that this is definitely a flaw, but I feel that it fits.

The romance plays second fiddle to the story of putting forward the bills and feeling out the issue of slavery, and the trade-off is nice.

I think it would have seemed trite to have a steamy on-screen romance when the protagonist is trying to free an entire race from servitude, and the writers did a good job of using the romance to further the plot (instead of having the plot stop while the characters delve into their feelings).

In fact, almost every subplot in the movie feeds into the overarching challenge of taking down the slave trade, and it all culminates in the final few minutes of the movie. For a movie about the British political process, the final climax drags you to the edge of your seat, so sticking through some of the down parts is completely worth it.

Another well-done performance was Michael Gambon (Open Range, The Omen) as Lord Charles Fox, a savvy British politician who sides with the abolitionists.

The parliamentary process was very well done, and the historical accuracy of the movie was passable; considering Hollywood’s track record for rewriting in the name of drama, it could have been much worse.

Obviously, there are some issues, especially with how some of the characters were used, but overall, the story is presented well.

The ending scene of Amazing Grace was very fitting and nicely done; after two hours of serious buildup, an ending that was too pedestrian would have severely damaged the movie, but instead, it really ties everything up and leaves the audience saying, ‘wow.’

In all, Amazing Grace does a good job portraying the hellacious uphill battle faced by abolitionists in 18th century England, and along the way, takes viewers on an unforgettable tour of religion, morality, and human rights.