A Road Made Easier

by Jessica Woods

Walking into a class for the first time can be intimidating for any student. What is my instructor going to be like? What are the expectations for this course going to be? So, imagine the added burden of having a disability such as blindness.

I am one of those students. Yes, those things run through my mind as well. But, I also have questions concerning my blindness. Foremost in my mind is the question is this instructor going to work with me? Many instructors meet my needs, but some stand out as going above and beyond the call of duty. One of those instructors is Judy Golding.

Golding is an instructor in the philosophy department. She teaches a variety of subjects on both the Milton and Pensacola campuses. She has a degree in interdisciplinary humanities with an emphasis on philosophy. She has a love for her field of study that is beneficial to her students.

I have taken her for two courses, logic and philosophy. I have immensely enjoyed both classes. She takes the time to explain the material in a way that the students can relate to.

Since I am blind, I walked in wondering what she could offer me. She gave me more than I could have hoped for. Not only did she provide the accommodations that I needed, she did much more. She took the time to explain things in ways that I could relate to. Due to my blindness, I look at some things differently than most people. Golding realized that, and worked with me to bring those ideas out. When I would get frustrated because I didn’t understand something, she would not give up. Nor, would she let me. As a result, I walked out of her class with a new understanding about myself and the world around me.

So, Golding is a great teacher who cares more about just grades. She cares about her students. If at all possible, I highly recommend you take her for at least one class while attending PJC. Chances are, you won’t regret it.

A Charlatan by Design

by Paul Smith

“Belief is the death of intelligence.” – Robert Anton Wilson

My fundamental approach to life, and with it, all matters of intellectual deliberation, is one of agnosticism. I do not mean this so much in the religious sense, but rather, I try to consider all of life’s pertinent questions with cautious hesitancy.

I must confess such an approach does not accord very well with my new function as blogger and opinion-writer extraordinaire.

The problem lies in the very design of opinion writing.

The standard opinion format goes as follows: the writer of the piece will usually identify a problem, and then offer his criticisms, usually supporting his critiques with factual or background information, and then the writer will offer a solution to the said problem.

To be taken seriously, I need to present myself in way which suggests my ability to identify problems and offer solutions holds weight and merit – true grit and gravitas, if you will.

Such opining requires a degree of chutzpah and certitude – qualities which utterly clash with agnosticism.

Ultimately when composing these pieces, I am forced to write in the point-of-view of a character, a character I have invented for this specific purpose – the character of Mr. Opinion.

Mr. Opinion must always forge that delicate balance between attempting to come off as informed and resolute, while also not sounding too arrogant and condescending.

And as a result, Mr. Opinion is often a charlatan.

Mr. Opinion can be a bullheaded, myopic know-it-all who has a solution to everything and is capable of browbeating opponents into submission through the sheer loftiness of his ego.

Meanwhile, the mild-mannered “Paul Smith” has very few solutions to anything, sometimes meditates while listening to recordings of whale sounds, thought Rachel Getting Married was a great film, and is actually quite squishy to the touch.

Mr. Opinion is the Hyde to my Jekyll. And the structure of opinion writing is the potion I drink causing the transformation.

Here’s an example of what I mean:  In real life, even though I considered the argument the Bush administration presented for war against Iraq to be an obvious sham, I never took any strong position either for or against military action.

I always felt to take such a stance was to assume more than I knew. I did not know definitively the real reasons why the Bush administration felt it necessary to remove Saddam Hussein, therefore I felt taking a solid posture one way or the other would be presumptuous and overreaching.

At best, I am qualified to offer educated speculation – and that goes for all topics which I offer up my views.

However, Mr. Opinion’s job is to spin the speculation into gospel. He accomplishes this trick through the smoke and mirrors of syntax (I’m doing it right now and you’re probably not even aware of it).

Now, it may be obvious to many at this point that this very piece I am currently writing criticizing the inherent design of most opinion pieces is in itself following the basic format for which I am castigating.

I have identified a problem: how the restrictive design structure of opinion writing transforms me into Mr. Opinion.

I have offered background information: my agnosticism, e.g. my unwillingness to take a position on the Iraq war, and how this just doesn’t jive with Mr. Opinion’s primary function.

Now all I have left to do is offer a solution and the “opinion piece” hat-trick will be complete.

For once, Mr. Opinion has no solution – and if you believe that, I have several cases of snake-oil to sell you.

Here’s the non-solution solution: I urge any would-be readers to not take anything I write all that seriously – including that which you are presently reading.

Never trust a charlatan, even one by design. Because you never know whom will be writing, Jekyll or Hyde.

I think I feel the potion wearing off…

Hoobastank to perform live on campus for Studio Amped

Kristin Martin

If you’re on campus around noon next Tuesday, you might want to stop by the Jean & Paul Amos Performance Studio to see Hoobastank, an alternative rock band, be recorded live for Studio Amped, a WSRE-TV performance series.

The event is free, but you’ll need a ticket to get in. You can pick up tickets at the Jean & Paul Amos Performance Studio Box office, which is by the tennis courts on the Pensacola campus, this Monday from 9:00 a.m. until tickets are gone. Be sure to have your student ID handy, and students can only get up to two tickets each.

“(Hoobastank is) very popular so I think (tickets) will go fast. We have 200 tickets, so about the first 100 students will get tickets,” said Eric Fundin, Director of Station Operations at WSRE.

If you miss out on getting tickets at the box office, TK 101 will be giving away tickets to the first 100 people who show up 5 p.m. Monday at Lemox Book Store. TK 101 is also giving away tickets on the radio, so check out their Web site for more details.

Tuesday’s recording of Studio Amped will be aired on WSRE in February, according to Fundin, but no exact date has been set.

“We are hoping for a full house for the taping of the show,” Fundin said.

Studio Amped is a performance series that usually features local musicians, and there have been four previous shows which can all be seen on the Studio Amped Web site. The Gills, 60 Cycles of Sound, Sadi Blue and Good Foote have all been featured on Studio Amped. Fundin said the show with Hoobastank is a special one since they are a national band.

“Hoobastank is donating their time to support the local music scene and WSRE/PBS,” Fundin said.

Hoobastank has sold about four million albums in the U.S., and is well known for their 2004 single, “The Reason.” Their new album, FOR(N)EVER, was just released this past Tuesday.

Hope to Harvest: 10 Ounces

by Ansley Zecckine

In a recent movie called “Seven Pounds,” Will Smith’s character makes the ultimate sacrifice for someone whom he feels deserves to be saved. In Christianity, there should be two similar parallels, one of them being Christ’s sacrifice for us. With Jesus’ sacrifice, however, there is involved a profound love which we do not deserve.

In our own ability, the very best that we can offer God would result in a rag about as clean and pure as a handkerchief shared among three African tribes, later to be lost in the wilderness and trampled upon by a herd of elephants suffering from chronic diarrhea.

We can’t do anything for God on our own because we are stained by sin. We don’t deserve salvation, but we desperately need it because we are infected by the terminal illness of sin. What’s the end result of this? Heart failure.

Those of us that have accepted Jesus’ sacrifice, however, are clean and righteous in God’s sight because we’ve been graced with the gift of the cure. And our hearts? They pump on, forever changed, with the ability to live for God.

The human heart weighs, on average, only about 10 ounces. Supposing that the measure of a life is “weighed” by the heart, consider just how little it is that we can give to God in worship and in thanks for all he’s done and does for us. In order to put it in perspective, take an ounce off the total for any relationship you have that isn’t glorifying to God; take an ounce off for every habit or addiction that you allow to rule over you; take an ounce off for every unhealthy word spoken, every lie, every smirk; take an on ounce off every time God is neglected by you. Now what’s left to give God?

We can never give God the fullness of what He deserves, but we can give Him the fullness of ourselves, starting now. If all our lives amount to is a mere 10 ounces, then we ought to vow to give Him the core of our being; we ought to vow to give our heart, our life, and our all.

We’ve discussed Christ’s sacrifice for us, but now we’ve ventured into what should be the second parallel: our sacrifice for Christ. We are called to be honest and true examples to those around us. Unfortunately, it appears difficult in our current times to be able to distinguish between something as simple as who is a Christian and who is not.

Romans 12:1-2 says, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.”

Being a living sacrifice isn’t too much for God to ask from us- it’s reasonable. We should want to live for Him in a lifestyle of worship, and when we do, we show others who God is and what He is like. This world needs more than ever for the true Christians to step up and be the beat of Christ in a world that has lost its rhythm. What’s the end result of this? Heart victory.

Taxpayers continue to beg for cuts during bailout

by Nathan Cooper

The economy is under incredible pressure as newly elected President Obama takes office, and many are wondering how he will handle it from here on out. Several have already outstretched their palms in anticipation of a bailout, but I for one hope that our tax dollars won’t be given away blindly, never to be repaid.

It is one thing to give out loans to businesses that have prospective plans to become more profitable; however, to give out loans to companies that are still bleeding profits from the neck is unacceptable.

Everyone has heard of the executives from the big three automakers flying in private jets to appear before congress. If any one of the CEOs had driven to Washington in a hybrid or other high efficiency vehicle, their plight for financial aid might have seemed a little more sincere.

I am a college student with only one semester of economics under my belt, but even I know that paying corporate executives an exuberant salary while the company flounders in debt is just bad business practices.

According to an article in the L.A. Times, the median of compensation or “Golden Parachutes” given to CEOs has risen to 8.8 million dollars. I wonder if these companies and their shareholders will ever realize what a drain the executives upstairs are.

How can the U.S. give out money when these companies show no fiscal responsibility?

Unsecured loans helped create this economic crisis, so then how might more unsecured loans given out by the government aid us?

Obviously, there are many things to consider in the large undertaking of revitalizing our economy; however, throwing money we don’t even have at our problems blindly is a fruitless endeavor.

Instead, I think a significant investment must go towards public works projects as well as education and national healthcare, thereby securing a brighter and healthier future. Significant public works projects could result in more jobs thus bolstering America’s economy. Better education means more American minds will remain competitive on a global scale.

The only problem with this idea seems to be the same as with the bailout: from where is the money coming to pay for all of this?

As it is, our nation is in debt, yet taxpayers continue to ask for tax cuts while simultaneously asking for more of everything else. Maybe if people were not so hungry for a tax cut it might be possible to have such luxurious things as a good affordable education from primary school all the way through college.

A Tortured Solution: Soul-searching in America

by Paul Smith

Eric Holder, Obama’s nominee for attorney general, stated with no equivocation before Senate confirmation hearings on January 15th, that waterboarding was indeed torture. His candor seems deemed to set a new precedent for what the Justice Department may resemble under an Obama administration: if it is torture, then by definition it is illegal.

Perhaps Holder’s forthrightness along with Obama’s promise to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay will indicate a shift in direction for how this country deals with detainees. No longer shall this nation engage in savage behavior more befitting of a third-world banana republic.

The United States should set that standard for the world as a democracy which conducts itself in a dignified manner with a system of justice that provides due process, equal protection and honorable treatment for all.

Although the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution bars “cruel and unusual punishment” and Title 18 of the US Code § 2340 already prohibits the use of torture, the previous administration hunted for clever legal loopholes around such impediments, and as a result, many feel America had sold its soul.

The Bush administration sought to narrowly interpret the definition of torture after September 11th, 2001, through the implementation of the euphemistically named “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in Bush’s Justice Department drafted several memos outlining what they deemed as reasonable and legal treatment of detainees captured during the “War on Terror.”

These memos, which were prepared by then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, OLC legal advisor John Yoo, and former legal counsel to Vice President Cheney, David Addington, suggested that anything short of “organ failure”, “impairment of bodily function”, or “death” was fair game for interrogators to employ.

In fact, in Barton Gellman’s new book on Vice President Cheney, Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency, the Pulitzer-prize winning journalist writes that John Yoo once indicated the only interrogation technique he rejected was burying a prisoner alive.

The time has come for America to go soul-searching.

Although many former and current interrogators suggest torture yields unreliable information and various polls indicate that most Americans are against the use of torture in all circumstances, there is still the question of the so-called “ticking time bomb” scenario.

In this hypothetical situation, the question is raised as to what shall be done with a suspect known to have actionable intelligence about an immediately impending attack.

I think I may have a solution that will satisfy both the blood-lusting, Jack Bauer-loving commandos along with the Constitution-thumping, civil liberties-loving peace-mongers.

My recommendation is for new laws to be drafted by Congress which explicitly and broadly define torture and outlaw its use in all instances regardless of the circumstances. However, I also propose that written into the statutory language there be recommendation for jury nullification of said statute if merited by extenuating circumstances in accordance with the jury’s discretion.

In other words, torture is always illegal, but a jury can nullify its illegality if it they feel the situation warrants it.

While a matter of some debate, in actuality, many would argue juries already possess the right to nullify any law on the books.

Jury nullification is a doctrine that dates back hundreds of years and formed the basis of trial-by-jury common law practice of England in the Magna Carta, upon which our Constitution drew much inspiration.

One of the most famous instances of jury nullification was the 1670 case of William Penn in England. While the evidence proved Penn was “guilty” of unlawful assembly for publically proselytizes a religion other than the Church of England, the jury refused to convict on the grounds that they disagreed with the law.

Though the intended purpose of jury nullification is to be a bulwark against unjust legislation, I recommend using this legal doctrine in conjunction with the statutory language.

So, rather than provide legal precedent for “justifiable torture” (which could be a dangerous slippery slope) in the way we have “justifiable homicide”, declare that torture is always illegal, but remind juries of their right to nullify the law if they feel the rare circumstances demand it.

This way, if we ever encounter the unlikely “ticking time bomb” scenario, there will be enough legal leeway for an interrogator to get his fair day in court, while also outlawing torture in all circumstances.

And perhaps America will reclaim her soul.

Communication, challenge yourself to speak up

by Ben Johnson

Hello classmates, welcome to the New Year! As we all know, the beginning of a new year can be a good time to come up with some resolutions and reassess some priorities. I myself have not come up with a list of resolutions, but there are some things that need work for improvement in my life and I think this resolution is one everyone could develop further: communication.

Everyone does it, every day, all day, and it is a constant function in human life. People communicate by verbal, physical, mechanical, and electronic means one way or another. But observation has shown that the average student’s communication skills are very rough in the first few years of college, which is not a good thing if you intend to spend the rest of your life surrounded by beings who communicate every day.

This is not a problem; that is, it would not be difficult to sharpen your skills with some extra help and a goal in mind. Like all resolutions, all it takes is a little effort. Some students dread the idea of speaking in front of a class, and most will avoid any kind of public speaking course. However, if speaking is what you fear, then speaking is what you should tackle. If you can overcome the strongest of your fears (or your weakest point in any social skill) then all of the rest will be like cruising downhill on a bike.

So, communication … we all fear it at some point in time, but the bottom line is you are going to have to do it. Be it now in school, or down the road at some job (which at that point you’ll have more than a grade to worry about if you don‘t do it). So what better time to work on coming up with a clear, full, versatile vocabulary than now when it matters most. One might be surprised on the amount of work that goes into some people developing an extensive vocabulary.

With that said, challenge yourself to a speech class, read a tough book and look up stuff you don’t understand. It will open more than a door for better communication; it will open up your mind to new discoveries in subjects you found tedious. And see if your friends don’t notice a change in your diction afterwards. Peace out -

Hillary: the New Secretary of Taint

by Paul Smith

Lyndon Johnson once quipped of J. Edgar Hoover, “It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in,” suggesting it better to assimilate your political enemies into your professional circle rather than have them working against you from the sidelines. And so it is that Hillary Clinton has become President-elect Obama’s nominee for Secretary of State.

As she went before confirmation from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 13th, one could not help but recall a few short months ago when she worked diligently to crush Obama’s executive branch aspirations in her cringe-worthy and shameless presidential campaign.

But rather than publically excoriate Clinton and send her packing back to the Senate, Obama chose to nominate her for one of the most powerful positions in his cabinet, fourth in the line of presidential succession. So, why would he do such a thing?

Perhaps he wishes to keep her inside that proverbial tent.

Granted, there were almost no substantial policy differences in Clinton’s campaign platform when compared with Obama’s. And, in reality, she will probably prove to be a marginally capable Secretary of State. But the relevant question remains: does she deserve the nomination?

Why award someone who appointed the odious Mark Penn as chief campaign strategist? Penn, the liberal poor man’s Karl Rove, ran Hillary’s campaign by attempting to portray Obama as a coke-snorting, Quran-reading radical who had been scheming to take over this country since Kindergarten. Can we really trust her judgment if she thought Penn was the best man for this job?

However, the main reason the sum of her character and judgment does not merit a nomination for Secretary of State concerns her vote in favor of the Iraq War Resolution of 2002.

Regardless of whether anyone thinks Iraq will someday emerge as a viable quasi-democratic state in the region (perhaps it will) or whether anyone believes that Saddam Hussein was a murderous world-class thug (which he was), the simple fact remains that the case the Bush administration presented to Congress, the American people and the world for justifying military action against Iraq was a blatant and grotesque fraud.

Equally egregious was the intellectual laziness Hillary displayed during consideration to cast her vote on the resolution. Ten days before the Senate was to vote, the administration released a classified report from the CIA to be read only by members of Congress. This 92-page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) detailed the administration’s case against Saddam Hussein and was the most comprehensive and nuanced document summarizing the supporting intelligence.  Guess who didn’t read the NIE?

Along with the majority of Senators, Hillary Clinton did not read the document. Even though during her floor speech in the Senate on October 10th, 2002, the morning of the vote, she proclaimed, “this is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make,” and even though during the same speech she suggested the evidence against Hussein was “undisputed,” the fact remains she did not even read the most pertinent document available to make such a decision.

And she really should have read it, because a befuddled preschooler could have glanced at that NIE during the commercial breaks of Blue’s Clues and easily surmised, “Wow, this is a bunch of bull.”

This document presenting the “best case” for war was riddled with numerous dubious claims from single sources, while dissenting evidence and analysis was intentionally omitted. Virtually every major conclusion of the NIE has since been discredited.

When it came to the “hardest decision” of Senator Clinton’s life, she failed to do the proper homework. Obama should not have awarded her intellectual incuriosity in the matter of war with a cabinet position.

Her judgment and resolve renders her undeserving to become what is essentially the nation’s chief diplomat and foremost foreign policy advisor to the president.

And Obama should consider anyone who voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution as unfit for any position concerning the national security or foreign policy of this country.

But what’s done is done. Hillary will effortlessly sail through the nomination process and become the next Secretary of State. Let us just hope she does not taint this country while performing the duties of her new position. And let us hope she will have the foresight to do the proper homework when the situation warrants it.

Otherwise we may all end up standing in a puddle of urine.

Flag football team defeats defending champs to take the national title

Corey Reese

Published: January 9, 2006

PJC’s flag football team defeated defending champion Georgia Southern 29-26 to win the American Collegiate Intramural Sports National Flag football title.

The New Year’s weekend tournament saw the Pirates go 6-0 en route to that title.  Doug Rogers was named Offensive MVP and Kirk Slay was named Defensive MVP.  Kyle Brooks and Nathan Elder were named to the All-American team for defense and offense respectively.

“I felt like we could have taken the game if we only made one or two plays,” Rogers said. “One or two plays and we could have won by two or three touchdowns.  Penalties and dropped passes hurt us though.”

Four new starters for PJC made this team younger than the team that lost to Georgia Southern last season.  The record of PJC coming into the tournament was 5-3 compared to 12-0 last year.  The game that really gave the team the confidence needed was in the semi-finals of the tournament against Southern Baton Rouge.  Southern Baton Rouge converted a 2-point conversion with under a minute remaining to go up 40-39.  PJC had 53 seconds to drive the length of the field with no timeouts.  With 18 seconds left PJC, scored winning the game 47-40

“Everyone stepped up and made plays.  With the new starters we had they showed a lot of veteran savvy.  Everyone was loose and relaxed before the title game which is a good feeling,” Rogers said.

The play that ended the title hopes for Georgia Southern came on the last play for them.  Down 29-26, Georgia Southern was driving down the field.  With two seconds left, however, Slay jumped up and intercepted the pass of Georgia Southern, sealing the victory for PJC and along with it, the national title.

PJC men fall to Shelton State, women win in Louisiana

Corey Reese

Published: Januray 9, 2006

PJC’s men’s basketball team took on Shelton State in their final game before conference play opens, losing 109-101.

Julian Allen had 29 points and Yarrish Hammons had 20, but foul trouble and other mistakes beat the Pirates.

“The pressure they put on in the first half hurt us,” Coach Paul Swanson said.  “The second half was better but we played inconsistently and they shot very well from the free throw line.”

Questionable calls by the referees at both ends made the flow of the game stunted.  The worst call of the night came against PJC.  After a scramble for the ball, a Shelton State player came up with the ball and stepped out of bounds.  The referees made the call that it was PJC’s ball.   Just as the Pirates were getting set to inbound the ball, the refs changed the call to Shelton State’s ball.

The loss drops PJC’s record to 9-8 heading into the conference opener against Chipola on Jan. 11.

The Lady Pirates ended their pre-conference schedule with another win, surviving double overtime to finish  with a 93-87 victory against LSU-Eunice.

Eunice led, 29-25, at the half, but PJC battled back to force overtime. A 78-78 tie at the end of the first overtime forced the second OT.

Next Page »