When the news first broke of the Red Lake school shooting I decided not to post anything on my blog because my words cannot possibly make understandable such a tragic event. I must comment, however, after coming across a New York Times headline from yesterday: “Behind the Why of a Rampage, Loner With a Taste for Nazism”. After such a horrific event, it troubles me that such a typically responsible paper can print such an irresponsible headline. I do not mean to disparage The New York Times, it is a very good paper, and this is not to say that other news sites are not falling into the same caveat, but I cannot help but comment on the disturbing trend of the media to oversimplify and sensationalize these events.
After Columbine we were all shocked and disturbed that such events could happen in our nations’ school. I was only in middle school at the time and I can still remember how foreign and distant an event like that felt. I could not understand what would motivate an individual to take those actions. Eventually the media came up with an answer: being picked on and violent video games. How did those reasons sit with me? They answered nothing, added no understanding, just raised more questions. I had many friends who were bullied, I had many friends who played violent video games, myself included, yet none of them had opened fire on their peers. What differentiated these two kids in Columbine from my friends? These answers never came.
Whenever we answer a complicated question with a simple answer we cheat ourselves. Simple answers are, of course, far more comforting but they don’t allow us to fix the problem because we don’t fully understand it. Did this kid in Red Lake look at some Nazi websites? The evidence points to yes. Did this add to his dementia? Almost certainly. Does this information combined with his family life fully answer our collective questions? No.
I beg of all involved in this tragedy, and that includes all of us, to ask the important questions and not be made complacent b easy answers, we owe ourselves better and we owe the families of Red Lake better. The better we understand these events, the more likely we can stop events such as these from happening again.
Minnesota Senate Democrats have proposed, nearly two months ahead of scheduled budget negotiations, a plan to fix the deficit in the current budget. The Senate Democrats say that they wish to start talks on the budget now so that we can avoid the shutdown that crippled the government last year. Sound like a good, a-partisan goal? Well, apparently not.
As the StarTribune points out, Pawlenty’s Chief of Staff called the plan “bizarre” and “not credible” even though much of the plan incorporated Pawlenty’s own recommendations. In fact, many Minnesota Republicans have come forward and spoken negatively of the proposal; apparently the incorporated compromises did not satisfy the opposition. I guess we’ll see what happens on the vote tomorrow but Pawlenty could not have put it better when he said “The public should be cynical about what’s about to happen.”
On a related note, Kare 11’s coverage of this news (here) seemed a bit biased. The article posted on Kare 11’s website chooses to focus on the critical comments of Republican House Speaker Steve Sviggum and Sen. Sean Nienow, R-Cambridge more than the actual proposal itself. But then again maybe I’m just being picky…
Governer Pawlenty signed into law a bill that allows movers to donate their services to charity. The bill does improve upon the current situation that prevented such charitable services to be rendered by movers due to MNDoT regulations. Pawlenty’s signing of the bill is a commendable but uncontroversial act. The law goes into effect begining tomorrow.
Minnesota Public Radio’s website has a pretty cool flash application that challenges you to balance Minnesota’s budget. Although it simplifies the expenditures and income sources it does a very nice job of explaining the major elements of the budget.
Check it out here (free member registration may be required) and post any solutions you come up with.
As promised, here’s my short analysis.
South Dakota Governor, Mike Rounds, has signed into law a series of anti-abortion bills. The bills firmly assert that life begins at conception and, as such, parental rights outlined in South Dakota law are legally binding beginning at conception. Therefore, the bill argues, if a pregnant woman seeks abortion she must waive her rights as a parent. The Bill would require that such a waiver is signed before any abortion is performed and that any abortion performed without said waiver would be criminal.
Additionally, one of the bills outlines what would happen in South Dakota if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade: no more abortions in South Dakota unless the life of the mother is threatened.
South Dakota, by the way, has the nations most strict abortion laws already.
Analysis to come…
For now digest the information coming in:
From The Boston Globe
From MPR
And the actual text of the bill (.pdf)
People are Shouting