Kevin Marshall's America
The more I see of the opposition to same-sex marriage, the more I become convinced that it’s definitely going to get passed this year, and most likely this session. As such, groups that are lobbying so heavily against the measure are not only fighting an uphill battle, but putting their own long-term viability at risk.
First,there’s the Catholic Church. Whether or not it’s by their own design, the marriage equality debate is the most visible local political presence I can recall the Catholic Church having in my lifetime. Archbishop Timothy Dolan has rallied hard in the print media and taken to the airwaves against the measure, making him a more prominent and public figure than he ever has before.
The fierceness of the opposition is a bit surprising. Dolan and other Church officials have stated repeatedly that they will not settle for religious exemptions, no matter how rigorous and thorough. There can be no compromise. Their position is to be expected, but the level of visibility they’ve maintained in the waning days of the debate is at best ill-advised and possibly catastrophic due to the elephant in the room whenever they insert themselves into debates in the public sector: clergy abuse. To invoke the issue purely for the sake of debate is an unfair logical fallacy, but it needs to be noted because it’s the reason the voices of Archbishop Dolan and others aren’t being heeded by even the most virulent among their congregations. The long and the short of it is that a litany of scandals has resulted in a very serious image problem for the Vatican that undermines their moral authority. They have enough trouble already dictating movements among its faithful when it has to issue as many apologies as it does edicts. To do so in the media, while what few churches aren’t shuttered have empty pews, seems almost silly.
The other organization that has unwisely chosen this issue as their hill to die on is the Conservative Party of New York State. Their obstacles aren’t image and shrinking participation, but priorities and relevance.
CPNYS took a gamble in threatening to pull their line from any Republican who voted in favor of marriage equality. The metaphor of playing their hand has been invoked, but more apt would be tossing a ball into a roulette wheel. More and more, younger Republicans are in favor of the measure, and even the older ones aren’t the social conservatives that one finds to the West and the South. If statements and actions of the CPNYS on this issue are any indication, they have grossly misread GOP victories in New York State over the last five years: it’s the fiscal conservatism, not the social conservatism, that took root and bolstered their ranks. The fact that they’re standing in front of marriage equality with their palms extended upwards while the state’s going bankrupt behind them has not escaped the attention of the younger members of their rank and file, who not only disagree with the stance on marriage equality but are hitting their heads on the desk at the threat of pulling the line for those voting yes. Senators like Roy McDonald telling them to stick it is moot since he has a stronghold in his district that can survive a race without the CPNYS line. But if Republicans cut a deal to get this passed – and they will – it will be a profound embarrassment and a blow to the strength of their ballot line and lobbying power.
Regardless of the outcome from this session, marriage equality is going to pass and there’s going to be a price to pay for both groups. Their stance and vigilance against marriage equality caters to a rapidly shrinking segment that is – literally – dying off, but it’s not their position that’s damning. It’s their inability to see the writing on the wall. Nobody’s going to ask the Vatican or members of the old guard in the Conservative Party to change their minds on homosexuality, because as history has shown, they have a better chance of talking bricks into changing their color from red to blue. They are, though, asking them both to back off, and the warning has thus far gone unheeded.
Ball and other Republicans have stated that they are concerned that the bill does not protect organizations that do not wish to partake in same-sex marriage ceremonies.
From the legislation itself, Section 3:
3. PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION ELEVEN OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX OF
34 THE EXECUTIVE LAW, NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE DEEMED OR CONSTRUED
35 TO PROHIBIT ANY RELIGIOUS OR DENOMINATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ORGANIZATION,
36 OR ANY ORGANIZATION OPERATED FOR CHARITABLE OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES,
37 WHICH IS OPERATED, SUPERVISED OR CONTROLLED BY OR IN CONNECTION WITH A
38 RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION FROM LIMITING EMPLOYMENT OR SALES OR RENTAL OF
39 HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS OR ADMISSION TO OR GIVING PREFERENCE TO PERSONS
40 OF THE SAME RELIGION OR DENOMINATION OR FROM TAKING SUCH ACTION AS IS
41 CALCULATED BY SUCH ORGANIZATION TO PROMOTE THE RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES FOR
42 WHICH IT IS ESTABLISHED OR MAINTAINED.
That, to my eyes, is cut and dry and covers organizations like the Knights of Columbus and others. Actually, it’s a lot broader than I initially thought.
As for clergy, they’re exempt from civil action under the following:
S 5. Subdivision 1 of section 11 of the domestic relations law, as
9 amended by chapter 319 of the laws of 1959, is amended and a new subdi-
10 vision 1-a is added to read as follows:
11 1. A clergyman or minister of any religion, or by the senior leader,
12 or any of the other leaders, of The Society for Ethical Culture in the
13 city of New York, having its principal office in the borough of Manhat-
14 tan, or by the leader of The Brooklyn Society for Ethical Culture,
15 having its principal office in the borough of Brooklyn of the city of
16 New York, or of the Westchester Ethical Society, having its principal
17 office in Westchester county, or of the Ethical Culture Society of Long
18 Island, having its principal office in Nassau county, or of the River-
19 dale-Yonkers Ethical Society having its principal office in Bronx coun-
20 ty, or by the leader of any other Ethical Culture Society affiliated
21 with the American Ethical Union; PROVIDED THAT NO CLERGYMAN OR MINISTER
22 AS DEFINED IN SECTION TWO OF THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW, OR SOCIETY
23 FOR ETHICAL CULTURE LEADER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SOLEMNIZE ANY MARRIAGE
24 WHEN ACTING IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION.
25 1-A. A REFUSAL BY A CLERGYMAN OR MINISTER AS DEFINED IN SECTION TWO OF
26 THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW, OR SOCIETY FOR ETHICAL CULTURE LEADER TO
27 SOLEMNIZE ANY MARRIAGE UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL NOT CREATE A CIVIL
28 CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION.
So what, exactly, is the hold-up? It’s certainly not what they’re telling us it is, because that’s already covered.
Still waiting on an answer to that one.
In the last several days, one of the rallying cries against gay marriage has been that there will be “unforeseen consequences” if the bill were to pass. It reminds me of quotes I read in history books from politicians in the middle of the twentieth century who loved black people but were were worried about the “unforeseen consequences” of mixing the races.
Except where it was an unmistakable bias in the 20th Century, in the 21st century it’s a brilliant turn of phrase, politically speaking. It plays into the religious objections so many have to the concept of homosexuality, but it’s also vague enough to deflect criticisms and accusations of bias against homosexuals or discrimination. It’s showing concern, in the most vague way, and done with a sad and somber tone.
“Sorry gays, but unforeseen consequences,” lawmakers assure their gay constituents. “Hope we can still be BFFs.”
You can practically hear the “aw, shucks” in their voice as they peer down and drag their foot slowly in front of them.
By its definition, what constitutes “unforeseen consequences” remains a mystery. You can’t give an example, see, because they’re unforeseen! Brilliant. Yet I can’t help but wonder, what are some possible unforeseen consequences to legalizing same-sex marriage?
SkyNET will become self-aware. Then it tries to marry another same-sex robot. Come with me if you want to destabilize a sacred institution.
Grown men will marry their cats. We’ve had one proposal and it hasn’t even passed yet. Won’t somebody think of Pete Iorizzo’s poor fiancee and others being abandoned at the Altar? For CATS?
Fabuloso, the hard energy creature composed of the combined fabulousness of a thousand gay marriages, could be an unforeseen consequence of same-sex marriage that terrorizes our State.
The combined force of thousands of gays getting married simultaneously creates a creature composed of fabulous energy that terrorizes our city. Scoff all you want, but we don’t know what we’re unleashing here, okay?
Knights of Columbus Halls will be invaded by gays. This is actually a real one being brought up by Greg Ball among others. “Wait, what if a gay couple just wanted to rent it for an anniversary or any other function other than a wedding reception?” Ssssshhhhh.
Children turning gay. Another one that’s actually being cited by some of the more extreme elements of the opposition. For my (potentially not safe for work) response, click here.
A crippling floral shortage. Florists are among the hardest working, and most overly taxed, members of our nation’s work force, and that’s only with straight marriages to attend to. If we allow the entire gay community who are apt to use more flowers in more extravagant arrangements to get married, would the industry be ready or would they be crushed by the demand?
————–
I have been accused of being mean and unfair to some very good people. To that I can only say that these very good people have opened themselves up to criticism with inconsistent stances, circular rants, and kowtowing to unfounded concerns.
More important than that is that there’s a lot of intellectual dishonesty going on here. Which, in and of itself, isn’t anything new. Politics, particularly on the State level, is about the compromises and deals that are made before the vote is taken. The vote itself, in most cases, is an afterthought. I get that and accepted it a long, long time ago.
Just not in this case.
There is a fine line and a distinction that needs to be made when it comes to civil rights as opposed to what normally constitutes “state business.” Although melodrama is heaped onto all issues – first by politicians looking to increase political pressure on otherwise friendly opposition, then by pundits who get paid to do such a thing, and then the average person who just doesn’t know any better – in the grand scheme of things there are more important things. Most issues on the State level do impact us and should not be treated frivolously, but they do not carry with them the same grave importance that civil rights do.
Which is why it’s equally maddening when someone says that there are more important issues than same-sex marriage. To you, perhaps, but not to those who are denied that right. “Not now” and “we’re not ready” has been the excuse used for a litany of injustices in our society over the course of our nation’s history: from slavery to segregation to and beyond. Some would scoff at the inclusion of same-sex marriage in that list, but it absolutely belongs there.
This isn’t a vote on semantics or fiscal minutiae. It’s a very basic and fundamental thing that so many of us, myself included, took for granted and that has wrongly been kept from others.
For so many years – thousands in fact – we could plead ignorance and say we didn’t know any better. But now, in 2011, we do know better and have for quite some time. Shamefully, not all of us are ready to admit it publicly.
Same-sex marriage is expected to hit the floor of the Senate today. It is hoped that it will pass. For the sake of freedom and those most directly affected by the issue, I join that chorus happily.
The mother of local writer and artist Alan Ilagan, a homosexual in a committed relationship with another man he considers for all intents and purposes (except legal in NY) his husband, sent a letter to the Times Union that was published in yesterday’s paper:
In 1974, I married a man of a different race. At that in time, there were places right here in the United States where my marriage would have been viewed as a crime. The Alabama state Senate did not repeal the ban on interracial marriage until 1999. Yes, 1999.
The full letter is here. You should read it before you cast your vote.
You can't tell us what to do, Lady Gaga. (photo: Lori Van Buren, Times Union)
Courtesy of a video posted online by New York Now (see the 4:47 mark), I finally received the context from the picture of Assemblyman Dov Hikind, who voted against same-sex-marriage, holding up a glossy photo of Lady Gaga with a telephone on her head. In short, he doesn’t like that she supports gay marriage and thinks we should not follow her lead. He even says he almost changed his mind, but then Lady Gaga offended him.
Afterwards he put down the photo and picked up the Torah, waving it at his peers in the Assembly as he outlined his reasons for voting against gay marriage:
“I wish it wasn’t in the book. Because if it wasn’t, I’d be standing right next to you over there, pushing this, supporting this, because there’d be no reason not to.”
- Assemblyman Dov Hikind, June 15th 2011
Dov really really wishes he could vote for gay marriage, truly. Unfortunately, he doesn’t want Lady Gaga telling him what to do. More importantly, though, he is bound by this book which mentions homosexuality twice in Leviticus and may mention it again in Deuteronomy, though there are issues with both translation and context that muddy the waters quite a bit. Then there’s the mention of man taking only one wife in Genesis.
Look, I get it. Dov is a religious man. He believes the five books of the Torah – which also compromises much of the Christian Old Testament – is the word of God carried to man through mortal vessels. As such, he must take it literally, even if homosexuality is scantly mentioned and the books were written in a wildly different time. In his position, it needs to be taken literally and applied literally in both the private and public sectors.
We must then keep this in mind if we are to see any of these hypothetical laws reach the floor of the Assembly for Dov’s vote.
HYPOTHETICAL LAW: The Judicial Whooping Act
PROVISIONS: Allows for courts in New York State to administer publishments in-house, directly after a verdict, through public flogging.
DOV’S VOTE: Yay
SOURCE: Deuteronomy 25:2-3
‘If the guilty party deserves to be beaten, the judge will have him lie down and be beaten in his presence. He will receive the number of blows his offence warrants. The judge may impose forty blows, but any more than that would be publicly humiliating to your fellow man.’
——–
HYPOTHETICAL LAW: Right to Murder
PROVISIONS: Allows for legalization of murder under some circumstances, eg. to avenge a loved one. Even if the loved one’s death was unintentional (i.e. a no-fault automobile accident). Also, you are allowed to beat your slave to death so long as he lingers for a day or two afterwards.
DOV’S VOTE: Aye
SOURCE: Numbers 35:20-27 / Exodus 21:20
Numbers 35:20-27
‘If he thrust at him in hatred, or lay in waiting and threw something at him so that he dies or in hostility delivered him a death-blow with his fist he is a murderer and the victim’s nearest relative must put him to death.
But if without hostility, he threw something at him unintentionally or without seeing him, dropped a stone on him that could kill him, and he dies as long as he bore him no malice and wished him no harm, the community must protect the killer from the victim’s nearest relative by sending him to the city of refuge.
But should the killer leave the bounds of the city, and the victim’s nearest relative encounter him outside the city the victim’s nearest relative may kill him and will not be guilty of murder.’
Exodus 21:20
‘If someone beats his slave and the slave dies at his hands he shall certainly be avenged. But should the slave survive for one day or two he will pay no penalty because the slave is his owner’s property.’
Deuteronomy 13:6-10
‘If your brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife tries to secretly entice you, telling you to go and worship other gods, gods of people living near you, or far from you, or anywhere on earth, do not listen to him. You must kill them. Show them no pity. And your hand must strike the first blow. ‘Then the hands of all the people. You shall stone them to death.’
——–
HYPOTHETICAL LAW: Rape Reform
PROVISIONS: Reforms current statutes in regards to rape. Specifically, the punishment for rape shall be changed from imprisonment to a fine of fifty shekels (roughly $15 American). Then, the victim has to marry the rapist. But at least he can’t divorce her!
DOV’S VOTE: Aye
SOURCE: Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man happens to meet a virgin woman who is not engaged to be married and he seizes her and rapes her but is caught in the act the rapist must pay the girl’s father fifty silver shekels. She must marry the rapist, because he has violated her. And so long as he lives, he may not divorce her.
——–
HYPOTHETICAL LAW: The Family Slave Emancipation Act
PROVISIONS: Allows for Slaves, who have been set free, to bring their wife and children with them
DOV’S VOTE: Nay
SOURCE: Exodus 12:2,4
‘When you purchase a Hebrew slave his service will last for six years. In the seventh year he will leave a free man. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and children will belong to the master, and he will depart alone.’
——–
HYPOTHETICAL LAW: The Twilight Act
PROVISIONS: Forbids consumption of blood, whether it be human or animal, and defines punishment as DEATH.
DOV’S VOTE: Aye
SOURCE: Leviticus 7:26
‘Wherever you live, you must not eat the blood of any bird or animal. If anyone eats blood, that person must be executed.’
——–
HYPOTHETICAL LAW: The New York State Anti-Discrimination Act
PROVISIONS: Prohibits employers and others from discriminating on the basis of race, ethnicity, creed (i.e. religious beliefs), or national origin. Later amended to also include sexual orientation.
DOV’S VOTE: Nay
DOV’S OBJECTION: Rather than tolerate those of different creeds, New Yorkers should instead locate and murder them.
SOURCE: Deuteronomy 13:13-15
‘If you hear that in one of the towns, there are men who are telling people to go and worship other gods, it is your duty to look into the matter and examine it. If it is proved and confirmed, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword. You must lay the town under the curse of destruction, the town and everything in it. You must pile up all its loot in the public square and burn the town and all its loot. That town is to be a ruin for all time, and never rebuilt.’
Fans in Vancouver riot after the Bruins defeat their Canucks 4-0 to win the Stanley Cup on Wednesday evening. (Photo: Associated Press)
The most important lesson to take from the events of the last twenty-four hours is that passage of legislation legalizing same-sex marriage will not lead to moral decay and the destabilization of all we hold dear in our society.
You’re thinking of hockey.
Last night, after the Boston Bruins won game seven of the NHL Stanley Cup Series to take home their first championship in nearly forty years, the fans of Vancouver reacted…poorly. Rioters, some of whom took the street after the game and many others who were already there to attend the watch party outside Rogers Arena, flipped over cars and set multiple fires while the Vancouver police tried desperately to contain the carnage.
My friend Joe was covering the events in Vancouver for NBC’s Pro Hockey Talk and thankfully made it out alive. He told me that CTV (the largest privately owned broadcast network in Canada) was insinuating the riots were encouraged by the Black Bloc, the same anarchist group that created problems for police and security forces during the Olympic Games, though as of this writing it still appears that the perpetrators were primarily angry hockey fans.
Regardless, it got me to thinking about gay marriage. No, really, it did.
Admittedly, a parallel could not be drawn without the timing of the two events, but bear with me.
Assemblyman Dov Hikind holds up a photo of Lady Gaga with a telephone on her head to support an argument against gay marriage. Seriously. (photo: Lori Van Buren, Times Union)
Detractors of same-sex marriage often cite a degradation of society if same-sex marriage is legalized. It saddens me that people can’t get over environmentally taught prejudices to see past such a ludicrous notion, especially when society needs nothing less than a game played by grown men on ice skates – one whose result will be rendered moot in the Fall when a new season begins and all records, numbers, and accomplishments are reset to zero – to completely fall apart.
I kid, of course, but only to show a point: of all the things that could go wrong in this world and all the things we should be afraid of, the last of them should be love, no matter what form it takes.
The existence of hockey itself didn’t create the violence that occurred in Vancouver, and no politician would deign to blame the game itself and call for its banishment. Partially because hockey is a popular and accepted sport, but also because it’s a ridiculous suggestion. Yet some people like State Senator Ruben Diaz (who the last several days has been stomping his feet like a child around Albany and generally acting like a complete imbecile) put forth an even flimsier argument that suggests that somehow the marriage of the most devoted couples I know – Alan and Andy, Jenn and Nikki, and others – will make otherwise straight kids turn gay and create a moral decay that will send us into a tailspin.
It’s ludicrous, embarrassing, and would be amusing if loving couples weren’t being denied their civil rights.
A good friend of mine who kept my sanity at my day job and talked me down more times than I can count, Jill Garfoli-Alderman, passed away on Sunday.
I worked in the same building as Jill , who for thirty years presided over the postal substation in the Rensselaer Student Union. We struck up a quick friendship through revealing and lengthy conversations over the course of four years.
Jill was one of the most charismatic women I’ve ever met, universally adored by co-workers and customers and never at a loss for words. More than entertaining, she was a trusted confidant who knew more about me than anyone sans members of my immediate family and a small handful of personal friends. During our shared time at Rensselaer, she impacted my life in a very real way, and her absence in the Union while she battled various complications to her health left a tremendous void that won’t be filled.
Her passing came as quite a surprise. We had known that she was back in the hospital, but that had become the norm and Jill was both a fighter and survivor. You often see those terms tossed around like penny candy when someone passes, but for her the terms are more than anecdotal. She survived Hodgkins disease, an abusive first marriage, and the aforementioned health scares of the last two years. Although her more recent health problems had forced her into retirement, there was never any thought that we might receive an early morning notification of her passing. In hindsight and out of context, the compounding health issues should have made us more conscious of the potential mortal danger. The problem, though, was Jill. She was just too damn charismatic and too damn tough for us to think that death was even possible.
Her viewing is tonight and her funeral is tomorrow morning. For those in the Rensselaer Community who would like to pay their respects, you can find more information over at her page on Legacy.com.
In lieu of flowers (and even if you didn’t know Jill), you can make a donation in her memory to the American Cancer Society.
Below is a four minute documentary from former Rensselaer student Katherine D’Anna, where Jill is profiled and not surprisingly to those that knew her, incredibly candid in discussing her life and work at Rensselaer.
What made me proud to be a constituent of State Senator Roy McDonald wasn’t his public proclamation that he would be the 31st confirmed vote for gay marriage on the floor of the Senate. Rather, it was the fallout and what he told Times Union reporter Jimmy Vielkind:
“I’m not out to alienate anybody. This is driven by compassion,” the Saratoga Republican said. “I’m not out to hurt some gay guy, gay woman. Live your lifestyle. That’s not my lifestyle, but God bless ‘em — it’s America. Be nice to people, and let’s all just live our lives.”
….
“I’m not one of these guys that lives and dies, at this age of my life, for politics,” he said. “I’ve accomplished more than the average guy around here. I’m going to go and see my family when I leave here. I’m going to go, turn around, and if I get out of politics I’ll be a professional like I’ve been in the past. I’ll make money. My grandchildren will have money to help them through the problems they have. I’ll go play golf, see my wife and spend time with my three kids and grandkids.”
Even better, though, is what he told New York Times Albany bureau chief Danny Hakim:
“F*** it, I don’t care what you think, I’m trying to do the right thing.”
Right. On.
Admittedly, my first reaction to the news that McDonald had changed his vote was a bit cynical. I was reminded of the words of Congressman Steven Derounian, who dissented from his fellow committee members on the Subcommittee for Legislative Oversight that was investigating the quiz show scandals of the 1950s, telling the lauded academic Charles Van Doren that he didn’t think “an adult of [his] intelligence ought to be commended for telling the truth.”
Yet here was McDonald going even further: not only was he declaring his vote, but disavowing his previous votes and damning the consequences.
It matters to me that those remaining Senators who are “undecided” join suit, but it matters more that they do so because like McDonald they could not reconcile any other choice with their conscience.
The bill is expected to come up for vote on Friday. My hope is that history will finally be made and, at long last, New York can lead the way in steering us away from intolerance and injustice. If it doesn’t, though, I’ll still be proud of Roy McDonald, and he’s still proven himself to be the kind of person who not only deserves but demands my vote and recognition.
In the interest of keeping things “fair and balanced,” there is evidence that the institution of marriage is, as opponents insist, dissolving in the face of this issue:
My God. What have we done?
Welles in "Lady from Shanghai," with his real nose.
While doing some light morning reading before I left for work, I ran across a fascinating little bit of trivia about one of my favorite artists of the twentieth century.
It turns out that Orson Welles hated his nose.
Whereas most who obsess over their nose worry that it’s too large or irregular, Welles always felt that his wasn’t big or prominent enough. I had always assumed that Welles, who was definitely of the old school when it came to acting, adopted the use of prosthetics as a method or for effect. It’s fairly noticeable in films like “Touch of Evil,” where if you don’t see the billing you wouldn’t even realize it’s Welles until about halfway through the film when his trademark style, cadence, and those wild eyes finally betray him. As it turns out, the nose was worn not to immersel himself and the audience in his character, but because of a pathological (and unfounded) insecurity.
Like so many of us, Welles’ emotional deviations from what is perceived as the societal norm were both a blessing and a curse. His trademark stubborness and perfectionism often made him difficult (and later in his life nigh impossible) to work with and hindered his career professionally, but it also produced work that to this day influences and instructs the way films are made. Unfortunately, the same can rarely if ever be said for those psychosis that manifest themselves in obsession over our physical appearance and specifically what we perceive to be minor physical flaws.
Welles in "Black Magic," with one of his many fake noses.
It certainly gave me pause. For me, my Welles’ Nose has been my mid-section and in particular the love handles I’ve had for as long as I can remember. It makes me wonder if my physical self appears to others the same way it does to me when I’m standing in front of a mirror.
We hear so many stories of young girls with crippling eating disorders that view themselves as much heavier than they really are; often unable to notice when they’ve become physically emaciated. I wonder, though, if maybe most – or all – of us have that mental quirk that warps our perception of our physical selves and/or makes us see things that aren’t really there at all.
Sort of a scary thought given our culture’s obsession with aesthetics and physical perfection, particularly in youth.
Anyway, what’s your Welles’ Nose, if you have one?
I’m taking a quick break from applying public pressure to state representatives, working on what might be my first novel (God willing and the crick don’t rise), and posting videos of cats to congratulate the participants of the New Visions: Journalism and Media Studies class of 2011.
Under the guidance and tutelage of their teacher, Ann-Marie Sheehan, the students were given an opportunity to learn about and examine the journalism field and, more importantly, its changing role (as well as what it still needs to change in order to stay relevant) in the 21st Century.
They posted their projects, musings, and even the occasional video of cats doing awesome things over on the High School blog. Sadly, while their work over the course of the last year will be retained on the blog for posterity, their program has ended and the time has come for them to turn in the figurative keys.
To say that many of the bloggers in our area just go through the motions would be an insult to kinetic energy. Yet here were these students, all of them with unique viewpoints and many not even old enough to buy a lottery ticket, examining real world issues and showing a genuine enthusiasm in what they were doing. It was a reminder of what it was like to actually do and say the things we want to do and say, rather than what we feel like we need to do and say. It was refreshing, but more importantly it was informative and at times impressive.
So to Taylor, Tobi, Peter, Katie, Michelle, Robert, Jaclyn, Michael, Cress, and Kyle, the best of luck to you in all your future endeavors and keep on keeping on. Take pride in your work, always.
STALK ME
