Tamz (t4mmyequalsg33k) wrote in alleghenypeople,

  • Location:
  • Mood:
  • Music:

Attention! You Lazy Bloggers!

Oh man. Reading the school paper sure is fun these days and definitely generates a HUGE amount of conversation (often among people agreeing with each other...but I'll take what I can get). I want more of that conversation, but who among us, with Allegheny's infamous workload and our age group's propensity towards lazinees, has got the time/energy to write to the paper? 

Ok, we all do. There really aren't any excuses for opinionated and intelligent people to submit articles to the paper...

However, I think it's a good and neat idea to use this blog for some good ol' fashioned debate/argument times.

Well, to kick things off, I'll just throw some phrases out there and see where they go:

Ben Sperry.


2-party system.

The religious right.
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

Ben Sperry is God reincarnaqted at Allegheny :)

It's nice to see some conservative opinion in such a liberal school. I'd write myself, but usually he cov ers everything I have to say.
I vehemently disagreed with his article last week and really enjoyed and agreed with his article this week.
First, I would like to thank Tamara for inviting me to blog here. The truth is I think other people take me more serious than I take myself. Am I a conservative? Yes, to the bone, but its all about starting debate. Free speech is very important, regardless of your opinion. Censorship should be avoided at all costs, whether by the administration, or by a sense of Political Correctness above all else. The First Amendment gives the right to offend, and have others offend you. Thank you for any response, I encourage people to email me, whether offended or appreciative.
Hi. I'm gonna be transferring to Allegheny after winter break, and i'm very much looking forward to an intellectually stimulating environment.. and I plan on having a lot of conversation on things that matter!

I'm vegan and secular (Agnostic) to the bone, and I couldn't agree more that it's important for us to have the right to communicate, even if it means being offensive. I personally don't think being offensive for no other reason does any good.. but the government should not tell individuals what communications are offensive and police them.. even the most hateful ideas should be allowed to be communicated by individuals.. Just don't expect me to agree :)
F*ck censorship!


I'm curious, is there a vegetarian/vegan organization at Allegheny right now?
So, you want to talk about moderatism eh? Well, this snippet of an article from SATYA magazine helps explain part of why it SUCKS :)

"You never know when a PR agency is being effective; you’ll just find your views slowly shifting."—PR Executive

Few of us realize that some U.S. industries pay hundreds of millions of dollars to public relations firms charged with the removal of any and all obstacles to their acquisition of profit. High on the list of those obstacles are grassroots social justice movements.

In a 2002 article on their Center for Media and Democracy website, authors and social activists John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton described the activities of MBD, one such PR firm involved in the dismantlement of citizen movements concerned about problems ranging from acid rain, dioxin, biotechnology and toxic wastes, to apartheid, nuclear energy, endangered species and oil spills.

“Their favorite method,” wrote Stauber and Rampton, “is a ‘divide and conquer’ strategy heavily dependent on co-optation: First identify the ‘radicals’ who are unwilling to compromise and who are demanding fundamental changes to redress the problem at hand. Then, identify the ‘realists’—typically, organizations with significant budgets and staffs, working in the same relative area of public concern as the radicals. Then, approach these realists, often through a friendly third party, start a dialogue and eventually cut a deal, a ‘win-win’ solution that marginalizes and excludes the radicals and their demands.

“Next, go with the realists to the ‘idealists’ who have learned about the problem through the work of the radicals. Convince the idealists that a ‘win-win’ solution endorsed by the realists is best for the community as a whole. Once this has been accomplished, the ‘radicals’ can be shut out as extremists, the PR fix is in, and the deal can be touted in the media to make the corporation and its ‘moderate’ nonprofit partners look heroic for solving the problem. Result: industry may have to make some small or temporary concessions, but the fundamental concerns raised by the ‘radicals’ are swept aside.” [Emphasis added.]
Yep.. this blog is dead.