Comic by John Petroski

Sorry about slow updates. Things have been a little busy with us. This was sent to us by the Recorder editors and posted at the request of John Petroski, who drew it.

-Unrecorded Editors

We Need Your Personal Records--This Is For Your Protection

Submitted by Kari Sledzik

George Orwell’s fictional 1984 depicted a society where the government had their hands on everything. There was no privacy. People didn’t have personal lives. The government told you when and how to do everything, and they watched your every move.
But this was a work of fiction, and this world is only a fantasy. No proudly democratic society would invade its’ citizens lives.

Right?

The Orwellian nature of our society is hardly news. People have been drawing startling parallels between American society and Orwell’s 1984. What the American Civil Liberties Union’s latest lawsuit found is just one more to add to the list.

The ACLU found documents revealing that the Department of Defense had secretly issued 455 national security letters after September 11. These national security letters are often used to investigate criminal cases, and they allow access to personal records, like financial and internet records. They must be reviewed and signed individually by a Federal Judge. The institutions are not permitted to tell the individual being investigated that the government has obtained access to these records.

According to the ACLU, the declassified documents indicate that the FBI and the Department of Defense worked together to overexert power granted under the Patriot Act. The individuals investigated included Pentagon employees, but ACLU staff attorney Melissa Goodman said that this raises the issue of spying on civilians as well. Retired Colonel Ann Wright brought this issue up in a forum in West Hartford recently. According to Wright, some officers have been signing these letters themselves without the signature of a Federal Court Judge.

So this is for our protection, right? We’re so protected here in America that we feel the need to spy on the people we hire to work within the government. Oh, and by the way, to all of you nutty dissenting individuals, the government will keep an eye on you too.

Government spying is nothing new in America. Since the Patriot Act went into effect, there’s not much people can do to argue that. At best, you hear the “if you’re innocent, you’ve got nothing to hide” argument, but that all but disputes the fact that the government can stick their hands into our business. But with 455 letters being issued so covertly and without the signature of a Federal Judge, it’s pretty hard to convince me that every single one indicated an imminent and serious threat to national security. If these investigations were truly valid and necessary, why bypass that requirement?

This is just another example of how the government has overextended the arm of the law to instill a climate of fear. We can feasibly be monitored at any time, and we know it. People who actively speak out against government actions could be incriminated for a fundamental right granted in the Constitution. And as I said, this is nothing new, but these national security letters indicate some issues that maybe we weren’t even aware of.

Should we be scared? Should we be concerned? Reason says yes, but the government tells us that this is merely a matter of national security. This is for our protection.

Has The Recorder Tarnished Your Degree?

Shawn Ingraham

Has The Recorder Tarnished Your Degree?

Recently CCSU has caught the attention of the press. Usually the press’s attention comes from two sources; Athletics or reactions to The Recorder’s latest controversial publication. You may have noticed that all of the reports regarding The Recorder are negative. What you may not have considered is how the negative publicity affects the reputation and legitimacy of the university and the degrees we are all working hard to receive. Some of the words used in the reports about The Recorder are racist, homophobic, and sexist. These words become synonymous not only to The Recorder but also CCSU. Imagine sitting in a job interview and your possible new employer is thinking CCSU is a university of “racism,” “homophobia,” and “sexism,” what are your chances of getting hired over a student from a better reputable school?

Recently people been quoted by NBC 30 describing the paper as “disturbing” and in “poor taste.” Others have described the university as having a “poor quality of leadership.” Chancellor of the CSU system David Carter has described the paper as having “a stunning lack of sensitivity and awareness.” WTNH has quoted our own students describing the newspaper by stating “It's ridiculous, it's offensive, it's annoying, it's everything.” Another student said: “This is a college environment, this isn't high school. You have to grow up and become more mature because this isn't little kid stuff any more.” A professor has even been quoted by WTNH questioning the integrity of the university leadership: "[Miller] has not responded to anyone in this community. Is this a leader? Is this a person that should be leading this university?"

That’s just local news; our university has negatively caught the attention of the entire country. The New York Times quoted a professor asking for “systematic changes to create a welcoming environment.” Shouldn’t a welcoming environment automatically be present at CCSU? Because of the actions taken by The Recorder staff our campus is being portrayed as an unwelcoming, ridiculous, annoying, immature environment which lacks appropriate leadership. This was not the type of descriptions I looked for while choosing a college my senior year in high school or the type of colleges employers like to hire from.

As members of the CCSU student body The Recorder is our paper, which represents us and should be used to help promote a positive reputation of ourselves as intellectuals. The Recorder staff has made attempts at this but it goes unnoticed because the quality journalism is over shadowed by the many blatant incidents where a few members have disregarded proper journalistic ethics and tainted the newspaper’s and university’s reputation. This reputation affects us all as future CCSU graduates.

Unintended Consequences

Unintended Consequences

By John Petroski

It happened quicker than I expected, but here we are. A person’s right to freely express their political thoughts is clearly under attack. The 400+ emails various editors tell me The Recorder received following last Wednesday’s publication of the article Bush or Bin Laden: Who is More Evil? is definite proof of that.

Here we have an article written not to make light of a horrible situation, or to poke fun at any particular group, but written to express political ideas that many in this country, including myself, do not agree with. And for that simple fact, Ryan Yeomans is being dragged through the coals.

As is the fashion these days, many people who do not agree with Mr. Yeoman’s thoughts are calling for his censure. Many people on this campus and in this country, it seems, want only their own thoughts to have some right to publication, and march and protest, and demand the removal of editors, or the banning of publications, when they fail to cater exclusively to them.

This is no different, if you put emotion aside and really think about it, than the uproar over my rape satire, or the recent controversy surrounding the PolyDongs comic. For those were both made in part to freely express what their respective authors found funny, and both of those were lambasted by critics and protestors who did not agree that we had any such right. In both cases, people called for censorship, demanded the ouster of certain editors, and, in essence, demanded that only things they approve of be permitted publication. Such people should hang their heads low today, for they are traitors to all from across the globe who have fought and died for a basic right every human being should have: the freedom to express themselves.

Yet there is another group of people who should also hang their heads low today, and I am among it, as is Mark Rowan. We are the people who were in a position to defend Freedom of Speech, and hereunto failed. When, last February, Mark Rowan said that he “[W]ould never use the First Amendment to defend [the rape article],” he caved in to outside pressures, and struck a blow against Freedom of Speech. Likewise, when I stood before the nation and apologized for my article, I did the same.

I should never have apologized, Mark Rowan, and the editors who voted for my removal should have backed me, and we should have collectively taken up the fight for Freedom of Speech. We erred back in February in an attempt to save our skins, and today we are seeing consequences to something far more important than any of our futures as a result.

Well I for one will not make that mistake again. I will defend The Recorder, the author of PolyDongs, and Ryan Yeomans. I have their back, and the back of anyone, from any race, gender, political ideology, or sense of humor who has ever been attacked for publishing something others did not agree with. I have the back of Grant Woolard, the University of Virginia cartoonist who was recently fired for his comic entitled, Ethiopian Food Fight. I back the College Republicans of the University of Rhode Island who were also assaulted for expressing their views on Affirmative Action. I back the many journalists from throughout the globe who have been threatened, beaten, and in some cases murdered, for having the courage to publish things that others did not like. I back the Danish cartoonist who drew the often criticized cartoon of the prophet Mohammad with a bomb on his turban, and I back people like Howard Stern, Don Imus, or Marshal Matthers, who have faced a life of scrutiny for expressing themselves as well. I back the students at Tiananmen Square who braved the tanks for freedom, and I even back people I personally detest, such as the KKK, neo-Nazi groups, and members of the Westboro Baptist Church. I back them all, from the most reprehensible to the most noble, and I do so not because I agree with each and every one, because I certainly don’t, but because I realize each and every one must be backed, lest none of us be.

For that is the key. We cannot pick and choose which parts of Freedom of Speech are backed or supported. We must not only defend those who we agree with. We have to stand up for each other. We have to make sure that the rights of all minorities are protected, whether they are minorities because of their race, gender, sexual affiliation, religion, political ideology or even sense of humor. For if we fail to defend the right of free expression for those we personally disagree with, it is only a matter of time until we ourselves are defenseless to the onslaught of discrimination and oppression.

I have crossed the Rubicon to back you. Back me.