little voices carry big ideas.

people seem to hold a lot of convictions, without the ability to blend their conviction to their actions. This leads to the mastering of the ability to decieve themselves just enough to believe that they are both moral and good, and that others are not. I am not including myself in that category. i have all kinds of convictions that i do not uphold in practise, i am sure. i am as flawed as you.

any time i see people taking risks, putting themselves at a loss, be it financial, personal or otherwise, i admire their ability, their courage, their principles.

the middle class ethos on principles seems to be the idea that: principles are something other people should have. like a lot of christians in the news in america in recent years, it seems that the best way to prove ones righteousness and moral authority is to point out all the flaws in other people. people who stand behind their views are so rare that a hungry and confused people turn to hollywood to give us heroes who are bold enough to take life-changing risks, to engage the devil within and the devil without, and to overcome.

for today, our society trusts no politician, and celebrities are morally bankrupt as a whole. who commands a large stage that is left to lead by example? who commands the attention of a nation? none. no one steals the spotlight to be heroic. death, murder, crime, income gap, corruption, lies, lies petty lies fill the television and newspapers...

...and then, a bright light. rare enough that i copy and paste it here (below, after my rant). may it inspire someone to do something. anything real.

whether or not you agree with the sentiment, with the politics, with the forum, is irrelevent.

let the cynics say that he was probably going to quit anyway, that he was moving away and thought he would make himself the hero by writing the letter. let them say it. enjoy your poison, cynics. may you choke and die a thousand deaths for attempting to smother the hope, idealism and dreams in others, that you have long ago smothered in yourself. (yes, i too fall prey to cynicism. but i'm talking in big dreamy language now and i can't be held back.)

cynicism is a type of intellictual cowardice, of fear and self loathing, thrown back at those who would make them aware of their lack of substance, whether real or imagined.

you've witnessed it in action, seen it suck the life out of a room, out of a friend, out of hope. cynicism is poison. it is not the same as criticism, which is important in strengthening ideas. cynicism is a type of blanket death that someone throws over top of you, hoping to snuff you out. but some people survive. overcome: we call them heroes. cynics call them names. let us not be cynics.

oh yes, the heroes are eventually repackaged, subverted, their ideas sold back to the public in a digestable, comfortable form. witness the "Che" craze, still ongoing. Le Chateau selling shirts to spoiled hipsters, Che's handsome mug emblazoned on the front, the hipster only knowing that Che was a rebel, a dude, a cool motherfucker, someone they think they would like, maybe even like to be like. the co-opting, of course, is that the wearer of the shirt is 'rebellious', that he is 'taking a stance' when in fact, he's not even close to being a rebel, he's merely a consumer, a place on a bar graph in an office that some guy he's never met has pegged as a "che shirt buyer". This company is also considering Mao shirts for those even more rebellious. the above picture another wrinkle in the same old cloth.

che would probably have slapped them all upside the head, the maker of the shirt, and the buyer of the shirt. no matter. it's le chateau who wins. the ideals and ideas of a movement co-opted and rebranded for sale on shirts made in sweatshops in china to be sold in a political system that Che would have gladly torn to the ground. and no one bats an eye. and even if they did, who notices a good eye-batting these days, anyway?

perhaps the act of a resignation is an eye-batting. perhaps the idea of a resignation is. again, i do not care if the man had an alternative reason. i only care that he has presented me, and now you, with an alternative response to things we fundamentally disagree with. an outlet. may we all be so bold as to live by our princples.

Condoleezza Rice at Boston College? I quit
By Steve Almond May 12, 2006

An open letter to William P. Leahy, SJ, president of Boston College.

DEAR Father Leahy,
I am writing to resign my post as an adjunct professor of English at Boston College.
I am doing so -- after five years at BC, and with tremendous regret -- as a direct result of your decision to invite Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to be the commencement speaker at this year's graduation.

Many members of the faculty and student body already have voiced their objection to the invitation, arguing that Rice's actions as secretary of state are inconsistent with the broader humanistic values of the university and the Catholic and Jesuit traditions from which those values derive.

But I am not writing this letter simply because of an objection to the war against Iraq. My concern is more fundamental. Simply put, Rice is a liar.

She has lied to the American people knowingly, repeatedly, often extravagantly over the past five years, in an effort to justify a pathologically misguided foreign policy.

The public record of her deceits is extensive. During the ramp-up to the Iraq war, she made 29 false or misleading public statements concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda, according to a congressional investigation by the House Committee on Government Reform.

To cite one example:
In an effort to build the case for war, then-National Security Adviser Rice repeatedly asserted that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear weapon, and specifically seeking uranium in Africa.
In July of 2003, after these claims were disproved, Rice said: ''Now if there were doubts about the underlying intelligence . . . those doubts were not communicated to the president, the vice president, or to me."

Rice's own deputy, Stephen Hadley, later admitted that the CIA had sent her a memo eight months earlier warning against the use of this claim.

In the three years since the war began, Rice has continued to misrepresent or simply ignore the truth about our deadly adventure in Iraq.

Like the president whom she serves so faithfully, she refuses to recognize her errors or the tragic consequences of those errors to the young soldiers and civilians dying in Iraq. She is a diplomat whose central allegiance is not to the democratic cause of this nation, but absolute power.

This is the woman to whom you will be bestowing an honorary degree, along with the privilege of addressing the graduating class of 2006.

It is this last notion I find most reprehensible: that Boston College would entrust to Rice the role of moral exemplar.

To be clear: I am not questioning her intellectual gifts or academic accomplishments. Nor her potentially inspiring role as a powerful woman of color.

But these are not the factors by which a commencement speaker should be judged. It is the content of one's character that matters here -- the reverence for truth and knowledge that Boston College purports to champion.

Rice does not personify these values; she repudiates them. Whatever inspiring rhetoric she might present to the graduating class, her actions as a citizen and politician tell a different story.
Honestly, Father Leahy, what lessons do you expect her to impart to impressionable seniors?
That hard work in the corporate sector might gain them a spot on the board of Chevron? That they, too, might someday have an oil tanker named after them? That it is acceptable to lie to the American people for political gain?

Given the widespread objection to inviting Rice, I would like to think you will rescind the offer. But that is clearly not going to happen.

Like the administration in Washington, you appear too proud to admit to your mistake. Instead, you will mouth a bunch of platitudes, all of which boil down to: You don't want to lose face.
In this sense, you leave me no choice.

I cannot, in good conscience, exhort my students to pursue truth and knowledge, then collect a paycheck from an institution that displays such flagrant disregard for both.

I would like to apologize to my students and prospective students. I would also urge them to investigate the words and actions of Rice, and to exercise their own First Amendment rights at her speech.