Don’t look now, but the Christmas season is just over the horizon. The yearlong anticipation for this time of giving and warmth toward strangers is anticipated by young and old everywhere — and just as certain as Santa Clauses will appear, red and green lights will spring up, Mariah Carey will have the number one song on iTunes, Hollywood will produce its annual Christmas movie. This year, Disney serves up A Christmas Carol; however, this film is far from its child-friendly Dr. Seuss counterpart, The Grinch Who Stole Christmas. A Christmas Carol is a more gloomy film than you would expect from the animated previews — anyone who hears about an animated Disney Christmas film will surely think it is a family flick. As the movie came out closer to Halloween than Christmas — or even Thanksgiving — this is more of a horror film than a heart-warming Christmas tale.

In case some of us need a refresher, the movie follows the life of an old penny-pincher, Ebenezer Scrooge. He hates everything that embodies the Christmas spirit and thinks that everyone is foolish to think that all troubles should be forgotten, just because it is the holiday season. Christmas Eve, Scrooge is haunted by the ghost of his deceased business partner Jacob Marley, who warns Scrooge that he will wear heavy chains in the afterlife unless he changes his ways. The movie plays out as Scrooge is visited by the ghosts of Christmas past, present and yet to come, who all contribute to teaching Scrooge why the Christmas spirit is so important.

There are few who can argue that this movie was not well-produced or cast, but the style of the film is definitely in between markets. It is not the uplifting film that people will be looking for to kick off their holiday season. The ghosts in the film are not simple guides that show Scrooge the right path — rather they literally scare Scrooge straight. Scrooge learns less about the good that comes with the Christmas spirit, but instead more about the horrible future that will come if he continues on in his cold-blooded manner. Marley, Scrooge’s former partner, is the most frightening character in the film, as he starts the haunting fest with a thundering entrance that not too many 5-year-olds will enjoy.

Jim Carrey as Scrooge — who has experience playing a Christmas misanthrope (The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, 2000) — completely molds himself into the role. The bitterness of his voice perfectly matches the level of vinegar and disgust that the computer animation places on Scrooge’s face. Gary Oldman, well known for his character James Gordon in the latest Batman films, plays Bob Cratchit, Scrooge’s lone employee, while Colin Firth lends his voice to the movie as Scrooge’s hopeful and exuberant nephew. You can only identify the celebrities in voice, but the computer animation leaves nothing to be desired.

Carrey’s performance and the dark storyline are not what you would expect from Disney, but nevertheless make for a different, yet compelling portrayal of A Christmas Carol. The movie succeeds in its aims as it delivers a bone-chilling version of the classic story. Just don’t expect to see a happy go-lucky film.

I wouldn’t use the phrase “think fast” to describe Charlottesville’s latest hip local band, Astronomers. The band’s songs are mostly slow-paced, but this isn’t a bad thing; think Pink Floyd. Astronomers’ sound will get you into a groovy zone you won’t want to come out of.

While active in the Charlottesville music scene for the past couple of years, Astronomers took a large step last Friday when they released their first official album, Think Fast!. The self-professed science geeks call themselves a mix of Radiohead and Franz Ferdinand. This description works, but their resemblance to Muse is too strong not to mention. Like Muse, Astronomers get inspiration from space. They also rival Muse’s seductive voices and striking guitar riffs. Add a trace of the aforementioned Pink Floyd and you have Astronomers. The band is, however, refreshingly unique on the whole.

On most albums, bands seem to randomly order their songs, but Think Fast’s six trippy songs transition into each other and follow a natural progression. “Stratagem” impressively opens the album and the experienced guitarists drive the song. The band claims to sink “below the atmosphere” and the space references begin. But fear not — the references are only a little corny and the sultry vocals make up for it.

Astronomers pick up the pace as they groove into “Perpetual Emotion.” The hook comes in the guitar melody that often matches the catchy vocals. The band’s only setback so far is that their lyrics are sometimes unclear — however, on “The Singularity” — one of the album’s highlights — the beat is good for dancing and the vocals are easy to understand.

My favorite is “Or Maybe It’s Nothing.” Here, Astronomers take a stab at a love song and do it well. The song sounds expertly polished and eliminates some of the album’s earlier kinks — namely slowness and a lack of clarity. The melody and vocals are seductive as ever. “Freeze the frame / I’m not sure if I should let you in,” they sing. The “don’t mess with me” vibe makes it far from your typical love song, yet it still has a relatable message, covering the timeless theme of communication: “I wish I understood you” and “let me do the talking.”

While Think Fast only gave me a taste of Astronomers, the six songs got me interested. So hurry — take advantage of this nerdy, trippy combo, get yourself a copy, and blast off into space.

Most people measure the passage of time in years or by major life milestones. But a small minority — myself included — measure the passage of time in terms of how many more cold and lonely nights it will be until Diablo III is released. If you find yourself in this second category, Torchlight may just be the game for you. This dungeon-crawler bears more than just a passing resemblance to the Diablo games, which should come as no surprise: The developer of Torchlight, Runic Games, was co-founded by two of the key founders from Diablo’s own Blizzard North.

When you begin the game, you must first choose your character. There are only three options: the destroyer (warrior), the alchemist (wizard) and vanquisher (ranger). While these are not the most imaginative class types, especially for anyone who plays a lot of role playing games, they serve their purpose well enough and provide adequate incentive for replaying the game. A lynx or wolf sidekick accompanies your character for the duration of your journey, aiding you in battle and making trips back to town to sell off items while you keep adventuring. This particular feature endears itself to you very quickly, as it is a well-established fact that stopping mid-quest to go sell piles of junk to a vendor is one of the most annoying parts of any game with a limited inventory.

Torchlight takes place in a small mining town that just so happens to be situated directly above a massive randomly generated multi-level dungeon. The town itself is called Torchlight and contains within it your usual staples of the hack-and-slash RPG genre, including vendors, quest-givers and sagely old non-player characters who offer advice. The town is not particularly exciting, but the dungeons beneath it are well-constructed and the randomization means that you never know what is going to be around the next corner.

Gameplay in Torchlight will be instantly familiar to fans of the Diablo games, but for the uninitiated, here’s the skinny: Your character hacks and slashes their way through hordes of enemies in an effort to gain more experience and acquire better weapons and equipment. When you have gained enough experience points to level up, you invest in new skills and abilities so that you can kill stronger enemies and get better items. You repeat this process again and again until you have beaten the game. As boring as that sounds on paper, it is a proven formula that has been addicting gamers everywhere for decades.

The art style for Torchlight is even more cartoonish than World of Warcraft, and as such, keeps the game from ever feeling too serious. This is not a good or bad thing, but it does somewhat inhibit the player from becoming emotionally invested in the game. The nicest thing about Torchlight visually is the top-down perspective that will make any Diablo fan feel instantly at home. Arguably the best feature of the game is the fantastic music, which was composed by Matt Uelmen, the composer responsible for creating the memorable soundtracks in the Diablo games.

Unfortunately, Torchlight has a fair number of flaws that keep it from being a great game. In addition to the mediocre plot and the generic character classes, the quality of the items you find — a key feature in a game like this — seems to be sub-par. I found so many useless swords and bows that were defined as “rare” or “unique” that the words lost all meaning. Additionally, Torchlight does not allow for the remapping of keys which, as a lefty, can be a deal-breaker.

The takeaway: Although Torchlight tries to capture the magic of Diablo, it only partially succeeds. It gets some things wrong but it gets enough right that I can comfortably recommend it, especially at the bargain price of $20. Torchlight may just be one of the better ways to kill a few of those hours standing in between you and Diablo III.

The dark comedy, The Men Who Stare At Goats, was released this past weekend. The movie is based on a book by the same name penned by Jon Ronson, concerning reports of the U.S. armed forces’ involvement in training psychic spies.

The film features a star-studded cast, with big names like George Clooney — who also helped produce — Ewan McGregor, Jeff Bridges and Kevin Spacey.

From the outset, the movie gives a disclaimer in big, bold letters: “More of this story is true than you would believe.” This puts the viewer in a much more open mindset, which is essential for this film.

McGregor portrays a writer, Bob Wilton, whose wife leaves him for his editor. In response, Wilton goes to Iraq but cannot find a way in. He then meets Lyn Cassady (Clooney), who is on a secret mission to find his mentor (Jeff Bridges) — but that is not necessarily the main aim of the film. The big concept with this movie is that the U.S. government actually spent money on the army to develop these psychic soldiers.

Kevin Spacey does the best job in this movie by far. His idiosyncrasies and the rareness of his character in the general storyline provide him with the opportunity for memorable, well-executed punch lines.

One thing that bothered me, though, is the constant mention of the psychic soldiers being “Jedi warriors.” Though the reference is not too far-fetched, mentions of Jedi would not be all that bothersome if Ewan McGregor was not on screen every time the lightsaber-wielding supermen were brought up. Let me clarify for those who don’t know: Ewan McGregor played Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars Episodes I–III, and these constant references almost require the viewer to know that McGregor played Kenobi for the joke to work. Despite McGregror’s excellent portrayal of a troubled writer — conveying a semi-belief in the psychic spies — the Kenobi joke soon proves to be a distraction, ultimately detracting from the movie as a whole.

The likeness of Jeff Bridges’s character, Bill Django, to his cult-iconic character, Jeffery “The Dude” Lebowski also took away from the film. Although I like both characters, it gives off an aura of unoriginality.

Overall, the cast put together a well-executed performance, but I felt that the film was lacking a certain edge that it advertised. This is one of those movies that looks great on paper, but when it comes to screening it in front of people, it falls just short. The ending, however, is absolutely hilarious. The sad part is I cannot describe it without a bunch of spoilers.

Is it worth a movie ticket? Yes, and no. Yes, it is worth a matinee, or a free one if you have a coupon. Otherwise, not so much.

Matthew Broderick’s latest movie, Wonderful World, directed by Joshua Goldin, captures you right away, yet takes you into a world we have all encountered. It has sex, death, a lawsuit, marital problems, Africa, doctors, father-daughter issues, marijuana, job problems and depressing rain scenes. But this is only the surface — behind the dark humor and misfortunes is a shower of sunshine.

The movie is about a former children’s songs singer, Ben Singer, whose life is a bit of a mess. He shares a small one-room apartment with a diabetic friend from Africa named Ibou, who ends up in the hospital because of complications from diabetes and falls into a coma. As Ben tries to get him to the hospital, his car is towed because a neighbor reported his illegal parking. And, of course, he loses his job because of “the bottom line”: costing the company money by being late. And this is only the film’s beginning.

Superior acting, well-chosen editing and a well-written script make this one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. Meaningful dialogue and a story that is really thought-provoking make me wish that this independent film was the norm for the movie industry.

Wonderful World is truly a stunning movie. Although it probably will not make much money, it will surely be appreciated by the film industry and audiences everywhere. The story has the ability to connect with everyone because we all have our misfortunes and cynical days — and sometimes we just need to step back and think about how we perceive the world. Is the glass half empty or half full?

Sometimes small organizational changes can have significant effects on how a system operates. Not all projects undertaken at the University need to be especially ambitious in scope to foster positive results.

For example, improvements could be made to the SOURCE, the University’s online system for making reservations and searching events. Students, contracted independent organizations and academic departments can use the Web site to book rooms in the different buildings across Grounds for meetings or special functions. The site also catalogs scheduled events and allows users to search them by category.

The SOURCE’s Web interface is relatively simple to navigate, and the technical aspects of the system seem to operate smoothly. The SOURCE’s human elements, however, could be better structured.

As the system currently works, the Web site’s primary role is to facilitate students looking for rooms in different locations. It is essentially a central database containing the information and availability of each room that is available for use on Grounds. After a room is requested, a designated contact person within the corresponding academic department will respond to the request with more specific information and requirements.

This arrangement leads to two basic problems — inefficiency and a lack of standardization. Because each department is supposed to follow the same set of general guidelines when assigning rooms, a decentralized system requires that more people learn the rules and participate in the process. More troubling is the fact that it also results in the inconsistent treatment of student requests. To correct these flaws, the University should consolidate the SOURCE’s response system into an existing administrative office.

Having rooms assigned by each department makes sense if the University is trying to afford more discretion to the occupants of each building; faculty might wish to retain a degree of supervision over who is using those rooms. However, because a single, overarching set of rules is in place that dictate specific guidelines, the departments in theory should have no leeway in how they allot rooms.

The current system results in occasional confusion and misunderstandings. For example, event locations often come with specific requirements, like restrictions on the use of amplified music. But when requesting event space, students have found that the room requirements listed on the SOURCE do not always match up with those specified by the person assigning the space. Additionally, some of the departments that allocate rooms appear to be unclear about whom is permitted to request space and for what purposes.

These are relatively minor concerns, but they point to a basic fault in the system that could be easily corrected. The SOURCE response process should be centralized to prevent these inconsistencies from arising and to expedite the system. A single office at the University, such as Facilities Management, should become the contact point for all SOURCE requests. This would greatly reduce the chances of having the rules misconstrued or applied differently by various departments. Making this minor adjustment now could go a long way toward making the system less cumbersome for users and administrators alike.

Your life is a living hell. Your kidneys have failed and your blood is pumped out of your body and filtered through a dialysis machine almost every day of your life. Your only hope of salvation is through organ donation. But wait! There’s hope. If you are being treated within the University Health System, the odds are in your favor. For the fourth year in a row, the Health Resources and Services Administration has awarded the prestigious Medal of Honor to the University Health System for outstanding organ donation rates. University students should take this accolade as an inspiration to become more involved in the organ donation movement.

How important is organ donation? Here are some numbers: One name is added to the national organ transplant waiting list every eleven minutes; eighteen people die every day waiting for an organ that never comes; 7,000 Americans per year die on the organ waiting list. According to Donate Life America, an independent organ donor organization, there are over 100,000 people currently on the organ waiting list. And last year, 28,000 lives alone were saved through organ transplants. That still leaves over 70,000 people waiting for help. Organ donation is critical for these individuals.

So why is organ donation so rare? Unfortunately, organ donation is a concept mired in vague misconceptions and lack of knowledge. One big concern is the role of religion. Many people believe that most major religions, i.e. Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam, strictly prohibit the idea of organ donation, citing the need for a fully intact body during burial. This is just not true. For example, in his article entitled “Religious Justifications for Donating Body Parts,” William F. Mays, a nationally renowned ethicist, remarks that “burial is no aid to salvation” in the Christian faith. He also notes that “Christian faith in the resurrection does not present an insuperable obstacle to the extraction of organs from the corpse.”  Basically, organ donation does not violate the sanctity of burial, because burial is a human convention and merely affirms that the faith “does not condemn the body,” be it whole or not. Therefore organ donation is an acceptable act.

A large percentage of Americans are aware of the need for more donors, but are either wary of being organ donors or just don’t know how to get involved. Many people fear that being an organ donor precludes them from receiving life-saving treatment at the hospital. What a ridiculous idea! According to James Childress, a prominent ethics professor at the University, “those fears need to be overcome,” mainly because there are “systems in place at hospitals to prevent someone from being declared dead prematurely or having one’s death hastened in order to obtain organs for transplantation.” So don’t worry — the doctors aren’t going to cut open your unconscious body, rip out your heart, and give it to someone else. Besides, doctors abide by principles of beneficence and non-malfeasance — thus implying they will do their best to save you and will never act to hurt you.

Now, how can people get involved? It starts with us. Universities are a great place to spread knowledge of the power of organ donation. The reason our University Health System is so effective is because they strive to increase knowledge about organ donation for past and future patients. Childress explains that it requires “committed professionals who refer dead or dying individuals to the organ procurement organization for follow up” in order to have an efficient organ donation system, which is exactly what the UHS achieves. This level of dedication to increasing organ donation should be stressed at the University level. There are over 20,000 students enrolled at our University alone — that’s 20,000 potential organ donors at just one University. If every student became an organ donor, that’s enough to prevent every organ waiting list death three years in a row. Of course, not everyone is willing to become an organ donor. And organ donation is not an immediate phenomenon. Many organ recipients need organs that can only be procured after the death of a potential organ donor. Yeah I know, that sounds a bit morbid. Obviously I’m not encouraging a sort of psychotic organ donation cult at the University reminiscent of the infamous Jonestown Kool-Aid suicides of 1978. I hate Kool-Aid. But seriously, even signing up for organ donation now puts you in a position to save at least one life.

Organ donation is a serious issue. It’s time for us to expand our view on what is truly necessary to help those in need. And it can start at this University. Every student who at least gains responsible knowledge of the issue of organ donation represents a student who can potentially save a life. An Islamic quote claims, “To save one life is to save mankind.” Let’s start saving mankind, one life at a time.

Danny Di Giulio’s column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at d.digiulio@cavalierdaily.com.

Emily Kuhbach’s column (“No mandate,” Nov. 11) tried to downplay the significance of the 2009 elections but missed the bigger picture. Yes, it is the tradition of Virginia to vote against the party currently occupying the White House, but the Republicans swept all statewide offices for the first time in 12 years. For most of those 12 years, Virginia was a solidly red state, so it is indeed significant for this sweep to occur in a blue-trending state that Obama won. But the Virginia race shouldn’t be viewed in isolation. In New Jersey, one of the bluest states in the Union, a weak Republican candidate, Chris Christie, defeated an incumbent governor, Jon Corzine, who outspent him by huge margins. Obama campaigned heavily for Corzine and said he was one of his best partners in the White House. Obama was rewarded for his efforts with a surprising 4-point victory for Christie. There was low turnout, but what is this an indication of? Why are Obama’s “change” voters already apathetic when he urged them to turn out for his candidates? If they didn’t turn out for Creigh Deeds, will they turn out for Tom Perriello or other Democrats in swing congressional districts? The 2009 elections were significant because they were an indication that Democrats have lost some of the momentum of 2008, and recent polls confirm that the Republicans are gaining momentum going into the 2010 midterms. The Real Clear Politics average has Obama’s approval at 51.7 percent, which is a remarkable drop from 65 percent last February. The Gallup generic congressional ballot has the GOP in the lead for the first time in years, and Republicans candidates are polling ahead of incumbent Democrats across the nation. If Democrats continue to ignore the significance of the 2009 results as a harbinger of this national trend, they will suffer many more defeats in the years to come.

George Pisano
CLAS II

Five hundred, 400, 200, 100, and one more 500 — these are the approximate class sizes of the five classes I’m taking this semester. For other second-years and most certainly the vast majority of first-years, this situation is shared. With 13,792 undergraduate students in total enrolled last year (and slightly higher this year), the University has no option but to meet the great demand for popular classes with coliseum-like auditoriums and eminent professors who bestow their knowledge to the masses and let their minion Teaching Assistants do the rest. Unfortunately some students take this as some sort of free period in which they can act how they please since the professors have no idea who they are or what they’re doing, right? Wrong. When you sit down into a Chemistry 402 or Wilson 401 you are invisible to neither the professor nor the people sitting around you.

College — you’re not in Kansas anymore. From high school to college, the differences are endless and often repetitive. A noticeable one is the familiarity between the students and professors. Whereas in earlier years they knew your mother, brother, and why you broke up with your girlfriend, now it’s a shock and most times a privilege if they know your name (or can even come close). Although it may seem like a barrier to learning, it truly is only a necessary evil that occurs until higher-level classes — once you figure out what you’re going to be when you grow up. Until then, shut down Facebook, TFLN, and cease the pestering chatter about that party last night.

“I sat in on a Psychology course for a semester and I was regularly forced to change seats to avoid the distraction of texting and instant messaging around me — I found it impossible to focus on the lecture,” remarked Claire Cronmiller, a professor of biology at the University, on her experience with big lectures. She admits that big lectures can be a problem, although one without too easy a solution. The ultimate price these students are paying, she goes on to add, is “the lack of attention that results from these activities mainly hurts the students involved — it’s their choice.” It is your choice. Staying focused on lectures and the professor, with the teacher so far away and all the commotion going on around you, can sometimes be more challenging than understanding the material at hand. You have the freedom to attend or skip as you please, but if you’re only in class to make you feel better about not skipping class, try not to impair those who are there to attempt to figure out what the repressor gene does in the lac operon or how the elasticity of a supply curve will change. Some professors have tried to cut off the wireless connection in class or, in Rosa Parks-esque fashion, move all the computer users to the back. The best solution lies in the correction of some simple behaviors. Maybe the professor is blind or you’ve aced every midterm without stepping foot in the classroom, but there are still those trying to listen in.

Prof. Kenneth Elzinga places the main responsibility on the teachers responding to this issue by stating that both large and small lectures can be detrimental. “It all depends on how the teacher conducts the class and how eager the students are to learn. An engaging professor and an engaged student yields an optimal classroom equilibrium.” When students are in classroom sizes of 10 to 20 students, they are under pressure at all times to stay alert, focus and respond to questions posed with accuracy and sincerity. Professors should branch out and expand their teaching strategy to incorporate more interaction between themselves and the students. Clicker questions were one step in this direction but still act as just one more technological interface further isolating the teacher and those being taught. Moving along the rows of class, passing off the microphone to gain student feedback, and even skits performed in Price is Right fashion where we can “Come on Down!” will engage students at a much higher level and assuredly cut down on students cutting up. I’ve never seen so many Internet pages shut down and PowerPoint slides pop up on laptops when my professor decided to waltz up the rows of the auditorium.

Improved teaching methods and increased interaction among students are two small steps professors can take, but ultimately the responsibility rests in our laps to ensure that the technology is being used constructively in lectures rather than distracting your peers around you. Prof. Cronmiller added in the end of her response that she has even seen “two students making out in the last row of Gilmer 190.” How about that for an engaging lecture?

Bobby Laverty is an Opinion Editor for The Cavalier Daily.

“Too little, too late” seems to be a recurring motto. Too often tragedy strikes when we are unprepared. Only after the dust has settled are we able to understand what went wrong and hopefully prepare for the future. Once again, media headlines have been infiltrated with news of a mass shooting on U.S. soil, this time on an American military base in Fort Hood, Texas. Any competent track runner knows that being one-step behind is no way to win a race. America’s sluggish response to increased domestic threats has cost American lives and will continue to threaten citizens’ safety unless a more proactive effort is made by the public to counter the increased risks.

Mass shootings are becoming all too common in the headlines, and Americans are becoming numb. On Nov. 5, a gunman went on a shooting rampage at the Soldier Readiness Center on the Fort Hood Military base. A 39-year-old Army psychiatrist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire on Thursday killing 12 soldiers, one civilian and injuring over 30 others. The death toll was cut short thanks to the heroic actions of 34-year-old civilian police officer Sgt. Kimberly Munley, who shot Hasan four times.

A day after the Fort Hood killings, 40-year-old Jason Rodriguez opened fire at an office complex in Florida, killing one and wounding five others. Random mass shootings are becoming America’s own form of domestic terrorism. President Barack Obama called the killings at Fort Hood “incomprehensible.” In actuality, the Fort Hood shooting is all too common. The Oklahoma City bombing, the Columbine High School massacre, the Virginia Tech shooting and others have become numbers in a growing list of mass murders on American soil. Americans are now so accustomed to mass violence that we are becoming desensitized. Gun violence is not a top agenda for either political party, though in light of events of the past several years, it should be. While there is certainly public unease at the rising number of mass shootings, there has been no public backlash or movement to end the violence.

In light of the increasingly frequent mass shootings, public venues need to take proactive measures to combat threats. We need to stop asking “How could this happen?” And need to start asking “How can we prevent future attacks?” Rather than respond, we need to counteract. To start, military bases, work places, schools and other public venues need to enact measures to assess the mental health of personnel and students. Perhaps the solution begins with combating the stigma that exists in America toward mental health problems. As a society, we must become more accepting of people who suffer from mental illness or mental disorders that result from trauma or stress. We need to raise public awareness about mental health and problems such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, an illness that has affected many U.S. soldiers deployed to war zones.

An assault on any military facility should be expected in the post 9/11 world and extra precautions should be taken daily. It should not come as a surprise that a military base could become a target for mass violence. Specifically on military bases, frequent mental health screenings of military personnel are essential. Those in the military are more prone to mental health problems such as depression or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder due to their high stress level jobs and the negative effects of warfare. As in all other mass shootings, the question becomes how could an individual so troubled slip through the cracks? While mass shootings are impossible to predict, all public venues should have a distinct plan for various emergency scenarios. Many public venues do, but these plans should be checked and reworked monthly in response to new threats.

The motive behind the Fort Hood Killings is still not clear. Questions have been raised about Hasan’s extremist tendencies as well as about the stress impact of his job as an army psychiatrist. Hasan also complained about abuse by peers due to his Muslim religion and Palestinian dissent. Whichever motive is true, the attack could and should have been prevented. For those who condemn the investigation into Hasan’s possible ties with terrorists, it is important to recognize that anyone who attacks a U.S. military base must be investigated for extremist ties regardless of his heritage. If it turns out that the speculations regarding Hasan’s ties to a radical Imam in Afghanistan and other extremist values is confirmed, then the FBI did not act upon important information gathered prior to the attack. Hasan was no doubt mentally unstable. While this does not in any way excuse his actions, it does indicate a failure on the part of the military. Reviews of army personnel are faulty and mental health services lacking. It is no secret that many American war heroes return home to the States with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and very little military support. The number of suicides in 2008 in the American military was the highest ever reported. The military, workplaces and schools are generally all lacking in mental health resources and support. Mental health screenings of employees, while they do exist, are conducted rarely. The U.S. Army should have taken more precautions in ensuring that those caring for soldiers are psychologically sound. Warning signs should not have been disregarded and possible ties to terrorism investigated. The question is how many more tragedies will occur before the public takes a stand to end the violence? To ignore the lessons learned from the Fort Hood shootings and other tragedies over the years would be negligent.

Ashley Chappo’s column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.chappo@cavalierdaily.com.