Hasta La Gadget!

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — A gunman shot and killed three people Friday before he was found dead at a home in a city near the capital Seoul in the second such incident in three days, police officials said.

Shooting incidents are rare in South Korea, which tightly controls gun possession, and the two deadly shootings this week will likely trigger a debate on whether the country should tighten its control on hunting weapons that can be legally owned.

A police official from Hwaseong City, who didn’t want to be named, citing office rules, said the victims included a policeman who was one of the first officers to arrive at the scene. The official said the suspect is believed to be the brother of one of the victims, whose wife was also dead.

The suspect was found dead with a gunshot wound in what the police believed to be a suicide. The daughter-in-law of the dead couple managed to escape by jumping from a second-floor window before alerting the police, and is currently being treated at a hospital for a minor back injury.

Police said the murder weapon was believed to be a hunting gun. The gunman had retrieved the gun from a nearby police station about an hour before the morning shooting, the police official said.

South Koreans can obtain licenses for shotguns and air rifles for the purpose of hunting animals, but they are required to keep the weapons at police stations and use them only during legal hunting periods. It wasn’t immediately clear whether the suspect owned the gun or had a proper license for it.

The incident follows another shooting on Wednesday when a gunman shot and killed three people in Sejong City in the central part of the country before apparently killing himself. The gunman appeared to have used two shotguns he owned and had licenses for.

According to figures from the National Police Agency, South Koreans legally owned about 160,000 guns as of January, a figure that included hunting weapons and self-defense tools such as gas-emitting guns.

A police official from Hwaseong City, who didn’t want to be named, citing office rules, said the victims included a policeman who was one of the first officers to arrive at the scene. The official said the suspect is believed to be the brother of one of the victims, whose wife was also dead.

Police said the murder weapon was believed to be a hunting gun. The gunman had retreived the gun from a nearby police station about an hour before the morning shooting, the police official said.

South Koreans can obtain licenses for shotguns and air rifles for the purpose of hunting animals, but they are required to keep the weapons at police stations and use them only during legal hunting periods. It wasn’t immediately clear whether the suspect owned the gun or had a proper license for it.

The incident follows another shooting on Wednesday when a gunman shot and killed three people in Sejong City in the central part of the country before apparently killing himself. The gunman appeared to have used two shotguns he owned and had licenses for.

According to figures from the National Police Agency, South Koreans legally owned about 160,000 guns as of January, a figure that included hunting weapons and self-defense tools such as gas-emitting guns.

Here we are at the beginning of another presidential campaign, and like every campaign since our founding, the people who put themselves forward as possible leaders of the free world are being grilled by the media on a number of issues.

Some of my conservative colleagues have complained about the types of questions that conservative candidates like Scott Walker receive compared to the questions leveled at liberal candidates. Only a willingly blind observer would conclude that conservatives get a fair shake in this, as Mark Helperin and others have noted. I’m in general sympathy with my friend Matt Lewis that wanting to be president includes being willing to take all kinds of questions. Or, as my high-school basketball coach often said, “Don’t complain about the referees, play well enough that they don’t matter.” This is the big leagues and good leaders don’t complain about the media, they press on and demonstrate what qualifies them for the highest office in the country.

But if we are going to have questions about the questions directed at presidential candidates, I’d like to offer one a query I hope every aspirant is asked. It’s a simple question that has profound policy implications.

Do you recognize the intrinsic value of every human life, from conception to natural death?

For Christians, this question is rooted in a foundational belief. The Christian story starts in Genesis with the declaration by God that humanity, unlike the rest of creation, was sculpted by a loving and creative God and formed, “in His own image.” The Latin word is imageo dei. Christian theology teaches all humanity was endowed with dignity because we are made in God’s likeness.

It is this theology that drives what Christians believe about the basic dignity and worth of every human being. In every person, regardless of their utility to society, we see the image of God. This drives our activism on issues like abortion, immigration, human trafficking, poverty, racial reconciliation, elder care, orphan care and advocacy for the disabled. It’s why we care about the institution of marriage, because we believe that God’s best design for human flourishing is the complementarity of the sexes. It’s why we care about religious liberty, because every soul has the right to worship freely, even if we believe they are wrong.

I don’t expect the next President to be a master of biblical anthropology, but I do hope he is asked many questions about the way he or she sees human beings, especially the most vulnerable.

Do you value the dignity and worth of unborn life enough to protect it with the force of the law?

• Do you recognize the dignity in the poor and impoverished enough to help them escape their economic condition?

• Are you willing to consider the plight of the “other”, the people group you are least familiar with, and render whatever legitimate assistance they may need?

• Do you see value and worth in the immigrant, even the undocumented, and are you willing to treat them with fairness?

• Do you see the humanity in those who vociferously disagree with you, even your ideological opponents, enough to recognize that you are both seeking the good of your neighbors?

• Are you willing to fight and spend political capital on a marginalized group who may not be able to reward you with electoral votes, and if so, can you name which groups those are?

These are just a few questions that arise out of the big question: are you willing to see every human life as important and worthy of protection? Are you willing to find dignity in lives that are considered a burden to society? Can you see worth in people beyond their utility?

The presidential candidates will face a lot of questions between now and November, 2016. Some will crumble under the weight of this higher level of scrutiny. Some will thrive. Ultimately one will emerge as our next leader.

But I hope one question arises above the rest: Are you willing to treat every human, regardless of their status, as being of equal and immeasurable worth, and are you willing to fight to protect their inviolable dignity?

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) used her speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday to focus on veterans’ issues, a sharp departure from the more relentless Obama bashing she has delivered at CPACs past.

Palin spoke about the numerous challenges that many veterans face once they return home from war, including post-traumatic stress disorder, unemployment, divorce and suicide.

“As we gather here, we’re safe, we’re secure, we’re having fun, four days together at a conference. In those four days, 92 of our veterans will have taken their lives,” she told her audience in National Harbor, Maryland.

The former vice presidential candidate also said that veterans weren’t receiving the care that they needed from the Veterans Affairs Department and alluded to the scandal over long waiting times for appointments at VA hospitals.

“America hands over her sons and her daughters with the promise that they’re going to be taken care of,” Palin said. “We can’t wait for D.C. to fix their bureaucratic blunders. This bureaucracy is killing our vets. They wait for months, they wait for years to get treatment at the VA, and they’re losing hope.”

“Just because one guy at the top resigned, well, the problems didn’t resign,” Palin said, referring to former Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, who resigned last spring after reports about waiting times and falsified records emerged.

Palin didn’t just criticize; she offered her own policy suggestions for improving veterans’ lives. She suggested, for instance, that Congress should pass legislation to secure veterans’ benefits permanently. She also said that the government should provide vouchers to veterans to pay for health care outside the VA system.

Her latest remarks were certainly clearer than a confusing speech she gave last month at the Iowa Freedom Summit, which was criticized by conservatives and cheekily applauded by Democrats. The focus of her Tuesday speech was also a contrast to her previous two CPAC speeches in which she focused more on lobbing zingers at President Barack Obama.

Still, Palin offered a few one-liners on Thursday. She criticized Obama’s foreign policy, called for a more muscular approach to fighting the Islamic State and took issue with recent comments by State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf that the United States could not beat those militants simply by killing them.

“Oh, the naive Obama State Department. They say we can’t kill our way out of war. Really? Tell that to the Nazis. Oh wait, you can’t. They’re dead. We killed ’em,” Palin said.

WASHINGTON — It’s been almost 50 years since the historic civil rights marches in Selma, Alabama, and Congress is ready to celebrate the people who made it possible.

Lawmakers have overwhelmingly passed a bill to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the thousands who marched on Bloody Sunday, Turnaround Tuesday and the final stretch of the 54 miles from Selma to Montgomery — the movement that served as the catalyst for passage of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The bill sailed through the Senate on Thursday with so much support it didn’t even get a vote. It passed the House 420-0 earlier this month. The only thing left is for President Barack Obama to sign it into law.

“This bill, I believe, is a fitting honor that recognizes the courage and determination of the civil rights marchers at Selma 50 years ago,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) declared on the Senate floor. “It was a very historic day, and it marked an alteration in the history of America. It changed an unacceptable abuse of American rights: the right to vote.”

But the disconnect between the masses of lawmakers honoring the marchers and those trying to restore the Voting Rights Act is stunning. The Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the law in 2013. That section determined which states and localities that had a history of minority voter suppression had to get permission from the Justice Department to change their voting laws. In a 5-4 ruling, the court left it up to Congress to update that section with a new formula for designating which regions of the country need special scrutiny.

Nothing has happened since, because Republicans won’t support legislation to fix the law. A House bill introduced in the last Congress had just a handful of GOP co-sponsors. The Senate version had none.

The prospects for action in this Congress look even worse. Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and John Conyers (D-Mich.) reintroduced the House bill, with fewer GOP co-sponsors than before. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is expected to reintroduce the Senate bill soon, but he doesn’t have a single Republican co-sponsor.

In the meantime, states that previously required pre-clearance from the federal government — Mississippi and Texas, to name two — have been able to pass laws that make voting more difficult for people who are poor, disabled or a minority, through such means as requiring a government-issued photo ID in order to vote.

With the approach of March 7, the 50th anniversary of the start of the Selma marches, it’s worth noting amid the ceremonies which lawmakers are — and aren’t — actually doing something to try to strengthen voting rights.

Below is a handy list of the lawmakers who have signed onto this year’s House bill and last year’s Senate bill to restore the Voting Rights Act. Lawmakers don’t have to co-sponsor the bill in order to support it, but The Huffington Post hasn’t found any additional GOP supporters of these bills.

Neither of Alabama’s senators, Republicans Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby, responded when asked if they plan to sign onto Leahy’s bill.

House bill — The Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2015

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.)
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)
Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.)
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas)
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.)
Rep. Pedro Pierluisi (Del-P.R.)
Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.)
Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.)
Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.)
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.)
Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.)
Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.)
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
Rep. Charles Dent (R-Pa.)
Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.)
Rep. Christopher Gibson (R-N.Y.)
Rep. Ann Kuster (D-N.H.)
Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.)
Rep. Luke Messer (R-Ind.)
Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.)
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Fla.)
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.)
Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.)
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.)

Senate bill — The Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.)
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii)
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.)
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.)

When was the last time you purchased an item and after realizing it was damaged you “felt bad” or too shy to return it? Probably that rarely happens. Whether it is clothes, food or any other service, we all want to get the worth out of our investments.

In the same way, we must also expect quality learning from the investment we make in higher education. If we are paying top dollars and devoting years of our lives to learn and get trained, why do so many of us feel ashamed to speak up when we are struggling?

When it comes to classes, not understanding for prolonged time indicates a need for action. Personal agency can make a difference in any situation. Only we can take control of our learning and the outcome because only we can vocalize our needs.

It is not about antagonizing our professors or ignoring the inequities influencing our classroom experiences. Instead, it is about validating our needs while resisting a victim mentality that can easily paralyze us.

Start by fostering a clear line of communication with faculty who can support you in getting the most out of your educational investment regardless of the circumstances. Professors may not be able to change their teaching style to cater to every student, but they can work with you to find alternatives.

If you want to improve your learning and be on top of your game, here are 5 tips to help you get started:

1. Assess your learning experience frequently. After every class ask yourself what about the structure, materials or delivery is working and not working for you? What parts did you find confusing? What are things the professor did not do that could have improved your understanding? What could you have done differently before, during, and after class?
2. Ask clarifying questions. As cliché as it may sound, the only dumb question is the one not asked. Raise your hand during class and ask your professor to repeat a statement, clarify a concept, give an example or rephrase the explanation. If you are confused, so are other students (some may just be pretending to understand or may be too distracted to realize they don’t).
3. Go to office hours. Office hours should be part of your schedule. At the beginning of the semester note in your calendar when office hours will be held for all your classes and do your best to arrange your work and extracurricular activities around them. Especially for the classes you foresee will be the most challenging, attending at least one of the professor’s open hours gives you the opportunity to receive clarifications every week. If the office hours conflict with other classes or commitments, inform the professor in advance and request assistance. Make sure you do email to ask for convenient meeting times or for alternative people you can reach out to for help.
4. Give suggestions. When something about your class or lab is not working for you, let the professor know. If there is something different that you think would be beneficial to fellow classmates, share it during office hours. The worst that can happen is that the person is not receptive to your ideas. In that case then you can simply ask for suggestions on how you can make the current structure of the class work for your learning needs. Either way, you have much to gain.
5. Start a study group. We are never alone. We can choose to struggle in silence or choose to form mutually beneficial partnerships. Get the email of some students in your class and ask if any of them are interested in working on homework, reviewing class materials or studying for exams together. You can also send a mass email to your classmates proposing to form a study group. Most likely you’ll find some people. One brain may not understand everything, but multiple brains have infinite power. Even if you are all perplexed, group encouragement will get you much farther.

It’s all about being proactive. We are our own best advocates and it’s up to us to seek solutions or alternatives that enable us to meet our individual needs. There may be circumstances that seem out of our control. But even then, speaking up can improve the current situation or give us a different perspective that makes it more tolerable. Ready or not, go for it. The possibilities are worth the risk.