Hello. Permit me to introduce myself. My name is James ,and this semester I will be writing a column for the Daily, to appear regularly in the Monday edition.

First, I must beg your indulgence. Earlier this summer, when a friend and I discussed the possibility of my writing for the Daily, I thought, “Why not?” After all, I was once a featured columnist for the War Chant, (high school newspaper), the Northern Arizona University Lumberjack, the University of Redlands Bulldog, and I have even seen print in the Arizona Republic (mostly in their Letters to the Editor section) and once as a featured Sunday Guest Sports Editorialist.

Despite my past experience as a columnist, however, I entered into this commitment with some trepidation. “What kind of column are you planning on writing?,” my editor wanted to know. I wasn’t sure how to respond. My beginnings as a school newspaper editorialist were marked by a penchant for the absurd.

A topic would be suggested by my editor — an upcoming holiday, the weather, some school-related issue — and then I would spend the next 1,500 words spinning off on that subject, lampooning that which was to be lampooned, offering witticisms from the corny to the ludicrous.

In one high school column, I recommended as a Valentine’s Day gift the fictional book, “How I Lost 126 Unwanted Pounds in an Instant of Rage” by author Norman Bates. Such was typical fare for my weekly reader.

I continued in that vein (no pun intended, thank you, Mr. Hitchcock) over the next couple of years at NAU, authoring modest proposals for reducing the “disturbingly large part that classes play in our whole collegiate experience,” writing farcical book reviews, and suggesting plotlines for sequels to movies that were never made.

Since that time, my work has taken on a more earnest tone, usually concerning politics, world events and the manner in which we conduct ourselves as individuals, nations and as a species. My emerging style is more conversational and personal than that of the past.

But it is the style to which I have committed my editorializing. Admittedly, I tend to pontificate on subjects about which I have strong opinions.

At times, I state my ideas in terms which are more emotional than intellectual, and at my worst I can be sanctimonious and preachy.

That said, I would like to add that I feel that I have something valuable to offer, and if it does not always come across perfectly, then so be it.

I would like to close with a sample of my current editorial style. The following paragraph was written this past June:

I think a lot of people believe they are powerless to effect change simply because they are not billionaires-they have forgotten that it is ideas and human volition that change the way people live-something which is the purview of every one of us, not just the economically privileged. To the powers that be, we say “Just take care of things for us and don’t bother me during my show, alright?”

Unless it is with a breaking “news” story that is sufficiently lurid and entertaining, and can pass for news-something that gives us the impression or feeling that we are being socially conscious in attending to the media’s every word on subjects which belong to the tabloids. Because we took the time to learn about O.J. or Monica, or whatever sordid sideshow that sells air-time, while truly informing us not-at-all about the world or situations of which we should be aware. Because we expressed awe or despair at the number of dead after the train/plane/car crash; or delight at the rescued whale/puppy/child; or indignation at the atrocity committed by whatever world leader we are currently vilifying. Because we have emoted in this way, prompted by the all-too-sensationalist media, we are able to write “PAID” to our consciences and continue allowing others to shape the course of the world.

I feel it is important to add that the editorial went on to commend that quality within us that at least attempts to follow news in one form or another. I believe that the basic impulse of most people is to be socially aware and to act responsibly. The problem may lie in the nature of the current political climate; the debate among politicians and journalists tends to divide people into factions which are largely devoted to the business of assigning blame. Those who attempt to follow the issues are nudged into one camp or the other and proceed to angrily defend their party.

The frequent result is a sense of futility concerning issues hotly debated and poorly understood, with histories longer than most realize. Which party commits more breaches of ethics — the Democrats or the Republicans? Why does the media so often function to exacerbate the divisions? Because drama sells. Stories which pit Good versus Evil are more exciting. Journalists themselves become caught up in the dramas they have helped to create. What I hope to do in this weekly column is to step back from these contrived dramas, seek common ground, and see if there are ways to improve matters, about which we can all agree.

James O’Donnell is a graduate student in painting, drawing and printmaking from Mesa, Arizona.