Young Voices
Exchanging ideas from the show and blogging about topics in the news from a range of perspectives.
March 6, 2007
What They're Not Saying
by Jeremy Freed
“There are nobler things in the world than brand-identity and distribution streams, to be sure, and turning the NAACP into a slick, 21st century corporate machine may be a step too far in the wrong direction.”
Bruce Gordon appeared on the program Monday night to discuss his resignation as CEO of the NAACP, but his reasons for leaving remain unclear. “What happened?” asked our host. “It may as much be a conversation… about what didn’t happen,” was his reply, as he went on to discuss in sometimes vague terms his inability to break the organization of some of its outmoded ways.
What exactly happened and what didn’t happen in Gordon’s 19 months as CEO we may never know, his colleagues being equally tight-lipped at present about what disagreements there were. What is clear, however, from Gordon’s statements and those of some board members, is that the NAACP is in need of big changes all around.
Change was just what Gordon promised, his corporate background offering closer ties to big business, and just the kind of fresh perspective of which the 98 year-old civil rights powerhouse was and is in dire need. He proposed a greater emphasis on social service, in addition to civil justice, online outreach to boost flagging membership, and new technologies to make the organization more flexible and responsive to new scenarios. For all of his ideas, however, Gordon was unable to sway the 64-member governing board on much.
The board members’ hesitance says as much about their commitment to the NAACP’s roots as it does about their reluctance to embrace change. There are nobler things in the world than brand-identity and distribution streams, to be sure, and turning the NAACP into a slick, 21st century corporate machine may be a step too far in the wrong direction. Equally disastrous, however, is the inability to adapt to the times, embracing each new age and its challenges and opportunities with the same passion that made the organization great in the first place.
March 17, 2007
If Not Darfur - Save Darfurians
by Victor Marsh
Darfur, Sudan: Displaced Persons camp in the city of Nyala.
Two years and six months ago, our Secretary of State called it a genocide. If the genocide in Darfur, which has claimed about 500,000 lives, had occurred in Europe, we would have dropped whatever we were doing to save lives using our military force. In Darfur, since we refuse to use “first-choice” military options to stop the genocide, we had better pursue a less-desirable option: helping the people of Darfur to escape – all of them.
Major foreign policy thinkers proposed last September that we could use naval and air force power to force Sudan to stop the killing. That would be my first choice.
It did not happen. Worst yet, the endless negotiations have included us making empty threats of “Plan B” actions against Sudan’s genocidal government.
So I propose Plan C: to save Darfurians by permitting massive migration far away from west Sudan. Today, we are keeping people huddled into camps within their genocidal country, when we should help many more people to escape.
Advocates say that refugees have a “right to return” to their homes – but no one asks if they really have a desire to return to their homes. We should remember that in Darfur, there is no home to return to. A series of years with little rainfall has made good land hard to find – and that was one of the main causes of the conflict between “Black” agriculturalists and “Arab” nomadic groups.
How many refugees from Darfur has our own country taken in? How many have Darfurs’ neighbors such as Egypt, Kenya, and Ethiopia taken in?
The only people who seem to have escaped this place have wound up in camps in Chad – not the friendliest place for refugees. The heavy emphasis on helping people in “Internally Displaced Persons Camps” is due to the fact that we do not have an outpouring of countries ready to take Darfurians in. It all sounds too familiar – the western world might have prevented the Holocaust, for example, if it had opened the door for Jews to massively migrate to their own countries.
The US government, in light of this major policy failure, should work to secure a safe path for mass migration of all Darfur’s people.
March 11, 2007
Battle of the Bans
by Rose Capozzi
“...one regulation has led to another, and the fad is only becoming more intrusive into my everyday life.”
Although I have never been compelled by "slippery slope" arguments, something has to account for the recent popularity in the government banning commonplace practices such as talking on the phone, eating fatty foods, and listening to music.
It started with the cell phone ban. Many of us did not protest the ban... after all, no one likes to deal with idiots swerving on the road with their cell phones. So when the government stepped in no one complained.
Like the cell phone ban, which seemed to catch on like wildfire, banning smoking in bars also became popular. For many, it was out of concern for employees working at bars and other establishments where there is heavy cigarette use. Others, usually nonsmokers, simply did not want to have to deal with the perceived ill affects from secondhand smoke. Soon, smoking bans were in place, putting limitations on where it was appropriate to light up a cigarette. Though this ban was met with more opposition, most people rolled over and let the government protect society from society.
More recently, there has been rampant rhetoric over trans fats. The government wanted to start a war on obesity beginning with regulating the kinds of oil restaurants are allowed to use. In effect, the government gave itself the ability to regulate the dinner table. Many were relieved that the government took action on behalf of the helpless, childlike voting populace. Others didn't care either way. So the regulation was passed in New York City and is likely to pass in many other cities and states across the nation.
As for me, I was willing to cooperate with the government regulating cell phone use. But one regulation has led to another, and the fad is only becoming more intrusive into my everyday life. For example, NYC announced that they were considering banning the use of i-Pods, MP3 players, and cell phones for people using crosswalks. Hey, I have an MP3 player! This seems like a strange way for the government to flex it's muscles, but many people do not seem to be taking notice.
In light of all of the international and domestic problems facing lawmakers, what we eat and how we entertain ourselves seems irrelevant. Yet, politicians spend their days finding ways to interfere in the way we carry out daily activities. I may not have taken offense for the first ban, but I don't need the government to protect me from smoky bars, fatty foods, or music. I can decide for myself without the interference of Big Brother.
March 11, 2007
Neon Bible: The Way Forward
by Jeremy Freed
The Arcade Fire (Photo: Frecklescorp)
The Arcade Fire were and are the first band of my generation that I could really get behind. They’re Canadian and so am I, but that's not the reason. It has more to do with their timing.
Funeral, their 2004 debut album was a cohesive and deeply personal exploration of coming of age, of parents and children, of growing up and moving on and what these things really mean in the light of day. Hitting me as it did the summer I graduated from university, living in another new city, working my first real fulltime job, I played it near-constantly for about six months. Their abstractions and metaphors rang true in so many ways, speaking to the mountain of questions and doubts that appeared in front of me as I entered the world of adults, not really feeling like one. “Children wake up, / hold your mistake up/ before they turn the summer into dust.”
In the two interceding years things have changed for me, and judging by Neon Bible, their new album, things have changed for them, too. Where Funeral looked inward, this one looks out at a world besieged by violence and unrest. Strings, harps, a xylophone and pipe organ swell and fade like a raging sea beneath frontman Win Butler’s plaintive vocals. All, clearly, is not well.
As with Funeral, the songs still speak to my mind, and comfortingly, the pace of their changes has matched my own. The questions raised in these new songs, of what to do with this world we’ve been given, of how to deal with the very real threats facing our population and planet, are ones that occupy me constantly. It rejects the rising tide of uniformity, a product of the mass-culture on which we’ve been raised (“MTV what have you done to me?”) and speaks to the concerns of a generation tasked with confronting the mistakes of the last one.
The Arcade Fire sing of protest and of the same unwillingness to take on our parents’ institutions as did the rock heroes of the baby boom generation, but they make it their own. "The tide is high, and it's rising still," sings Butler, "And I don't wanna see it at my windowsill." Music like this, resonant, defiant, and seemingly custom-fit is the sort of thing that defines an era. It is a rebellion, yes, but it is a pragmatic one, and one, once again, that I can get behind. Amidst all of its darkness and turmoil, Neon Bible is at its heart an expression of hope for a new generation. It is empowering in the best way rock and roll can be.
March 11, 2007
Gen Y: Are We Really Apathetic?
by Rose Capozzi
“...my generation would rather learn about the importance of voting from our parents, and not from Puff Daddy or Paris Hilton.”
Most people refer to us as "Generation Y," but we go by many names: the "Internet Generation," the "Millennium Generation," or even the "Echo Generation." Regardless of the name, there is something very distinctive about my generation--something that separates us from the narcissism of Generation X, the drug fueled activism of the Baby Boomers, and the rampant patriotism of the Greatest Generation. According to song writer/artist John Mayer it is that we are "Waiting on the World to Change."
In an interview with NPR's Morning Edition Mayer explains the meaning of the lyrics of his song:
It's not that we don't care, We just know that the fight ain't fair So we keep on waiting Waiting on the world to change
According to Mayer, Generation Y does not like to be told what to do, so he wanted to "present an idea" - civic engagement - in a non-aggressive way. This is a big change from the role of musical talents from generations past, such as Joan Baez and John Lennon. But it may prove to be just as powerful.
Mayer's approach to politics is based on a self-reflective and honest analysis of his assumed role in American culture - entertainer, not policy expert. While actors and musicians of the past were able to mobilize young adults by spouting off simplified and catchy versions of the problems of the world, Generation Y would rather understand the complexity of globalization, war, poverty, and disease through other, more informed means. In other words, my generation would rather learn about the importance of voting from our parents, and not from Puff Daddy or Paris Hilton.
My generation is not apathetic. The Internet and 24 hour news networks have brought the world's problems to our fingertips, making us infinitely more informed than the psychedelic flower children of the 60s. And although we may not protest in the streets or hold sit-ins in the classrooms, it does not mean that we are any less engaged than the generations before us. It means that we have grown up a little bit faster, and hope to change the world through more substantive ways. I cannot guarantee a revolution when my generation realizes our birthright, or even anything less than "business as usual" inside the beltway, but I think I will take my chances and wait and see.
March 14, 2007
Can't take the heat in Houston? Why not move to Dubai!
by Jeremy Freed
“Wall Street-types agree that moving to Dubai is really just the thing to do these days. ”
Halliburton, famous both for being Dick Cheney's former employer, and for being a tad unscrupulous in executing its no-bid contracts, announced Sunday that it will move its CEO and corporate headquarters to Dubai. This has caused all kinds of people, myself included, to ask 'Why Dubai?' Is it the chance to live on a man-made island shaped like Florida? Get in some off-season skiing, perhaps? Because that's why I'd do it.
As attractive as hitting the slopes in 110 degree weather sounds, folks are coming up with all kinds of other reasons why they believe the company chose to relocate. California Democrat Henry Waxman posited that it could be some sort of tax evasion, of all things, and threatened to investigate, while the ever-feisty Hilary Rodham Clinton called the move "disgraceful." Byron Dorgan, North Dakota's Democratic Senator offered the scandalous notion that the Houston-based energy giant might make such a move to facilitate doing business with Iran. Perish the thought.
Halliburton's PR folks dispelled all of these ideas immediately, of course, citing the tremendous opportunities for energy companies in that part of the world. Wall Street-types, too, agree that moving to Dubai is really just the thing to do these days.
So why all the fuss? Beats me. But if I were Halliburton I don't see what I'd have to lose. Especially with a private island shaped like Florida in the mix. What's one more federal investigation, anyway?
March 19, 2007
Gonzales: The Next Thing
by Jeremy Freed
“Gonzales' appointment was a risky one for the President, even in those bygone days of carefree political capital-spending.”
The President has led the executive branch thus far with, to put it mildly, a heavy hand. His administration has relentlessly pushed unpopular agendas, sidestepping the Geneva Convention, Kyoto Protocols, and global outcries, all to the severe detriment of the nation. But 2007, it appears, could be a year of big changes. Rumsfeld is gone, Kiley has resigned, and things don’t look at all good for Libby. Now, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is under attack, and with politicians on both sides of the aisle calling for his resignation, the tipping point may have been reached.
Gonzales’ appointment was a risky one for the President, even in those bygone days of carefree political capital-spending. He risked dividing his party, and further alienating moderates with such a hardline candidate, but as usual, Bush stayed the course did what he wanted. Now, with his party divided, and approval ratings constantly slipping, he is paying the price.
With Scooter Libby indicted, Rumsfeld shamed, and the disastrous mishandling of Walter Reed brought to light, it looks as if a day of reckoning might be near. The revelation of suspect dealings within the supreme court is just the next thing, and sadly, hardly shocking.
But will Gonzales resign?
Under some governments, being on trial for war crimes would be enough to justify a resignation in itself. But, unfortunately, this isn’t yet that kind of government.
March 26, 2007
Pork 'n' Peanuts
by Jeremy Freed
Call me naïve, but I had kind of hoped that this sort of unethical politics would taper off a bit with the House under Democratic control. Sigh.
Sadly, bloated agricultural subsidies are as much of an American institution as amber waves of grain (which, due to payouts such as this, cheaply flood foreign markets, destabilizing smaller economies, and putting their producers out of business.) Their appearance in the bill, probably attributable to farm state Democrats who needed a little something extra to show their deeper-pocketed constituents in exchange for their votes, is a regrettable one. It appears that no matter who's running the House, at the end of the day, the lobbyists are still going to get their way. At least somebody's winning.
But if it's possible for there to be an up side to this unfortunate situation, there's always the Iraq withdrawal to be thankful for. The Democrats promised it in the midterm elections, and now they are delivering, albeit in a somewhat less-than-heroic fashion. While pouring billions of dollars into the inscrutable money pit of the Iraq war has hardly been a good idea in the past, it is really the only thing to be done. The prospect that by late next year we may be able to imagine an America not embroiled in this unwinnable quagmire is almost enough to take the sting away.
March 30, 2007
Look Out Fitty, Here Comes MC Rove
by Jeremy Freed
This may be the weirdest thing I've ever seen.
No, wait, this is. (What did we do before YouTube, anyway?) But that freaky owl/cat isn't running the White House, and Karl Rove, quail hunter, "practicing philatelist," and unstoppable dance machine, by many accounts is.
While the Radio and Television Correspondents Association dinner did seem to be a setting for lighthearted self-effacement, it's hard to tell what this senior Bush strategist and notorious political hit man would have to gain from such an obscene display of white-guy dancing. Street cred? Intimidation? Fodder for a future insanity plea? In a room full of journalists, no less!
Karl Rove is nobody's fool, however, and I can only conclude that this gross demonstration is part of a grand and ongoing scheme for world domination, possibly related to SYTYCD. No good can come of it, I'm quite sure.
March 7, 2007
Bloody Sunday - NAACP Axes Another Chief
by Victor Marsh
“...the NAACP was not too prestigious...to pitch in and help deliver boxes of food amidst the storm.”
Executive Director Bruce Gordon resigned from the NAACP on a historic day - America's Bloody Sunday. It is the anniversary of the 1965 first-attempt march from Selma to Montgomery where the peaceful marchers met the tyrannical arms and billyclubs of Jim Crow's police.
While the history of the NAACP - what businessman Gordon calls the "brand" - is compelling, the future is uncertain for the NAACP among my own generation.
Gordon thinks that it is high time that the NAACP engages in the work of social service. His position was at odds with that of his boss, Board Chair Julian Bond, who must know how Gordon feels fighting a slow-changing institution.
On Bloody Sunday, Bond was an upstart - a major young activist with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) = who must have rubbed some older folks the wrong way with his new-fangled "nonviolent action" language. Bloody Sunday in 1965 was the perfect example of this classic divide between the NAACP old guard and the younger generation that preferred new methods such as sit-ins to combat white supremacy not just in the courtroom, but also in the streets.
Today Julian Bond distinguishes the NAACP - saying that while others fight the effects of racial discrimination, the NAACP fights the discrimination itself.
As the keeper of the sacred advocacy mission of the NAACP, he has to say that. My real concern is with the troubling opinions of some Board members. Some in the NAACP Board may fault Gordon's all-business style, but there is one reason why the next leader should be similar to Gordon on substance: Hurricane Katrina.
When the hurricanes came, and the federal government failed to protect its least protected citizens - the NAACP acted on Gordon's service impulse. No matter what some old-guard members of the Board thought, the NAACP was not too prestigious and too advocacy-focused to pitch in and help deliver boxes of food amidst the storm.
It was action that made the NAACP relevant when FEMA was not. It is advocacy that keeps NAACP relevant when the news stories fade. The two go hand-in-hand.
March 7, 2007
A Dream Defined
by Rose Capozzi
“The biggest problem facing the NAACP is that the majority of board members still think America is forcing them to the back of the bus.”
It would be ridiculous to imagine Bruce Gordon in the iconic beret of a black panther. Rather, his uniform was a suit and a briefcase. This ensemble was not just his preferred style in clothing, but how he perceived his job as head of the NAACP. Gordon's recent resignation brings to light his style as a leader and speaks to the heart of a growing division in the African American community.
When many people think of the organization, what comes to mind is Rosa Parks fighting for her seat on a bus, and Martin Luther King, Jr. waiting in a prison cell in Birmingham. These heroes of the civil rights movement inspired the nation to make a cultural change in accepting African Americans as equals after a history of slavery and discrimination.
The decades following the "I Have a Dream" era brought systematic change to America - and the social and economic equality given to every American, regardless of race.
Today, the challenges facing the black community have evolved. As Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune notes, white racism is not the worst problem. He writes:
If we Americans--all Americans--focused our energies on wiping out the black-white test score gap, employment equality would follow. Close the race gaps in joblessness, income and family stability and the final victories of the equal rights revolution would be within reach.
The biggest problem facing the NAACP is that the majority of board members still think America is forcing them to the back of the bus. Board members pressured Gordon to fight for equality by dealing with white racism. But Gordon knew that there were bigger problems facing the African American community-- like poverty, family cohesion, drug abuse and unemployment. These problems can be solved, but only if the NAACP stops looking outside of the black community for the causes of inequality.
Unfortunately, the old guard at the NAACP is standing firm and people who have new dreams for the organization, like Bruce Gordon, will have to find other ways to have them realized.
March 23, 2007
Soldiers for Peanuts
by Rose Capozzi
This week, the House, led by Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), voted to provide $124 billion in emergency spending for the war in Iraq, while requiring that all American forces be removed by 2008. The bill passed by a slim majority- 218 to 212. Unfortunately, many of those votes were bought by the Democrats in the form of pork barrel projects, ballooning the cost to $19 billion more than the President requested to continue operations. Somehow, pet projects, such as providing $74 million for peanut storage in Georgia and $25 million for spinach growers in California ended up on the bill. This is interesting, considering that the Democrats have made it clear that a firm timetable is the best solution. If this is the kind of “ethics reform” that the Democrats promised America during the November elections, America is in big trouble!
March 22, 2007
Get with the Game, Gonzales!
by Rose Capozzi
“Somehow Democrats have been able to make a mountain out of a mole hill by focusing on Gonzales' firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys for 'political reasons.'”
Rather than demonstrating leadership while having a majority in Congress, it seems like Democrats are desperate to push a scandal onto the Bush administration. The most recent target on their shooting range is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Somehow Democrats have been able to make a mountain out of a mole hill by focusing on Gonzales’ firing of 8 U.S. Attorney’s for “political reasons.”
Amidst the media frenzy, one thing has become abundantly clear. Gonzales, a former Texas Supreme Court Justice and long-term advisor to President Bush, cannot handle the political heat that comes with the office that he holds. The Attorney General position is an appointment to the President’s cabinet, and is on a level that has always been the highest honor given to the most loyal of a president’s cadre. So it is unsurprising that Gonzales has focused on the Bush agenda, working to secure the government’s ability to use torture for terrorism investigation, to use wire tapping to prevent more terrorism, and by firing attorneys that aren’t in step with the policies of the President.
When Gonzales told reporters “We could have rolled out the decisions more smoothly,” it was an understatement. After all, it is perfectly legal for an administration to ask attorneys to resign for no reason at all. But when no reason was produced whatsoever, it left political opponents the opening to steal the public’s attention and frame the situation as a scandal. Although political reasons typically drive business as usual in DC (Clinton fired every single US Attorney at the onset of his first term!) the Bush administration waited until after the mid-term elections, and instead of replacing all of the attorneys at the beginning of Bush’s second term, as they had intended, they settled on replacing only the infamous eight.
Gonzales is doing the technical part of his job well, but a cabinet-level position requires more. To remain in office, he will need to learn the political game. And the Bush administration will need to understand that with the Democrats on the hunt for scandals, any minor misstep could prove to be disastrous for their administration and for the Republican Party hopefuls of 2008.
March 17, 2007
Right Guy, Wrong Reason
by Victor Marsh
Does anyone remember that Alberto Gonzales helped pave the way for America becoming okay with torture? He said that torture “may be justified.”
Based on his memos, and support for colleagues’ justifications for torture, Attorney-General Gonzales should have never been confirmed by the Senate. His indefensible stance on the Convention Against Torture – a key legal instrument negotiated by the Reagan administration – even made fellow republicans blush. But during his confirmation hearing, Senators fell all over themselves to praise him for his rags to riches American story.
Few democrats had the courage to vote against the first Hispanic nominee for the job – no matter that he was okay with torture.
Today there is a silly political firestorm about whether the Attorney General improperly involved the White House political staff in firing federal prosecutors. Political appointees often lose their jobs for political reasons.
But at this point, I will take any excuse to be rid of any official who ever justifies the use of torture in any way.
March 21, 2007
Another Rainy Day for Bush & Co.
by Jeremy Freed
As the Gonzales Affair picks up steam, the hits just keep on coming...
In today's news there's word of another prominent resignation in the Bush camp, this time over alleged mishandling of North Korea. Robert Joseph, state department arms control secretary, peaced-out last month over the White House's new, gentler approach to handling the nuclear-armed and infamously wacky rogue state.
Meanwhile, deep in the heart of New Mexico, dismissed prosecutor David C. Iglesias spills the beans on why he was fired, and the news is pretty much as expected.
If that weren't enough, the third scoop of bad tidings comes from none other than conservative blogger Dick Morris, who, while calling the Gonzales scandal a "phony" Democrat ploy, takes the Bush White House to task for both their loss of direction, and lack of... how to say... cojones.
The only people in a festive mood today seem to be the folks at TrueMajority.org, who are offering a year's supply of Ben and Jerry's ice cream to the person who can most accurately pinpoint the date when Gonzales will resign.
As tempting an offer as a year's worth of Cherry Garcia may be, pushing Gonzales to step down would only make things worse for George W. Bush and friends, drawing more criticism from within the Republican party, and more I-told-you-so's from his detractors. With summer in Crawford but a shimmering mirage in the distance, the coming weeks and months promise to be trying ones for our President, no matter what.
March 20, 2007
Bringing That Soul
by Jeremy Freed
Quite something, that Joss Stone.
The prolific 19 year-old singer-songwriter seems nothing short of a prodigy, and her new album, Introducing Joss Stone, which she wrote entirely, and had a large role in overseeing from start to finish, seems sure to secure her an even more prominent place in pop music. As a youngster, the first record the singer bought, apparently wasting no time, was Aretha Franklin’s Greatest Hits. Very telling. Combining influences of hip hop and old-school soul with her near-supernaturally big voice, Stone creates a distinctive sound that sets her miles apart from anyone else they’re playing in the club. Except maybe Aretha herself.
But Joss Stone isn’t the only lithe young British singer who’s shaking dancefloors these days. She’s got company in the likes of Lily Allen and Amy Winehouse, two very fast-rising women with similarly huge voices, equally diverse influences, and large reserves of natural talent.
Winehouse, 23, the senior of the trio, released her sophomore album, Back to Black in late 2006, and it’s since gone multiplatinum. Her sound is an anachronistic blend of Shirley Bassey, The Supremes, Dinah Washington, and, yes, of course, Aretha. Heavily tattooed and prominently pierced, she brings these influences seemingly effortlessly into the 21st century, combining that blues n’ cigarettes vibe with modern cool. “They tried to make me go to rehab,” she sings on the gospel-infused, Wurlitzer-backed track, Rehab, “But I said ‘No, no, no.’” You know that thing about having to live the blues to sing them? She’s got that down.
Lily Allen, who is 21, and is currently playing sold-out dates across North America, grew up moving around the U.K. with her parents, listening to their punk, ska, and reggae records wherever she landed. Allen is more modern in her approach than Winehouse, using electronic beats, taking cues from The Streets and Eminem, and singing about being a city girl doing city things, all laced with heavy doses of Gen Y sarcasm. From the sardonic, calypso-infused, urban commentary of LDN, to the dark, languid, siren song of Sunday Morning, Allen’s sound pays homage to the greats of the past while creating something completely new, and distinctively her own.
Dinah may be gone, and the golden days of Motown may have long-since faded, but these three young artists make it clear that the kids are still listening, and keeping the music alive.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
E-mail a friend