Young Voices
Exchanging ideas from the show and blogging about topics in the news from a range of perspectives.
May 4, 2007
Hate Crimes - "A Savage Hypocrisy"
by Rose Capozzi
“The legal system should not give preferential treatment to certain classes who experience violent crimes...anyone who experiences a crime deserves justice.”
A new hate crime bill, which would increase the punishments under federal law for hate-motivated violent acts based on gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity, and disability, will not make it past the President's desk. And for good reason.
Everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law. Beating anyone is a crime, whether the intent behind the beating is to steal a wallet or because of the victim's personal characteristics. The legal system should not give preferential treatment to certain classes who experience violent crimes...anyone who experiences a crime deserves justice.
As Trey Parker eloquently explained in his hit show, South Park:
"it is time to stop splitting people into groups. All hate crimes do is support the idea that blacks are different from whites, that homosexuals need to be treated differently from non-homos, that we aren't the same. But instead, we should all be treated the same, with the same laws and the same punishments for the same crimes."
If we really desire to live in a society where justice is blind, then our laws should reflect that desire.
Read a different opinion on expanding the hate crime law.
May 2, 2007
Apparently, it can get worse...
by Jeremy Freed
With the mission in Iraq still not quite accomplished enough for his liking, President Bush used his veto power yesterday to shoot down the War Funding bill, which would legislate the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region beginning this summer.
Delivered to the president on the fourth anniversary of his lovingly choreographed victory dance aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, the Democrats' message was a painfully clear one, and one which seems to have been lost on our Chief.
"Setting a deadline for withdrawal," he said in the ensuing press conference, "would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments." As unlikely as the notion of demoralized Iraqis, terrorists multiplying across the Middle East, and an international view of America as a blundering bully may sound, George W. Bush is clearly not one to take chances. He has an image to protect, after all.
"Setting a deadline for withdrawal," he concluded, "is setting a date for failure." Now there's a scary thought. If the four years following "mission accomplished" have been the product of a successful campaign, I'd hate to think what a failed Iraq war might look like.
May 2, 2007
Diplomats Need Deadline, Not Troops
by Victor Marsh
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice speaks with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates behind her.
The Democratic Congress and Republican President will have to compromise on Iraq - but it is important that the Democrats not give away the entire store-house. Informed observers question whether the President ever compromises.
A middle ground does exist. Democrats have been given the mandate to end this war and have a duty to do so in a reasonable way. Instead of setting a deadline on troop withdrawal, they should set a deadline requiring diplomacy to bring about a real political solution. First, we need a deal between all Iraqi factions and their neighbors should the Democrats then press for deadlines to withdrawal.
Conservative clinging to indefinite commitments and liberal insistence on immediate withdrawal will not work. We need a moderate approach to insist today that our State Department engage all Iraqi parties and the neighborhood to reach a new social contract for the region.
May 7, 2007
Once Upon A Peace Process
by Jeremy Freed
Dr. Sari Nusseibeh
Sari Nusseibeh's mixed feelings about Israeli-Palestinian relations say much about the future of the region.
On last Friday's program, the Palestinian Authority's Harvard-educated former Jerusalem representative voiced serious concerns for the feasibility of a true Palestinian state emerging anytime in the near future. The title of his new book, Once Upon a Country: A Palestinian Life, suggests, the author says, “that the country may no longer exist in real life… it exists in the dream world [as] part of the past, no longer a possibility for the future.”
It is saddening to hear these words from someone as intimately involved in the fate of the Palestinian people as Mr Nusseibeh. It is even more depressing, however, to hear the expediency of his ideas of what must be done to rectify the situation. People as intelligent and forward thinking as him, it seems, have little place in the current reconciliatory process, if it can be said to exist at all.
“At the end of the day,” he says, “there's no solution really through violence or through conflict…[the] only way to reach a solution is to put our heads together, see what works out for both of us and then work together in order to bring it about.”
It is a simple solution, perhaps overly so, to an infinitely complex problem. But, as Nusseibeh says, it's just a matter of trying something new. As Americans, we have our own role to play in this process, one which has been neglected in recent years, but whose beneficial ramifications would surely be widespread.
To solve their differences, Israelis and Palestinians, as well as their Arab neighbors, need to sit down and agree that, yes, they all want the same things: stability, prosperity, and a bright future for their children. These are simple, universal goals, but as Mr. Nusseibeh's book suggests, they may fare better in fairy tales than politics.
May 8, 2007
Anti-Hate Crimes Bill Should Include Gays
by Victor Marsh
“...all victims and defendants should get equal protection under law, but convicted criminals should not get the exact same punishments.”
Last week the House of Representatives voted 237-180 to pass an extension of the U.S. anti-Hate Crimes law. Hate Crimes legislation at the Federal level and at state levels increases the penalties for crimes that are proven beyond a reasonable doubt to emanate from hatred.
Clearly, everyone who murders has some serious hate in their hearts. But our legislatures have chosen to have severe penalties for crimes committed on the basis of race or religion.
We have special penalties for people who take time to plot and plan their murders (1st degree) versus those who commit their crimes in the heat of passion. We have special penalties for those who murder on purpose versus those who murder based on some accident or negligence. It is necessary and proper to distinguish between types of murder, because our society judges murderers differently based on the circumstances of the crime. Should we eliminate all these distinctions because they don't "equally" punish the murderer?
The core principles of our democracy are not just that we are ruled by a majority of the governed, but that we also defend the rights of all who find themselves in a minority. Hate crimes legislation are not a "special protection," or a plot against preachers who disapprove of gay life. The hate crimes bill is a rational recognition that while all victims and defendants should get equal protection under law, but convicted criminals should not get the exact same punishments. The President should sign this bill into law.
Read a different opinion on expanding the hate crime law.
May 15, 2007
Falwell's Murky Legacy
by Jeremy Freed
Jerry Falwell is dead, and the remembrances flood in.
The Right praises his strength, depicting a rosy Horatio Alger story of a self-made man of deep convictions, who built an empire and transformed a nation. His only flaw in this retelling being, perhaps, that he was too outspoken in his beliefs for his own good. Altogether, he makes an imposing figure in this light: a statuesque patriarch who united the religious right. A proponent of strong morals for a strong nation. A hero.
It is difficult to reconcile that view of the man, however, with the one presented by the other side. Or by Falwell himself over the years.
He was a deft leader, a cunning politician, and a charismatic speaker. He took money in the name of religion and funneled it into politics. He spoke of love in one sentence, only to disseminate hate in the next. For a self-certified man of Christ, he cast a discomfiting number of stones. Ultimately, for all of his rhetoric, Jerry Falwell did more to divide Americans than unite them.
The most appropriate remembrance to surface today is an old quote from Larry Flynt. The pornography baron, who Falwell once unsuccessfully sued for defamation, seemed to have an uncanny understanding of the way this man operated. He had this to say:
“My mother always told me that no matter how much you dislike a person, when you meet them face to face you will find characteristics about them that you like. Jerry Falwell was a perfect example of that. I hated everything he stood for, but after meeting him in person, years after the trial, Jerry Falwell and I became good friends. ... I always appreciated his sincerity even though I knew what he was selling and he knew what I was selling."
From one hustler to another, at least, there is consensus.
May 16, 2007
"That's So Gay!"
by Rose Capozzi
“Stick and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. ”
When Rebekah Rice of Maria Corrillo High School murmured the phrase "That's so gay" to some classmates who were teasing her about her Mormon upbringing, she was singled out by the teacher and sent to the principal's office. As a punishment, a note was placed in her school file.
Since then, she experienced teasing and ridicule from classmates, both about her religious beliefs and because of her off-the-cuff statement. As a result, her parents sued the school for monetary damages.
The judge ruled today that Rice was not entitled to any of the damages because the law explicitly excluded schools from these types of claims. In the ruling the judge wrote, "All of us have probably felt at some time that we were unfairly punished by a callous teacher, or picked on and teased by boorish and uncaring bullies...Unfortunately, this is part of what teenagers endure in becoming adults."
The judge based her opinion on a phrase that every child has heard at least once growing up. "Stick and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." That's what makes the basis of the teenager's complaint even more ironic. In a politically correct society, where we teach kids that using terminology that can be misunderstood as racism or religiously discriminatory (or even homophobic) is taboo, how can we claim that hearing them is "just a part of growing up"? That's inconsistent. And inconsistency is really gay.
May 20, 2007
SiCKO, Michael Moore, and the Importance of Asking Questions
by Jeremy Freed
“It would be nice, and infinitely beneficial to his causes, if Michael Moore didn't come off as such a sleazeball so much of the time. ”
Michael Moore is in the headlines again, just in time for the Cannes premiere of his latest film. In a suspiciously timely turn, Moore is now under investigation by the U.S. Treasury Department for a visit he made to Cuba last year while filming his new documentary, SiCKO.
The film, an indictment of the U.S. healthcare system, premiered Saturday to a packed house at Cannes' largest venue. While the sort of free publicity he's getting from the American government never hurts, from the enthusiastic reception he received at the film fest, it seems unlikely that he'll need much their help promoting his new movie.
SiCKO has already received several glowing reviews praising, among other things, Moore's newer, gentler approach to filmmaking. In his new documentary, critics say, Moore is much less of an onscreen presence than in previous films, providing the narration while letting his subjects tell their own stories. It sounds like almost enough to make one forget the inconsistent, manipulative tendencies of those other films. Such is the nature of the Michael Moore Paradox.
For all of the good he's done in raising awareness of Rust Belt communities in decline, gun violence, or the many blunders of George W. Bush, for those on the left who ostensibly support his causes, the guy remains a bit of a liability. He's like that crazy friend you invite to the party because you know he'll bring a good time, but also inevitably break something, and probably get you in trouble with the cops. You like what he does, but maybe just not the way he does it.
It would be nice, and infinitely beneficial to his causes, if Michael Moore didn't come off as such a sleazeball so much of the time. But ultimately, his films have done more good than harm, bringing documentaries into the mainstream, and inspiring debate everywhere they go.
I will see SiCKO when it opens in my town. I will question what it says, argue about the veracity of its messages, and, no doubt, become even more dismayed with America's shamefully inadequate healthcare system. Because, whatever Michael Moore's biases, and no matter how much of a jerk he appears to be, I think he's got a very good point with this one.
May 22, 2007
A Little Too Convenient?
by Jeremy Freed
“The problem, even if you happen to agree with Gore, is that the film is quickly becoming seen as irrefutable, rather than one document among many.”
The front page of Canada's National Post recently featured a story about Al Gore's Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth, and its growing ubiquity in the world's classrooms. The article quoted one Canadian student who reported having seen the film four times in four different classes over a school year. An extreme example, perhaps, but a good one to illustrate how quickly and completely Gore's film has come to dominate the global warming debate.
The article goes on to highlight documented flaws in Gore's data, the shakiness of some of his talking points, even by the admission of his own staffers, and questions how wise it is to adopt this all-Gore-all-the-time approach to teaching climate change.
With its slick visuals, apocalyptic warnings, and charming banter, the reasons for the film's success are evident: It is an appealingly simplified approach to an extremely complicated issue, helped along by PowerPoint and the occasional Bush joke. What's not to like?
The problem, even if you happen to agree with Gore, is that the film is quickly becoming seen as irrefutable, rather than one document among many. There are also unsettling whiffs of propaganda, and Gore's prominent position among the Democrats to consider as well. While minor compared to global environmental devastation, these things should be more widely acknowledged than they currently are.
Gore is right about a lot in An Inconvenient Truth, especially the dire importance of curbing our consumption of fossil fuels for the good of the planet. In his new book, The Assault on Reason, he discusses the importance of informed analysis in forming opinions on issues, and what can happen if these things are not given the priority they deserve. The educators who have so eagerly adopted Gore's film would do well to heed this message, if any.
May 28, 2007
Detroit Should Grow Corn
by Victor Marsh
America's cities are hurting. Once booming towns like Detroit, producing cars, and Pittsburgh, producing steel, are all hurting.
The global economy today means that you cannot just get a high school diploma and end up making a high 5-figure salary in a union job…at least you cannot do this in a city; the countryside is a different story.
While our nation's cities have to “get with the economic times,” our biggest and richest farmers never have to. While we cut programs in the cities, we expand aid to farmers to $37.3 billion over 8 years. Who has to pay? All of us, including the urban workers, who now earn less than ever.
These are not poor family farmers; they are big corporate farms. To add insult to injury, the way that we pay the farmers means that they get benefits not just when the crop is too small (due to bad weather). It is not enough to get help when you are on bad times. Instead, these big corporate farmers also get help in the good times, through the so-called loan deficiency payments, when they produce more crops than the market wants.
So what about the environment and reducing our dependence on foreign oil? No help there. It turns out that producing ethanol fuel from corn is not worth the energy. You need oil to get the ethanol produced.
With our deficit spending cuts, we should make sure that the necessary pain is not unfairly born just in the cities; corporate welfare in the big farms has to take a hit too. Otherwise, I have another suggestion:
Detroit should act like our farmers, switch to corn to get the free money. I invite the big corporate farms to my home town, Detroit, so that we can cash in on the program too.
May 28, 2007
Remembering Our Soldiers
by Rose Capozzi
No one likes war. It destroys families, tears nations apart, and causes destruction on unthinkable scales. Still, young men and women elect to serve our great nation on the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other countries in turmoil. The sacrifice our soldiers and their families make is truly incredible.
Today, we are at war with Islamic fundamentalists, led by Osama bin Ladin. As Philip Purpura explained in Terrorism and Homeland Security, in February of 1998, bin Ladin and a fugitive Egyptian physician, Zawarhi, published a declaration of war in an Arabic newspaper in London. They issued a fatwa, or interpretation of Islamic law, in the name of a "World Islamic Front." In their fatwa, these two laymen claimed that America was at war against God and his messenger. They called for the murder of all Americans, everywhere, as the "individual duty of every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."
Bin Laden claims to be a universal leader, drawing on an extreme view of Islam. He and his followers believe America is responsible for all Muslim conflicts. For Bin Laden, negotiating with the Great Evil is out of the question. So, when he was asked why he and his followers hate Americans and what can be done to mitigate the situation, Bin Laden offered one solution. Al Qaeda asserts in its propaganda that the only way to end the war is for America to abandon the Middle East, universally convert to Islam, and end "the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture."
The followers of Osama bin Laden say that, "It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind." Purpura explains that if the United States refuses to comply with al Qaeda's demands, we will be at war with the Islamic nation, a nation that, "desires death more than [we] desire life."
The enemy we face today is unlike any enemy we have faced before. It is not the nation state that attempts to take over a neighboring country; it is not the Nazis marching into Paris. Our enemy today has many faces and shapes. He lives secretly among us, hating our very way of life, plotting to destroy our spirit. As we placidly go about our everyday life, let us not forget our fighting men and women, who have bravely put their lives on the line so that we can live in blissful ignorance of the latest threat to our freedom.
May 29, 2007
K-Doe Lives
by Jeremy Freed
Antoinette K-Doe
The first episode of the five-part Right to Return: Home Movies from the Lower 9th Ward introduced us to Antoinette K-Doe, the widow of R&B legend Ernie K-Doe, and a hurricane Katrina survivor. Holed up in the top floors of her Mother-in-Law Lounge, a bar and museum devoted to her late husband, K-Doe weathered the storm and its aftermath, firing her shotgun over the heads of would-be looters, and protecting the hand-carved effigy of her husband in a garbage bag until she was airlifted out a week later.
K-Doe returned to the city soon after the waters receded, parked her Cadillac hearse outside the museum, and began to rebuild. Back in her ruined home, which would not have electricity for months, she cleaned the flood-stained walls of the lounge by herself, and a year later the place was more or less back to normal.
Eccentric, nattily dressed, and completely committed to preserving the memory of her husband, Antoinette K-Doe represents a triumph over one of the most dire threats of Katrina: The loss of history. With the destruction of so many historic places, and the displacement of countless longtime residents, surely the cultural history of New Orleans is forever damaged. It is only through the irrepressible passion of people like K-Doe that places like the Mother-in-Law Lounge survive, and the spirit of the city lives on.
May 29, 2007
Vilsack's Back
by Jeremy Freed
When Tom Vilsack, dropped out of the race for the Democrats' Presidential nomination, it was a great disappointment, if not much of a surprise. Pitted against the powerful political machines backing Clinton and Obama, the modestly funded former Iowa Governor had an uphill battle in store, to say the least.
It is heartening, then, to hear yesterday's report of Vilsack's recent close collaboration with the Clinton campaign, and the rumored possibility of him becoming Hillary's running mate in the 2008 election.
Vilsack's small-town charm and Midwestern earnestness would be the ideal counterpoint to Clinton's big-city chilliness, something many perceive to be her biggest shortfall. Vilsack is immensely popular in his home state, and could provide Clinton with just the sort of hometown appeal she needs. Uniting the heartland with the beltway, this might prove a fruitful partnership indeed.
May 21, 2007
Good Bye, Old Friend
by Rose Capozzi
“As Blair sees it, this continuing battle will help bring justice and (eventually) peace to countries and peoples suffering at the hands of careless dictators and merciless terrorists.
”
As an avid and unwavering friend to George W. Bush, it just made sense that soon to be former Prime Minister Tony Blair offered support to the new president after 9/11. And as Michael Gerson explained in a recent Washington Post article, Blair was not the blind, complacent fool that some would have you believe. Instead, he was, and is, a principled man and prime minister whose logic for supporting the War on Terror is solid and "unshaken."
9/11 wasn't the first terrorist attack, and it won't be the last. Since the events of September 11, 2001, Spain and London, to name only two of the most publicized, experienced devastating attacks. The argument that both Bush and Blair have only partially succeeded in spreading is that if we do not go to the terrorists, they will come to us. But that is only one of the reasons Blair signed on to the War on Terror, and the other, less popular, associated armed conflicts.
The reasoning Blair gives for his continuing allegiance to what is derisively called "the Bush Doctrine" is that reckless, failing nations become havens for crime and terrorism. To overcome the resulting instability, and to protect their own interests, developed nations must intervene by establishing free markets, finding cures for diseases, and fighting international issues like global climate change. As Blair sees it, this continuing battle will help bring justice and (eventually) peace to countries and peoples suffering at the hands of careless dictators and merciless terrorists.
As we have all seen, creating peace, especially in the Middle East, has proven to be more difficult than the straightforward theory espoused by Blair. However, as Blair himself explains, there are two factors at play outside of his and George W. Bush's immediate control. First, Al-Qaeda has proven to be a tireless enemy who continues to threaten the security of all nations by funding and organizing campaigns of destruction. Second, Iran is contributing to the chaos of an already chaotic region in an attempt to distract the United Kingdom, the United States, and the other countries in the Middle East from the threat that Iran poses to the international community. Combined, it has been difficult to make marked progress in that chapter of the War on Terror.
But does that mean that we should pack up and leave the Middle East? According to Blair, "The alternative in the end, comes down to a combination of either hope that it [terrorism] doesn't come after us, which after 9/11 isn't very sensible, or alternatively in certain parts of Europe, leave that up to the Americans."
Despite his numerous accomplishments domestically, such as an improved education system, improved health care, and low unemployment, Blair will not likely be placed in the ranks of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher as one of the best prime ministers in the history of the UK. And yet, his compassionate and truly liberal stance toward spreading liberty and freedom should not be forgotten. A champion of peace in Northern Ireland, a persuasive diplomat to halt the genocide in the Balkans, and an ally to innocent people around the world in the War on Terror, Mr. Blair leaves a big pair of shoes to be filled by his successor. Here's hoping they fit.
May 24, 2007
Jack Bauer-izing Torture and China?
by Victor Marsh
“Imus...what about a show the whole country actually tunes in to?”
This week, we saw the end to another exciting season of the show 24. The season provided an interesting take, from artists, that provides the language we all use in life.
For example - in the Republican presidential debate, a Fox News' anchor, Brit Hume, asked the panel a very Jack Bauer scenario. With bombs already detonated, would you torture someone to get information about other bombs? As Hume put it, he asked "how aggressive" the candidates would allow interrogators to be. John McCain, the only candidate to have ever been tortured stood tall for American values in saying that "It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are."
The last season of 24 was big on torture. This season was very focused on China. Jack Bauer was tortured there; his nephew was kidnapped by Chinese agents; and his treasonous father was doing illegal work for them.
Many of us worried about the impact of Imus on the air waves, what about a show the whole country actually tunes in to?
May 11, 2007
French Fries are Back on the Menu
by Rose Capozzi
Nicolas Sarkozy delivers a speech during his last campaign meeting in Montpellier, France.
If everyone in the world hates America so much, what explains the French elections last Sunday? Nicholas Sarkozy, a conservative, won the presidential election in a runoff against Segolene Royal, a socialist…with a pro-American campaign?
According to The Washington Post, Sarkozy declared, "I'd like to appeal to our American friends to say that they can count on our friendship." Of course, in order to get more support, he modified his remarks. "But I would also like to say that friendship means accepting that your friends don't necessarily see eye to eye with you." And yet, this is not the campaign platform one would expect from the new leader of France. Especially considering that in recent years, the country has been in opposition to practically all of America's international policies.
During the campaign, Sarkozy found that it was politically acceptable to enthusiastically claim that America has a friend in France. Regardless of comments from his left wing critics, Sarkozy reached out to President Bush, stopping by for a photo shoot, and went as far as to meet with him at the White House. I know some conservative politicians in America who weren't willing to do this in the last election.
America will not always see eye to eye with Europe, France, or even Sarkozy. However, the election of a pro-American president in a so-called anti-American country is a reassuring sign.
May 8, 2007
Romney Hates France, Believes Anything
by Jeremy Freed
Pornography and violence on TV may be destroying American families right now, but in France it's those all-too-common seven-year marriages.
We will, no doubt, always remember Mitt Romney for taking the first firm stance on this particular hot-button issue during a speech to a crowd of 5,000 at Pat Robertson's Regent University over the weekend.
No official reports so far on where this bizarre piece of intelligence comes from, but it does sound suitably sci-fi.
To be fair, Romney's misconceptions about the inventors of freedom fries are understandable, given that in the two years he spent there as a Mormon missionary he may have been too busy explaining the whole Native-Americans-are-descended-from-Israelites thing to have made many nouveaux amis.
My recommendation would be for Mr. Romney to hire a research team to check on these things, but that hardly seems necessary as he's apparently doing quite well in the polls as it is. In his next public appearance, rumour has it, Romney plans to speak out against the Belgians, who, he is told, frequently engage in four-minute marriages to yaks, and also eat babies.
May 1, 2007
Guns for (almost) Everyone
by Jeremy Freed
“Many gun show sales, and all transactions between private individuals are still minimally regulated, remaining frighteningly easy ways to acquire deadly weapons.
”
Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine (D) moved yesterday to prevent the mentally ill from arming themselves further, by issuing an executive order that will bar those undergoing involuntary outpatient mental treatment from buying guns at gun stores.
This is, no doubt, a good thing.
Had Seung Hui Cho, an involuntary outpatient, been denied the sale of firearms at his local gun shop, he might have been discouraged enough to forego killing 32 of his classmates and professors. But he probably would have just bought the guns elsewhere.
Under the new regulations, background checks that reveal the criminal records and mental illness histories of potential gun buyers are only required at registered gun dealers. Many gun show sales, and all transactions between private individuals are still minimally regulated, remaining frighteningly easy ways to acquire deadly weapons.
Governor Kaine supports legislation to prevent such free-for-all gun buying at gun shows, but like most Democrats these days he is unwilling to go out of his way displease vote-wielding gun owners. Other lawmakers in the NRA's home state have had far more success recently backing the gun lobby's shortsighted and utterly ridiculous ‘guns for everyone' solution.
In his memorable “there's a better way” speech, following last year's State of the Union address, Kaine vowed to “defeat those who attack and kill innocent people.” He was talking about the terrorists, of course, because everybody can agree on that. And they don't go to gun shows anyway.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
E-mail a friend
