Young Voices
Exchanging ideas from the show and blogging about topics in the news from a range of perspectives.
June 6, 2007
Flight 93 Families Still Struggling
by Jeremy Freed
Nearly six years after it crashed in a Pennsylvania field, the story of Flight 93 continues. With a memorial and national park planned, designed, and slated to open in 2011, the transfer of the site to the National Parks Service is being stalled by the questionable motives of a property owner.
Mike Svonavec, who owns 273 acres of the proposed memorial site, is asking an outrageous $10 million for his property, far more than its fair market value. He has so far refused three offers from Families of Flight 93, the group coordinating the memorial, the last of which was for $500,000. By generous estimates, Svonavec's property is worth just over half a million dollars, and his refusal to let it go for that price is raising concerns among memorial organizers that he may not have their lost loved ones' best interests in mind.
This week, Svonavec further angered families of the flight 93 victims by soliciting donations on site to pay for security at the temporary memorial, which sits on his land. On its own, this action might seem legitimate, although why a field and some flags require $10,000 per month in security is a little mysterious. Coupled, however, with Svonavec's extortive price for his parcel, the whole thing starts to stink. While he denies any profit-making motives, his actions say otherwise.
It is saddening that anyone would attempt to profit from such tragic loss of life, let alone remain so stalwart in the face of a public outcry. It is an ugly thing indeed, and an extreme disrespect to the victims of flight 93.
June 15, 2007
Immigration Half-Baked
by Rose Capozzi
“While I do not generally support the idea of giving special privileges to certain groups of people, especially ones who purposely and knowingly break the law, in this situation there is no other logical or practical solution.”
In America today there are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants (a very conservative estimate). Many say that these immigrants drive down wages for hard working Americans. Others say that they introduce new problems into our education system and drain resources from our entitlement programs.
Though the problems are [somewhat] clearly defined, the solution is not.
While I do not generally support the idea of giving special privileges to certain groups of people, especially ones who purposely and knowingly break the law, in this situation I am not confident that there is another logical or practical solution. America is like a baker that has left a window open and put our irresistibly delicious American apple pie on the ledge to cool. And now that the attractive odor has caught the attention of the rest of the world, the sick, tired, poor and hungry are here and want to have a piece.
It might seem enticing (for me at least) to simply search for the illegals and send them packing, but the resources, time, and effort it would require is too great-- especially in a time of war. The ball has already been dropped and now it is time to cut our losses and come up with a plan to prevent greater and continual abuse.
Though President Bush's bill is a step in the right direction (after all, a weak bill is better than no bill at all), it needs to focus more on containing the problem - and preventing further illegals from breaking our laws. It is time for action, and hopefully Congress can rise to the occasion.
June 11, 2007
Colin Powell Might Be On To Something...
by Jeremy Freed
“Give the man his due for speaking his mind, but is this really news to anyone? ”
Colin Powell, former secretary of state and voice of reason amid the howling ideologues and cooing hucksters of the Bush White House, wants to shut down Guantanamo, and move the prisoners housed there into the regular U.S. justice system.
This revelation comes one week after a judge moved to dismiss charges against two detainees, ruling that, actually, they weren't enemy combatants at all. The fact that these were the first two cases to be tried does not bode well for those Iraq war architects who strove, over five years of hunger strikes, suicide attempts, and public outcry, to defend the camp's necessity.
"Essentially,” said Powell last night on Meet the Press, “We have shaken the belief that the world had in America's justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open.” Oh, geez, Colin, ya think? (insert sound of forehead slapping)
Give the man his due for speaking his mind, unpopular in the GOP as those sentiments are, but is this really news to anyone? Guantanamo has certainly damaged America's image abroad, but no more than Abu Ghraib, the WMD lies, the anarchic descent of post-invasion Iraq, or, while we're at it, the stolen 2000 election. You don't need Powell's encyclopedic knowledge of foreign policy to know that America has not looked good to the rest of the world in quite some time. Colin Powell, typically understated as his assertion was, is on to something. While giving alleged “enemy combatants” access to habeas corpus might not make everyone love us again overnight, it would at least be a start.
If the last six or seven years have taught us anything, it's to find comfort in small advances. Powell's depiction of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay as a source of international ill will could be the start of a real change. Anyway, 2008 is just around the corner.
June 13, 2007
Pro-Life: The Huckabee Way
by Victor Marsh
“...care...whether little Susie makes it out of the womb...whether little LaKeisha makes it into a quality classroom...”
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said something remarkable in the last Republican debate - and may have made the first step of outreach from the religious right wing to make friends in the religious left wing.
He explained that he is pro-Life, that his faith and morals mean that he does not support legal abortion, and then he went further.
Huckabee emphasized that as a pro-Life person, he is not just in favor of supporting the rights of the unborn child, but also supports improving the livelihoods of children who are born. Paraphrasing, he said that to really live up to pro-Life ideals, we had to defend not only the unborn child, but ensure that every child - regardless of race or class - has access to quality education and opportunity.
Huckabee's remarks were profound and inspiring.
As a Christian who is committed to social justice, I have always had the impression that my conservative Christian sisters and brothers care much more about whether little Susie makes it out of the womb than they do about whether little LaKeisha makes it into a quality classroom.
Huckabee showed a different side of his party. I predict that if he - by miracle - receives the Republican nomination, his message will be uniquely resonant in Black American communities. It is in liberal Black America where the truly Pro-Life are easy to find. Black Americans tend to be opposed to abortion, opposed to the death penalty and actively support efforts towards social justice and the correction of past state wrongs.
June 18, 2007
Toby Keith: Just Another Camel Herdin' Man
by Jeremy Freed
“Despite the song's lean towards facile sentimentality, one can see here that there is a paradox to Keith.”
It's hard to put a label on Toby Keith.
The country singer who appeared on Friday's program is about as red-blooded as they get: a truck-driving, cowboy hat-wearing, violence-threatening man's man. A tireless champion of our armed forces and a veteran of more than 60 USO tours, he writes songs celebrating whiskey, war, and school prayer. But then he voted Bill Clinton for president, and claims to be “a lifetime Democrat.” So what gives?
By Keith's admission, he's not a political guy, just someone who speaks his mind for whatever it's worth, to whoever wants to listen. That assertion is a bit hard to believe, though, after listening to the chest-thumping rhetoric in some of his songs.
In one of Keith's more memorable tunes, The Taliban Song, he sings from the point of view of an Afghani, a “middle-aged, Middle-Eastern camel herdin' man,” who laments the Taliban's radical Islamic rule, and dreams of riding off into the sunset to Turkmenistan. Yes, that's right, Turkmenistan.
The song, with it's overtly pro-Bush, don't f*** with America slant, comes off immediately as ignorant jingoism, yet another example of Americans making bizarre and hasty assumptions about people in other parts of the world. It represents the kind of thinking that has made Americans the butt of jokes from London to Lebanon.
Despite this, however, and despite the song's lean towards facile sentimentality, one can see here that there is a paradox to Keith. He is man who puts himself in the shoes of the Afghan camel-herder, for a few minutes, at least, to make the point that this man is not so different from the average American wrangler of quadrupeds. Beyond all the threats and flag-waving is the songwriter's acknowledgement that people across the world all want essentially the same things: stability, prosperity, and a promising future.
It's almost enough to make up for Keith's tasteless assertion in the song that the Afghan people prayed to Allah to be bombed by America. But maybe not quite enough to bury this little gem: "Mr. Bush got on the phone with Iraq and Iran and said, 'Now, you sons-of-b*tches you better not be doin' any business with the Taliban.'" (I think that might be a direct quote, actually.)
Probably, for the sake of his rhyme scheme, Keith cut the line about Mr. Bush's call to Saudi Arabia, which was likely a little more genial.
Toby Keith should be commended for his unflagging support of American troops stationed around the world. They need songs written for them as much as anyone, maybe more. But Keith's political messages, Democrat or whatever, would be better saved for the B-sides.
June 19, 2007
Too Hard to Adopt Blacks
by Victor Marsh
“...easier for non-Black families to adopt children from other countries...”
Do you remember the film Losing Isaiah? That tragic adoption story had a Hollywood happy ending, but unfortunately, far too many Black children are left without permanent and happy homes.
It is easier for non-Black families to adopt children from other countries than it is for them to adopt Black children right here in the United States. In the 1990s, Americans opened their homes to a quarter-million foreign children who needed adoptive families.
It is hard to find adoptive families for Black children through our public social service agencies.
Black families do a lot of informal adopting - taking in about 800,000 troubled children of their relatives. But there are still huge numbers of Black children needing adoption. Finding the specifics is tough, but historic data on placements is not encouraging.
So why is it that Whites and other non-Black families are reluctant to pull their social weight to find more homes for these children? The reason is somewhat surprising - non-Blacks have to undergo far too much drama to adopt Black children. Black social workers have historically stood in the way.
All Americans - especially Black Americans - should adopt more children. But Black Americans in the social work profession have an extra responsibility to drop their opposition to non-Black family adoption of Black children.
Today, it is illegal to bar families from adopting a child only on the basis of “racial matching.” However, it is still technically legal to use this failure to “match” races as a strike against an applicant for adoption. Cases of families being denied adoption just on the basis of their skin still happens - a huge injustice to the child who needs a loving home.
We have tried using the force of law - and even that has not stopped a quiet tragedy, where a twisting of Black Power ideas has dis-empowered the most vulnerable: our children waiting for loving homes.
June 28, 2007
Failing to Make the Grade in Education Reform
by Rose Capozzi
“In Washington, DC, students enjoy the highest per capita spending, and are still "enjoying" some of the worst schools in the nation.”
Tonight's Democratic Forum, unsurprisingly, brought no new ideas to the table on how to improve poor performing schools. Like any domestic issue, the left's answer is to throw more money onto the pyre of good intentions. This misses the point entirely. Money is not what bad schools need. What they need is accountability.
The question posed by the panel dealt with how to improve failing schools and achievement gaps between white and minority students. The echo across the board of candidates included variations of the need to spend, and then tax, and then stop funding the military to spend even more. Easy, right?
Unfortunately, the easy answer is not the best answer. If we could simply pour money into the problem like pouring water on a fire, we already would have done so. In Washington, DC, students enjoy the highest per capita spending, and are still “enjoying” some of the worst schools in the nation.
Real change calls for more than just cold hard cash. It involves an institutional change. However, this is an idea that serious Democratic candidates can never accept. The teacher's unions that fill Democratic campaign coffers would be furious to learn that teachers would actually be held accountable for the quality of their work. And perhaps even worse, the endless rhetoric promulgated by the Democratic Party over class warfare, and the ignored rights of minorities, would seem less relevant.
Democrat's are right that it is time for a major change in American policies toward education. But offering more of the same old purely fiscal solution is just not going to make the grade.
Read Victor's follow-up post.
June 19, 2007
They're Playing Her Song
by Jeremy Freed
“The votes are in, the people have spoken, and Hilary Clinton now has a campaign song. ”
The votes are in, the people have spoken, and Hilary Clinton now has a campaign song.
After a full month of YouTube -assisted ballot casting, the official song of Hillary '08 is Celine Dion's You and I.
Excuse me while I wipe the barf from my keyboard.
But perhaps I'm being a little too harsh. My feelings for the Quebecoise songstress notwithstanding, the selection of the ballad doesn't make much sense. Full of soft-focus metaphors about love, flight, clouds, and that sort of thing, it's hardly the kind of tune to get one pumped up to talk about Iraq disengagement and the state of our nation's schools. Here's one sample verse: Sailing like a bird high on the wings of love/ Take me higher than all the stars above/ I'm burning, yearning/ Gently turning round and round/ I'm always rising up I never/ Want to come back down.
Now don't get me wrong, I think Hillary is awesome and everything, but I don't think I really need to sail with her like a bird high on the wings of love. Not that I wouldn't want to go higher than all the stars above, gently turning round and round, but is this really the song with which she intends to woo America? Sure, songs with verses about lowering the deficit and ratifying Kyoto are hard to find, but seriously, what were people thinking? For what it's worth, my vote was for Kool and the Gang.
June 26, 2007
Democrats Strong on Security
by Victor Marsh
“No Democrat will...be standing with Stalin...”
My blogging teammate Rose highlights a stereotype...one that has been just as politically powerful as it is totally wrong. It is wrong to suggest that Democrats are actually weak on national security, but correct to say that they get a bad rap on these issues.
All the Democratic Party candidates - from the front-running pair all the way to those pulling up the rear - have been very clear about national security issues. They oppose war in Iraq and would shift funds from the Iraq ‘distraction' towards real defense at home, like port security etc.
Protecting the homeland does not mean that you break all laws, torture all suspects, or ignore all American civil liberties. Indeed, if in the process of fighting Bin Ladenism, we end up resorting to the tools of fascism, then Bin Laden has won.
The 'peacenik' Democrats know what no Republican candidate - except John McCain - seems to understand. Guantanamo has made us less safe, by making us abandon the rule of law just when we need it to fight the lawless followers of Bin Laden.
No Democrat will stand in favor of Guantanamo, because if they did, they would be standing with Stalin when the history of this disaster is written. It will be shown, by and by, that no American was saved by that gulag, and no historian will be fooled by its legal limbo.
If this election is about national security, the Republican strategy of "scare them, wire tap them, and march their kids to war" will likely fail, not just as a strategy, but also at the voting booths.
Nay, it is in domestic policy - not foreign policy - that the Democrats are weakest this time around. I am glad that this All American Presidential Forum will be strictly on domestic issues. Even being a foreign policy nerd myself, I found that the other debates have been overloaded with Iraq and Guantanamo.
Read Rose's opinion: Democrats Soft on Security.
June 24, 2007
Democrats Soft on Security
by Rose Capozzi
“Are the Democrats really not interested in dealing with the issue, or are they just trying to play nice for the anti-war activists? ”
While Democrats like presidential hopeful Barack Obama raise their voices in support of the Bush administration's recent hinting at an end to Gitmo (the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention center), I can't help but think that Barack Obama, the only African American in the running, should not be perpetuating a stereotype: the liberal peacenik. Are all Democrats as soft on terrorism and homeland security as their lingering stereotype makes them out to be?
The answer for this new batch of presidential wannabes is a discouraging, yet resounding YES. The topic of homeland security has been curiously left out of the majority of Democratic campaign speeches and gets scant play during the Democratic primary debates. Are the Democrats really not interested in dealing with the issue, or are they just trying to play nice for the anti-war activists?
Either way, Americans will pay for it in the long run. The next president must have a clear and decisive plan of action for how to secure the homeland. After all, people will notice if a terrorist walks into a shopping mall and blows himself up while the government was too busy "giving peace a chance."
While Democrats frolic in the fields of privileges for suspected terrorists, let's hope that they do not forget about the millions of people back at home. For this young voice, it would be slightly more reassuring if there was something about the democratic version of homeland security in the next debate.
Read Victor's opinion: Democrats Strong on Security.
June 26, 2007
Moore Spears Clinton on Health Care Lobby Dollars
by Jeremy Freed
Sicko is building buzz, and taking a well-aimed shot at the Clinton campaign.
Michael Moore's new film about the U.S. health care system, which had several high profile premieres last week, focuses some criticism on Hillary Clinton, who it pegs as the recipient of more health care lobbyists' dollars than anyone else, save former Republican senator Rick Santorum. The film also accuses Clinton of going soft on health care reform in recent years, a combination that looks suspicious indeed.
The Clinton campaign makes big claims about Hillary's commitment to universal health care, about which she has spoken passionately, acknowledging health care reform as an absolute necessity for America, but also an uphill battle. Thus far, however, Clinton's people remain silent on the film and its allegations.
With Moore's typically brazen approach, and reportedly shocking content, Sicko is expected to have some influence in the discussion of our troubled health care system in this election run-up year. Thursday's Democratic presidential debate at Howard University, hosted by our own Tavis Smiley, will be an ideal opportunity for Clinton and her rivals to clarify their positions on this issue.
Despite this, unless Mr. Moore himself shows up (not unlikely, really, given his publicity stunts of late) it's unlikely that Clinton will be asked to explain how the nearly one million in health care lobby dollars she is said to have received will influence her policies, if elected.
June 30, 2007
Loss on Education
by Victor Marsh
“No teacher went into the calling to become a millionaire...unions made us forget that.”
Rose is absolutely right, not just in her political leanings, but in her analysis of this issue. The issue on which Dems were least dynamic, and least creative was in education policy. Teachers unions used to be very dynamic; they used to gobble up research to discover new ways to improve their profession. They used to not focus so much on going on strike, as to being advocates for children. Now, teachers unions look like any wage-earners' union - they protect their own, but have not provided the research leadership and professional development that The American Bar or the American Medical Associations do.
Teachers should respect themselves as true professionals. They should demand the power to improve our education with freedom to pursue their own research-based methods of teaching. They should not be so focused on the power to go on strike for better pay. No teacher went into the calling to become a millionaire, but instead to change lives. Somehow, today's unions made us forget that.
Teachers must restore their own dynamism, by demanding real power to change our methods and adapt the process of learning to tough learning environments. So teachers, in your next contract negotiations, trade away your striking for some real power to be an agent of change.
June 29, 2007
Young People and Politics
by Simone Stephenson
One of the things that inspired me the most during the debate was towards the beginning, when Mr. Smiley announced that he had been contacted by a group of young people, who were washing cars, and holding garage sales in their home town, in order to purchase tickets to attend the debate. Mr. Smiley, of course, after hearing of their motivating attempts to attend the debate, made sure they were given tickets to attend the debate. So often you see young people admiring pro athletes, rappers, models, and the like. So often you see young people spending their money on expensive clothes, jewelry, and cars…so it was a very refreshing sight to hear of a group of young people admiring Tavis Smiley, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other politicians who are attempting to do something to better our communities…as opposed to destroying them as many rappers and athletes are guilty of by enticing our youth into buying expensive clothes and shoes to make them “cool.” They are doing this all the while contributing to the outlandish spending on “frivolous” items within our communities. An example of this would be the $326 million Black America spent on books in 2003, versus the $23 billion spent on apparel products and services, according to Target Market News. Tom Joyner made the comment when he walked on stage, that “Our vote cannot be taken for granted.” I personally know too many people who simply do not vote because they don't know how to go about the process, or they are even too lazy to do so. This has got to stop, because just as Tom Joyner said, our vote CANNOT be taken for granted. It was very refreshing to see these young people trying to become active in their country's politics. I think people twice, three, and even four times their ages can learn from their dedication and interest in what happens in their country.
Our Forum guest blogger, Simone Stephenson, is a journalism major at Howard University and a contributor to The District Chronicles and Howard's student newspaper, The Hilltop. She's also a former intern in Sen. Obama's DC and Illinois offices and serves as a liaison between the John H. Johnson School of Communications student body, student council and faculty.
June 30, 2007
Win on Healthcare
by Victor Marsh
“Dems know the fundamental law of health insurance: everything is cheaper...if everyone is covered.”
Are you a leftist? If you are, then you support universal healthcare. Are you the president of General Motors, or some other titan of industry? You also support universal healthcare! A universal healthcare coalition took a long time to come together, but it has finally arrived. That coalition will be aligned in favor of the Democratic Party.
So what do Che Guevarra tee shirt lovers have in common with people sporting Perry Ellis suits to the office? They, for different reasons, agree that America's existing healthcare system just does not serve their interest - be they for morality or for profit.
We all know why the hippies are for universal healthcare; they love this thing they call “justice.” But, assuming that you are seeking efficiency and profit in a globalized economy, all the Dems pointed out why they will win on healthcare (not just Iraq).
Businesspeople hate that American insurance is so darn risky and pricey. If you are a corporate boss, you never know if your basket of worker-patients has people with all kinds of expensive health problems. On the other hand, your basket of patients could have all the young 20-somethings who are in the best shape of their lives. Who knows?
So, the HMOs etc. charge us all a hefty and inefficient “who knows” tax. The costs are high as a way to cover their rear ends. Since they don't know what is going on (aka there is high risk), Americans pay more than any country in the world for healthcare. This is why you go to Canada for your drugs. The way to reduce costs and riskiness is to have one basket of diversified patients in a region (Canada has this). Bill and Hillary Clinton certainly know all about this. Now the entire party, all the Democratic Party candidates, and titans of industry know.
Republicans candidates are against universal healthcare coverage, and tell us how “costly” it is to insure all Americans. Dems know the fundamental law of health insurance: everything is cheaper (less risky) if everyone is covered. They prefer the voodoo economics of yesteryear's actors-turned-presidents to prescient realities of today's global economy.
Republicans used to be able to depend on at least a corporate America vote. For the GM president, however, all these high medical insurance costs make him have to pay millions of dollars that Toyota does not have to. America loses jobs, and other vicious cycles continue. The president of GM, the worker on the assembly line, Michael Moore and the so-called ‘hippies' will carry Dems to victory on the issue of healthcare.
June 29, 2007
Edwards and The Two Americas
by Jeremy Freed
The giant map of America was split cleanly in two, the smiling faces that replaced its geography looked out over the audience as if in patient expectation. At the base of the divide stood Barack Obama. To either side of him were seven other candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, dressed in dark suits, all looking just as expectant, if not as patient.
The meeting was staged at Howard University to discuss issues of importance to African Americans, and it contained few surprises. Obama and Clinton remained strong, popular favorites, while longshot underdogs Gravel and Kucinich continued to make good points, but still fooled no one into believing they had any kind of chance at the nomination.
It was never billed as a debate, and for good reason. While the format did not strictly encourage candidates to engage each other directly, they all appeared to be pretty much on the same page on the big issues. No one wanted to renew Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy, no one wanted to neglect Darfur, and no one thought the schools were doing enough for our nation's kids.
Tom Joyner's quote in his introductory address, “When America gets a cold, black America gets pneumonia,” pointed to the deeper issue at hand. Why this was, however, is a question that no one attempted to answer, except by agreeing generally that racism was still a problem for our country. As the evening went on, and talk revolved largely around the apparently growing divide between rich and poor in America, it became clear that this particular issue was extremely important in the search for an answer.
John Edwards, former Director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity, made some very good points on the topic. Tackling poverty, he said, was at the heart of his campaign. He spoke about significantly raising the minimum wage, encouraging the growth of labor unions, and eliminating predatory lending. “We ought to honor work in this country, not just wealth,” he said. To that effect, he went on to suggest the residents of New Orleans be paid a living wage, given health insurance, and allowed to rebuild their city themselves. A striking, if somewhat problematic, notion.
Later in the forum, Edwards briefly revisited his 2004 “Two Americas” DNC speech, in which he set out his vision for an America which did not have two health care systems and two school systems, one for the rich, and one for everybody else. While touched upon by other candidates, this idea of a divided country, and what must be done to rejoin it, is one of Edwards' campaign mainstays, and something that separates him from his opponents. Looking at the giant bisected map hanging over his head, it seemed like he was on to something.
June 29, 2007
Initial Reaction to the Democratic Forum
by Simone Stephenson
Initially, I was struck by the introduction of the debate. Prior to the event, I knew it would be “historic.” I discovered this by talking to various people about the set-up of the debate. Firstly, being held at a historically Black institution posed an exciting change. Howard University, being one of the oldest Black institutions in the country, being the “Mecca”—as we so call it—of education in the country, and being a catalyst for some of the greatest minds in our country and beyond posed as a venue equipped for attracting the attention of minorities and non-minorities alike. Secondly, Tavis Smiley being the moderator is incredible. As one of the most influential African-Americans in the media, his power within the community is extreme...not to mention important. Thirdly, the journalists posing the questions were all minorities. This leads to my fourth and final reason that this event is historic, which is the content of the questions. Blacks and minorities are of course, a major part of this country…therefore all questions for the most part regarding the country, have an effect on these specific communities. However, as was said in Mr. Smiley's introduction, and in previous interviews: “When America gets a cold, Black America gets pneumonia.” This is, in my opinion, an extremely important concept to grasp. Education, health care, HIV/AIDS and school dropout rates, to name a few, are all important issues that undoubtedly affect the entire country as a whole, but also undoubtedly affect minority communities at an alarmingly higher rate. If one in three African American children is born into poverty, this begins the cycle of an increased affect within this community, and other minority communities. With minority voting numbers so low in this country, I believe that it's extremely important to reach out to these populations. This debate did just that, in my opinion.
Our Forum guest blogger, Simone Stephenson, is a journalism major at Howard University and a contributor to The District Chronicles and Howard's student newspaper, The Hilltop. She's also a former intern in Sen. Obama's DC and Illinois offices and serves as a liaison between the John H. Johnson School of Communications student body, student council and faculty.
June 23, 2007
Bloomberg: A Man for All Parties
by Rose Capozzi
Michael Bloomberg
Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City, definitely seems to have something up his sleeve. This week he announced that he was leaving the Republican Party and is now "unaffiliated." This leaves one big question looming on everyone's mind: is this just a prelude to a possible presidential run?
This week's party switch was not the first for Bloomberg. During his 2001 race for mayor, he switched his status from longtime Democrat to Republican. However, Bloomberg seemed like anything but a Republican on topics as wide ranging as abortion, same-sex marriage, and gun control. In a country that is becoming more and more extreme and divided, Bloomberg's reputation of political moderation actually made his popularity grow, and he was re-elected to office in 2005 by the largest margin ever for a Republican in New York City.
It is no surprise that Bloomberg would switch his party affiliation again. He seems willing to make a change whenever the ebb and flow of the political ocean makes it convenient to do so. Even if he is "unaffiliated" (or Republican or Democrat) in name only, at the very least, a legitimate, albeit indecisive, third-party candidate could make this election even more interesting.
June 10, 2007
Stars in Stripes
by Rose Capozzi
“Unlike the Hilton month-and-a-half in the upscale Twin Towers detention center, Libby's sentence is excessive for his crime.”
This week has proven to be a tumultuous one for one of America's wealthiest heiresses. At the beginning of the week, Paris Hilton was in jail, starting her 45-day-long prison sentence for violating her probation. After just 3 days she was sent home for an "unspecified medical condition." The judge quickly stepped in and ordered her back to jail to finish out her sentence. It has been reported that Hilton has decided not to appeal the judge's decision and instead will remain behind bars for the remainder of her sentence, "learning and growing" while in jail.
Though Paris' stint in jail has become a media circus, it proves that the law should and can be applied equally to all Americans. This is especially relevant now, with the conviction of "Scooter" Libby, Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, who was sentenced this week to 30 months in jail, two years probation, and a $250,000 fine for his role in the Valerie Plame leak. It feels good to know that the United States is a country where the rule of law is upheld (most of the time), and justice can be blind.
That being said, unlike the Hilton month-and-a-half in the upscale Twin Towers detention center, Libby's sentence is excessive for his crime. As William Otis of the Houston Chronicle noted, he is not a danger to the community nor would it serve the people more for him to serve out time in jail. This was a particularly harsh sentence for a first time, non-violent offender.
By no means should the rich, the famous, or the politically powerful be granted extra special treatment when they have broken the law. At the same time, they should not be punished disproportionately to their crime. And scapegoating one man for the crimes of many does send a message. The wrong one.
June 12, 2007
A Family, A Diner, and an End
by Jeremy Freed
“Then--nothing.”
Well, it's over.
The final whacking has gone down, the final paper retrieved from the driveway in bathrobe and slippers, the last gabagool and provolone sandwich has been ordered, bitten and discarded. Tony Soprano has taken his final drive over the bridge, past the Pizzaland and the Pork Store, and parked his SUV finally and permanently in the annals of television history.
So now what?
To many, Sunday's finale of The Sopranos, perhaps the most anticipated TV event since someone shot J.R. (or Mr. Burns, depending on how old you are) was a profound disappointment. There was no bloodbath, no FBI swoopdown, no teary farewell, only a New Jersey diner, a bowl of onion rings, and Journey's epic power ballad, Don't Stop Believin', playing loud over it all. Then—nothing. The ten seconds of abrupt blackout silence that followed was broken only by the sound of frustrated HBO subscribers banging on their Tivos, and cursing Charter Cable for what appeared to be yet another service disruption. But, for once, the cable company was not to blame. It was simply the unpredictable, enigmatic end to a series that distinguished itself by being enigmatic and unpredictable.
The Internet response was immediate: HBO's website crashed as a tsunami of head-scratching viewers logged on in search of answers. The blogosphere erupted in anger and jubilance. Rumors of a movie spinoff flew. The papers weighed in. The New Jersey Star-Ledger, which had an exclusive interview with series creator David Chase, offered little in the way of resolution.
Ultimately, as much as we may curse Chase and HBO for letting us down, there's not a lot to be said now that will ease the pain of saying goodbye to probably the best television drama ever made. Its characters were repellent, perfectly flawed humans, living out their sordid lives for our benefit, one hour every Sunday. We followed their doings like close friends, loving and hating them and returning each week, unable to look away.
Now The Sopranos is over, dying as it lived, deep in the wilds of Jersey, surrounded by fried food, classic rock, and the everlasting American Dream. As A.J. said, moments before the sudden end, “Focus on the good times.” There were many, and while we may not all agree that the final episode was one of them, it was indeed a good run.
June 8, 2007
For English Press 1
by Victor Marsh
“To ban...would make the USA lose that sense of cultural openness...”
How will we know when our immigration policy has struck the right note? According to Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado) in the Republican debate this past Tuesday, we will know that our immigration policy is right when we no longer hear the words "...for English press 1, for Spanish press 2."
Tancredo constantly asserts that the United States should not become multi-lingual. He believes that having one language is the key to holding a nation and its culture together. He is not alone in this belief. People have written into comments throughout the blogosphere asking, and even singing, for an English-only national policy.
I believe that Tancredo and his crowd have based their whole "one-language" idea on one wrong-headed argument. They believe that nations can only maintain their sense of nation-hood by all speaking the same language. That is just not how the world works. He constantly says that "bilingual countries don't work." Take a look at the long list of multi-lingual countries. Tancredo says that all of them - from Canada to Ghana - don't work. His idea is incorrect and a thin veil for his fear of things that are different than him.
Immigrant communities tend to place a high value on learning English for practical reasons anyway. So to me, the craze about making sure that people learn English seems pointless - people will learn English because it will help them live and thrive here and form relationships.
So should we be making laws that forbid public signs or instructions from being written in Spanish or Chinese? No. To ban other languages would make the USA lose that sense of cultural openness that is so key to our immigrant traditions.
June 4, 2007
Eye of the Storm - Eyes of the Nation
by Rose Capozzi
“If the government can't deal with a natural disaster with advanced warning, how will it ever handle a surprise terrorist attack?”
Hurricane Katrina was not only one of the most devastating natural disasters of all time. It was also a wake-up call for the American people. The disorganization and communication barriers between the local, state, and federal governments left many Americans worried that the people they put in charge hit the snooze a few too many times. After all, if the government can't deal with a natural disaster with advance warning, how will it ever handle a surprise terrorist attack?
Last week Tavis Smiley featured the documentary "Right to Return" (which will air again July 16-20). Through this engaging and thought-provoking program, viewers witnessed first hand accounts of people returning to their homes in the Lower 9th Ward. Left largely on their own, families still continue to struggle to restart their lives and pick up the shattered pieces.
As Americans provide countless hours, resources, and support to protect our nation from terrorists, let us hope that the government learns that disasters could happen any day, in any city. Those in power, now or a year from now, need to know that leaving people in the rubble is simply unacceptable.
June 3, 2007
The Cost of Return
by Victor Marsh
“...you can take the government to the people...”
Imagine that you are New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin. What effect did it have on you to hear the voices from The Right to Return programs all last week on the Tavis Smiley show?
A mayor could be tempted to brush it all off and say, "They just don't understand." The city government cannot restore neighborhood services (trash pickup, water, electricity, schools, etc.), when not enough people have moved back to pay their taxes. No tax dollars means no electricity.
WIth your mayor's hat on, you may feel flat broke. The federal government is not finished debating a bill to provide compensation to residents, and the budget is always difficult to balance. Meanwhile, the cost of rebuilding homes keeps getting more and more expensive.
So what are you to do? As mayor, you have to be worried that there will be no returning taxpayers in the Lower 9th Ward to help pay for all those vital city services.
You should take the advice of one New Orleanean in the Right To Return program who said, "You can take the government to the people."
Mr. Mayor, if you feel it is too risky to invest in the communities of the Lower 9th Ward without first knowing how many people will return - then go to Houston, go to Dallas, go to every place where NOLA residents are living and ask them if they are coming back. Inform them of your plans and give them some confidence that you can put NOLA on the path to recovery.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
E-mail a friend