Young Voices
Exchanging ideas from the show and blogging about topics in the news from a range of perspectives.
May 5, 2008
A Deadly Mistake
by Rose Capozzi
“The cops were doing their jobs to protect the community from what they reasonably thought was a threat.”
As my fellow Young Voices contributer, Sean Nixon, stated in his article, the Sean Bell incident was incredibly tragic. However, it wasn't just tragic for the Bell family and friends; it was also tragic for the three detectives who mistakenly made the choice to shoot Bell.
The real question before the American people concerning the death of Bell is not the guilty verdict for the detectives who killed him, but whether this incident had something to do with Bell being black. In my opinion, certainly mistakes were made on the part of the detectives, on the part of Bell, and on the part of his friends. But Bell was not killed because he was black. And the judgment concerning his killers wasn't wrongly decided. The cops were doing their jobs to protect the community from what they reasonably thought was a threat. And Bell and his friends were acting suspiciously. To take the shooting, and the verdict, out of context is to color the incident as a racial incident and not a deadly mistake.
May 2, 2008
Al Pacino, Is That You?
by Jeremy Freed
It has not been a good spring for Al Pacino, pictured, whose new thriller, 88 Minutes, opened mid-April. The reviews weren't encouraging. They mostly focused on how plodding, implausible and unintentionally funny the film was, but there were plenty of other complaints, too. Among the most memorable was Mahnola Dargis' commentary on Pacino's new look in The New York Times, “a dusky orange tan that suggests a charbroiled George Hamilton and an elevated poof of hair that appears to have been engineered to put Mr. Pacino within vertical range of his female costars.” To be expected were plenty of hoo-ha jokes and complaints about the film's runtime of nearly two hours, which according to most was not only misleading, but nearly two hours too long.
So bad was the film's reception that one particular commentary in the LA Times used it as an opportunity to question the many sketchy film choices that Pacino has made in the past two decades or so. Looking over his recent credits, it's hard not to agree with the Times' assessment that the Pacino we are likely to see in the theaters these days has little, if nothing, in common with the one we so admired in The Godfather and Serpico. In his prime an actor of great energy and nuance, whose performances could occasionally be twitchy and marked by shouting for no good reason, he seems to have fallen back on the twitchiness and shouting, and left the nuance behind. It's more than a little reminiscent of Marlon Brando's last few decades, when his onscreen appearances more often than not had him slouching in a darkened corner, mumbling incoherently over the hem of his muumuu. Pacino has not sunk quite so low yet, but the Phil Spector hair and weird tan do not bode well.
Although the next couple of movies on his slate seem pretty familiar (one's a caper flick about an aging jewel thief and another is a cop drama by the same director as 88 Minutes) as long as he continues to pump out movies on a fairly regular basis, the law of averages dictates there will eventually be a good one in the bunch. He's given us enough that we owe him a few more years, at least, before we write him off completely.
If he buys an island, though, I will start to worry.
May 9, 2008
Strange Bedfellows
by Sean Nixon
For the past couple of months, John McCain has sat pretty comfortably as the Republican Party's nominee for President of the United States. His road to victory however was no easy feat.
Back in 2000, many McCain supporters felt as though he should have won the party's nomination. Many say that the attacks used against John McCain by Bush supporters were unwarranted and the unscrupulous tactics used were helpful in leading George W. Bush into the White House.
Since then, McCain has managed to wait patiently, turn his 2008 bid around, and see his political ambitions come true to run for the highest office in the land.
Despite the good fortune McCain has now, it seems as though hard feelings definitely existed between Bush and McCain during that time. A recent article from The Huffington Post states that back in 2001 at a dinner party, John McCain stated that he did not vote for George W. Bush. The article reported that McCain stated that he was first and foremost a member of the GOP, but when pressed about the issue, admitted to some degree that he in fact did not vote for Bush.
After roughly 6 years of an international war, a deceased dictator, mortgage crises, CIA leaks, volatile gas prices, and a litany of other concerns that occurred under the Bush Administration, John McCain and George Bush seem to have reconciled their differences. Or as some people say, politics makes for strange bedfellows.
The question now: is it worth mentioning to voters information like this, or does the issue do more to distract voters from other pressing issues?
Secondly, will McCain's lack of support of Bush in 2000 make a difference to independents and conservatives re: McCain's candidacy?
May 7, 2008
More Bad Times in Burma
by Jeremy Freed
“Tonight's guest, former president and Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter, has spoken out against the Burmese regime before. ”
Just when things in Burma looked like they couldn't get any worse, they did.
As discussed on this blog previously, in a post about a Rambo movie, of all things, the Burmese people are some of the most oppressed in the world. A civil war has raged in that country for nearly half a century, leaving many thousands displaced. Rumors of massive human rights abuses, including genocide, have gone mostly unheard, and attempts by NGOs to infiltrate the country have been met with fierce resistance by the country's corrupt government.
The massive cyclone that devastated the small Southeast Asian nation last week, leaving more than 20,000 dead and 40,000 more missing, has brought the already impoverished country to its knees. The extent of the damage is hard to gauge, even after several days, because of the harsh restrictions imposed by the country's military government. According to recent reports, the dictatorship that has ruled Burma since the early ‘60s is making all aid workers apply for entry visas, a process which can take several days. Meanwhile, more than a million Burmese people must wait without food, medicine, clean water, or electricity.
While countries across the globe offer aid, the Burmese government continues to stick to its guns, offering to accept only cash donations, rather than the food and medical supplies its people so desperately need.
Tonight's guest, former president and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Jimmy Carter, has spoken out against the Burmese regime before. Last year, when Burmese monks made world headlines with their protests, Carter offered to visit the country as a special envoy. Not surprisingly, the government wasn't interested.
According to Carter, one of the countries that can and does exert influence on the Burmese government is China. Already under scrutiny for its internal human rights abuses, Tibet policies, and ties to genocide in Darfur, this adds more fuel to the anti-Chinese fires that have been burning alongside the Olympic torch on its way around the globe. The Burmese people need help, and China can offer it. Whether it will or not is a different story.
May 21, 2008
Getting into Josh Groban
by Jeremy Freed
When I was in college I had a roommate who was a huge Josh Groban fan. She'd crank it up on the stereo when she was alone at home, and I'd return from class to find her doing dishes, wailing along to something in Italian to which she didn't know the words. Sensing she was no longer alone, she'd sheepishly turn around and say something defensive like, "He's a really good vocalist," before returning, quietly, to her dishwater. She sensed my distaste for the music. It didn't do it for me. In her mind, though, she was right, I was wrong, and she had nothing to be embarrassed about, except perhaps her singing.
Groban, the 27-year-old Grammy-nominated sensation, and tonight's guest, elicits a lot of reactions from a lot of people along the same lines. To Grobanites, as many of his millions of fans call themselves, he is the greatest thing to happen to popular music since Sinatra. To others (by which I mean me), he certainly seems like a genuinely nice fellow, and he does have a remarkably clear voice, but we probably wouldn't find ourselves listening to him unless he happened to come over the radio while we were at the dentist's office or something.
For the most part, Groban's fans are far more vocal (so to speak) than his detractors. Volumes could be filled with the praise heaped upon the wunderkind in the many online forums devoted to him. His velvety voice gets most of the attention, but a good portion also pay homage to his Mediterranean good looks, his humility, and his unassuming, slant-eyed smile. Whenever a young man of average to good looks does something impressive in the public eye, one can expect this type of reaction. Comparisons will be made to legends of earlier days and he will be called the next big something. But Groban, who has sold millions upon millions of albums in the six years since his self-titled debut, appears to be something different. His work with vocalists like Barbara Streisand, Celine Dion, and Sarah McLaughlan, not to mention his ever-growing fan base, suggests that his celebrity is more than a passing fancy, that he has something more than your average backstreet boy.
Years after my roommate introduced me to Groban's warbling arias, I'm still really not all that into it. Here I am at my computer, turning down the volume to Groban's "You Raise Me Up" so no one will hear what I'm listening to. I wonder if I'm missing something, if my appreciation for fine music is lacking in some vital respect. But then I wonder if it was 1942 and my bobby-soxer friend had put on a record of her new favourite singer, a clean-cut Italian kid with big ears and a voice as smooth as olive oil, would I have liked it? I'm guessing maybe not. But he would have been Sinatra, and I would have been a fool.
May 25, 2008
New Media, Done Right
by Jeremy Freed
Although she may be well-familiar to the readers of this blog, which is, after all, supporting a left-leaning show on PBS (is there any other kind?) Friday's guest, Arianna Huffington, deserves a few extra words of praise.
In this new millenium, with the publishers, newspapers and magazines looking frantically to the Web for the answers to how to stay current in the new, tech-savvy world, The Huffington Post has got it right. Launched by Ms. Huffington in 2005, the Post provides a gleaming example of what new media can and should be.
While its mainstay is political news and opinion, the site has branched out into entertainment, culture and media reporting, making it something of a one-stop shop for Web surfers looking for their daily fix of any of the above. While using its political credibility to full advantage, breaking stories about the presidential race, and keeping a close watch on the goings on on Capitol Hill, it also incorporates elements of the best literary, entertainment and gossip blogs on the Web. Today's site, and the cross-section of stories there, provides a good case for that point.
Huffington leads, as always, with commentary on the biggest story of the day; today it's John McCain's recent campaign problems. Down the page, a story on aftershocks in China, and a man rescued after 11 days buried under rubble. Further down, a post about the "worst poet ever," and beyond that, a breakdown of celebrity summer swimsuits.
Combining this variety of topics is something that other publications, both print and Web, would be wary of doing for fear of weakening their brands. For The Huffington Post, however, it only serves to bring more traffic and increase the site's prestige.
May 27, 2008
Clinton's Ugly Rhetoric
by Sean Nixon
Hillary Clinton comes under harsh scrutiny for remarks made about Barack Obama and former presidential candidate Robert Kennedy.
News junkies and political pundits received yet another earful from the New York senator running for president.
Sen. Hillary Clinton was criticized recently for remarks saying that she wouldn't drop out of the 2008 presidential race because history shows that you just don't know what might happen next; and then proceeded to use the assassination of Robert Kennedy as an example.
As one might imagine from that type of statement, the feedback wasn't the most positive considering you're running against a man whose already had death threats made on his life.
One person I spoke with made the argument that, in this 24-hour news cycle of nonstop coverage, it's easy to have a political gaffe or misspeak about a subject that may be misinterpreted. However with Hillary Clinton, there are a couple of things one should take into account:
1. This isn't the first time she's made remarks that people didn't take too well. She spoke earlier of MLK's impact on America and seemingly went out of her way to say that it took LBJ to institute the civil rights legislation that leaders such as Dr. King helped push to enact.
2. Bill Clinton said some things as well. His South Carolina remarks weren't held in high esteem either.
In fact, Sen. Clinton later had a meeting with members of the black press to basically state if she or her husband has said anything to upset you, she apologizes.
3. Now she says this, and it begins to make people think. Let's assume however for the moment that Hillary Clinton in fact did have a political gaffe and that her remarks were a misstep.
If her remarks weren't a negative attack, as one person said, it was stupid. My opinion is that if it wasn't racist, then she's extremely tired, and needs to rest. I don't want a president who makes those types of “honest mistakes.”
Obama has in fact had his political missteps in terms of statements as well, but nothing so insensitive as to insinuate an assassination of another candidate, especially in one's own party.
Were Clinton's remarks just a sign of being tired, or something more?
May 14, 2008
End of Spygate?
by Sean Nixon
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell reports to the media his findings in the Spygate scandal.
Has Spygate come to an end? After tons of blogging, and water cooler conversations, Spygate seems to have taken on a new and final chapter.
Spygate began when a former New England Patriot staff member, Matt Walsh, gave information suggesting that the NFL Patriots' staff members were taping their opponent's plays and calls during actual games.
Officials received word that Patriots staff members were recording footage during the game and trying to take it back into the players' locker room during halftime. The team would then allegedly review the tape and figure out how to counteract the plays the other teams were preparing for them on the field.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, during the time, fined Patriots coach Bill Belichick $500,000 and fined the Patriots team, owned by chairman and CEO Bob Kraft $250,000. News of this incident did not go unnoticed on Capitol Hill either. Senate leader Arlen Specter has been inquiring about the alleged misconduct and is seeking an investigation as well. This hopefully sent a message, but was the message strong enough?
Many sports fans can still think back on how many games the Patriots team would come back from halftime and completely dominate the second half. If the information Mr. Walsh provided proves to be accurate, it may help to explain some of their spectacular victories.
Yesterday, the NFL commissioner and Matt Walsh had a chance to sit and talk one-on-one about the allegations brought against the Patriots team. The commissioner's three-and-a-half-hour conversation with Walsh brought relatively few new pieces of information to the commissioner's attention and virtually stated that Spygate was over.
Will this seemingly end of Spygate in the headlines mean a return to “business as usual” when it comes to the questionable tactics used in professional sports, or will we begin to see more oversight and integrity in the professional realm of sports?
May 12, 2008
Curse of the Black Swan
by Rose Capozzi
In 1804, a Spanish navy frigate, Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes, was carrying 17 tons of gold and silver doubloons from Peru back to Spain when it was confronted by British warships. The Spanish ship refused to surrender, was fired upon, and eventually sunk off the coast of Cadiz, Spain. In the history books, this battle is known as the "Battle of Cape Saint Mary" and is pointed to as the reason Spain declared war on Britain and re-entered the Napoleonic Wars on the side of France.
In 2006, the American salvage company Odyssey Marine found a shipwrecked hull 500 meters below the Mediterranean Sea in international waters. The company did not know the name of the ship, but did know that they had just found buried treasure worth $500 million U.S. dollars. They called their find the Black Swan.
Now, Odyssey Marine is being sued by the Kingdom of Spain. For more than 200 years, Spain has left this "booty" discarded in their own backyard, but now that someone else has done all the heavy lifting, Spain wants the reward. And, they don't want to share. Spain claims that the "Black Swan" counts as an underwater cemetery, and that Odyssey Marine is desecrating its dead. Spain also claims that if Odyssey Marine claims any part of the treasure for themselves, it would amount to an attack on Spain's "historical patrimony."
Traditionally, salvage crews like Odyssey Marine are very understanding of historical finds, and only demand salvage rewards for their undertakings. If Spain wins the legal battle currently taking place in a U.S. District Court in Florida, the Kingdom claims that they won't owe Odyssey Marine a penny for the time, effort and trouble taken to recover the treasure.
What ever happened to finders keepers?
Subscribe to RSS Feed
E-mail a friend
