With summer fast approaching, some students are no doubt preparing to shut off their brains and turn on their TVs for three months. But if you do happen to come across CNN while channel surfing, don't be surprised to see the following five stories:
1. The Sinking of the S.S. Bush: Every week there's a new negative story about the Bush administration. From Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the fired prosecutors to the lapses at Walter Reed, it seems as if the Bush administration has an uncanny ability to keep itself mired in scandal and accusations of incompetence.
Although supporters of Bush may argue that many of these scandals are out of the president's control, the culture the Bush administration has engendered - one in which acting above the law is the norm - has fostered these scandals. It almost seems as if Bush is the captain of the Titanic, content to go down with his ship - and take others with him in the process - in order to preserve a loyalty to himself and his failed policies.
A perfect example is Gonzales. At best, Gonzales mismanaged the firing of prosecutors then misspoke about the situation. At worst, he handed it incompetently and then lied about it. Gonzales is a political liability to Bush, and many Republicans have called for his resignation. But Bush now says he has more faith in Gonzales, even after Gonzales babbled like an amnesiac idiot for hours before the Senate Judicial Committee.
I used to support President Bush. But I can't support this idiocy any longer and I am counting down the days until Jan. 20, 2009. It doesn't even matter at this point whether it's a Democrat or Republican who replaces him. Surely, a candidate from either part couldn't do a worse job if they tried.
2. Genocide in Darfur: The ongoing genocide in Darfur is an embarrassment to the world, yet world leaders are acting like cowards when it comes to stopping it. Although I appreciate the grassroots movement to raise awareness about Darfur - including the efforts of Emory students - the reality is, only world leaders have the power to stem the slaughter
The Bush administration has declared Darfur a genocide. This places the responsibility on the United States to end it. But the United States is not alone in its inaction.
Europe bears an even stronger responsibility, because European leaders routinely talk about Darfur, yet fail to take action. "The actions of the Sudanese government are completely unacceptable," British Prime Minister Tony Blair said at a European Union summit in late March.
"The suffering is unbearable," German Chancellor Angela Merkel remarked at the same summit. "I want to state frankly that we have to consider stronger sanctions."
But talk is cheap when it isn't accompanied by action. There are plenty of clichés that can be used to describe the criminal lack of action on the parts of world leaders. But I think that Theodore Roosevelt summed it up best when he said, "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood."
The United States, the European Union and the U.N. Security Council must force Sudan to accept a strong international peacekeeping force to end this disaster. Saying Darfur is bad doesn't accomplish anything.
3. Iraq: Each of these last three issues have the privlege of being one-time members of Bush's Axis of Evil.
On Iraq, there's not even that much too add to the discussion. Just turn on the news. It's bad and getting worse. More Americans are being killed, sectarian violence is crippling the country and Iraq is falling apart. Democrats have pushed through troop withdrawal deadline, but Bush says he'll veto any such bill. Iraq will remain a dominant story in American politics for a long time.
4. Iran: With President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad leading the rhetorical charge, Iran insists it will continue to pursue nuclear power (and, most likely, nuclear weapons). The United States wants tougher sanctions, European leaders want more negotiations. Will a solution be reached? Will Iran be able to become fully nuclear? Will a war be started with Iran? This could be the biggest issue of the summer.
5. North Korea: The forgotten third wheel of the Axis of Evil. The United States and other regional powers have reached an agreement with Pyongyang that requires North Korea to stop enriching nuclear fuel in exchange for economic and energy aid.
This agreement is fragile and could fall apart at anytime, but for now look for potential positive developments from the Korean Peninsula as the administration keeps its focus on Iraq and Iran.
Benjamin van der Horst is a College sophomore from Cincinnati. He is managing editor of The Emory Political Review and Executive Director of CSAmerica.
This ran on 4/27/07.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Wheel Column: Preventing Another Catastrophe
We in the United States live in an extremely public society. College campuses are some of our most open places, sprawling locales with dozens of buildings unlocked and easily accessible. As seen in the tragedy at Virginia Tech earlier in the week, this openness can be a liability.
In the case of Cho Seung-Hui, the gunman at Virginia Tech, his violent writings had attracted the attention of several faculty members within Virginia Tech's English department. The celebrated poet Nikki Giovanni kicked him out of her class because he was scaring and intimidating the other students. Lucinda Roy, the department chair, then taught Cho one-on-one and tried to get him to go to counseling for his anger. Roy contacted the police about him because she was worried that he may do something violent, but since his writing did not have any explicit threats, there was nothing police could do.
In 2005, Cho was accused of stalking a female student and was taken by police to a mental health center. A Virginia special justice declared him mentally ill and called him "an imminent danger to others." Clearly he had problems, and clearly people knew about them. But since Cho hadn't committed a crime, there was little anyone could do to stop him from going on this rampage.
Monday's tragedy has already reintroduced the issue of gun control in this country. The United States has been criticized around the world, from Great Britain to China, for what some see as our lax gun laws that allow someone like Cho to legally buy the weapons he used in the shootings. But a true debate on gun control is unlikely, even in the wake of these shootings. The gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association, holds a lot of influence in Washington. They are extremely vocal in their opposition to tighter gun control, and most politicians are wary of the prospect of going up against them.
So then what can we do to make college campuses safer? Realistically, the best option available for universities is a thorough review and enhancement of their plans for emergency situations like Monday's shootings.
At Virginia Tech, more than two hours elapsed before students were notified about the first shooting. Even if campus police and administration decided the first shooting didn't warrant a lockdown, a notification should have still been sent immediately. Students would have been more vigilant, or they could have made an informed decision to stay away from class. Through better notification or a lockdown, lives could have been saved. Administrators should always err on the side of caution.
It's foolish to expect that our society will ever be completely free from attacks like those at Virginia Tech. But we can at least make sure we're prepared for the next time.
Benjamin Van der Horst is a College sophomore from Cincinnati. He is executive director of the nonpartisan political organization CSAmerica and the managing editor of the Emory Political Review.
This ran on 4/20/07.
In the case of Cho Seung-Hui, the gunman at Virginia Tech, his violent writings had attracted the attention of several faculty members within Virginia Tech's English department. The celebrated poet Nikki Giovanni kicked him out of her class because he was scaring and intimidating the other students. Lucinda Roy, the department chair, then taught Cho one-on-one and tried to get him to go to counseling for his anger. Roy contacted the police about him because she was worried that he may do something violent, but since his writing did not have any explicit threats, there was nothing police could do.
In 2005, Cho was accused of stalking a female student and was taken by police to a mental health center. A Virginia special justice declared him mentally ill and called him "an imminent danger to others." Clearly he had problems, and clearly people knew about them. But since Cho hadn't committed a crime, there was little anyone could do to stop him from going on this rampage.
Monday's tragedy has already reintroduced the issue of gun control in this country. The United States has been criticized around the world, from Great Britain to China, for what some see as our lax gun laws that allow someone like Cho to legally buy the weapons he used in the shootings. But a true debate on gun control is unlikely, even in the wake of these shootings. The gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association, holds a lot of influence in Washington. They are extremely vocal in their opposition to tighter gun control, and most politicians are wary of the prospect of going up against them.
So then what can we do to make college campuses safer? Realistically, the best option available for universities is a thorough review and enhancement of their plans for emergency situations like Monday's shootings.
At Virginia Tech, more than two hours elapsed before students were notified about the first shooting. Even if campus police and administration decided the first shooting didn't warrant a lockdown, a notification should have still been sent immediately. Students would have been more vigilant, or they could have made an informed decision to stay away from class. Through better notification or a lockdown, lives could have been saved. Administrators should always err on the side of caution.
It's foolish to expect that our society will ever be completely free from attacks like those at Virginia Tech. But we can at least make sure we're prepared for the next time.
Benjamin Van der Horst is a College sophomore from Cincinnati. He is executive director of the nonpartisan political organization CSAmerica and the managing editor of the Emory Political Review.
This ran on 4/20/07.
Wheel Column: For Imus, Punishment Doesn't Fit the Crime
The spectacular fall of Don Imus raises an interesting question: was firing him the right thing to do, or did NBC and CBS overreact under pressure?
Without any doubt, Imus' comments concerning the Rutgers' women's basketball team were disgusting, indefensible and unacceptable. But in this instance, the punishment did not fit the crime, especially in light of our culture's significant double standard involving racist and sexist remarks.
Imus quickly apologized and expressed remorse. He should have been suspended (as he was) and forced to make his show less offensive and more inclusive of different demographics. But firing him for one comment, no matter how bad it was, was the wrong thing to do.
It's especially hypocritical that the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson would call for Imus' resignation or termination. Both of these gentlemen have made inappropriate, even racist, comments in the public spotlight before, and they each got another chance. In 1994, Sharpton offended the LGBTQ community when he told an audience at Kean College that Africans "taught philosophy before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it."
Sharpton also wasted no time jumping in front of television cameras after the Duke lacrosse players were charged with raping a young African-American woman. He all but pronounced the three young men guilty - playing the race card in the process - even though we now know they were innocent. Sharpton has yet to apologize for these remarks.
Like Sharpton, Jackson went after the Duke students and still hasn't apologized. In 1984, he went so far as to refer to Jews as "Hymies" and New York City as "Hymietown" in an interview with The Washington Post. How this slur is acceptable while Imus' demands such harsh recourse is a mystery.
Both Sharpton and Jackson have done a lot of good. But as seen above, both have made racist remarks and used slurs in a public forum before. They each got another chance.
Imus too has done a lot of good, raising more than $40 million for charity on his show in the past 20 years and operating a ranch that kids who are dying from cancer can visit for free. If Sharpton and Jackson were each granted another chance, then they shouldn't deny Imus one either.
But another aspect of Imus' case that needs to be addressed is the double standard concerning the use of certain language in this country. Hip-hop artists routinely use words much worse than those said by Imus in their songs. They can be said to have started the trend of referring to women as "hoes." Rap lyrics frequently demean people based on race and gender. But somehow, be it their race or the context of their artistic expression, the artists are given a free pass to use this language even though when Imus says the same things he is crucified. Imus should not have said what he said, but neither should the rap artists.
Sharpton says he'll continue his quest for clean language beyond Imus to these artists. Don't count on it. Sharpton jumps from bandwagon to bandwagon in order to stay in the limelight and prevent himself from slipping into irrelevancy. The media won't devote 24/7 coverage to cleaning up rap music, so there's no incentive for Sharpton to keep up his crusade. Furthermore, it is clear that he will not get much help from those within the industry.
Russell Simmons and Benjamin Chavis released a statement on behalf of the Hip-Hop Action Summit Network that reads, "Hip-hop is a worldwide cultural phenomena that transcends race and doesn't engage in racial slurs. Hip-hop artists rap about what they see, hear and feel around them, their experience of the world. Like the artists throughout history, their messages are a mirror of what is right and wrong with society." But a racial, ethnic or gender-based slur is a slur no matter what the context is.
Snoop Dogg also doesn't seem to get it. He told MTV, "[Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports." Snoop seems to suggest that it's okay to demean people who didn't make it to college. That doesn't seem right.
We need to put a stop to slurs and demeaning language. Talk radio hosts shouldn't use it, famous civil rights leaders shouldn't use it and hip-hop artists and rappers shouldn't use it. If someone gives a sincere apology and expresses a willingness to change, then he or she deserves a second chance.
Benjamin Van der Horst is a College sophomore from Cincinnati. He is executive director of the nonpartisan political organization CSAmerica and the managing editor of the Emory Political Review.
This ran on 4/17/07.
Without any doubt, Imus' comments concerning the Rutgers' women's basketball team were disgusting, indefensible and unacceptable. But in this instance, the punishment did not fit the crime, especially in light of our culture's significant double standard involving racist and sexist remarks.
Imus quickly apologized and expressed remorse. He should have been suspended (as he was) and forced to make his show less offensive and more inclusive of different demographics. But firing him for one comment, no matter how bad it was, was the wrong thing to do.
It's especially hypocritical that the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson would call for Imus' resignation or termination. Both of these gentlemen have made inappropriate, even racist, comments in the public spotlight before, and they each got another chance. In 1994, Sharpton offended the LGBTQ community when he told an audience at Kean College that Africans "taught philosophy before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it."
Sharpton also wasted no time jumping in front of television cameras after the Duke lacrosse players were charged with raping a young African-American woman. He all but pronounced the three young men guilty - playing the race card in the process - even though we now know they were innocent. Sharpton has yet to apologize for these remarks.
Like Sharpton, Jackson went after the Duke students and still hasn't apologized. In 1984, he went so far as to refer to Jews as "Hymies" and New York City as "Hymietown" in an interview with The Washington Post. How this slur is acceptable while Imus' demands such harsh recourse is a mystery.
Both Sharpton and Jackson have done a lot of good. But as seen above, both have made racist remarks and used slurs in a public forum before. They each got another chance.
Imus too has done a lot of good, raising more than $40 million for charity on his show in the past 20 years and operating a ranch that kids who are dying from cancer can visit for free. If Sharpton and Jackson were each granted another chance, then they shouldn't deny Imus one either.
But another aspect of Imus' case that needs to be addressed is the double standard concerning the use of certain language in this country. Hip-hop artists routinely use words much worse than those said by Imus in their songs. They can be said to have started the trend of referring to women as "hoes." Rap lyrics frequently demean people based on race and gender. But somehow, be it their race or the context of their artistic expression, the artists are given a free pass to use this language even though when Imus says the same things he is crucified. Imus should not have said what he said, but neither should the rap artists.
Sharpton says he'll continue his quest for clean language beyond Imus to these artists. Don't count on it. Sharpton jumps from bandwagon to bandwagon in order to stay in the limelight and prevent himself from slipping into irrelevancy. The media won't devote 24/7 coverage to cleaning up rap music, so there's no incentive for Sharpton to keep up his crusade. Furthermore, it is clear that he will not get much help from those within the industry.
Russell Simmons and Benjamin Chavis released a statement on behalf of the Hip-Hop Action Summit Network that reads, "Hip-hop is a worldwide cultural phenomena that transcends race and doesn't engage in racial slurs. Hip-hop artists rap about what they see, hear and feel around them, their experience of the world. Like the artists throughout history, their messages are a mirror of what is right and wrong with society." But a racial, ethnic or gender-based slur is a slur no matter what the context is.
Snoop Dogg also doesn't seem to get it. He told MTV, "[Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports." Snoop seems to suggest that it's okay to demean people who didn't make it to college. That doesn't seem right.
We need to put a stop to slurs and demeaning language. Talk radio hosts shouldn't use it, famous civil rights leaders shouldn't use it and hip-hop artists and rappers shouldn't use it. If someone gives a sincere apology and expresses a willingness to change, then he or she deserves a second chance.
Benjamin Van der Horst is a College sophomore from Cincinnati. He is executive director of the nonpartisan political organization CSAmerica and the managing editor of the Emory Political Review.
This ran on 4/17/07.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)