Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts

North’s relationship with U.S. Contingent on Aid

Monday, September 13, 2010 1:55 PM Chronicle
Labels: , , 0 comments

Kevin Miller
Staff Writer

Though a transition in the North Korean leadership seems imminent, this should not necessarily be viewed as a negative development. Current leader Kim Jong-il, who is severely ailing after a purported 2008 stroke, has rarely been seen in public since and has had his propaganda apparatus issue decrees on the imminence of a possible successor taking over, that successor being the 26-year-old son of the reclusive leader, Kim Jong-un.

The most recent evidence of Jong-un’s succession has been the much covered media harbinger: a visit by Jong-il and Jong-un to China while former American President Jimmy Carter traveled to North Korea and attempted to secure the release of an American hostage in North Korea.

The most obvious explanation that I can think of as to why the “Dear Leader” didn’t remain in North Korea, whereby he could usher in new found relations for his successor, is that by shirking Carter, successor Jong-un would have more latitude in his official foreign policy dealings with the outside world.

 The trip served a purpose of many fold, since it allowed for the North’s leadership to cultivate an understanding between them and the Chinese leadership that will serve them well, if possible reunification talks go forward for the peninsula as the incoming Jong-un sees fit. Though the “Dear Leader’s” son is young, his popularity in North and South Korea should not go unobserved. He is known for his intellect rather than his military exploits, and his proximity in age to the nascent intelligentsia in South Korea makes him a popular figure. In South Korea, the aging ruling class, who still harbor resentment toward the North over the Korean War, will still control the reins of power at the time of the North’s plenary session, which is rumored to be the official handing over of power to the younger Kim.

 However, this doesn’t mean that unification talks won’t take place while they’re still in power. It does mean it is unlikely there will be complete unification between the two countries until the South hands over the reins of power to the younger ruling class.

 The unpredictability of the North’s leadership will not be lessened by this change in leadership either. Some are certain that from Thanksgiving of 2006, when the North first detonated a nuclear device, to the present, that there has been a high stakes contest between certain elements within the North’s leadership to rule the country-- a contest which Jong-un by his elevation is assumed to have won. It also doesn’t help that this contest of wills may have also coincided with extremely provocative acts by the North such as the testing of a new longer range missile, the Taepodong-3, and the detonation of nuclear devices in underground laboratories.

It’s also worth noting that these provocative measures have ebbed and flowed according to the “Dear Leader’s” sporadic health scares. A destabilized Korean peninsula is in no one’s self-interest, and if six-way party talks are to resume, an emboldened, yet conciliatory, Jong-un may be the correct way to go.

The Koreans are currently suffering through one of the worst food shortages in their history. This should be taken as an opportunity of rapprochement with the North, and as a test of the revolutionary ideals and East Wind versus Western Bloc attitudes of the newly-installed leadership. By being gracious and forthcoming with food aid for the North, the U.S. ingratiates itself with the leadership. More importantly, the arrival of new stores of food, in time for the jubilee celebration of his ascendancy, will no doubt be a lesson to the younger Jong-un that if he hopes to do more than survive within the stringent international world order, he should take care to reciprocate quid pro quo with the U.S.

 If we take one thing away from the North Korean leadership’s recent harbinger in China, it should be that the North sees itself on par with the Chinese and hopes to project that stance throughout the world. We can facilitate that point of view only if they’re willing to compromise in the agreed nuclear framework. A policy that is heavy on carrots and light on sticks will serve us well in the opening salvos of the nascent government’s beginnings. A word aptly spoken is like apples of gold in settings of silver.  

Questions, comments, concerns? E-mail the Chronicle at Chronicle@clcillinois.edu

A Feminism for Our Time

Thursday, May 6, 2010 11:30 AM Chronicle
Labels: , , , 1 comments

Sarah Bigler
Staff Writer

            When people think of feminism, they think unshaven legs, unstyled hair, bare faces and a loud, clear female voice, usually condemning a society that celebrates men’s rights at the expense of those of women.  They don’t think of high heels.

But first, an admission of guilt. March was Women’s History Month, and as a self-proclaimed feminist, I feel I should have written this article two months ago. Having dropped the ball, I offer this piece as an apology and an attempt to salvage my dignity as both a journalist and as a woman.

Let’s set the record straight. Feminists don’t hate men. After all, some of us even sleep with them.  Some choose to stay home and raise their children. Some of us do actually shave our legs, and some don’t. Some of us have high-powered jobs, some work down the street at your local grocery store. We enjoy sex, we play with makeup, and yes, we wear both high heels and Birkenstocks, blue jeans and pink dresses.

The face of feminism, like any major movement, has evolved since its inception. Some of the issues have remained the same. Women still don’t make the same wages men do for performing the same job, abortion will always be a point of contention and domestic and sexual abuse against women is an ongoing war being fought across the globe.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott and Susan B. Anthony started the “first wave” of feminism in their fight for women’s suffrage. In the late 19th century, they and like-minded men and women started pushing for equal voting rights. They wrote editorials, held protests and rallies, and one woman, the feisty and bold Victoria Woodhull, even ran for President of the United States.

“Let women issue a declaration of independence sexually, and absolutely refuse to cohabit with men until they are acknowledged as equals in everything, and the victory would be won in a single week,” Woodhull said.

The victory wasn’t won in a week, but the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was passed in August, 1920. Anthony, Mott and many of the fighters of their era had long since died and never saw the fruit of their efforts.

These women, and countless nameless others, directly influenced the sexual revolution, or “second wave” feminism of the 1950s, 60s and 70s. The names most associated with feminism come from this era, such as Gloria Steinem, Betty Freidan, and Simone de Beauvoir.

Women were focused on the right to break out of the home and lead independent, fulfilling lives. Steinem, Freidan, Carolyn Maloney and Alice Paul fought hard for the ultimately doomed Equal Rights Amendment, which would have guaranteed that each civil right bestowed upon men would also be valid for women. Federally, the law never passed, but 22 states have it in their books, and various organizations continue to campaign for the ERA.

These ladies led the Women’s Liberation Movement, which fought for “unofficial” rights for women, in contrast to the specific legal and property rights of their predecessors. These rights included safety in the workplace, legal equalities in a wide range of areas, and, most controversially, sexual and reproductive rights.

This was the generation that, according to legend, burned their bras in protest. They eschewed conventional gender roles, shunned makeup and the Miss America pageants. They demanded the right to play sports professionally and in school, and celebrated the sexual liberation that accompanied the invention of the birth control pill.

Since the late 80s, feminism has faced a backlash.  Many women today don’t identify themselves as “feminist,” disliking the tomboyish and sometimes militant connotation. Other critics, especially those of minority backgrounds, felt the movement didn’t include them and needs to embrace a larger population.

The focus of women’s rights in the 80s and 90s tended to be workplace and linguistically related.

Anita Hill’s 1991 testimony against the unprofessional conduct of Clarence Thomas in front of Congress brought the issue of sexual harassment to the forefront of national politics. The issue has been studied and fought in every workplace ever since.

The women of the 1990s also took charge of the way they were portrayed. Reclaiming derogatory words, such as “bitch,” or “whore,” or “slut,” and made them commonplace. Women chose to change the meanings and connotations of these words rather than remove them from the vernacular entirely.

In the world of “Sex and the City,” Lady Gaga’s “LoveGame,” and the epidemic of the celebrity sex tape, Steinem and Freidan are often drowned out. The women of today, instead of denouncing sexual objectivity and aiming for the right of employment, choose to celebrate their sexuality and refuse to let their opinions be silenced.

Steinem herself has come around to this more liberal, more sensual brand of feminism.

“A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job afterward,” she said.

In light of these circumstances, it’s unsurprising some women wonder if feminism is still relevant. They ask questions about whether the movement has failed, or succeeded, or is even still worth the fight.

I spent my adolescence considering myself a truly classic feminist. I was, and still am, pro-choice, pro-ERA, and, frankly, pro-feminist. I became so virulent in my beliefs that simply listening to the other side of an issue put me on the defensive.

The problem with this way of thinking is the complete and utter extremity it brought to my personality. This is a characteristic I was horrified to discover about myself, and a trait I generally malign in other people.

 While I still hold most, if not all, of my same beliefs, I like to think my attitude has changed and I’ve mellowed out, at least a little. These days, I’m ready for debate, not dogma.

I’m one of a generation of women navigating their way through the conflicting and ultimately personal views that occur in an era of political correctness and veiled sexism. And sexism still does play a part in America, especially in the political arena.

The election of 2008 showed this to be true. Despite a woman, former Sen. Hillary Clinton, running for president and making to the primaries, and another woman, former Gov. Sarah Palin running for vice president, neither woman could make a move without at least one political commentator mentioning that she was a woman.

Both candidates claimed they had been treated unfairly in their campaign on the basis of their sex. True or not, no one can deny that it’s still a hot button topic.

Feminism is an ongoing and important component of our society. Its effects are all too apparent. According to the U.S. Department of Labor in 2008, women made up around 47 percent of the workforce in America, but still, after 50 years of effort, made only 77 cents to the average man’s dollar for performing the same job.

The numbers are even worse for minorities. Black women make 64 cents to the dollar of a white male. Hispanic women only make about 52 cents to the dollar.

Paradoxically, the more education a woman has, the higher the disparity there is in wages. This is despite making up 51 percent of upper level and higher paying jobs in management and business. Women’s Media, an organization for working women, found that women in high-level professional positions make 72 percent of what men in the same position make.

Domestic and sexual abuse are still, unfortunately, key issues. The American Institute on Domestic Violence estimates half a million women are stalked by a former or current partner per year, and 1,232 women are killed every year in an abusive relationship.

The same organization reports a shocking one in four women will experience domestic abuse or violence in their lifetime. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women, and costs $5.8 billion in physical and mental health bills in the United States each year.

These are just a couple of the many issues plaguing American women today. The National Organization for Women, or NOW, also includes lesbian rights, and diversity and race sensitivity training among the ongoing issues of abortion and economic discrimination.

So are we living in a “postfeminist” world? I hope not.  I certainly hope there hasn’t been a substantial drop in the number of activists working to right the wrongs still ailing America and her women.

Today’s feminists look a lot less like hippies and a lot more like the general population, male and female, black, white and everything in between. We still have a long and bumpy journey ahead of us. But true equality for women cannot just be a pipe dream, something we strive for, but feel we might never reach.

Former first lady and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has spoken often about feminism and the role it has played in her life and in today’s world.

“There cannot be true democracy unless women's voices are heard,” she said in 1997.

“There cannot be true democracy unless women are given the opportunity to take responsibility for their own lives. There cannot be true democracy unless all citizens are able to participate fully in the lives of their country.”

The irrational path to death

11:26 AM Chronicle
Labels: , , , 4 comments

Dave Balson

Opinion Editor 

I’m amazed how often I hear this laissez-faire defense of irrationality: “If people want to believe in fairy tales, what’s the harm?”

Sometimes, it is a fair argument. On Sunday, my horoscope read: “Your taste in art and appreciation in general are heightened. Perhaps this is a good time to select furnishings, colors, and so on--the finer things of life.”

It is irrational to believe such a statement could apply to one-twelfths of the world’s population, and quite offensive to those Aries living in abject poverty in the Third World. For some of them, a more accurate horoscope might read: “You will travel many miles in search of clean drinking water and hope your sister doesn’t die of cholera while you’re away.” But horoscopes don’t directly endanger lives.

Other irrational beliefs do have quantifiable, fatal consequences. In many cases, such as the Catholic Church’s insistence that god does not want people in AIDS-ridden nations to use condoms, the path to death is direct and easy to understand. Whenever the Vatican doles out such deadly decree, the civilized world is quick to condemn them.

For whatever reason, Americans seem less inclined to condemn irrational beliefs like medical quackery and climate-change denial, despite the lethal consequences those beliefs have on their communities.

Homeopathy is a perfect example of our irrational beliefs, why we hold them and the effect they have on our lives.

Millions of people and several first world governments spend billions of dollars annually on homeopathic medicine. Homeopathy is based on a premise its practitioners swear is not satire: The more you dilute a substance, the more potent it becomes. Therefore, the 2 ounce bottle of belladonna you bought at Whole Foods is potent precisely because it’s been diluted to 10 -60.

If you missed class the day your math teacher taught exponents, let me fill you in on how ridiculous a number that is. If you bought enough of the 10 -60 dilution to fill the world’s oceans, it would be extremely unlikely to contain a single molecule of the original belladonna.

The medical system established in modern first-world countries, while imperfect, works incredibly well. Modern medicine has given us longer, more comfortable, productive lives.

Homeopathy is an “alternative medicine,” which is medicine that has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work. Otherwise we just call it “medicine.”

Unlike actual medicine, homeopathic remedies are not backed by scientific studies and are completely unregulated by the FDA, which is fair, since they’re only selling tiny bottles of water.

If it’s just water, it can’t hurt people. In fact, some people will enjoy the same benefits they would from a placebo. What’s the harm?

Homeopathy does affect the health of people who come to believe the fairy tale. The money they waste on this hyped-up H2O is money they could and should have spent on real medical advice and treatment from real doctors.

According to Reuters, Americans spend about $34 billion annually on homeopathic remedies. Some of that money comes from people with chronic illnesses.  This isn’t harmless, new-age nonsense. It’s a nefarious hustle.

People with terminal cancer are as susceptible mark as a con artist can hope for. Their doctor tells them they are going to die soon, but treatments could give them a bit more time with a bit less pain. Desperate, the patient looks for a third way—a cure.

The homeopath hustles the patient. The cancer worsens. The patient returns to the medically licensed doctor but can no longer afford the treatments that would have given him or her more time and less pain.

The patient’s motives are easy to understand, but the terminal patient’s irrational beliefs aren’t really the problem. The real problem lies in the other part of that $34 billion.

The people who reject medicine in favor of snake oil based on a conviction founded in neither fact nor reason legitimize quackery enough for it to appeal to vulnerable victims like our patient. Their motives truly do the damage.

Why would a person want to believe something that isn’t true, if that belief is bad for them?

It gives them a sense of control.

Science and medicine are confusing. Pills can regulate anything from your bowel movements to your dopamine levels. Surgeons can remove a tumor from your brain and put an artificial heart in your chest. It all seems so unnatural.

It is unnatural, of course. It is the nature of our bodies to fail and die. The whole idea of medicine is fend off that natural process.

But isn’t it nicer to believe that the whole medical industry is a scam? Life is simpler if I can go into my local Whole Foods and pick up a bottle of belladonna dilution, or ragweed or milk thistle, any time I get sick, rather than trusting arrogant doctors and scientists who think they know everything.

Homeopathy provides the delusion that life isn’t as fragile; that our bodies aren’t as complex, and sickness and death aren’t as random as they actually are.

It’s not just homeopathy. Some of our most harmful beliefs are based in the comforting delusion of control.

An ocean of evidence says climate change is real and caused by people. As that vast pool of evidence grows, it becomes ever more apparent that some of the dramatic effects of climate change—smaller ice caps, stronger storms, longer droughts, more acidic oceans—have arrived.

And yet, a large group of loud people believe climate change science is a hoax perpetrated by scientists and politicians who seek absolute control over the world economy. That irrational belief has spread throughout the American public, 67 percent of whom do not believe climate change is a “serious threat,” according to a March 12 Gallup poll.

I wish they were right. We can defend ourselves against the lies of powerful men and women much more easily than rising sea levels. If people really are causing climate change, then I have very little control. Even if I live a green, carbon-free life, I can’t make the guy next door trade in his Hummer for a SmartCar.

If we allow ourselves the delusion that there is no problem, we have an excuse not to address it. As any 12-stepper could tell you, the first step is admitting you have a problem.

Irrationality isn’t about stupidity or ignorance. It’s about refusing to face reality. Schools can teach critical thinking skills (CLC does a wonderful job at this). But at some point there is a larger lesson one must learn on one’s own.

Life can be complicated. Sickness and death can strike without reason. The ecosystem is buckling. But life is also full of wonder, in part because we work together to make it so.

When we refuse to accept how much of life we can’t control, we give up what control we do have. Humanity now faces unprecedented challenges. Unless we are willing to summon up the courage to see the world as it actually is, we cannot hope to make the future what we want it to be.

CLC sports have talent, lack fan support

11:11 AM Chronicle
Labels: , , , , 0 comments

Amber Kuehl
Sports Editor

            When you think of college sports football and basketball are most frequently mentioned because they are popular sports for tournaments and playoffs. Fans can engage themselves in the sport. Four year schools, like Northwestern and University of Illinois, have sports teams where students and general sports fans actively participate in games and cheer on their teams.

            At CLC, where there is plenty of talent among all teams, there is very little support from the average student.

            To an extent, this makes sense. CLC is a community college where students usually go to move on to a four year school. Students here have jobs and other non-school activities that affect their schedules, making it difficult to spend extra time at school for sports.

            However, there are students who have the time, but do not want, or don’t know, about sports at CLC. If students are bored, they should check out what sporting events are happening. It is also the duty of the athletic department to get more students interested in watching games. Coaches and players should encourage students to find out about CLC’s teams.

            “The only reason I don’t go to games is because they don’t advertise,” freshman Nick Hefner said. “I never know who’s playing when or where.”

There is a lot of talent and many reasons to watch sports at CLC. The question is why more people don’t watch. There is no clear cut way to get more people involved. If students are busy, they’re not going to watch. Teams could advertise game times and tournaments, or they could simply mention it to their friends and classmates. Any attention given to the teams will be welcome.

            Baseball is America’s past time, and CLC has a good team with a lot of talent. The team is among the nation’s best with 27 wins and 13 losses so far this season. And there are still several home games left before season’s end.

            Women’s softball still has games left, and they aren’t doing badly either. They have 15 wins and 15 losses this season. They have several high ranked players, especially pitchers, among the nation.

            CLC has talent, they just need others to recognize it. 

Analysis: Mr. Balson takes his tea

Saturday, April 17, 2010 2:49 PM Chronicle
Labels: , , , , 2 comments

Dave Balson
Opinion Editor


      The strangest thing about the Northern Illinois Patriot’s April Meetup was that its attendees were sincerely upset and angry over things that just aren’t true. 

      In every speech and nearly every interview, people expressed deep concerns that the Obama administration had imposed debilitating tax increases. 

      In fact, the very stimulus bill tea partiers revile contained tax cuts for 95 percent of working families. Most people said that as middle-class workers, they couldn’t afford more taxes. Yet 70 percent of those tax cuts went to the middle 60 percent of American workers.

      The three most common words emblazoned on shirts, stickers and fliers at tea parties across the country are, “Taxed Enough Already.” It is the motto and mantra of the movement. If taxes are a central grievance of the Tea Party, why did the movement flourish after the vast majority of its members received tax cuts?

      Another big concern at the tea party was that the Obama administration was eagerly working to deprive Americans of their right to keep and bear arms. This is a widely held belief among tea partiers and conservatives throughout the nation. The gun and ammunition industry is still enjoying the boom in sales sparked by Obama’s election.

      In fact, the president has shown no desire to fight for stricter gun control. The only gun-related laws passed in his presidency have been pro-gun rights. 

      Thanks to two laws signed by the president, gun-toting tea partiers can now tote their guns into national parks and onto Amtrak trains. Meanwhile, the gun control advocacy group, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence gave Obama an “F” on each of its issues.

      Why were so many of the people at the meeting convinced that the president is coming to take their guns?

      Some of the objections shared by the tea partiers are familiar conservative sentiments, particularly anger toward illegal immigrants and welfare recipients. But those are mostly philosophical or cultural positions, not directly related to actual events or policies occurring in the last 15 months.

        The people at the meeting were outraged over things they believed were absolute fact. Public education is government indoctrination. The government is going to ration health care via death panels. Taxation is un-American. Barack Obama is a foreign-born socialist. The list goes on.

      The tea partiers were not uninformed—surely they pay more attention to politics than the majority of Americans. They were well-misinformed.

      The conspiracies, even the words and phrases used to describe them, sounded familiar. I asked each person I interviewed where they had heard about, say, the future of death panels or the impending communist takeover of Washington. Each one said Fox News, Glenn Beck in particular. I also asked where they went for news and information on current events. Again, Fox News, Glenn Beck in particular.

      Beck is the hero of the Tea Party. The Northern Illinois Patriots say on their Web site, “We stand for the principles and values espoused by the National 9/12 Project.” The 9/12 Project is Beck’s ultra-right vision for America. Through his conspiracy-laden, terror-inducing TV show, Beck has created his own pernicious brand of entertainment.

      These were good people. They believe their country is in trouble, that America is hurtling toward self-destruction, and they believe it is their duty to fight for their country’s future. They were, in some sense, incredibly patriotic.

      Night after night, most of the tea partiers turn on Fox News believing that makes them well-informed citizens. But they aren’t getting news, or facts, or analysis from a journalist. They are getting a compelling story from a talented storyteller.

      The couple I talked to, Louise and Kevin Stolarik, love Beck’s TV show because they believe he gives the facts to them straight.

      “He digs into everything and it’s just amazing, the facts that he comes up with,” Louise said. She meant it as a compliment.

      After explaining that communism was “taking root” in America, Kevin said he gets most of his news from Beck.

      “Hopefully I’m getting well-informed,” he said.

      Of course, Beck isn’t the only one misinforming the masses. Many pundits and politicians live to tell lies to lots of people. Sarah Palin brought the “death panel” myth to the national stage. Palin was also very popular with the tea partiers.

      Beck makes a lot of money for Fox News and takes home a hefty paycheck. ABC News reported April 13 that Palin has made around $12 million since she quit being governor of Alaska.

      There is a word for those who make money by deceiving people, by appealing to their emotions to convince them of things that aren’t true and aren’t in their best interest. We call them conmen.

Male sexuality more complex than thought

Friday, March 26, 2010 9:44 PM Chronicle
Labels: , , , , , 0 comments

Nathan Caldwell
Editor-in-Chief

      The marble statue of “Venus de Milo” and the painting “The Birth of Venus” are beautiful. Picturesque depictions of the female form immortalized, feats of art instantly recognizable even to the casual observer.   
      
       Yet some of their beauty is due to the simple fact that they are enshrined in a perpetual state of arousal, forever fixed in provocative poses. Nipples erect, head tilted, face flushed – curvy, voluptuous women in their sexual prime, all practically screaming, “Come and get me.”   
        
        Conversely, consider Michelangelo’s “David,” a work of artistic brilliance. It is proportionally scaled, posed and chiseled to perfection – every bit as great, if not more so, than works previously mentioned. The major difference? David’s pose bespeaks nothing that even hints at arousal. In fact, when the scale of the sculpture is considered, David’s phallus is patently pathetic. 

      We live in a culture that caters to the pornographic imagination and not-so-latent sexuality of males, while simultaneously refusing to embrace that which it caters to.

      In an admittedly phallocentric civilization, we haven’t gone far from the luscious depictions of Venus. There are beautiful women lounging about in ads for everything from shoes to lingerie – all artfully airbrushed and insinuating anything but celibacy. After all, sex sells.

      Certainly, what some men want is to insert hard object Y into wet object X – but why reduce something as complex as sexuality to so simple an equation?

      This archaic view of male sexuality has been perpetuated since antiquity and is, at best, outdated. And why wouldn’t it be? 

      Men had no sexual revolution. There was no men’s liberation movement. There have never been hoards of angry men ripping off their undergarments in protest of inequity.

      Conversely, there is a long history of females fighting for equality and it has resulted in the acknowledgement of female sexuality as something that exists, is complex, and can be discussed in an intelligent and academic setting.

      Meanwhile, male sexuality has remains ensconced in a pre-Victorian bubble that has devolved from an over-simplification to a social stigma. 

      Aside from a high-five and a vivid description of how hard he “smashed” that, there is absolutely no forum for males to have a calm, intelligent discussion on issues of sexuality without being ostracized. 

      Society loves to accommodate the idea of simple male sexuality. It’s uncomplicated, generally accepted and marketable. And while the idea may be all of these things, it is also detrimental. 

      Why? Is that all male sexuality is – an exercise in the redirection of blood flow? 

      Males aren’t expected to have sexual needs beyond the blood flow. Indeed, those who do are seen as needy and emasculated.

      Emasculation. The word conjures its own unique blend of testosterone-fueled terror and acute homophobia. It’s been argued this is the most effeminate generation, that metrosexuals and gays are ruining what it means to be a “real” man. 

      Ironically, metrosexuals and gays are the only ones having any semblance of an open discussion on issues of sexuality and masculinity. 

      To be simultaneously male and vocalize an opinion on one’s own sexuality, one must declare one’s self a pariah. Men who discuss the issue openly are instantly branded as perverts, horndogs, gays or some combination of the three. Those who hazard such discussions without regard to the inevitable social castration, are in reality the most liberated. 

      Embracing “emasculation” is means to endure social stigmas in exchange for the ability to engage in scholarly discussions about what historically has been one of, if not the most, inviolable social issue. 

      There may not have been a male sexual revolution. There have been no violent protests, no peaceful sit-ins. Instead there is the infinitesimal movement towards the ability to discuss sexuality outside of the simplistic shadow of “bang bang bang, skeet skeet skeet.” 

      That movement happens to be through the realm of what has been branded emasculation and while it may have a negative stigma now, there is hope.

      This generation is more tolerant of homosexuality than any before. Steps have been made in the right direction on everything from gay rights to healthcare. Perhaps with time, what is now considered emasculation will be recognized as the male sexual revolution, covert though it may be.

Israel settlements undermine peace efforts

9:42 PM Chronicle
Labels: , , , , 0 comments

Dave Balson
Opinion Editor

      Two generations have come of age in a world where war in the Middle East seemed as familiar and normal as television reruns and people hating Monday. In the U.S., presidential and congressional candidates routinely promise to solve the stalemate, and succeeding administrations have seen their efforts stymied by the enduring deadlock. The Obama Administration has faced a familiar, inauspicious first year in mediating the conflict.

      On March 9, during a visit to the country Vice President Joe Biden gave a speech vowing the administration’s support for Israel. The Israeli Interior Ministry announced plans to extend Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem by building 1,600 new homes.

      Last spring President Obama, in an effort to bring regional leaders to the negotiating table, tried to convince Israel to freeze new settlement in contested parts of the country. Israel initially rejected this, but eventually accepted a 10-month freeze on settlements in the West Bank. While East Jerusalem was not included in the freeze, announcing the planned expansion during the vice presidential visit insulted the administration and was a step backward in the peace process, since Palestinians believe East Jerusalem is rightfully and historically theirs.

      The president, vice president, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton all expressed their outrage to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu offered his apology for the poor timing of the announcement, but indicated that he would be moving forward his plans, regardless.

      Over the years of the Middle East conflict, lasting peace between Israel and Palestine was mostly considered a foreign interest of the U.S. We liked Israel, thought a free democracy in the Middle East was a fine idea, and had its back if anything went down. But things have changed. Now the stakes are higher, and the consequences hit closer to home.

      The “Israeli occupation of Palestine” has proved a great recruiter and fundraiser for Islamic extremist groups and gains sympathy from moderate Muslims around the globe. Because the U.S. is by far Israel’s strongest ally, the hatred toward Israel is easily extended to America. A core demand of al-Qaida is that America withdraw its support for Israel.

      I, along with most of the planet and much of the Middle East, take great pleasure in reminding al-Qaida where they can stick their demands. But American soldiers are fighting and dying in two separate wars in the region, and with would-be terrorists stuffing explosives into their tighty-whities to attack the U.S. homeland, solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an urgent necessity.

      The good news is a generally agreed upon solution exists. The bad news is that it has been generally agreed upon, but not acted upon, for many years.
 
      Since Israel’s founding, the “two-state solution”—dividing the country into two sovereign nations, Palestine and Israel—has been continually proposed, discussed, endorsed and opposed. Even today, polls show the majority of Israelis and Palestinians favor this plan over any other.

      Reasonable minds on both sides know that the two-state solution is what should, and eventually must, happen. But talks break down over small, contested regions, especially Jerusalem. In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton mediated a peace plan to near completion, but neither side would cede or share the Temple Mount.

      I’m not opposed to intellectual endeavors, but when two groups of people refuse to end a whole lot of death and murder because each group is committed to an inflexible interpretation of their holy book, I get very offended.

      Having a free democracy in a region of the world that generally and consistently gets low marks for both freedom and democracy is a good thing. But Palestinians also have a fair argument. In the messy years that marked the end of the British Mandate of Palestine and the founding of the state of Israel, the Palestinians got the shaft. And the walled, impoverished Gaza strip looks a lot like apartheid.

      Though I tend to have more sympathy for those who wish to extend civil rights (Israel), rather than curb them (Palestine), both sides can argue injustices for a literal lifetime. The best we can hope for is that both sides pause their retaliations long enough to make a solid agreement. Announcing new Israeli settlements in territory that Palestinians hope will be returned to them through negotiations hinders that peace effort.

      This is a shame, considering the unique opportunity Israel currently has.

      Iran has become so politically and militarily ambitious that the entire region considers it a threat. Facing the possibility of a nuclear Iran, nations that have been historically hostile to Israel—Jordan and Saudi Arabia, for example—would probably work with Israel to ensure regional stability. Strong, lasting alliances can be built by nations who seek a common defense.

      If and when a two-state solution is reached, hatred toward Israel in the Middle East will turn to reluctant acceptance. But diplomatic engagement is thwarted whenever Israel is publicly seen as unwilling to make the compromises needed to work out the solution.

      Israel is justified in refusing to negotiate with Hamas, the militant group which runs the Gaza strip and continually lobs missiles into Israel. But the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, under Mahmoud Abbas, has shown a strong desire for a two-state solution and a willingness to suspend hostilities while negotiations take place.

      The U.S. lends its enormous influence to Israel, partly because it’s a democracy and partly because American Jews hold great political and cultural clout, but also because without our support, Israel/Palestine would become very bloody very quickly.

      Israel is consistently one of the top recipients of U.S. foreign aid, adding to our deficit spending during a financial crisis. Our alliance engenders hatred in Iraq and Afghanistan, putting American troops further at risk. The one thing Israel can do to lessen those burdens on the American people is to make the concessions necessary to achieve a two-state solution. When Israeli leaders refuse to make those concessions, they make our alliance—their lifeline—much harder to justify.

Fear merchants selling out American values

Thursday, March 18, 2010 12:33 PM Chronicle
Labels: , , , , , , , 0 comments

Dave Balson
Opinion Editor 
 
      “Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his first inaugural address.


      I find it nearly impossible to read those words without dreamily drifting off to dwell on their profundity. Beyond its sharp-yet-zen phrasing, the line embodies the highest ideals of the American Century. It’s easy to see why the people who first heard it would make FDR the only president elected to a third and fourth term.


      But few on that day could have predicted how prescient his words would prove. In the 1950s, well after FDR’s passing, Sen. Joe McCarthy used the fear of communism to bring political rhetoric to a dangerous extreme. After the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration used fear of terrorism to expand its power, justify torture and make the case for war in Iraq. And in 2010, some conservatives are combining both of those fears for political gain.


      At a recent private meeting in Florida, the Republican National Committee presented their 2010 strategy to their core fundraisers. In a paper copy of a PowerPoint presentation accidentally left at the hotel, later obtained by politico.com and reported March 3, the RNC suggested to fundraisers that they should appeal to the “fear” of small donors and the “ego” of big donors.  Some of the more cynical slides encouraged the conference attendees to sell the fear of socialism and use an image of the president’s face painted like the Joker from the “The Dark Night.”


      The Obama-as-the-Joker poster, with “SOCIALISM” printed across the bottom, became an instant hit at Tea Party rallies. Racially charged and factually conflicted, it fits the Tea Party movement perfectly. If painting the face of the first black president is not motivated by racism, then the poster’s message is that the president is like the Joker: unpredictable, psychotic, chaotic and ruthless.


      The Joker was all of those things. Politically, we would call him an anarchist, the very farthest thing from socialism on the political spectrum. I know times are tough and that dictionaries cost more than a whole box of tea bags, but it would really help the discussion if people could start looking up words before they start using them.


      It is one thing to have your opponents call you on fear-mongering and quite another to let slip that it is an integral part of your marketing plan. But fear has been a political currency for generations and the presentation, while embarrassing, is hardly surprising.


      More worrisome are the accusations that the Obama administration is too weak on, or even sympathetic to, terrorism. The worst of these have come from Keep America Safe, an ultra-conservative organization run by Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, and Bill Kristol, a neo-con author and activist and a stalwart promoter of the war in Iraq.


      Cheney’s group has launched an ad campaign against certain lawyers working in the Justice Department for having previously represented detainees from Guantanamo Bay. A video released by Keep America Safe portrays Attorney General Eric Holder as seeking out these terrorist sympathizers to staff the Justice Department. The video refers to the seven appointees as “The Al-Qaeda 7” and asks, “Whose values do they share?”


      I’m glad you asked, Liz. It would be my great honor to offer the answer.


      They share the very deepest and noblest of American values, from our founding to present. They share the values of John Adams, who represented British soldiers in the Boston Massacre trial. Adams, the nation’s first vice president and its second president, later said the experience was, “one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.”


      His founding brothers no doubt shared these values. The document they drafted to specifically define American values, the Bill of Rights, is chocked full of the stuff. In fact, it’s some of the most important, cherished parts of the Constitution.


      Providing legal representation to a defendant is the only way to ensure a fair trial. A fair trial allows the disinterested hand of justice to decide the case. Regardless of the charge, a person must have the means and the right to be heard and to plead their case.


      The arguments being made by some conservatives—that suspected terrorists shouldn’t receive a fair trial, that they can and should be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, that they shouldn’t be tried where the crime was committed and imprisoned on American soil—are arguments against the fundamental principles of the Constitution.


      As un-American as it is to argue that these defendants are so guilty that they don’t deserve a fair trial, it is worse still to implicate their defense attorneys. By calling the “Al-Qaeda 7” terrorist sympathizers, we imply that lawyers are necessarily sympathetic to the crimes their clients are accused of committing. If that’s the case, this country is crawling with public defenders who are sympathetic to rape, murder and child molestation.


      And what about the judges who hear the case? The juries? The elderly court reporter, sympathetically clicking away on her little machine? Just look at her, an older woman, quietly writing her incantations in heathen shorthand, I know she’s a witch, I just know it!


      American justice derives all of its legal and moral credibility from a design that prevents prosecution from becoming persecution. One of the things that makes America great is the belief that right makes might, and you are innocent until proven guilty. Lawyers who defend those accused of terrorism are keeping America’s greatest values and virtues safe. The efforts of Liz Cheney and the actions of her father do better than any lawyer, indeed any terrorist, in undermining that safety.


      Terrorism, by its very definition, uses violence and intimidation to force a society to change its political ideology.


      Those who would allow terrorists to coerce us into disregarding our deepest principles are the ones who aid and abet the terrorists. It is they who are letting the terrorists win.


      Franklin Roosevelt’s “fear itself” quote usually ends halfway through his sentence. I think it both worthy and just that we let the man complete his thought:
      “So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

    Search
Powered by Blogger