Category Archives: Commentary

A Necessity or Profiteering?

In one of my many trips into cyberspace, I came across an individual who noted that she was taking a course at Curry College in Terrorism. This, of course, struck me as amusing. Is Curry College an evil syndicate of al Qaeda? Had this women singlehandedly blown the cover of an American insurgent network? Well, as usual, my mind was getting the best of me, and such was not the case.

What I did find, however, was just as fascinating. Curry College is one of those many lower tier New England Liberal Arts schools. In order to be more competitive, it offers a myriad of courses, namely a continuing education program. One of the certificate programs in this lineup is called “Homeland Defense.”

In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Certificate in Homeland Defense was designed to prepare traditional and continuing studies undergraduates and law enforcement practitioners to meet the new challenges of homeland security.

To complete the program, an individual must take eight courses.

I’m split on this one. On the one hand, we certainly want individuals trained to deal with this new terrorist threat. On the other, however, the idea that Curry College is profitting off of 9/11 leaves a bad taste in my mouth. What are your thoughts on this?

Link:
http://www.curry.edu/Academics/Continuing+Education/
Certificate+Programs/Homeland+Defense.htm

Fashion Police

I was listening briefly to Air America radio today and heard the story of two people being arrested for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts at a Bush speech. What was particularly shocking about this even was that it was held on public property – at the West Virginia Capitol. The T-shirts had Bush’s name crossed out on the front and the words, “Love America, Hate Bush,” and “Regime Change Begins at Home,” on the back.

The couple was led from the event in handcuffs after refusing to remove the shirts.

Although the charges were later dropped, the incident caused one of the protesters to briefly lose her job. The city’s public officials have apologized. The two, however, are bringing a lawsuit against the federal policing agencies involved in the arrest, with the help of the ACLU.

This is a very clear cut case. These individuals, one of whom is a registered Republican, were singled out because the political message on their shirt did not sit well with the authorities. These people were not out there trying to shout the president down or belittle other supporters, instead they were involved in a quiet but visible protest. Protest is not always about disruption, and wearing a shirt with a particular message is a direct way to make yourself heard without speaking.

Take two examples from back at Trinity. For one, a certain sorority during pledge time had shirts made up for pledges. As part of the ritual these pledges had to wear the shirt and a white skirt around campus on certain days. The shirt said, “If I don’t remember it, it didn’t happen.” As you might imagine, some people on campus were furious about these shirts. They found them demeaning to women, and couldn’t understand why some would chose to wear it. Someone mentioned it in a letter to the editor of our newspaper, and the issue was discussed. However, no T-shirts were confiscated, and the girls (I say girls because I mean girls) wearing them were not kicked out – all perfectly correct.

Another instance is when I would wear my famous “San Francisco Physical Education” T-shirt around campus. The message of this shirt was pretty obvious, and I knew that a lot of people did not agree with the message. I’d get stares and sometimes glares, but again, nobody demanded I remove the shirt or leave Trinity.

Obviously what these people were trying to do was bring attention to their viewpoints. Their intention, as far as I can ascertain, was to use the shirts to engage with those who did not agree with the messages on them. Furthermore, they did this all at a public gathering in a public location. Had this been a private place, such as a Bush-Cheney “Town Hall,” then such censorship, though perhaps still odious, would be legal.

But this was a traditional public forum. As such, the arrest of these individuals expressing their viewpoints in a non-disruptive manner, based solely on the fact that the authorities didn’t like the message, is clearly a violation of the 1st Amendment.

I can only hope that this two people, who acted within the law during both their protest and arrest, can get their message out there. There is no doubt in my mind that the treatment these two received has been imposed on countless others, both outside of and within the Bush administration. Incidents such as this are what really turns me away from these Bush type Republicans more than anything else.

Peaceable public protest is the guarantee that makes this country so special and so hated by those who would rather stifle all dissent. If Bush’s platform is going to be a hard line against intolerant regimes, then he must practice what he preaches.

But I don’t see that happening.

The Last Straw

I watched the RNC – I re-watched both Bush’s and Kerry’s speeches – I’m trying to keep my ears open to both parties. However, yesterday was the final straw. Dick Cheney, at a “Town Hall Meeting” (read – Republican only softball session) stated:

“It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.”

Read – A Vote for Kerry is a Vote For Terrorism!

Edwards soon replied:

“Dick Cheney’s scare tactics crossed the line today, showing once again that he and George Bush will do anything and say anything to save their jobs. Protecting America from vicious terrorists is not a Democratic or Republican issue and Dick Cheney and George Bush should know that. John Kerry and I will keep America safe, and we will not divide the American people to do it.”

Now I’ve heard how this administration likes to stifle dissent, but this whole situation really brought the point home. To equate those who approach foreign policy differently than you with terrorists is:

a) disingenuous
b) un-American
c) shameful
d) blatant exploitation of peoples’ fears for personal gain.

I’m fed up with not being able to trust ANYTHING that my government says, and I’m now going to make sure these oil industry religious right fatcats are voted out of office.

Republicans

Reading the paper today, I came across two articles, one about and another by Patrick Guerriero and his group, the Log Cabin Republicans. Now I’d always known of the existence of this group, but have never really paid it that much concern, after all, I’m not a Republican.

However, after reading these articles, I’m beginning to wonder whether this group might play a pivotal role in upcoming election. Take a look at this, which has been copied from the front page of the Log Cabin Republicans’ website:

As our nation’s eyes are on New York City for the Republican National Convention, Log Cabin’s mission, our courageous delegates and our GOP allies are under intense attack from the radical right. The Republican Party Platform is an outrageous insult to all of us and our families. The platform not only calls for an anti-family Constitutional amendment, but it also opposes civil unions and domestic partnerships. While thousands of courageous gay and lesbian Americans are fighting to win the war on terror, the platform also says, “Homosexuality is incompatible with military service.”

Log Cabin has decided to respond immediately to this outrageous platform. We are launching an aggressive counter attack against the radical right which has hijacked the GOP.

This is serious, and to me, represents one of the major faultlines in a party whose members are supposedly “on the same page.” The question in my mind has always been, “how can one be both a Republican and a homosexual?” I haven’t been able to reconcile those two, based on the recent history of the Republican party. But reading this message, I’m beginning to wonder if I’ve judged the entire party by the character of its least stellar members (including the president.) Guerriero mentions that the party has been hijacked. But I wonder… If people willingly submit to a shift in policy, gradually further to the right, is that really a hijacking? Or is it just a shift of opinion over time?

Guerriero’s message that his “courageous delegates” are “under attack” from the right is itself a troublesome statement. Surely he does not mean the entire GOP’s “courageous delegates,” but rather those delegates that agree with the position of his group.

And there’s the thing.

I think that Democrats are at least a little more forward on admitting that such a large party won’t be able to have one hard line policy on everything. Naturally, its members will disagree on issues, some of them fundamental. Guerriero however seems unwilling to admit that a significant portion of the GOP membership does consist of those who are a part of, or are friendly to the extreme right. A more honest appraisal by Guerriero would be to admit that the extreme right has gained prominence because of the lack of fortitude of non-far right GOPers.

However dumb the far right may be, they are allowed to say their bit and attempt to mobilize politically – that’s the American system. However, if as Guerriero contends, the group represents a minority numbers wise and yields a disproportionate effect on party policy, then complacency within the GOP is what’s to blame, not the radical right-wingers.

Of course I’m even more skeptical because I honestly think that many in the GOP really do agree with this intense right. Opposition of gay rights really does tend to coincide with a strong emphasis on faith (Christian,) and opposition to issues such as abortion.

But, giving them the benefit of the doubt, I’d really be impressed if gay Republicans stand up and be heard at this convention. If, as they claim, the far-right is a minority that has gained great power, why don’t they (also a minority in the party,) really get the word out. Since the GOP platform is so very anti-gay, if these people are unable to speak out and have some effect within the party now, it’s doubtful they will maintain any credibility in the future.