Original Chimes Article Here
As the Democratic National Convention took place this summer in Los Angeles, media analysists were quick to point out what a difficult job Al Gore had ahead of him.
Gore, the analysists claimed, must replicate the magical coalition that Clinton had put together to defeat Bush in 1992, a coalition of young people, workers, women, minorities, and environmentalists. A difficult task, say the analysists, since the interests of these groups are often contradictory and it is impossible to please all of them .
Not a chance! If these analysists had been paying attention to what has been happening on the streets this past year, they would have realized that groups have never been more united. From protests against the World Trade Organization in Seattle, to demonstrations against the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Washington, D.C., students and workers, nuns and anarchists have been marching side by side in their opposition to the policies of the Democratic Party. Even as the delegates of the Democratic National Convention reclined in air-conditioning inside, young protestors were sacrificing their bodies outside of the convention hall as tear gas and rubber bullets were used to silence their first amendment rights.
Yet despite the massive public outcry, the Democratic Party has not changed its tune. Gore still supports the policies of the IMF and the WTO, despite overwhelming documentation of the destruction and loss of life these institutions have caused.
Gore still supports the globalization of corporate interests, without a corresponding globalization of labor and environmental concerns.
The Democratic Party even officially supports the death penalty, even though all evidence points to the fact that the death penalty is applied in a racist manner.
Gore, while he admittedly doesn’t have the murder record of George W. Bush, also publicly supports this form of legalized lynching while at the same time trying to paint himself as a friend to the NAACP. In the words of Jerry Rubin, “the Democratic Party has blood on its hands man.”
The American voter, however, is left with no real alternative. One of the failings of the two party system is that the Democratic and Republican Parties have only each other to compete with. This allows both of them to ignore most of the population. If a dictatorship only has one party, truly the United States is only slightly better off with two.
It is a sad state of affairs, and it seems to only be getting worse.
Sixty percent of American voters say they do not identify with either the Republican or Democratic Party, meaning the majority of Americans are not being represented in government. Is it any wonder, then, that our voting turnout is one of the lowest in the world?
And as the Republican and Democratic Party begin to look more and more alike, the voter turnout should get lower and lower. With Bush and Gore both in favor of Star Wars, the Death Penalty, and NAFTA (to quote but a few examples) it is safe to say that on important issues, Bush and Gore agree far more then they disagree.
The understandable frustration people have felt has helped to fuel Ralph Nader’s campaign. However, as Nader’s opponents are fond of pointing out, in a two party system the best thing a third party candidate can hope for is to act as a spoiler. And the Democratic and Republican parties want to make sure all other parties stay out of the spotlight.When Nader reached the 5 percent voter support necessary to be included in the televised presidential debates, the bar was raised to 15 percent. Had this qualification been implemented in years past, neither Ross Perot, nor Jesse Ventura, nor John Anderson would have qualified.
The really tragic thing is that it doesn’t have to work this way. Most other democratic countries are far more advanced then us when it comes to their electoral process. Canada, Japan, Russia and practically all of Europe make our election system look simply primitive. We could learn a lot by looking around us.
For instance, we should abolish the Electoral College and institute a percentage vote instead. This would mean that all votes for minority parties would not merely drop off into oblivion, as they do now, but work towards congressional seats, and insure all citizens are represented.
For the position of president, we should have a run off, in which there are two elections. One would be for all of the candidates; the second election would feature only the top two candidates from the previous election. This would eliminate the spoiler factor, and ensure that the most powerful position in our country can be achieved only by a majority vote.
Of course these changes are a long way off, and, with the Democrats and Republicans firmly entrenched in power, it will be an uphill battle all the way. One small step is for conscientious voters to express their disgust with the two major parties by voting for neither of them.
Voters made campaign finance reform a major issue this election, although everyone knows Gore and Bush would have liked to have completely ignored it. Similarly, we can make election reform a big issue in coming elections. Vote for the Green Party, the Socialist Party, the Reform Party, whoever. Just remember that the only way you can truly waste your vote is by sending it to Al or Dubya.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Republicans Ignore Bush's Past
Original Chimes Article Here
In the early days of the George W. Bush campaign, questions about his shady past naturally arose. In particular, the media asked about his alleged cocaine use. Bush issued the now famous reply that he was not going to “engage in the politics of destruction,” so the question was inappropriate. It seems a legitimate response, until one considers that Bush is from a party that eight years earlier tried to crucify Bill Clinton for trying marijuana once.
Journalists were quick to point out the inconsistency of this, but no adequate response was ever issued. The only answer appears to be the cynical one: conservatives were not so much outraged in 1992 as wanting to bring Clinton down any way they could. That is why I’m dragging this dead horse out for a few more beatings, in the hope that perhaps some young Republican could write in and explain this to me.
The GOP did all it could in 1992 to try and make Clinton’s marijuana use an issue. The phrase, “I didn’t inhale” perhaps became Clinton’s best known quote. GOP-funded commercials showed clips of Clinton talking about his marijuana experiment. Conservative columnists argued that marijuana use would increase if Clinton were to be elected, and when it did increase briefly during the Clinton-Gore years, many fingers pointed at the bad role model in the oval office.
Of course Bush never admitted to his cocaine habit, and though in a court of law, a man’s silence is not supposed to be held against him, public opinion does not work the same way. When Bush said, “maybe,” most Americans interpreted it as “yes.” Why wouldn’t he come clean unless he had something to hide? Fair or not, Americans believe Bush to be guilty.
Which brings the question: why did the same people who demonized Clinton for marijuana use jump so eagerly on the Bush bandwagon? Especially considering that marijuana is a non-addictive drug that is reportedly less dangerous than alcohol. Cocaine, on the other hand, is one of the most addictive and most dangerous drugs.
For all his faults, Clinton was at least brave enough to admit his activity, whereas Bush has yet to come forward. Clinton’s use was a one-time experiment, while Bush’s is rumored to be more frequent. For conservatives who like to complain about a biased liberal media, this kind of double standard smacks of hypocrisy.
Another issue that conservatives made a fuss about in 1992 was Clinton’s conscientious objection to the war in Vietnam. He was called a draft-dodger, unpatriotic, and un-American. After he won the election, many wondered if the army could respect a commander in chief who had avoided service. Cynical remarks were made every time Clinton addressed the army, and bumper stickers appeared saying, “Only in America does a homeless vet sleep in a cardboard box while a draft doger sleeps in the White House.” It was as if Clinton’s patriotic duty was to serve in a war he morally objected to. Such sentiment usually only exists in countries like Nazi Germany.
Meanwhile, George W. Bush, has never wavered in his public support of the Vietnam War. However, when the time came for him to serve, he used his family connections to get into the National Guard instead, jumping over many more qualified young men who were waiting in line for the opportunity. So, my question to conservatives is again: why is this a non-issue?
(Original Word Document--There are minor changes between this and the version that got published: drive, docs, pub)
In the early days of the George W. Bush campaign, questions about his shady past naturally arose. In particular, the media asked about his alleged cocaine use. Bush issued the now famous reply that he was not going to “engage in the politics of destruction,” so the question was inappropriate. It seems a legitimate response, until one considers that Bush is from a party that eight years earlier tried to crucify Bill Clinton for trying marijuana once.
Journalists were quick to point out the inconsistency of this, but no adequate response was ever issued. The only answer appears to be the cynical one: conservatives were not so much outraged in 1992 as wanting to bring Clinton down any way they could. That is why I’m dragging this dead horse out for a few more beatings, in the hope that perhaps some young Republican could write in and explain this to me.
The GOP did all it could in 1992 to try and make Clinton’s marijuana use an issue. The phrase, “I didn’t inhale” perhaps became Clinton’s best known quote. GOP-funded commercials showed clips of Clinton talking about his marijuana experiment. Conservative columnists argued that marijuana use would increase if Clinton were to be elected, and when it did increase briefly during the Clinton-Gore years, many fingers pointed at the bad role model in the oval office.
Of course Bush never admitted to his cocaine habit, and though in a court of law, a man’s silence is not supposed to be held against him, public opinion does not work the same way. When Bush said, “maybe,” most Americans interpreted it as “yes.” Why wouldn’t he come clean unless he had something to hide? Fair or not, Americans believe Bush to be guilty.
Which brings the question: why did the same people who demonized Clinton for marijuana use jump so eagerly on the Bush bandwagon? Especially considering that marijuana is a non-addictive drug that is reportedly less dangerous than alcohol. Cocaine, on the other hand, is one of the most addictive and most dangerous drugs.
For all his faults, Clinton was at least brave enough to admit his activity, whereas Bush has yet to come forward. Clinton’s use was a one-time experiment, while Bush’s is rumored to be more frequent. For conservatives who like to complain about a biased liberal media, this kind of double standard smacks of hypocrisy.
Another issue that conservatives made a fuss about in 1992 was Clinton’s conscientious objection to the war in Vietnam. He was called a draft-dodger, unpatriotic, and un-American. After he won the election, many wondered if the army could respect a commander in chief who had avoided service. Cynical remarks were made every time Clinton addressed the army, and bumper stickers appeared saying, “Only in America does a homeless vet sleep in a cardboard box while a draft doger sleeps in the White House.” It was as if Clinton’s patriotic duty was to serve in a war he morally objected to. Such sentiment usually only exists in countries like Nazi Germany.
Meanwhile, George W. Bush, has never wavered in his public support of the Vietnam War. However, when the time came for him to serve, he used his family connections to get into the National Guard instead, jumping over many more qualified young men who were waiting in line for the opportunity. So, my question to conservatives is again: why is this a non-issue?
(Original Word Document--There are minor changes between this and the version that got published: drive, docs, pub)
Chief Justice Rehnquist's questionable Past
Original Chimes Article Here
Building on Brian Bork’s article from last week’s Chimes, I would like to further highlight incidents from Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s career that I feel to be cause for alarm.
As noted in Bork’s article, William Rehnquist was involved in ballot security operations, attempting to use old Jim Crow laws to prevent minorities from voting. What was not mentioned in Bork’s article was that Rehnquist actually volunteered for this assignment. And according to Christopher Henry’s The Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, Rehnquist served with more vigor and enthusiasm than his co-workers. During Rehnquist’s confirmation hearings, several people even claimed to have seen him involved in shoving matches with minorities he had barred from voting.
In 1964, while working on the Goldwater campaign, Rehnquist lobbied to defeat an ordinance that would require restaurants and hotels to serve all persons regardless of race. He was the only person at the Phoenix city council to speak against the measure on June 15, and when it passed unanimously the next day, he did not give up his fight. As reported in Peter Irons’ Brennan v. Rehnquist, the Chief Justice wrote a letter to the Arizona Republic claiming that only a “small minority” benefit from the public accommodation law. It echoed an argument he would use three years later to protest school integration in Phoenix. Rehnquist then said that the majority of citizens were “well satisfied with the traditional neighborhood school system” and did not want to see it tinkered with by social theorists who asserted “a claim for special privileges” for the black community.
In 1969 Rehnquist delivered a speech entitled “The Law: Under Attack from the New Barbarians.” Rehnquist made known his disgust for Martin Luther King, the civil rights movement, and anyone else who sought to commit civil disobedience by breaking the law. Rehnquist (in what must have been a very convenient philosophy for a white man born into privilege) argued that no matter how peaceful the offense, or how noble the cause, breaking the law was unacceptable, and the offender did not redeem him or herself by going to prison. “The deliberate law breaker does not fully atone for his disobedience when he serves his sentence, for he has by example undermined respect for the legal system itself.” Two years later he reiterated this position, adding “that if force or the threat of force is required in order to enforce the law, we must not shrink from its employment” (Irons).
Paradoxically, Rehnquist did not hold the government to the same high standard, defending the detention of criminals without bail, wiretapping without judicial warrant, and police surveillance of dissenters (Irons). (It should be noted that in the 1960s, the word ‘dissenters’ was often defined broadly so as to include civil rights leaders).
When Rehnquist was nominated for the Supreme Court in 1971, it produced an outcry from civil rights leaders, who called the nomination an insult and pointed out that Rehnquist had made a career out of opposing integration. President Nixon, intentionally or not, used a successful strategy to push Rehnquist though. Nixon’s two previous nominees, Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell, were both rejected in part because of their racist views. Nixon complained bitterly that this was on the grounds that both were Southern constructionists. After this, the Senate was under a lot of pressure to accept Rehnquist (Irons).
Despite Nixon’s efforts, the confirmation hearing still turned out to be a bloody affair. What threatened Rehnquist most was a memo in which he wrote, “I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed.” Rehnquist demonstrated his great concern for the issue by refusing to testify about it when the Senate hearings were reopened, but he did write a letter saying that the views in the memo were not his, but Judge Jackson’s views, for whom he was working for at the time. Judge Jackson could not defend himself since he was dead, and although Jackson’s longtime secretary accused Rehnquist of lying, the truth of the matter will never be known. Another possible motivation for Rehnquist’s position on Brown v. Board of Education could be the shift towards centralization of power it signified. We do know, however, that 1.) Rehnquist has consistently opposed desegregation efforts throughout his life, 2.) Rehnquist urged Judge Jackson to uphold Plessy V. Ferguson on the grounds and the majority of the population was in favor of it. 3.) Judge Jackson voted to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson (Irons).
As a Supreme Court justice, Rehnquist often hides behind a strict constructionist viewpoint as a means to oppose desegregation efforts. However, his rulings have not been entirely consistent in this regard (Irons). For instance, according to Elder Witt’s A Different Justice, Renhquist alone dissented from the 1983 Supreme court decision to disallow Bob Jones University tax-exempt status because it discriminated against blacks. Rehnquist argued that the congress must first authorize the IRS to adopt this policy. However, as reported by Raymond Wolters’ Right Turn, Rehnquist wrote in another case that the “congressional inaction is of virtually no weight in determining legislative intent.”
In another example, Rehnquist used the Board of Education v. Dowell case in 1991 to kill off some six hundred federal desegregation orders. “We think it is a mistake,” Rehnquist wrote, “to treat words such as ‘dual’ and ‘unitary’ as if they were actually found in the constitution.” He further reasoned that as long as local officials attempted desegregation for a short period of time, and further desegregation efforts are beyond the power of the federal government (Irons).
In 1999 Rehnquist also attempted to use the strict constructionist view to deny the Chippewa Indians their ancestral land, arguing that, as reported by Philip Brasher for the Associated Press (03/24/99), “There is simply no principled reason to invalidate [President Taylor’s] 150-year-old executive order.” The point is that Rehnquist has time and time again sought to justify his positions with a rigid constructionist point of view. However, according to Peter Irons’ A People’s History of the Supreme Court, Rehnquist has demonstrated willingness to take a Judicial Activist position if pushed far enough – to stop the desecration of our sacred American Flag. Apparently Rehnquist was more appalled at the notion of burning of a piece of fabric than at the oppression of blacks under segregation.
But let me be perfectly clear: it is not my intention in all of this to call Rehnquist a racist. To view the issue in such absolute terms is entirely reductionist, and lacking of attention to nuance and subtlety. My position then, is merely that Rehnquist’s past racial record is ample reason to warrant concern. Calvin students and faculty should take the opportunity of Commencement to protest these views and the institutional endorsement Rehnquist’s presence at Calvin represents.
[Editor's note: This article was edited by Buma, who added in the last paragraph. Anyone familiar with Buma's distinctive writing style should recognize the prose as his, and as much better than mine. Also, I would have been content the implication of racism stand without the softening remarks at the end.]
Building on Brian Bork’s article from last week’s Chimes, I would like to further highlight incidents from Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s career that I feel to be cause for alarm.
As noted in Bork’s article, William Rehnquist was involved in ballot security operations, attempting to use old Jim Crow laws to prevent minorities from voting. What was not mentioned in Bork’s article was that Rehnquist actually volunteered for this assignment. And according to Christopher Henry’s The Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, Rehnquist served with more vigor and enthusiasm than his co-workers. During Rehnquist’s confirmation hearings, several people even claimed to have seen him involved in shoving matches with minorities he had barred from voting.
In 1964, while working on the Goldwater campaign, Rehnquist lobbied to defeat an ordinance that would require restaurants and hotels to serve all persons regardless of race. He was the only person at the Phoenix city council to speak against the measure on June 15, and when it passed unanimously the next day, he did not give up his fight. As reported in Peter Irons’ Brennan v. Rehnquist, the Chief Justice wrote a letter to the Arizona Republic claiming that only a “small minority” benefit from the public accommodation law. It echoed an argument he would use three years later to protest school integration in Phoenix. Rehnquist then said that the majority of citizens were “well satisfied with the traditional neighborhood school system” and did not want to see it tinkered with by social theorists who asserted “a claim for special privileges” for the black community.
In 1969 Rehnquist delivered a speech entitled “The Law: Under Attack from the New Barbarians.” Rehnquist made known his disgust for Martin Luther King, the civil rights movement, and anyone else who sought to commit civil disobedience by breaking the law. Rehnquist (in what must have been a very convenient philosophy for a white man born into privilege) argued that no matter how peaceful the offense, or how noble the cause, breaking the law was unacceptable, and the offender did not redeem him or herself by going to prison. “The deliberate law breaker does not fully atone for his disobedience when he serves his sentence, for he has by example undermined respect for the legal system itself.” Two years later he reiterated this position, adding “that if force or the threat of force is required in order to enforce the law, we must not shrink from its employment” (Irons).
Paradoxically, Rehnquist did not hold the government to the same high standard, defending the detention of criminals without bail, wiretapping without judicial warrant, and police surveillance of dissenters (Irons). (It should be noted that in the 1960s, the word ‘dissenters’ was often defined broadly so as to include civil rights leaders).
When Rehnquist was nominated for the Supreme Court in 1971, it produced an outcry from civil rights leaders, who called the nomination an insult and pointed out that Rehnquist had made a career out of opposing integration. President Nixon, intentionally or not, used a successful strategy to push Rehnquist though. Nixon’s two previous nominees, Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell, were both rejected in part because of their racist views. Nixon complained bitterly that this was on the grounds that both were Southern constructionists. After this, the Senate was under a lot of pressure to accept Rehnquist (Irons).
Despite Nixon’s efforts, the confirmation hearing still turned out to be a bloody affair. What threatened Rehnquist most was a memo in which he wrote, “I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed.” Rehnquist demonstrated his great concern for the issue by refusing to testify about it when the Senate hearings were reopened, but he did write a letter saying that the views in the memo were not his, but Judge Jackson’s views, for whom he was working for at the time. Judge Jackson could not defend himself since he was dead, and although Jackson’s longtime secretary accused Rehnquist of lying, the truth of the matter will never be known. Another possible motivation for Rehnquist’s position on Brown v. Board of Education could be the shift towards centralization of power it signified. We do know, however, that 1.) Rehnquist has consistently opposed desegregation efforts throughout his life, 2.) Rehnquist urged Judge Jackson to uphold Plessy V. Ferguson on the grounds and the majority of the population was in favor of it. 3.) Judge Jackson voted to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson (Irons).
As a Supreme Court justice, Rehnquist often hides behind a strict constructionist viewpoint as a means to oppose desegregation efforts. However, his rulings have not been entirely consistent in this regard (Irons). For instance, according to Elder Witt’s A Different Justice, Renhquist alone dissented from the 1983 Supreme court decision to disallow Bob Jones University tax-exempt status because it discriminated against blacks. Rehnquist argued that the congress must first authorize the IRS to adopt this policy. However, as reported by Raymond Wolters’ Right Turn, Rehnquist wrote in another case that the “congressional inaction is of virtually no weight in determining legislative intent.”
In another example, Rehnquist used the Board of Education v. Dowell case in 1991 to kill off some six hundred federal desegregation orders. “We think it is a mistake,” Rehnquist wrote, “to treat words such as ‘dual’ and ‘unitary’ as if they were actually found in the constitution.” He further reasoned that as long as local officials attempted desegregation for a short period of time, and further desegregation efforts are beyond the power of the federal government (Irons).
In 1999 Rehnquist also attempted to use the strict constructionist view to deny the Chippewa Indians their ancestral land, arguing that, as reported by Philip Brasher for the Associated Press (03/24/99), “There is simply no principled reason to invalidate [President Taylor’s] 150-year-old executive order.” The point is that Rehnquist has time and time again sought to justify his positions with a rigid constructionist point of view. However, according to Peter Irons’ A People’s History of the Supreme Court, Rehnquist has demonstrated willingness to take a Judicial Activist position if pushed far enough – to stop the desecration of our sacred American Flag. Apparently Rehnquist was more appalled at the notion of burning of a piece of fabric than at the oppression of blacks under segregation.
But let me be perfectly clear: it is not my intention in all of this to call Rehnquist a racist. To view the issue in such absolute terms is entirely reductionist, and lacking of attention to nuance and subtlety. My position then, is merely that Rehnquist’s past racial record is ample reason to warrant concern. Calvin students and faculty should take the opportunity of Commencement to protest these views and the institutional endorsement Rehnquist’s presence at Calvin represents.
[Editor's note: This article was edited by Buma, who added in the last paragraph. Anyone familiar with Buma's distinctive writing style should recognize the prose as his, and as much better than mine. Also, I would have been content the implication of racism stand without the softening remarks at the end.]
Chief Justice Poor Choice for Speaker
Original Chimes Article Here
Editor’s note: Swagman’s commentary on Rehnquist was voluminous enough to warrant two separate articles. For a more factual commentary, see page 20, “Chief Justice Rehnquist’s alarming past.”
Congratulations to Brian Bork on a great article last week. My only criticism of the article was that it focused too much on the sensational. Bork showed that Rehnquist has said and done some pretty appalling things over the years, but it left out of the discussion his consistent pattern of ruling against Native American and minority interests. Never once has Rehnquist ruled in favor of Native American rights, and he has consistently ruled against desegregation efforts. This pattern has continued even when Rehnquist is a minority of one against his colleagues. Does this make him a racist? Rehnquist himself has argued that his rulings were based on a strict constructionist view of the constitution, but as Peter Irons has noted in Brennan v. Rehnquist, this strict constructionist view tends to be selectively applied. Rehnquist holds to this view only when minorities stand to be disadvantaged and not when they would gain. At the very least, it can certainly be agreed upon that Rehnquist is not as sensitive to minority issues as he could be.
His speaking at Commencement is inconsistent with the image Calvin is trying to cultivate for itself as an anti-racist institution. And Rehnquist has been a controversial figure before Bork’s article. His visits to college campuses are frequently accompanied by student protests (perhaps most notably the University of Arizona in 1995).
Even if these student protesters are way off base, the very fact that Rehnquist is associated with this controversy means that Calvin’s invitation to him shows that Calvin is not as sensitive to its minority community as it could be. Of course this is not to say that Calvin should never invite controversial speakers. One of the great things about an institution like Calvin is that it is willing to listen to a wide range of viewpoints. However, there is a profound difference between inviting Rehnquist to speak at the January series and having him speak at commencement.
Commencement is the capstone of at least four years of hard work, and for many the last memories they will take from the institution. And the Commencement speaker, by the very importance of the position, signifies more of an endorsement by the college. Consider how important it was for the college to find someone who reflected Calvin’s Christian tradition. It is too bad Calvin’s multicultural pledge was not given the same significance. Furthermore, it is hard to imagine Calvin choosing a speaker who had even the shadiest of ties to black radicalism.
I think it is inappropriate that Rehnquist will be giving the last word to Calvin’s small, but growing, minority population. But now that Rehnquist has already been invited, Calvin’s administration is in a difficult position. To uninvite Rehnquist would undoubtedly raise some eyebrows, but in the long run I think Calvin will look better if we uninvite Rehnquist for the right reasons rather than let him speak for the wrong ones. And if the administration fails to take the moral high ground, then it’s up to the students and faculty to, in a non-disruptive way, show our disapproval of Rehnquist’s views. After all, why should Calvin students be any less anti-racist than students in Arizona?
Editor’s note: Swagman’s commentary on Rehnquist was voluminous enough to warrant two separate articles. For a more factual commentary, see page 20, “Chief Justice Rehnquist’s alarming past.”
Congratulations to Brian Bork on a great article last week. My only criticism of the article was that it focused too much on the sensational. Bork showed that Rehnquist has said and done some pretty appalling things over the years, but it left out of the discussion his consistent pattern of ruling against Native American and minority interests. Never once has Rehnquist ruled in favor of Native American rights, and he has consistently ruled against desegregation efforts. This pattern has continued even when Rehnquist is a minority of one against his colleagues. Does this make him a racist? Rehnquist himself has argued that his rulings were based on a strict constructionist view of the constitution, but as Peter Irons has noted in Brennan v. Rehnquist, this strict constructionist view tends to be selectively applied. Rehnquist holds to this view only when minorities stand to be disadvantaged and not when they would gain. At the very least, it can certainly be agreed upon that Rehnquist is not as sensitive to minority issues as he could be.
His speaking at Commencement is inconsistent with the image Calvin is trying to cultivate for itself as an anti-racist institution. And Rehnquist has been a controversial figure before Bork’s article. His visits to college campuses are frequently accompanied by student protests (perhaps most notably the University of Arizona in 1995).
Even if these student protesters are way off base, the very fact that Rehnquist is associated with this controversy means that Calvin’s invitation to him shows that Calvin is not as sensitive to its minority community as it could be. Of course this is not to say that Calvin should never invite controversial speakers. One of the great things about an institution like Calvin is that it is willing to listen to a wide range of viewpoints. However, there is a profound difference between inviting Rehnquist to speak at the January series and having him speak at commencement.
Commencement is the capstone of at least four years of hard work, and for many the last memories they will take from the institution. And the Commencement speaker, by the very importance of the position, signifies more of an endorsement by the college. Consider how important it was for the college to find someone who reflected Calvin’s Christian tradition. It is too bad Calvin’s multicultural pledge was not given the same significance. Furthermore, it is hard to imagine Calvin choosing a speaker who had even the shadiest of ties to black radicalism.
I think it is inappropriate that Rehnquist will be giving the last word to Calvin’s small, but growing, minority population. But now that Rehnquist has already been invited, Calvin’s administration is in a difficult position. To uninvite Rehnquist would undoubtedly raise some eyebrows, but in the long run I think Calvin will look better if we uninvite Rehnquist for the right reasons rather than let him speak for the wrong ones. And if the administration fails to take the moral high ground, then it’s up to the students and faculty to, in a non-disruptive way, show our disapproval of Rehnquist’s views. After all, why should Calvin students be any less anti-racist than students in Arizona?
Iraq battles starvation
Original Chimes Article Here
Call to Justice:
Iraq battles starvation
It is a well-known fact that the rest of the world does not enjoy the same standard of living that North Americans do.
Although we often take our full stomachs for granted, we do manage every so often to feel some guilt when we are confronted with images of starvation.
We feel sorry for these starving people, and we want to do what we can to help them. It is interesting, then, that many North Americans watch without protest as the U.S. government inflicts starvation on the people of Iraq.
As we all remember, Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. In response, the United Nations, imposed sanctions on Iraq, attempting to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait.
However, once the Gulf War was over, and Iraq was pushed out of Kuwait, the sanctions remained.
On April 3, 1991, the United Nations told Iraq what it must do to have the sanctions removed. Iraq had to destroy its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. After several years, Iraq still has its weapons, and sanctions have produced a disastrous effect on the people of Iraq.
Although we have long since moved on, for the Iraqi people the Gulf War continues. The sanctions effect the actual leadership of Iraq very little. It is the citizens of Iraq who must pay for U.S. foreign policy. The price is a heavy one.
Approximatly 1.5 million people in Iraq have died as a direct result of the sanctions. Over half of those killed by the sanctions have been children under the age of five. Of the children surviving, one-third are severly malnourished. Many have developed physical and mental damage as a result of the starvation that will stay with them forever.
Not only do the sanctions cause starvation, but other devastating effects are also produced. Because medical supplies are not readily available, World Health Organizations estimates that Iraq’s health care system is on the verge of collapsing.
Spare parts necessary to supply the civilian population with water and sanitation are also missing.
The sanctions have also caused economic disparity. Several household incomes have collasped, and combined with Iraq’s hyperinflation, this has increased the number of street children and beggars enourmously
Finally, 10 years of sanctions have produced an entire generation of Iraqi children who have been denied books, pencils and erasers. One quarter of school age children in Iraq have been forced to stop attending school all together. In attempting to strike at Saddam Hussein we have crushed the people of Iraq instead.
In an attempt to stop the situation from getting any worse, the United Nations implemented what is called the “Oil for Food” deal. Iraq was allowed to export some of their oil and receive food, medicine and humanitarian supplies in return. However, the “Oil for Food” deal has done little to ease the suffering. Much of the money made from the sale of the oil goes to the U.N. Compensation Fund and for the United Nation’s cost in running the program.
Most of the households who received food had it last for only 20 days or less. UNICEF reported in November 1997 that “there is no sign of any improvement since Security Council Resolution 986/1111 [Oil for Food] came into force.”
An then there is the bombing campaign. The bombing did not end with the conclusion of Operation Desert Fox; it simply retreated to the back page of the newspaper. In fact, since Operation Desert Fox ended, more bombs have been dropped on Iraq than were dropped during the official campaign, with three times as many targets.
This August, France criticized U.S. and British air strikes on Iraq, calling them “out of control.” It is not unusual for bombs to accidentally land in residential areas.
What is worse, the bombs have been causing enviromental damage. Three hundred fifty tons of depleted Uranium have been dropped on Iraq in the form of United States bombs during war time alone. The entire area has been contaminated for generations. An increase in childhood cancers, and in some areas a 56 percent increase in Leukemia, have been blamed on the bombs. Also the number of deformed fetuses in Iraq have increased as a result. We have mutilated a generation.
After 10 years of sanctions, it should be clear to the United States that this is not going to be the way we are going to force Saddam to say “uncle.”
We have already killed millions of Iraqi people to get our way. We should stop before more needless deaths occur.
Vieques done wrong by U.S.
Original Chimes Article Here
Call to Justice:
Vieques done wrong by U.S.
The story of Vieques flashed briefly across the newspapers last year, and then was lost quickly from the public mind. It seems almost anachronistic; a throwback to the days of imperialism. However, the story of this island is very current and very real.
Vieques has been a territory of the United States ever since it was annexed in 1898. It is considered an island municipality of Puerto Rico, from which it is separated by six to eight miles of sea. The island is 21 by four miles large, and has a population of 9,400.
In the 1940s, the Pentagon took control of two thirds of the island. The United States removed thousands of native Viequenses by force, and those allowed to remain were sandwiched in between two large United States Naval facilities.
For the next 60 years, the island was used for all sorts of training exercises by the Marines, the Army and the Air Force.
The island was also used as practice for various invasions the United States made against its South American neighbors. It was used before invading Guatemala in 1954, before Cuba in 1961, Santo Domingo in 1965, Chile in 1973, Granada in 1983 and Panama in 1989. It was also used against El Salvador, Nicaragua and Vietnam.
Among the various other misuses the United States has found for the island is using it as training ground for bombing.
The International Action Center describes it as “60 years of constant pounding with live ammunition, including depleted uranium, napalm and other toxic chemicals.” The result? A 27 percent higher cancer rate than nearby Puerto Rico, and the destruction of what was once a rich and beautiful ecosystem.
The remaining inhabitants of Vieques have suffered much. Because the military occupies so much of the island, there is no room for anything more than an outpatient clinic to serve the health needs of the native Viequenses. The nearest hospital is 18 miles away by sea.
The economy has also been unable to flourish because there is so little land left that the military does not hold. Unemployment in Vieques is 50 percent.
The breaking point was finally reached this spring when, on April 19, a U.S. fighter plane dropped two bombs in a training exercise that killed civilian David Sane and injured four other people.
Mass protesting by the people of Vieques and Puerto Rico forced the bombing to come to a halt.
In a united effort, Vieques and Puerto Rico have tried to force the Navy to leave the island. They have camped in a bombing restricted zone, risking their lives to stop the bombardment of their soil.
Although groups like the Socialist Front were largely responsible for organizing the demonstrations, right-wing groups like the New Progressive Party have lent their support as well. The united opposition from groups of all political affiliations has been overwhelming.
The Pentagon at first pressed to resume bombing exercises by December. President Clinton responded to the crisis by forming a panel, that resulted in a recommendation which the Navy would be able to occupy Vieques for five more years.
The recommendation was unacceptable to the people of Vieques and Puerto Rico, and activists stopped the military from resuming training in December.
Then, on Feb. 1, in his first ever televised speech to Puerto Rico, President Clinton announced the agreement the two governments had made. The bombing in Vieques will promptly resume and continue for a year and a half, at which point a referendum will be held to decide the fate of the island.
However, even then the referendum will not give the Vieques the option of an immediate end to the military exercises. The two choices will be between allowing the Navy exercises to continue, or voting to end them by 2003.
This means that at the very least the Viequenses have to put up with the bombing for another three years, after which the land will not be transferred back to the Viequenses but to the U.S. General Services Administration.
Even the idea of waiting a year and a half for the referendum is ridiculous. Activist Carlos Zenon stated, “The people of Vieques have already made a decision: U.S. Navy out and not one more bomb of any kind.”
In fact, the agreement was so controversial that the governor of Puerto Rico made the deal with President Clinton secretly for fear of popular outcry. He did not even consult his appointed Vieques Working Group.
The injustice is staggering. The people of Vieques want the training exercises to stop not in three years, but now. They have put up with more than enough bombs being dropped on their soil.
Furthermore, this is not helping the United States’ relationship with Puerto Rico. If the United States does not realize what harm it is doing, it will only be greeted with more hostility from its island territory.
Call to Justice:
Vieques done wrong by U.S.
The story of Vieques flashed briefly across the newspapers last year, and then was lost quickly from the public mind. It seems almost anachronistic; a throwback to the days of imperialism. However, the story of this island is very current and very real.
Vieques has been a territory of the United States ever since it was annexed in 1898. It is considered an island municipality of Puerto Rico, from which it is separated by six to eight miles of sea. The island is 21 by four miles large, and has a population of 9,400.
In the 1940s, the Pentagon took control of two thirds of the island. The United States removed thousands of native Viequenses by force, and those allowed to remain were sandwiched in between two large United States Naval facilities.
For the next 60 years, the island was used for all sorts of training exercises by the Marines, the Army and the Air Force.
The island was also used as practice for various invasions the United States made against its South American neighbors. It was used before invading Guatemala in 1954, before Cuba in 1961, Santo Domingo in 1965, Chile in 1973, Granada in 1983 and Panama in 1989. It was also used against El Salvador, Nicaragua and Vietnam.
Among the various other misuses the United States has found for the island is using it as training ground for bombing.
The International Action Center describes it as “60 years of constant pounding with live ammunition, including depleted uranium, napalm and other toxic chemicals.” The result? A 27 percent higher cancer rate than nearby Puerto Rico, and the destruction of what was once a rich and beautiful ecosystem.
The remaining inhabitants of Vieques have suffered much. Because the military occupies so much of the island, there is no room for anything more than an outpatient clinic to serve the health needs of the native Viequenses. The nearest hospital is 18 miles away by sea.
The economy has also been unable to flourish because there is so little land left that the military does not hold. Unemployment in Vieques is 50 percent.
The breaking point was finally reached this spring when, on April 19, a U.S. fighter plane dropped two bombs in a training exercise that killed civilian David Sane and injured four other people.
Mass protesting by the people of Vieques and Puerto Rico forced the bombing to come to a halt.
In a united effort, Vieques and Puerto Rico have tried to force the Navy to leave the island. They have camped in a bombing restricted zone, risking their lives to stop the bombardment of their soil.
Although groups like the Socialist Front were largely responsible for organizing the demonstrations, right-wing groups like the New Progressive Party have lent their support as well. The united opposition from groups of all political affiliations has been overwhelming.
The Pentagon at first pressed to resume bombing exercises by December. President Clinton responded to the crisis by forming a panel, that resulted in a recommendation which the Navy would be able to occupy Vieques for five more years.
The recommendation was unacceptable to the people of Vieques and Puerto Rico, and activists stopped the military from resuming training in December.
Then, on Feb. 1, in his first ever televised speech to Puerto Rico, President Clinton announced the agreement the two governments had made. The bombing in Vieques will promptly resume and continue for a year and a half, at which point a referendum will be held to decide the fate of the island.
However, even then the referendum will not give the Vieques the option of an immediate end to the military exercises. The two choices will be between allowing the Navy exercises to continue, or voting to end them by 2003.
This means that at the very least the Viequenses have to put up with the bombing for another three years, after which the land will not be transferred back to the Viequenses but to the U.S. General Services Administration.
Even the idea of waiting a year and a half for the referendum is ridiculous. Activist Carlos Zenon stated, “The people of Vieques have already made a decision: U.S. Navy out and not one more bomb of any kind.”
In fact, the agreement was so controversial that the governor of Puerto Rico made the deal with President Clinton secretly for fear of popular outcry. He did not even consult his appointed Vieques Working Group.
The injustice is staggering. The people of Vieques want the training exercises to stop not in three years, but now. They have put up with more than enough bombs being dropped on their soil.
Furthermore, this is not helping the United States’ relationship with Puerto Rico. If the United States does not realize what harm it is doing, it will only be greeted with more hostility from its island territory.
IMF forces Westernization
Original Chimes Article Here
Call to Justice:
IMF forces Westernization
Many Americans know absolutely nothing about the International Monetary Fund (IMF). However, when the IMF meets in Washington, D.C. on April 16 and 17, it will be faced with a very vocal opposition.
The IMF has become increasingly unpopular in recent years, as activists struggle to make the public aware of the IMF’s policies.
The charges against the IMF are many, and to adequately explain them all in one short article would be impossible. This is simply meant as an introduction, and anyone wishing to find out more can attend the Teach-in about the IMF being held at Calvin on Tuesday, April 18, by the Social Justice Committee.
The IMF was created in 1944 at a conference in Breton Woods. The IMF, working with the World Bank, was designed to bail out countries with large external debts. These countries typically have nowhere else to turn, and cannot receive cash or credit from any other source. In order to receive help from the IMF, countries must agree to what are called “Structural Adjustment Programs” (SAPs).
Since these countries are in need of financial aid, they are forced to agree to these conditions. The SAPs are usually worked out with the government elites from each country, and almost always benefit the interests of the wealthy at the expense of the poor and the environment.
Moreover, none of the countries receiving IMF assistance have solved their debt problem. In fact, most of them now have a higher level of debt. SAPs require Third World governments to cut social spending in order to qualify for IMF aid.
This means that school becomes more expensive, and the literacy rate among the poor goes down. This can also cause more suffering and death when health service fees go up.
The IMF also mandates that all regulations on foreign businesses disappear.
Thus years of environmental legislation instantly disappear in order for Western corporations to maximize their profit. Also, Western businesses no longer have to abide by labor laws, and sweatshop-like conditions are created.
Another controversial policy of the IMF is putting pressure on countries to switch from a subsistence-based economy to an export-based economy.
Again, this is great for Western businesses. It means that as more countries start exporting more of the same goods, these goods can be bought at a cheaper price. (Remember the rule of supply and demand from your economics class.)
At the same time, it creates a consumer market for Western corporations.
This takes away the food security. Since many of these countries end up exporting their natural resources, and the countries weaken. The exploitation of these natural resources leads to environmental harm.
Also, the IMF devastates women in the Third World. Women, commonly in the most vulnerable positions, are hurt the most by the IMF’s policies.
They are often the first ones to be withdrawn from schools. The shift to exports makes it harder for them to feed their families. Many women end up as prostitutes just to make enough money to survive.
Throughout all this, the IMF is not accountable to voters. Although it is funded by taxpayer money, the public has no input into its policies. The IMF works with a small group of bankers and finance ministry staff without input from any other government agency. IMF being allowed to continue so long without public accountability is undemocratic
Call to Justice:
IMF forces Westernization
Many Americans know absolutely nothing about the International Monetary Fund (IMF). However, when the IMF meets in Washington, D.C. on April 16 and 17, it will be faced with a very vocal opposition.
The IMF has become increasingly unpopular in recent years, as activists struggle to make the public aware of the IMF’s policies.
The charges against the IMF are many, and to adequately explain them all in one short article would be impossible. This is simply meant as an introduction, and anyone wishing to find out more can attend the Teach-in about the IMF being held at Calvin on Tuesday, April 18, by the Social Justice Committee.
The IMF was created in 1944 at a conference in Breton Woods. The IMF, working with the World Bank, was designed to bail out countries with large external debts. These countries typically have nowhere else to turn, and cannot receive cash or credit from any other source. In order to receive help from the IMF, countries must agree to what are called “Structural Adjustment Programs” (SAPs).
Since these countries are in need of financial aid, they are forced to agree to these conditions. The SAPs are usually worked out with the government elites from each country, and almost always benefit the interests of the wealthy at the expense of the poor and the environment.
Moreover, none of the countries receiving IMF assistance have solved their debt problem. In fact, most of them now have a higher level of debt. SAPs require Third World governments to cut social spending in order to qualify for IMF aid.
This means that school becomes more expensive, and the literacy rate among the poor goes down. This can also cause more suffering and death when health service fees go up.
The IMF also mandates that all regulations on foreign businesses disappear.
Thus years of environmental legislation instantly disappear in order for Western corporations to maximize their profit. Also, Western businesses no longer have to abide by labor laws, and sweatshop-like conditions are created.
Another controversial policy of the IMF is putting pressure on countries to switch from a subsistence-based economy to an export-based economy.
Again, this is great for Western businesses. It means that as more countries start exporting more of the same goods, these goods can be bought at a cheaper price. (Remember the rule of supply and demand from your economics class.)
At the same time, it creates a consumer market for Western corporations.
This takes away the food security. Since many of these countries end up exporting their natural resources, and the countries weaken. The exploitation of these natural resources leads to environmental harm.
Also, the IMF devastates women in the Third World. Women, commonly in the most vulnerable positions, are hurt the most by the IMF’s policies.
They are often the first ones to be withdrawn from schools. The shift to exports makes it harder for them to feed their families. Many women end up as prostitutes just to make enough money to survive.
Throughout all this, the IMF is not accountable to voters. Although it is funded by taxpayer money, the public has no input into its policies. The IMF works with a small group of bankers and finance ministry staff without input from any other government agency. IMF being allowed to continue so long without public accountability is undemocratic
School Vouchers Don't Fix Problem
Original Chimes Article Here
Under current Michigan laws, parents dissatisfied with their children’s current school can send their children to another school in that district or even to another school in a nearby district. This ensures that no children are stuck in failing schools. However, Proposal 1 will also divert public money to private schools, and 1 will force school districts with a low graduation rate to implement a voucher program. Other school districts would have the choice whether to use vouchers or not, but voters will be able to override the school district’s choice on a ballot. This means that in some districts money would be taken away from perfectly good public schools and used to fund private education instead.
Once a district decides to implement vouchers, students attending private schools will receive a voucher of about $3,500. This money, instead of going to the local public school, will be used towards the student’s private education. However, the students and their families must come up with the rest of the tuition on their own. This means (to use a local example) coming up with an additional $1800 to attend Grand Rapids Christian High School. This would be a way for the rich to have the government subsidize their children’s private education, but private schools would still be inaccessible for the poorest kids.
Critics charge that the voucher program hurts public schools by diverting funds to the private schools while voucher supporters point to a clause that guarantees that although money will leave public schools, per student funding will remain the same as the 2000-01 school year. But there is nothing to stop legislatures from freezing the funding allowance at the 2000-01 level forever.
The main problem with Proposal 1 is that a voucher does not guarantee admission into private schools. Imagine a school district in which a public school and a private school exist. A voucher system is implemented, and children flock to the private school. However, the private school has limited facilities and is only able to accept a small number of additional applicants. The end result is that those who could already afford private school get a nice $3,200 from the government, while the poor are still stuck. Also, a private school has the right to choose its students and can discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, etc. Many private schools are not equipped to handle special needs children, and would be forced to turn them away. Other private schools admit students based on ability or discipline record while others are single sex schools.
Furthermore, 85 percent of private schools in Michigan are religiously connected. Therefore, using government money to support these schools is a violation of the separation between church and state. Different religions in America would be forced to support Christian education. Students who are not Christian may be forced to choose between a Christian school and a public school that voters have given up on. Many Christian schools will not even admit non-Christians. Worse, Christian schools often teach philosophies like creationism or the sinfulness of homosexuality. These philosophies should not be supported with taxpayer funds.
Another argument used for vouchers is that schools should operate like businesses. If schools are failing, just toss a little free market capitalist competition their way and they will straighten up their act or be forced to close down. There is no evidence that competition improves schools. The assumption here is that the problem with public schools is that they have lazy, inefficient teachers and a bureaucracy that is more focused on protecting teacher’s jobs than improving education. However, if this were true, suburban schools would have just as much trouble as inner-city schools. The fact is that inner-city schools are doing significantly worse then suburban schools. The problems these schools face go beyond the school door, issues such as poverty and single-parent households will not be solved by vouchers.
If a school does not improve, the students who do stay for one reason or another, be they non-Christians, disabled, homosexual, etc., are stuck while the ship goes down. Much better is the proposal that Al Gore made: shut down a failing school, and then reopen it immediately with a completely different program. Also, do we really want schools to have the same bottom line mentality that businesses do?
And, what about the money? Readers keeping track of the math will realize that if private schools become publicly funded, tuition that was previously paid by individual families will be paid by tax dollars. The ACLU estimates this will cost taxpayers an additional $600 million to finance private schools. Instead of throwing up our hands and giving up on public education, why not use that money to improve it?
Under current Michigan laws, parents dissatisfied with their children’s current school can send their children to another school in that district or even to another school in a nearby district. This ensures that no children are stuck in failing schools. However, Proposal 1 will also divert public money to private schools, and 1 will force school districts with a low graduation rate to implement a voucher program. Other school districts would have the choice whether to use vouchers or not, but voters will be able to override the school district’s choice on a ballot. This means that in some districts money would be taken away from perfectly good public schools and used to fund private education instead.
Once a district decides to implement vouchers, students attending private schools will receive a voucher of about $3,500. This money, instead of going to the local public school, will be used towards the student’s private education. However, the students and their families must come up with the rest of the tuition on their own. This means (to use a local example) coming up with an additional $1800 to attend Grand Rapids Christian High School. This would be a way for the rich to have the government subsidize their children’s private education, but private schools would still be inaccessible for the poorest kids.
Critics charge that the voucher program hurts public schools by diverting funds to the private schools while voucher supporters point to a clause that guarantees that although money will leave public schools, per student funding will remain the same as the 2000-01 school year. But there is nothing to stop legislatures from freezing the funding allowance at the 2000-01 level forever.
The main problem with Proposal 1 is that a voucher does not guarantee admission into private schools. Imagine a school district in which a public school and a private school exist. A voucher system is implemented, and children flock to the private school. However, the private school has limited facilities and is only able to accept a small number of additional applicants. The end result is that those who could already afford private school get a nice $3,200 from the government, while the poor are still stuck. Also, a private school has the right to choose its students and can discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, etc. Many private schools are not equipped to handle special needs children, and would be forced to turn them away. Other private schools admit students based on ability or discipline record while others are single sex schools.
Furthermore, 85 percent of private schools in Michigan are religiously connected. Therefore, using government money to support these schools is a violation of the separation between church and state. Different religions in America would be forced to support Christian education. Students who are not Christian may be forced to choose between a Christian school and a public school that voters have given up on. Many Christian schools will not even admit non-Christians. Worse, Christian schools often teach philosophies like creationism or the sinfulness of homosexuality. These philosophies should not be supported with taxpayer funds.
Another argument used for vouchers is that schools should operate like businesses. If schools are failing, just toss a little free market capitalist competition their way and they will straighten up their act or be forced to close down. There is no evidence that competition improves schools. The assumption here is that the problem with public schools is that they have lazy, inefficient teachers and a bureaucracy that is more focused on protecting teacher’s jobs than improving education. However, if this were true, suburban schools would have just as much trouble as inner-city schools. The fact is that inner-city schools are doing significantly worse then suburban schools. The problems these schools face go beyond the school door, issues such as poverty and single-parent households will not be solved by vouchers.
If a school does not improve, the students who do stay for one reason or another, be they non-Christians, disabled, homosexual, etc., are stuck while the ship goes down. Much better is the proposal that Al Gore made: shut down a failing school, and then reopen it immediately with a completely different program. Also, do we really want schools to have the same bottom line mentality that businesses do?
And, what about the money? Readers keeping track of the math will realize that if private schools become publicly funded, tuition that was previously paid by individual families will be paid by tax dollars. The ACLU estimates this will cost taxpayers an additional $600 million to finance private schools. Instead of throwing up our hands and giving up on public education, why not use that money to improve it?
CROSSROADS: VOUCHERS: KIDS FIRST! YES!
Original Chimes Article Here
CROSSROADS: VOUCHERS: KIDS FIRST! YES!
Vouchers do not put all kids first
[ see also Vouchers allow choice in education ]
This year, Michigan voters will be confronted with a new proposal on their ballot. When you see the Kids First! Yes! Proposal, otherwise known as the voucher program, it is important that you vote against it.
Many people supporting the voucher program have nothing but good intentions. However, the issue at heart is not whether the poor should have an education equal to that of the rich -- that is a given. The issue is whether the vouchers will solve the inequality problem. The Kids First! Yes! proposal is actually a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and its effects could potentially be devastating.
Kids First! Yes! will force school districts with a low graduation rate (less then 66 percent in four years) to implement a voucher program. Other school districts would have the choice whether to use vouchers or not, but voters could also override the school district’s choice on a ballot.
Once a district decides to implement vouchers, students attending private schools will receive a voucher of “one half the average per-pupil state and local revenue for operating purposes in public schools” (approximately $3,500). This money, instead of going to the local public school, will be used towards the student’s private education. However, the students and their families must come up with the rest of the tuition on their own. In many cases, this is a way for the rich to have the government subsidize their child’s private education, but private schools are still inaccessible for the poorest kids.
Critics charge that the voucher program hurts public schools by diverting funds to the private schools. Voucher supporters, in response, point to a clause that guarantees that although money will leave public schools, per-student funding will remain the same as the 2000-01 school year. Careful readers of the proposal will note that there is nothing to stop legislatures from freezing the funding allowance at the 2000-01 level forever.
However, the main problem with Kids First! Yes! is that a voucher does not guarantee admission into private schools. A private school will more than likely give preferential treatment to students already attending. Imagine, for example, a school district in which a public school and a private school exist. A voucher system is implemented, and children flock to the private school. However, the private school has limited facilities, and is only able to accept a limited number of additional applicants. The end result is that those who could already afford private school get a nice $3,500 from the government, while the poor are still stuck in the public school. Also, a private school by definition is not under government control. It has the right to choose its students and can discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, income, disability, sexual orientation, etc. In Milwaukee, where vouchers have been implemented, three single-sex high schools are now receiving government funds.
Furthermore, 85 percent of private schools in Michigan are religiously connected. Using government money to support these schools is a violation of the separation between church and state. Although many of us at Calvin came from Christian schools (myself included), it is important to think objectively about this and consider the different religions in America that would be forced to support Christian education. Students who are not Christian may be forced to choose between a Christian school and a public school that voters have given up on. Worse, many Christian schools teach philosophies such as creationism or the sinfulness of homosexuality. These philosophies should not be supported with taxpayer funds.
In addition, despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that competition improves schools, voucher proponents argue that if the public schools are forced to improve because of private competition, they will. The assumption here is that the problem with public schools is that they have lazy, inefficient teachers and a bureaucracy that is more focused on protecting teachers jobs than improving education. However, if this were true, suburban schools would have just as much trouble as inner-city schools. The fact is that inner-city schools are doing significantly worse then suburban schools. The problems these schools face go beyond the school door. Issues such as poverty and single-parent households will not be solved by vouchers.
And what about the money? Readers keeping track of the math will realize that if private schools become publicly funded, tuition that was previously paid by individual families is now paid by tax dollars. The ACLU estimates this will cost taxpayers an additional $600 million to finance private schools. Instead of throwing up our hands and giving up on public education, why not use that money to improve it? With this money, inner-city schools could receive better facilities, smaller class sizes and a corresponding higher teacher-to-student ratio. These strategies, unlike the voucher system, have been proven to improve education.
The voucher system, masquerading under the guise of improving education and making it equal, will do neither. If Michigan voters do not realize the danger behind this proposal, public education could be in for quite a blow.
CROSSROADS: VOUCHERS: KIDS FIRST! YES!
Vouchers do not put all kids first
[ see also Vouchers allow choice in education ]
This year, Michigan voters will be confronted with a new proposal on their ballot. When you see the Kids First! Yes! Proposal, otherwise known as the voucher program, it is important that you vote against it.
Many people supporting the voucher program have nothing but good intentions. However, the issue at heart is not whether the poor should have an education equal to that of the rich -- that is a given. The issue is whether the vouchers will solve the inequality problem. The Kids First! Yes! proposal is actually a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and its effects could potentially be devastating.
Kids First! Yes! will force school districts with a low graduation rate (less then 66 percent in four years) to implement a voucher program. Other school districts would have the choice whether to use vouchers or not, but voters could also override the school district’s choice on a ballot.
Once a district decides to implement vouchers, students attending private schools will receive a voucher of “one half the average per-pupil state and local revenue for operating purposes in public schools” (approximately $3,500). This money, instead of going to the local public school, will be used towards the student’s private education. However, the students and their families must come up with the rest of the tuition on their own. In many cases, this is a way for the rich to have the government subsidize their child’s private education, but private schools are still inaccessible for the poorest kids.
Critics charge that the voucher program hurts public schools by diverting funds to the private schools. Voucher supporters, in response, point to a clause that guarantees that although money will leave public schools, per-student funding will remain the same as the 2000-01 school year. Careful readers of the proposal will note that there is nothing to stop legislatures from freezing the funding allowance at the 2000-01 level forever.
However, the main problem with Kids First! Yes! is that a voucher does not guarantee admission into private schools. A private school will more than likely give preferential treatment to students already attending. Imagine, for example, a school district in which a public school and a private school exist. A voucher system is implemented, and children flock to the private school. However, the private school has limited facilities, and is only able to accept a limited number of additional applicants. The end result is that those who could already afford private school get a nice $3,500 from the government, while the poor are still stuck in the public school. Also, a private school by definition is not under government control. It has the right to choose its students and can discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, income, disability, sexual orientation, etc. In Milwaukee, where vouchers have been implemented, three single-sex high schools are now receiving government funds.
Furthermore, 85 percent of private schools in Michigan are religiously connected. Using government money to support these schools is a violation of the separation between church and state. Although many of us at Calvin came from Christian schools (myself included), it is important to think objectively about this and consider the different religions in America that would be forced to support Christian education. Students who are not Christian may be forced to choose between a Christian school and a public school that voters have given up on. Worse, many Christian schools teach philosophies such as creationism or the sinfulness of homosexuality. These philosophies should not be supported with taxpayer funds.
In addition, despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that competition improves schools, voucher proponents argue that if the public schools are forced to improve because of private competition, they will. The assumption here is that the problem with public schools is that they have lazy, inefficient teachers and a bureaucracy that is more focused on protecting teachers jobs than improving education. However, if this were true, suburban schools would have just as much trouble as inner-city schools. The fact is that inner-city schools are doing significantly worse then suburban schools. The problems these schools face go beyond the school door. Issues such as poverty and single-parent households will not be solved by vouchers.
And what about the money? Readers keeping track of the math will realize that if private schools become publicly funded, tuition that was previously paid by individual families is now paid by tax dollars. The ACLU estimates this will cost taxpayers an additional $600 million to finance private schools. Instead of throwing up our hands and giving up on public education, why not use that money to improve it? With this money, inner-city schools could receive better facilities, smaller class sizes and a corresponding higher teacher-to-student ratio. These strategies, unlike the voucher system, have been proven to improve education.
The voucher system, masquerading under the guise of improving education and making it equal, will do neither. If Michigan voters do not realize the danger behind this proposal, public education could be in for quite a blow.
CROSSROADS: KYOTO TREATY CONTROVERSY
Original Chimes Article Here
CROSSROADS: KYOTO TREATY CONTROVERSY
Saving the earth or selling the future?
[ see also Treaty may cost Michigan big money ]
As humans continue to destroy God’s environment, the Kyoto treaty is one small step to limit this destruction. The Kyoto treaty, so named because it was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, seeks to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gasses that cause global warming. If the treaty were ratified into law, industrialized countries would reduce these emissions over a five year period beginning in 2008. Although the target level is different for every country, the United States would reduce its emissions by 7 percent during this period.
The Kyoto treaty, since its inception, has been under such intense criticism from both the right and the left that any argument for it must invariably be on the defensive. It now looks unlikely that the treaty will be passed into law, and this is truly a tragedy.
From the left, the Kyoto treaty is criticized for not going far enough. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for instance, states that the climate will be in severe danger unless a goal of reducing admissions by 20 percent, not 7 percent, is adopted. Other activists fault the treaty for dealing only with global warming and ignoring other environmental issues. It is feared that if the Kyoto treaty were passed, it might be at the cost of delaying other environmental legislation.
These concerns are certainly understandable. However, the Kyoto treaty was not designed as a legislative cure-all for the environment. It is only one small step towards a cleaner environment.
What is more, given the intense opposition the treaty already faces from the business community, stricter regulations seem sadly unrealistic. It should also be understood that the Kyoto treaty is a political document and compromises were made in order to get support from various countries. Without these necessary compromises, the Kyoto treaty would never have existed.
Critics from the right accuse Kyoto of unfairly burdening the United States. Developing countries would be exempt from mandatory emissions reductions, but would be encouraged to set voluntary goals. This is partly to make it easier for these countries to catch up to the industrialized nations, and also reflects the reality that the vast majority of emissions come from the wealthiest nations. However, critics argue that Third World countries should have the same emissions regulations placed on them.
Those arguing that the United States should be held to the same standard as Third World countries, however, should be careful what they wish for.
The United States alone is responsible for 36 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Even if the Third World did not attempt to reduce emissions, the United States would have to reduce its emissions by 80 percent to match the per capita emissions of developing countries.
There is also the argument that U.S. businesses will move to the Third World to escape the stricter environmental regulations. This is an argument the American people have heard before. In fact, this argument has surfaced with every piece of environmental legislation for the past 30 years. The Executive Director of Ozone Action stated, “The American Petroleum Institute can pay for countless studies that say reducing our consumption of fossil fuels will make us less competitive with Mexico or China, but think about it. If such stories were true, given all our past environmental laws, we’d have people swimming south across the Rio Grande and stowing away on boats to China.” Because the Kyoto treaty would encourage development of more environmentally friendly forms of energy, some say it might actually benefit the United States economically by giving it a head start on these future energy sources.
In addition, businesses have complained that the costs necessary to comply with the Kyoto treaty would be devastating. James Kotcon, president of the West Virginia Environmental Council, replies to this by saying, “In studies where good data are available, the projections from industry have overestimated the actual cost experienced every time; often by a factor of ten or more. Why would anyone continue to rely on an information source that has been proven wrong every time? Why does industry continue to throw good money away in a futile effort to pretend the world is not changing? Other countries are already capitalizing on these opportunities and investing in the technology to make their industries cleaner and more efficient while the United States stands around complaining that costs are too high.”
Then there is a debate about the very nature of global warming itself. A group of scientists, financed in part by the industries that would be affected under Kyoto, has argued that the impact of global warming is less severe than initially thought. The two most prominent groups are the Global Climate Coalition (made up of coal, oil, utility, railroad and manufacturing companies) and the Greening Earth Society. These scientists base their claims on a narrow set of data and have ignored multiple studies by their peers that suggest global warming is an issue for concern.
Against the powerful lobby of the oil and fuel companies, the Kyoto treaty needs all the help it can get. To find out ways in which you can help, visit. If we do not stand up for the environment, our children will pay the cost.
CROSSROADS: KYOTO TREATY CONTROVERSY
Saving the earth or selling the future?
[ see also Treaty may cost Michigan big money ]
As humans continue to destroy God’s environment, the Kyoto treaty is one small step to limit this destruction. The Kyoto treaty, so named because it was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, seeks to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gasses that cause global warming. If the treaty were ratified into law, industrialized countries would reduce these emissions over a five year period beginning in 2008. Although the target level is different for every country, the United States would reduce its emissions by 7 percent during this period.
The Kyoto treaty, since its inception, has been under such intense criticism from both the right and the left that any argument for it must invariably be on the defensive. It now looks unlikely that the treaty will be passed into law, and this is truly a tragedy.
From the left, the Kyoto treaty is criticized for not going far enough. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for instance, states that the climate will be in severe danger unless a goal of reducing admissions by 20 percent, not 7 percent, is adopted. Other activists fault the treaty for dealing only with global warming and ignoring other environmental issues. It is feared that if the Kyoto treaty were passed, it might be at the cost of delaying other environmental legislation.
These concerns are certainly understandable. However, the Kyoto treaty was not designed as a legislative cure-all for the environment. It is only one small step towards a cleaner environment.
What is more, given the intense opposition the treaty already faces from the business community, stricter regulations seem sadly unrealistic. It should also be understood that the Kyoto treaty is a political document and compromises were made in order to get support from various countries. Without these necessary compromises, the Kyoto treaty would never have existed.
Critics from the right accuse Kyoto of unfairly burdening the United States. Developing countries would be exempt from mandatory emissions reductions, but would be encouraged to set voluntary goals. This is partly to make it easier for these countries to catch up to the industrialized nations, and also reflects the reality that the vast majority of emissions come from the wealthiest nations. However, critics argue that Third World countries should have the same emissions regulations placed on them.
Those arguing that the United States should be held to the same standard as Third World countries, however, should be careful what they wish for.
The United States alone is responsible for 36 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Even if the Third World did not attempt to reduce emissions, the United States would have to reduce its emissions by 80 percent to match the per capita emissions of developing countries.
There is also the argument that U.S. businesses will move to the Third World to escape the stricter environmental regulations. This is an argument the American people have heard before. In fact, this argument has surfaced with every piece of environmental legislation for the past 30 years. The Executive Director of Ozone Action stated, “The American Petroleum Institute can pay for countless studies that say reducing our consumption of fossil fuels will make us less competitive with Mexico or China, but think about it. If such stories were true, given all our past environmental laws, we’d have people swimming south across the Rio Grande and stowing away on boats to China.” Because the Kyoto treaty would encourage development of more environmentally friendly forms of energy, some say it might actually benefit the United States economically by giving it a head start on these future energy sources.
In addition, businesses have complained that the costs necessary to comply with the Kyoto treaty would be devastating. James Kotcon, president of the West Virginia Environmental Council, replies to this by saying, “In studies where good data are available, the projections from industry have overestimated the actual cost experienced every time; often by a factor of ten or more. Why would anyone continue to rely on an information source that has been proven wrong every time? Why does industry continue to throw good money away in a futile effort to pretend the world is not changing? Other countries are already capitalizing on these opportunities and investing in the technology to make their industries cleaner and more efficient while the United States stands around complaining that costs are too high.”
Then there is a debate about the very nature of global warming itself. A group of scientists, financed in part by the industries that would be affected under Kyoto, has argued that the impact of global warming is less severe than initially thought. The two most prominent groups are the Global Climate Coalition (made up of coal, oil, utility, railroad and manufacturing companies) and the Greening Earth Society. These scientists base their claims on a narrow set of data and have ignored multiple studies by their peers that suggest global warming is an issue for concern.
Against the powerful lobby of the oil and fuel companies, the Kyoto treaty needs all the help it can get. To find out ways in which you can help, visit
CROSSROADS: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Original Chimes Article Here
Affirmative action policies needed
[ see also Reverse discrimination not the cure ]
It is no secret that women and minorities in America have never truly been granted the same rights and opportunities as white males. Issues of race and gender inequality continue to be a dark underbelly to the idealistic egalitarianism of the American dream and the constitution itself. The civil rights activism of the 1950s and ’60s was the first widespread outburst of this underlying ferment, and through it hard-fought reforms have gradually been enacted. The fact remains that changes to this effect have not gone far enough. Anyone who claims that race and gender inequalities no longer exist in America is blind to the facts, and grounds him or herself in ignorance. Unconvinced? The Census Bureau reports that on average women earn only 73 percent of the wages earned by men. The average 25-year-old working woman will lose $523,000 to unequal pay in her life. Audit studies show that interviewers and employers are less likely to offer jobs to women and minorities with similar resumes than to white males. Blacks still have twice the unemployment rate, half the median family income and half the numbers attending institutes of higher learning as whites. In 1999 alone the federal government received over 90,000 complaints of employment discrimination. All these facts are glaring indicators of inequality, and there are countless more studies enforcing this allegation.
Affirmative action is a legitimate and beneficial means of pursuing racial and gender equality in the United States. “Affirmative action” refers to a general commitment on societal and governmental (therefore legislative) levels towards the furtherance of a society free of institutional inequality. The generality of this definition leaves room for plenty of ambiguity and equivocation in the process of applying affirmative action to actual employment situations. The non-absolute nature of this issue makes any solid consensus or set policy virtually impossible. Affirmative action should instead be implemented as an underlying theme in the corporate, consumer, political, and academic worlds. It is an overall commitment to overt and definite actions in all situations that best attempt to forward the goals of equality. This means promoting diversity in the workplace by selecting equally qualified minorities or women to fill positions traditionally held by white males. In some instances a slight inequality in qualifications are acceptable to hire minorities or women, based on the understanding that these inequalities often arise from lack of opportunities in education and social conditioning in the first place.
There are several fallacies presented in opposition to affirmative action that deserve an amount of consideration:
Fallacy #1: Affirmative action is simply another form of discrimination and two wrongs don’t make a right.
Referring to the advantages proposed by the affirmative action programs as discriminatory is equating them with the prejudice and exclusion already present. While existing discriminatory policies effectively impose inequalities, the “discrimination” of affirmative action seeks to promote equality. “The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does” (socialpsychology.org).
Fallacy #2: Affirmative action promotes incompetence and under-qualification over capability.
This is not the case. According to the Bureau of National Affairs, federal regulation programs strictly forbid acceptance of unqualified employees on the basis of gender or race. The vast majority of affirmative action cases occur when women and minorities are selected over equally qualified or comparable candidates (i.e. an SAT score of 1210 is relatively the same as one of 1230). In addition to this, studies have determined that slightly under-qualified individuals entering an institute of higher learning are equally qualified upon the completion of their program.
Fallacy #3: Affirmative action gives advantages to women and minorities.
To claim that any policy is granting already disadvantaged individuals an unfair advantage is to ignore the facts. Statistics demonstrate the inequalities imposed upon women and minorities in America. Any attempt to deny this claim is naïve in light of statistical realities, as is the allegation that affirmative action will result in reversed inequalities. Federal law prohibits gender or minority-based advancement over more qualified individuals. Because of this, any advantages these groups can legally be given in terms of preference, etc. will only serve to help level the playing field.
Fallacy #4: Affirmative action programs are just quota systems that ensure minimum numbers of women and minorities admittance or employment.
Such programs are illegal if numerical goals for hiring of women and minorities bear no reasonable relation to the availability of qualified candidates, which would lead to the under-qualified individuals being given token positions in order to fill the “quota.” Numerical goals must be set with a reasonable degree of flexibility and placed in a predetermined length of time.
In summary, affirmative action programs are desirable and beneficial to society as a whole. They promote egalitarianism, perhaps the single most celebrated and valued facet of Americanism. Although much has been accomplished in the interest of equality for all, there is still much to be done.
Editor's Note:
This article was co-written with Bork and Buma. My memory is a little bit foggy after all this years, but as far as I can remember, I think my contribution on this article was just to do the research, and Bork and Buma did the actual writing.
Affirmative action policies needed
[ see also Reverse discrimination not the cure ]
It is no secret that women and minorities in America have never truly been granted the same rights and opportunities as white males. Issues of race and gender inequality continue to be a dark underbelly to the idealistic egalitarianism of the American dream and the constitution itself. The civil rights activism of the 1950s and ’60s was the first widespread outburst of this underlying ferment, and through it hard-fought reforms have gradually been enacted. The fact remains that changes to this effect have not gone far enough. Anyone who claims that race and gender inequalities no longer exist in America is blind to the facts, and grounds him or herself in ignorance. Unconvinced? The Census Bureau reports that on average women earn only 73 percent of the wages earned by men. The average 25-year-old working woman will lose $523,000 to unequal pay in her life. Audit studies show that interviewers and employers are less likely to offer jobs to women and minorities with similar resumes than to white males. Blacks still have twice the unemployment rate, half the median family income and half the numbers attending institutes of higher learning as whites. In 1999 alone the federal government received over 90,000 complaints of employment discrimination. All these facts are glaring indicators of inequality, and there are countless more studies enforcing this allegation.
Affirmative action is a legitimate and beneficial means of pursuing racial and gender equality in the United States. “Affirmative action” refers to a general commitment on societal and governmental (therefore legislative) levels towards the furtherance of a society free of institutional inequality. The generality of this definition leaves room for plenty of ambiguity and equivocation in the process of applying affirmative action to actual employment situations. The non-absolute nature of this issue makes any solid consensus or set policy virtually impossible. Affirmative action should instead be implemented as an underlying theme in the corporate, consumer, political, and academic worlds. It is an overall commitment to overt and definite actions in all situations that best attempt to forward the goals of equality. This means promoting diversity in the workplace by selecting equally qualified minorities or women to fill positions traditionally held by white males. In some instances a slight inequality in qualifications are acceptable to hire minorities or women, based on the understanding that these inequalities often arise from lack of opportunities in education and social conditioning in the first place.
There are several fallacies presented in opposition to affirmative action that deserve an amount of consideration:
Fallacy #1: Affirmative action is simply another form of discrimination and two wrongs don’t make a right.
Referring to the advantages proposed by the affirmative action programs as discriminatory is equating them with the prejudice and exclusion already present. While existing discriminatory policies effectively impose inequalities, the “discrimination” of affirmative action seeks to promote equality. “The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does” (socialpsychology.org).
Fallacy #2: Affirmative action promotes incompetence and under-qualification over capability.
This is not the case. According to the Bureau of National Affairs, federal regulation programs strictly forbid acceptance of unqualified employees on the basis of gender or race. The vast majority of affirmative action cases occur when women and minorities are selected over equally qualified or comparable candidates (i.e. an SAT score of 1210 is relatively the same as one of 1230). In addition to this, studies have determined that slightly under-qualified individuals entering an institute of higher learning are equally qualified upon the completion of their program.
Fallacy #3: Affirmative action gives advantages to women and minorities.
To claim that any policy is granting already disadvantaged individuals an unfair advantage is to ignore the facts. Statistics demonstrate the inequalities imposed upon women and minorities in America. Any attempt to deny this claim is naïve in light of statistical realities, as is the allegation that affirmative action will result in reversed inequalities. Federal law prohibits gender or minority-based advancement over more qualified individuals. Because of this, any advantages these groups can legally be given in terms of preference, etc. will only serve to help level the playing field.
Fallacy #4: Affirmative action programs are just quota systems that ensure minimum numbers of women and minorities admittance or employment.
Such programs are illegal if numerical goals for hiring of women and minorities bear no reasonable relation to the availability of qualified candidates, which would lead to the under-qualified individuals being given token positions in order to fill the “quota.” Numerical goals must be set with a reasonable degree of flexibility and placed in a predetermined length of time.
In summary, affirmative action programs are desirable and beneficial to society as a whole. They promote egalitarianism, perhaps the single most celebrated and valued facet of Americanism. Although much has been accomplished in the interest of equality for all, there is still much to be done.
Editor's Note:
This article was co-written with Bork and Buma. My memory is a little bit foggy after all this years, but as far as I can remember, I think my contribution on this article was just to do the research, and Bork and Buma did the actual writing.
CROSSROADS: CENSORSHIP AND THE FCC
Original Chimes Article Here
CROSSROADS: CENSORSHIP AND THE FCC
Censorship should stay in the home
[ see also FCC censorship inconsistent, unfair ]
“Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” –United States Constitution
In our lifetime, we have seen the Internet grow from something we heard about only on the news to something we use every day. With the rapid growth of the Internet, many questions have been raised about how to regulate it. While we look at these new questions, it is worthwhile to re-examine some old questions as well.
The American citizen does not need the government to tell him or her what he or she should watch.
Behind the regulation of the Internet in the United States lies the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC was established in 1934, and has been charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. Many of the services provided by the FCC are beneficial. The censorship aspect of their regulatory power is not.
The same act that created the FCC also states that “no person ... shall utter any obscene, indecent or profane language by means of radio communication.” Ever since then, the FCC has been able to dictate what is acceptable and what is not acceptable for the rest of America to watch on their television or listen to on their radio. The FCC is even able to regulate what time certain kinds of material are shown.
The FCC is most notorious for its ban of the “seven dirty words.” In 1974, a father driving with his young son heard a broadcast of George Carlin’s Colloquial monologue, “Filthy Words” which contained “words you couldn’t say on the public airwaves.” The father complained to the FCC, and the resulting verdict established the FCC as one of the largest censorship organizations in the world.
The Cable Television Protection and Competition Act, passed in 1992, mandated that even cable stations be censored by their affiliates. Although the law was amended in 1996, the instance shows the frightening ability for censorship by the FCC.
More worrisome is the Communications Decency Act, currently being contested by the American Civil Liberties Union. This act makes it possible for the FCC to fine $250,000 for indecent material posted on the Internet. Because of the vague wording of the law, a person posting “Catcher in the Rye” by J.D. Salinger or “Ulysses” by James Joyce would be subject to the fine.
The really astounding thing about this censorship is that every computer, television and radio already comes equipped with a device to protect its viewer from objectionable material. It’s called the off button. Those who do not wish to hear or view offensive material are not obligated to, but (as Supreme Court Justice Brennan points out) the FCC violates the rights of those who do wish to hear or view the broadcast. The American citizen does not need the government to tell him or her what he or she should watch. It is an individual’s choice. Martin Luther King Jr. once said that censorship, like charity, should start in the home. Unlike charity, King added, it should stay there.
The FCC should realize, as Supreme Court Justice Harlan pointed out, that “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.” An individual should have the freedom of expression on the airwaves, radio waves or Internet. The individual should be able to choose the words he or she feels would best express him or herself. The censorship of the FCC is in direct violation of our liberties.
CROSSROADS: CENSORSHIP AND THE FCC
Censorship should stay in the home
[ see also FCC censorship inconsistent, unfair ]
“Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” –United States Constitution
In our lifetime, we have seen the Internet grow from something we heard about only on the news to something we use every day. With the rapid growth of the Internet, many questions have been raised about how to regulate it. While we look at these new questions, it is worthwhile to re-examine some old questions as well.
The American citizen does not need the government to tell him or her what he or she should watch.
Behind the regulation of the Internet in the United States lies the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC was established in 1934, and has been charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. Many of the services provided by the FCC are beneficial. The censorship aspect of their regulatory power is not.
The same act that created the FCC also states that “no person ... shall utter any obscene, indecent or profane language by means of radio communication.” Ever since then, the FCC has been able to dictate what is acceptable and what is not acceptable for the rest of America to watch on their television or listen to on their radio. The FCC is even able to regulate what time certain kinds of material are shown.
The FCC is most notorious for its ban of the “seven dirty words.” In 1974, a father driving with his young son heard a broadcast of George Carlin’s Colloquial monologue, “Filthy Words” which contained “words you couldn’t say on the public airwaves.” The father complained to the FCC, and the resulting verdict established the FCC as one of the largest censorship organizations in the world.
The Cable Television Protection and Competition Act, passed in 1992, mandated that even cable stations be censored by their affiliates. Although the law was amended in 1996, the instance shows the frightening ability for censorship by the FCC.
More worrisome is the Communications Decency Act, currently being contested by the American Civil Liberties Union. This act makes it possible for the FCC to fine $250,000 for indecent material posted on the Internet. Because of the vague wording of the law, a person posting “Catcher in the Rye” by J.D. Salinger or “Ulysses” by James Joyce would be subject to the fine.
The really astounding thing about this censorship is that every computer, television and radio already comes equipped with a device to protect its viewer from objectionable material. It’s called the off button. Those who do not wish to hear or view offensive material are not obligated to, but (as Supreme Court Justice Brennan points out) the FCC violates the rights of those who do wish to hear or view the broadcast. The American citizen does not need the government to tell him or her what he or she should watch. It is an individual’s choice. Martin Luther King Jr. once said that censorship, like charity, should start in the home. Unlike charity, King added, it should stay there.
The FCC should realize, as Supreme Court Justice Harlan pointed out, that “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.” An individual should have the freedom of expression on the airwaves, radio waves or Internet. The individual should be able to choose the words he or she feels would best express him or herself. The censorship of the FCC is in direct violation of our liberties.
CROSSROADS: ABORTION ISSUE REVISITED
Original Chimes Article Here
Pro-choice is not pro-abortion
[ see also Human life begins at conception ]
It is with a tired attitude that most writers now approach the issue of abortion. After being a controversial topic for the past 30 years, what is left to say that has not been said already? You have heard all the arguments; if you are not already convinced of one position or another, who am I to think my rhetoric will win you over?
However, as protesters on both sides have recently been in the news once again, I would like to explain why I am pro-choice.
Perhaps the biggest fallacy of the pro-life movement is equating pro-choice with pro-abortion. I am not going to deny that abortion is sketchy moral territory. The fundamental principle behind pro-choice is not that abortion is okay, but that a woman should have legal authority over what happens to her own body.
The decision over whether or not a woman should carry a child to term is not a decision that should be made by society. It is a personal choice, and should be made by the woman in question. To ask a woman to go through nine months of pregnancy is no light request.
Planned Parenthood states strongly that, “There can be no more extreme invasion of privacy than requiring a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. If government is permitted to compel a woman to bear a child, where will government stop? The concept is morally repugnant. It violates traditional American ideas of individual rights and freedoms.”
We cannot fight abortion by making it illegal. In every case where a society has outlawed abortions, the practice has continued illegally. In the United States, for example, before abortion was legalized, some estimate that illegal abortions were as high as 1.2 million annually. If done legally and correctly, abortion is 11 times safer then giving birth.
However, illegal abortions are much more dangerous. It is roughly estimated that in the two decades before legalized abortion, thousands of women died and ten of thousands were mutilated by botched illegal abortions.
Making abortion illegal is also discriminatory towards the poor. The rich can travel wherever is necessary to obtain a safe legal abortion, while the poor are forced to resort to back alley abortions.
If abortion cannot be combated by making it illegal, what can be done?
The first answer is to try to create an atmosphere in which abortion is unnecessary. Contraceptives should be provided to those who are sexually active and there should be an increased education effort to inform young people on how to use these contraceptives. However, since contraceptives can and do fail, this is only part of the solution.
The second answer is to try to make abortion less desirable. This is done by helping a mother provide for a child once it is born. Planned Parenthood cynically notes the irony of many on the religious right, who on the one hand fight against legalized abortion, while at the same time fight against health and nutrition programs for these children once they are born: “The anti-abortion groups seem to believe life begins at conception, but it ends at birth.”
Finally, much of pro-life rhetoric portrays a woman having an abortion as someone who simply does not want to be inconvenienced by having a baby. In fact, only 20 percent of abortions occur as a form of birth control.
The other 80 percent deal with more complicating factors. For example, in many cases, the woman’s health is at risk. Sometimes the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. In other cases the fetus is severely deformed.
The abortion debate is not quite as simple as slogans on both sides have made it out to be. We need to keep abortion legal so that women in these situations will have help.
We can not legislate abortion away -- it is here to stay whether it occurs legally or illegally. Abortion should, therefore, be kept safe and legal.
Pro-choice is not pro-abortion
[ see also Human life begins at conception ]
It is with a tired attitude that most writers now approach the issue of abortion. After being a controversial topic for the past 30 years, what is left to say that has not been said already? You have heard all the arguments; if you are not already convinced of one position or another, who am I to think my rhetoric will win you over?
However, as protesters on both sides have recently been in the news once again, I would like to explain why I am pro-choice.
Perhaps the biggest fallacy of the pro-life movement is equating pro-choice with pro-abortion. I am not going to deny that abortion is sketchy moral territory. The fundamental principle behind pro-choice is not that abortion is okay, but that a woman should have legal authority over what happens to her own body.
The decision over whether or not a woman should carry a child to term is not a decision that should be made by society. It is a personal choice, and should be made by the woman in question. To ask a woman to go through nine months of pregnancy is no light request.
Planned Parenthood states strongly that, “There can be no more extreme invasion of privacy than requiring a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. If government is permitted to compel a woman to bear a child, where will government stop? The concept is morally repugnant. It violates traditional American ideas of individual rights and freedoms.”
We cannot fight abortion by making it illegal. In every case where a society has outlawed abortions, the practice has continued illegally. In the United States, for example, before abortion was legalized, some estimate that illegal abortions were as high as 1.2 million annually. If done legally and correctly, abortion is 11 times safer then giving birth.
However, illegal abortions are much more dangerous. It is roughly estimated that in the two decades before legalized abortion, thousands of women died and ten of thousands were mutilated by botched illegal abortions.
Making abortion illegal is also discriminatory towards the poor. The rich can travel wherever is necessary to obtain a safe legal abortion, while the poor are forced to resort to back alley abortions.
If abortion cannot be combated by making it illegal, what can be done?
The first answer is to try to create an atmosphere in which abortion is unnecessary. Contraceptives should be provided to those who are sexually active and there should be an increased education effort to inform young people on how to use these contraceptives. However, since contraceptives can and do fail, this is only part of the solution.
The second answer is to try to make abortion less desirable. This is done by helping a mother provide for a child once it is born. Planned Parenthood cynically notes the irony of many on the religious right, who on the one hand fight against legalized abortion, while at the same time fight against health and nutrition programs for these children once they are born: “The anti-abortion groups seem to believe life begins at conception, but it ends at birth.”
Finally, much of pro-life rhetoric portrays a woman having an abortion as someone who simply does not want to be inconvenienced by having a baby. In fact, only 20 percent of abortions occur as a form of birth control.
The other 80 percent deal with more complicating factors. For example, in many cases, the woman’s health is at risk. Sometimes the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. In other cases the fetus is severely deformed.
The abortion debate is not quite as simple as slogans on both sides have made it out to be. We need to keep abortion legal so that women in these situations will have help.
We can not legislate abortion away -- it is here to stay whether it occurs legally or illegally. Abortion should, therefore, be kept safe and legal.
CROSSROADS: Confederate Flag Controversy
Original Chimes Article Here
CROSSROADS: Confederate Flag Controversy
Flag evokes memory of slavery
[ see also Flag honors memory of ancestors ]
“We’ve told you for years it offends us, yet you continue to fly it, and that shows you hold us in disregard and much disdain.” Nelson Rivers, National Field Operations for the NAACP
On Jan. 17, more than 50,000 demonstrators marched through the streets of Columbia, South Carolina. They carried signs reading “Your Heritage is my Slavery” and sang “The flag is coming down today” to the tune of “We shall Overcome.” They were protesting the Confederate flag flying above the South Carolina Capitol building.
Martin Luther King III, the eldest son of the famous civil rights leader, spoke at the rally.
“The flag is a terrible symbol that brings a lot of negative energy,” said King.
Kweisi Mfume, president of the NAACP was also present. He stated that “Those who support the Confederate flag of the Klan, the Skin Heads, the Militia and other hate groups support bigotry and racial intolerance.”
The presidential primaries and a NAACP boycott have once again brought the question of the Confederate flag back into the spotlight. Georgia and Mississippi have incorporated the Confederate flag into their state flag; the Alabama flag is similar to the Confederate flag; South Carolina has the Confederate flag flying over its Capitol building beneath the actual state flag.
Although defended as protecting Southern heritage, the Confederate flag is closely associated with racism, and its continued presence in these states is an embarrassment to the rest of the nation.
The Confederate flag was used by the South during the Civil War. In that war, the South fought against the North to protect its way of life, a way of life that included slavery.
After thousands of men rallied behind this flag to fight and kill in order to protect slavery, the Confederate flag will forever be associated with racial concerns. It is naive to think that we can view this flag without thinking about its history.
Furthermore, the Confederate flag has been closely tied to many racist causes. The Ku Klux Klan has made frequent use of the flag, and many pro-segregationists used the flag as a symbol during the civil rights movement. Regardless of what the flag may have originally stood for, these groups have caused it to become a symbol of white power.
Beasely, former governor of South Carolina, realized this when he said, “The Confederate flag flying
above the Statehouse flies in a vacuum. Its meaning and purpose are not defined by law. Because of this, any group can give the flag any meaning it chooses. The Klan can misuse it as a racist tool, as it has, and others can misuse it solely as a symbol for racism, as they have.”
A similar view was expressed by John Palms, president of the University
of South Carolina, who asserted, “Flying anything except the official flag above the Statehouse can only inspire a debate that cannot be resolved since any symbol that is not an official one is especially subject to personal interpretation.”
However, the ties between the Confederate flag and racism go beyond fringe groups such as the Klan. It has long been used as a symbol of official white resistance to black advances.
In the 1890s, Mississippi incorporated the Confederate flag into its state flag while at the same time legalizing segregation. In 1948, the Confederate flag appeared on the South
Carolina Legislative Handbook. It is widely thought that this was meant to signal a pro-racial-segregation message on the part of the state legislature.
In 1956 Georgia Legislature voted to incorporate the Confederate emblem in its state flag as a direct response to the Supreme Court ruling that school segregation is unconstitutional. South Carolina raised the Confederate flag in 1962.
Officially, the flag was supposed to mark the civil war centennial, but many believe it was also intended to be a response to the civil rights movement and a protest against the end of legalized segregation. The fact that the Confederate flag continues to fly in South Carolina, long after the Civil War centennial has passed, supports this view.
In the spirit of the First Amendment, I fully support the right of individuals or private organizations to wave the Confederate flag to their hearts’ content.
However, as a symbol of government, it is absolutely inappropriate. It is an insult to the African Americans and other minorities who live in these states.
The Confederate flag should be removed and relocated to a place of historical rather than sovereign context, before it puts another blemish on America’s record of racial harmony.
CROSSROADS: Confederate Flag Controversy
Flag evokes memory of slavery
[ see also Flag honors memory of ancestors ]
“We’ve told you for years it offends us, yet you continue to fly it, and that shows you hold us in disregard and much disdain.” Nelson Rivers, National Field Operations for the NAACP
On Jan. 17, more than 50,000 demonstrators marched through the streets of Columbia, South Carolina. They carried signs reading “Your Heritage is my Slavery” and sang “The flag is coming down today” to the tune of “We shall Overcome.” They were protesting the Confederate flag flying above the South Carolina Capitol building.
Martin Luther King III, the eldest son of the famous civil rights leader, spoke at the rally.
“The flag is a terrible symbol that brings a lot of negative energy,” said King.
Kweisi Mfume, president of the NAACP was also present. He stated that “Those who support the Confederate flag of the Klan, the Skin Heads, the Militia and other hate groups support bigotry and racial intolerance.”
The presidential primaries and a NAACP boycott have once again brought the question of the Confederate flag back into the spotlight. Georgia and Mississippi have incorporated the Confederate flag into their state flag; the Alabama flag is similar to the Confederate flag; South Carolina has the Confederate flag flying over its Capitol building beneath the actual state flag.
Although defended as protecting Southern heritage, the Confederate flag is closely associated with racism, and its continued presence in these states is an embarrassment to the rest of the nation.
The Confederate flag was used by the South during the Civil War. In that war, the South fought against the North to protect its way of life, a way of life that included slavery.
After thousands of men rallied behind this flag to fight and kill in order to protect slavery, the Confederate flag will forever be associated with racial concerns. It is naive to think that we can view this flag without thinking about its history.
Furthermore, the Confederate flag has been closely tied to many racist causes. The Ku Klux Klan has made frequent use of the flag, and many pro-segregationists used the flag as a symbol during the civil rights movement. Regardless of what the flag may have originally stood for, these groups have caused it to become a symbol of white power.
Beasely, former governor of South Carolina, realized this when he said, “The Confederate flag flying
above the Statehouse flies in a vacuum. Its meaning and purpose are not defined by law. Because of this, any group can give the flag any meaning it chooses. The Klan can misuse it as a racist tool, as it has, and others can misuse it solely as a symbol for racism, as they have.”
A similar view was expressed by John Palms, president of the University
of South Carolina, who asserted, “Flying anything except the official flag above the Statehouse can only inspire a debate that cannot be resolved since any symbol that is not an official one is especially subject to personal interpretation.”
However, the ties between the Confederate flag and racism go beyond fringe groups such as the Klan. It has long been used as a symbol of official white resistance to black advances.
In the 1890s, Mississippi incorporated the Confederate flag into its state flag while at the same time legalizing segregation. In 1948, the Confederate flag appeared on the South
Carolina Legislative Handbook. It is widely thought that this was meant to signal a pro-racial-segregation message on the part of the state legislature.
In 1956 Georgia Legislature voted to incorporate the Confederate emblem in its state flag as a direct response to the Supreme Court ruling that school segregation is unconstitutional. South Carolina raised the Confederate flag in 1962.
Officially, the flag was supposed to mark the civil war centennial, but many believe it was also intended to be a response to the civil rights movement and a protest against the end of legalized segregation. The fact that the Confederate flag continues to fly in South Carolina, long after the Civil War centennial has passed, supports this view.
In the spirit of the First Amendment, I fully support the right of individuals or private organizations to wave the Confederate flag to their hearts’ content.
However, as a symbol of government, it is absolutely inappropriate. It is an insult to the African Americans and other minorities who live in these states.
The Confederate flag should be removed and relocated to a place of historical rather than sovereign context, before it puts another blemish on America’s record of racial harmony.
THESIS/ANTITHESIS: THE DEATH PENALTY
Chimes Article Here
State-sponsored murder is unjust
“Murder in a uniform is heroic, in a costume it is a crime.” -- Abbie Hoffman.
With the growing controversy surrounding Mumia Abu Jamal, the death penalty issue is once again in the public eye, as well it should be. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 576 people have been murdered by the U.S. government. During this time, the death penalty has become increasingly unpopular internationally. Since 1989, over 25 countries have abolished the death penalty, leaving only 39 countries worldwide that still practice it. Yet, the United States has only increased its number of executions. So far, 74 people have been executed in 1999, the most ever since reinstatement. Even worse, the United States is one of the top 10 countries, along with Iran and China, in terms of the number of executions. Further, the United States is one of only six countries that executes juveniles and has executed over half of the juveniles executed in these countries since 1990. The United States also executes mentally ill individuals, in violation of international standards.
Despite the obvious moral implications associated with the death penalty, a screaming question Mumia Abu Jamal’s case has brought to the forefront is: Can our judicial system handle the death penalty?
Of course, cases like Mumia Abu Jamal’s, where an innocent man is sentenced to death, are extremely rare and mostly limited to the movies, right? Not so, according to Amnesty International, which estimates that since the turn of the century, as many as 23 people have been wrongfully executed.
Not only that, but the imbalance in the application of the death penalty is staggering. Of the people prosecuted for the death penalty between 1988 and 1994, nine out of 10 were either African American or Hispanic.
Over the past 20 years, approximately 80 percent of the people sentenced to death were charged with killing a white person, despite the fact that whites and blacks are murdered with equal frequency. What is worse, African Americans are statistically four times as likely to receive the death penalty than whites for similar crimes.
Economic bias is just as sickening as racial bias. Of those sentenced to death, 98 percent could not even afford their own attorney.
Besides all of these reasons, the death penalty is extremely unpractical. By the time all the appeals have been exhausted, it costs the taxpayers three times more money to execute someone than to pay for life imprisonment.
California spent $90 million on executions last year. Perhaps this money could have been better directed toward attacking the causes of crime.
Suppose we discount the above evidence for a while, and imagine we are in a dream world. The death penalty is used fairly, no innocent people are killed, and we streamline the process a little bit so that it costs the taxpayer nothing. In this dream world, is the death penalty justifiable?
Well, for one thing, the death penalty is pointless. As Amnesty International points out, “The death penalty has NEVER been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.” Secondly, part of the purpose of the criminal justice system is to reform criminals. The death penalty is lacking in this regard.
In the words of the dalai lama, “My overriding belief is that it is always possible for criminals to improve and that by its very finality the death penalty contradicts this.” In fact, the only purpose the death penalty serves is that of revenge, and our criminal justice system should not operate on revenge.
There are also the moral problems with the death penalty. Do we as a society have the right to kill people, or is this something reserved for God alone? The death penalty is hypocritical. It says, “We as a society are so appalled by what you did that we must respond by doing the same thing.” This kind of message makes no sense.
Furthermore, as a Christian, I believe life is a gift from God, and it is not something we have the right to take away. Yes, in the Old Testament, God did command the Israelites to kill various people, but those were commandments directly from God.
We should be cautious before assuming from these isolated incidents that God has given us control over life and death. On the contrary, I believe that since Jesus died for everyone, we have no right to play with a life that he has already purchased. “Vengeance is mine,” says God. Apparently the United States is more than one nation under God; it is one nation that is God.
Finally, the death penalty contributes to a culture of violence already imbedded in our society. We, as a society, complain frequently about violence in the media, but if institutional violence were given as much attention, perhaps conditions would actually improve.
The death penalty is not the sole instance of institutional violence, but it is part of the structure. Should we be surprised that violence is so prevalent in the streets when we help create it? Should we be surprised at the current murder rates when we as a society endorse murder? The message the death penalty sends is clear: Life is not valuable.
The death penalty is legal in 38 states. Of these states, 23 allow juvenile executions. As long as we support this, we are only contributing to a culture of institutional violence. We should be extremely careful with the death penalty. Cases like Mumia Abu Jamal’s may not be as rare as we think.
(Original Word Document: drive, docs, pub)
State-sponsored murder is unjust
“Murder in a uniform is heroic, in a costume it is a crime.” -- Abbie Hoffman.
With the growing controversy surrounding Mumia Abu Jamal, the death penalty issue is once again in the public eye, as well it should be. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 576 people have been murdered by the U.S. government. During this time, the death penalty has become increasingly unpopular internationally. Since 1989, over 25 countries have abolished the death penalty, leaving only 39 countries worldwide that still practice it. Yet, the United States has only increased its number of executions. So far, 74 people have been executed in 1999, the most ever since reinstatement. Even worse, the United States is one of the top 10 countries, along with Iran and China, in terms of the number of executions. Further, the United States is one of only six countries that executes juveniles and has executed over half of the juveniles executed in these countries since 1990. The United States also executes mentally ill individuals, in violation of international standards.
Despite the obvious moral implications associated with the death penalty, a screaming question Mumia Abu Jamal’s case has brought to the forefront is: Can our judicial system handle the death penalty?
Of course, cases like Mumia Abu Jamal’s, where an innocent man is sentenced to death, are extremely rare and mostly limited to the movies, right? Not so, according to Amnesty International, which estimates that since the turn of the century, as many as 23 people have been wrongfully executed.
Not only that, but the imbalance in the application of the death penalty is staggering. Of the people prosecuted for the death penalty between 1988 and 1994, nine out of 10 were either African American or Hispanic.
Over the past 20 years, approximately 80 percent of the people sentenced to death were charged with killing a white person, despite the fact that whites and blacks are murdered with equal frequency. What is worse, African Americans are statistically four times as likely to receive the death penalty than whites for similar crimes.
Economic bias is just as sickening as racial bias. Of those sentenced to death, 98 percent could not even afford their own attorney.
Besides all of these reasons, the death penalty is extremely unpractical. By the time all the appeals have been exhausted, it costs the taxpayers three times more money to execute someone than to pay for life imprisonment.
California spent $90 million on executions last year. Perhaps this money could have been better directed toward attacking the causes of crime.
Suppose we discount the above evidence for a while, and imagine we are in a dream world. The death penalty is used fairly, no innocent people are killed, and we streamline the process a little bit so that it costs the taxpayer nothing. In this dream world, is the death penalty justifiable?
Well, for one thing, the death penalty is pointless. As Amnesty International points out, “The death penalty has NEVER been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.” Secondly, part of the purpose of the criminal justice system is to reform criminals. The death penalty is lacking in this regard.
In the words of the dalai lama, “My overriding belief is that it is always possible for criminals to improve and that by its very finality the death penalty contradicts this.” In fact, the only purpose the death penalty serves is that of revenge, and our criminal justice system should not operate on revenge.
There are also the moral problems with the death penalty. Do we as a society have the right to kill people, or is this something reserved for God alone? The death penalty is hypocritical. It says, “We as a society are so appalled by what you did that we must respond by doing the same thing.” This kind of message makes no sense.
Furthermore, as a Christian, I believe life is a gift from God, and it is not something we have the right to take away. Yes, in the Old Testament, God did command the Israelites to kill various people, but those were commandments directly from God.
We should be cautious before assuming from these isolated incidents that God has given us control over life and death. On the contrary, I believe that since Jesus died for everyone, we have no right to play with a life that he has already purchased. “Vengeance is mine,” says God. Apparently the United States is more than one nation under God; it is one nation that is God.
Finally, the death penalty contributes to a culture of violence already imbedded in our society. We, as a society, complain frequently about violence in the media, but if institutional violence were given as much attention, perhaps conditions would actually improve.
The death penalty is not the sole instance of institutional violence, but it is part of the structure. Should we be surprised that violence is so prevalent in the streets when we help create it? Should we be surprised at the current murder rates when we as a society endorse murder? The message the death penalty sends is clear: Life is not valuable.
The death penalty is legal in 38 states. Of these states, 23 allow juvenile executions. As long as we support this, we are only contributing to a culture of institutional violence. We should be extremely careful with the death penalty. Cases like Mumia Abu Jamal’s may not be as rare as we think.
(Original Word Document: drive, docs, pub)
CROSSROADS: MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION
Original Chimes Article Here
CROSSROADS: MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION
Prohibition costly, violates rights
Since 1937, the federal government has waged an unfair war against a segment of the American population. A 60-year ban on the use and possession of marijuana has violated the individual liberties of American citizens who enjoy the recreational and medical benefits of the drug. Not only has this war been created largely out of blatant lies about the side effects of the drug, it is also taxing the wallets and purses of American taxpayers.We believe that the responsible use of marijuana should not be an issue that the federal government should concern itself with. The use of this substance should be one’s personal choice, and we call for the complete decriminalization of the substance.
As Christians, we believe that it is morally wrong for someone to put a harmful substance into one’s body. Our bodies are temples of God, not to be abused by things such as marijuana. However, living in a society such as America, individuals should be free to have their own moral convictions, provided the rights of others are not infringed upon. If we were to create a society based on our personal morals (keeping in mind that our bodies are temples of God) we would also have to ban more harmful substances like tobacco, alcohol and Big Macs. It is not the government’s job to regulate our individual liberties, rather its job is to protect them.
The war on marijuana not only violates our rights as free Americans, but it is pointless and costly.
With all arguments about individual liberty aside, we can also see just how much this unfair war against marijuana users is hurting society. Every 45 seconds, one American is arrested on marijuana charges. In 1997, 695,000 Americans were arrested on marijuana related charges. Forty-four percent of those in jail on drug charges are marijuana arrests. For every individual in jail for marijuana, taxpayers pay $25,000 a year.
Despite all this effort by the government to deter marijuana users, use is still incredibly high. The American Civil Liberties Union found that 32 percent of voting adults have smoked marijuana during their lives; 18-20 million smoked marijuana in 1997. One half of high school graduates have tried marijuana at least once.
In addition, the war on marijuana has assumed a racist dimension. While blacks and Hispanics make up only 20 percent of the users of marijuana, they comprise 58 percent of the marijuana arrests in 1995. In New York, for instance, 71 percent of those arrested for marijuana charges were non-whites.
Contrary to popular opinion, marijuana is less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol. Alcohol kills 105,000 Americans each year. Tobacco kills 365,000, and second-hand smoke alone is responsible for 53,000 deaths. Caffeine kills 2,000 a year and aspirin 500. There is no evidence that anyone has ever overdosed on marijuana, or that marijuana has been directly responsible for any deaths. Although marijuana is linked to cancer of the throat, lungs and neck, it does not penetrate the lungs like cigarettes do, therefore there is less risk.
Although it is hard to objectively measure the addictive qualities of a substance, many scientists believe that marijuana is less addictive than cigarettes, alcohol or even caffeine. Furthermore, marijuana does not kill brain cells or promote violent behavior; alcohol does both.
Advocates of keeping marijuana illegal will often use the “gateway” argument. According to this argument, those who use marijuana will later move on to more dangerous drugs such as heroin or cocaine. This is based on research that indicates that most heroin and cocaine users started with marijuana. However, most marijuana users do not move on to heroin and cocaine. Furthermore, the same research indicates that heroin and cocaine users also used alcohol and tobacco before harder drugs.
With these myths dispelled, one can see that there may be many benefits to decriminalization. With a legalized version of the drug, users will be safer from the side effects of accidentally using “laced” marijuana. In buying the substance from a licensed dealer, users can be assured that the substance they are using has been regulated and deemed safe. In addition, sales of marijuana through local merchants can be taxed, unlike sales through an average street dealer. This can provide an influx of cash for the government, rather than an outpouring of funds to arrest and imprison these “criminals.”
In addition, with regulated selling, street dealers would largely be put out of business, making the streets safer for everyone. Marijuana-related crime would all but completely die out, saving about $7 billion of taxpayer money. Police could then concentrate on catching rapists and murderers, as opposed to harmless marijuana users.
Some may argue that decriminalization of marijuana may lead to more widespread use. We would like to contend that this is not necessarily the case. Several studies, conducted by organizations like the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine and the Bureau of Tobacco Control and Biometrics have shown that in states where the penalties have been drastically lowered for marijuana possession, the overall rate of the use of the substance has not increased. The California State Office of Narcotics and Drug Abuse has found that “the reduction in penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use does not appear to be a factor in people’s decision to use or not use the drug.”
Whoever wants to use the drug is going to use it, regardless of what the law says. Millions of American marijuana smokers will attest to this.
The war on marijuana not only violates our rights as free Americans, but it is pointless and costly.
CROSSROADS: MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION
Prohibition costly, violates rights
Since 1937, the federal government has waged an unfair war against a segment of the American population. A 60-year ban on the use and possession of marijuana has violated the individual liberties of American citizens who enjoy the recreational and medical benefits of the drug. Not only has this war been created largely out of blatant lies about the side effects of the drug, it is also taxing the wallets and purses of American taxpayers.We believe that the responsible use of marijuana should not be an issue that the federal government should concern itself with. The use of this substance should be one’s personal choice, and we call for the complete decriminalization of the substance.
As Christians, we believe that it is morally wrong for someone to put a harmful substance into one’s body. Our bodies are temples of God, not to be abused by things such as marijuana. However, living in a society such as America, individuals should be free to have their own moral convictions, provided the rights of others are not infringed upon. If we were to create a society based on our personal morals (keeping in mind that our bodies are temples of God) we would also have to ban more harmful substances like tobacco, alcohol and Big Macs. It is not the government’s job to regulate our individual liberties, rather its job is to protect them.
The war on marijuana not only violates our rights as free Americans, but it is pointless and costly.
With all arguments about individual liberty aside, we can also see just how much this unfair war against marijuana users is hurting society. Every 45 seconds, one American is arrested on marijuana charges. In 1997, 695,000 Americans were arrested on marijuana related charges. Forty-four percent of those in jail on drug charges are marijuana arrests. For every individual in jail for marijuana, taxpayers pay $25,000 a year.
Despite all this effort by the government to deter marijuana users, use is still incredibly high. The American Civil Liberties Union found that 32 percent of voting adults have smoked marijuana during their lives; 18-20 million smoked marijuana in 1997. One half of high school graduates have tried marijuana at least once.
In addition, the war on marijuana has assumed a racist dimension. While blacks and Hispanics make up only 20 percent of the users of marijuana, they comprise 58 percent of the marijuana arrests in 1995. In New York, for instance, 71 percent of those arrested for marijuana charges were non-whites.
Contrary to popular opinion, marijuana is less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol. Alcohol kills 105,000 Americans each year. Tobacco kills 365,000, and second-hand smoke alone is responsible for 53,000 deaths. Caffeine kills 2,000 a year and aspirin 500. There is no evidence that anyone has ever overdosed on marijuana, or that marijuana has been directly responsible for any deaths. Although marijuana is linked to cancer of the throat, lungs and neck, it does not penetrate the lungs like cigarettes do, therefore there is less risk.
Although it is hard to objectively measure the addictive qualities of a substance, many scientists believe that marijuana is less addictive than cigarettes, alcohol or even caffeine. Furthermore, marijuana does not kill brain cells or promote violent behavior; alcohol does both.
Advocates of keeping marijuana illegal will often use the “gateway” argument. According to this argument, those who use marijuana will later move on to more dangerous drugs such as heroin or cocaine. This is based on research that indicates that most heroin and cocaine users started with marijuana. However, most marijuana users do not move on to heroin and cocaine. Furthermore, the same research indicates that heroin and cocaine users also used alcohol and tobacco before harder drugs.
With these myths dispelled, one can see that there may be many benefits to decriminalization. With a legalized version of the drug, users will be safer from the side effects of accidentally using “laced” marijuana. In buying the substance from a licensed dealer, users can be assured that the substance they are using has been regulated and deemed safe. In addition, sales of marijuana through local merchants can be taxed, unlike sales through an average street dealer. This can provide an influx of cash for the government, rather than an outpouring of funds to arrest and imprison these “criminals.”
In addition, with regulated selling, street dealers would largely be put out of business, making the streets safer for everyone. Marijuana-related crime would all but completely die out, saving about $7 billion of taxpayer money. Police could then concentrate on catching rapists and murderers, as opposed to harmless marijuana users.
Some may argue that decriminalization of marijuana may lead to more widespread use. We would like to contend that this is not necessarily the case. Several studies, conducted by organizations like the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine and the Bureau of Tobacco Control and Biometrics have shown that in states where the penalties have been drastically lowered for marijuana possession, the overall rate of the use of the substance has not increased. The California State Office of Narcotics and Drug Abuse has found that “the reduction in penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use does not appear to be a factor in people’s decision to use or not use the drug.”
Whoever wants to use the drug is going to use it, regardless of what the law says. Millions of American marijuana smokers will attest to this.
The war on marijuana not only violates our rights as free Americans, but it is pointless and costly.
Cabinet Lacks Credibility
Original Chimes Article Here
After Bush won the recent election by the narrowest of margins, many questioned if he could lead a divided nation. Republicans quickly championed Bush’s strengths as a uniter. However, the recent cabinet nominations Bush made showed that, rhetoric aside, he has no intention of unification.
To begin with, there was Labor Secretary nominee Linda Chavez. Although Chavez has withdrawn her name from consideration, a Bush transition official has admitted that she was originally chosen to punish labor groups for their support of Al Gore. Next is Energy Secretary nominee Spencer Abraham, who has no energy experience at all, unless one counts the bill he sponsored to abolish the department. Also present is Interior Secretary Gale Norton, who as an anti-environmentalist has spent her whole life undermining the department she will now head.But first and foremost is John Ashcroft, who has been nominated to one of the most powerful positions in the United States: Attorney General. John Ashcroft has a record that, to put it mildly, places him out-side of the American mainstream.
Ashcroft co-sponsored a bill which would have criminalized abortion even in cases of rape or incest, and would also have outlawed many types of commonly used birth control. John Ashcroft also helped the Gingrich Republicans gut the Clean Air and Water acts and make it legal for mining companies to dump cyanide in public lands. In addition, Ashcroft voted against taking arsenic out of drinking water and has been a fierce opponent of even the mildest gun control measures.
Most troubling however is Ashcroft’s position on civil rights. Because Ashcroft personally believes homosexuality is a sin, he has voted against protecting homosexuals from hate crimes and workplace discrimination. Ashcroft also opposed the nomination of James Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg because Hormel was openly gay.
As a Senator, Ashcroft has championed America’s most racist institution, the death penalty. According to Amnesty international, Ashcroft ran for re-election on a “pro-death penalty platform.” Ashcroft lead the charge against Ronnie White, an African American Missouri Supreme Court Judge nominated by Clinton to be a federal district judge. Ashcroft believed White was soft on the death penalty. This was despite the fact that White affirmed the death penalty in 41 out of the 59 capital cases brought before him, and in 10 of the 18 cases in which White voted against the death penalty, he was in the company of a unanimous court.
Ashcroft opposed the school desegregation plan ordered by the Federal courts for the cities of Saint Louis and Kansas City. He even opposed a voluntary desegregation plan for Saint Louis city and the surrounding suburbs. Ashcroft also voted to weaken the Community Reinvestment Act, which is a federal law that discourages banks from redlining minority districts.
In 1990 Ashcroft received an honorary degree from Bob Jones University, an institution that up until last year did not allow inter-racial dating. Ashcroft praised the Southern Partisan magazine, a magazine that has repeatedly suggested slavery was beneficial for the slaves. Ashcroft has received the endorsement of the Council of Conservative Citizens, an overtly racist group, which has been described as an uptown version of the KKK. Gordon Baum, head of the CCC claimed Ashcroft, “comes fairly close to us on some of the social and cultural issues.” Ashcroft also once wrote a thank you note to Larry Pratt, a man who had to step down from Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaign because of his association with the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations. After Bush lost over 90% of the black vote, the nomination of Ashcroft seems like a remarkably poor choice.
Republicans have recently been arguing that a president should have the right to choose his or her cabinet nominees, and that the ideology of a cabinet nominee should not factor into the nominee’s confirmation. This is interesting, because 8 years ago the Republicans zealously attacked Clinton’s nominees because of their ideology. And leading the fight 8 years ago? None other than John Ashcroft, who publicly stated one of Clinton’s nominees should be rejected because of the nominee’s ideology.
Republicans have also argued that the attorney general is sworn to uphold the laws of the land, and that personal ideology isn’t even a factor. This is a nice ideal, but it’s certainly not true of John Ashcroft, who, as Attorney General of Missouri, attempted to use the anti-trust laws to prosecute his political rival, the National Organization for Women.
After Bush won the recent election by the narrowest of margins, many questioned if he could lead a divided nation. Republicans quickly championed Bush’s strengths as a uniter. However, the recent cabinet nominations Bush made showed that, rhetoric aside, he has no intention of unification.
To begin with, there was Labor Secretary nominee Linda Chavez. Although Chavez has withdrawn her name from consideration, a Bush transition official has admitted that she was originally chosen to punish labor groups for their support of Al Gore. Next is Energy Secretary nominee Spencer Abraham, who has no energy experience at all, unless one counts the bill he sponsored to abolish the department. Also present is Interior Secretary Gale Norton, who as an anti-environmentalist has spent her whole life undermining the department she will now head.But first and foremost is John Ashcroft, who has been nominated to one of the most powerful positions in the United States: Attorney General. John Ashcroft has a record that, to put it mildly, places him out-side of the American mainstream.
Ashcroft co-sponsored a bill which would have criminalized abortion even in cases of rape or incest, and would also have outlawed many types of commonly used birth control. John Ashcroft also helped the Gingrich Republicans gut the Clean Air and Water acts and make it legal for mining companies to dump cyanide in public lands. In addition, Ashcroft voted against taking arsenic out of drinking water and has been a fierce opponent of even the mildest gun control measures.
Most troubling however is Ashcroft’s position on civil rights. Because Ashcroft personally believes homosexuality is a sin, he has voted against protecting homosexuals from hate crimes and workplace discrimination. Ashcroft also opposed the nomination of James Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg because Hormel was openly gay.
As a Senator, Ashcroft has championed America’s most racist institution, the death penalty. According to Amnesty international, Ashcroft ran for re-election on a “pro-death penalty platform.” Ashcroft lead the charge against Ronnie White, an African American Missouri Supreme Court Judge nominated by Clinton to be a federal district judge. Ashcroft believed White was soft on the death penalty. This was despite the fact that White affirmed the death penalty in 41 out of the 59 capital cases brought before him, and in 10 of the 18 cases in which White voted against the death penalty, he was in the company of a unanimous court.
Ashcroft opposed the school desegregation plan ordered by the Federal courts for the cities of Saint Louis and Kansas City. He even opposed a voluntary desegregation plan for Saint Louis city and the surrounding suburbs. Ashcroft also voted to weaken the Community Reinvestment Act, which is a federal law that discourages banks from redlining minority districts.
In 1990 Ashcroft received an honorary degree from Bob Jones University, an institution that up until last year did not allow inter-racial dating. Ashcroft praised the Southern Partisan magazine, a magazine that has repeatedly suggested slavery was beneficial for the slaves. Ashcroft has received the endorsement of the Council of Conservative Citizens, an overtly racist group, which has been described as an uptown version of the KKK. Gordon Baum, head of the CCC claimed Ashcroft, “comes fairly close to us on some of the social and cultural issues.” Ashcroft also once wrote a thank you note to Larry Pratt, a man who had to step down from Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaign because of his association with the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations. After Bush lost over 90% of the black vote, the nomination of Ashcroft seems like a remarkably poor choice.
Republicans have recently been arguing that a president should have the right to choose his or her cabinet nominees, and that the ideology of a cabinet nominee should not factor into the nominee’s confirmation. This is interesting, because 8 years ago the Republicans zealously attacked Clinton’s nominees because of their ideology. And leading the fight 8 years ago? None other than John Ashcroft, who publicly stated one of Clinton’s nominees should be rejected because of the nominee’s ideology.
Republicans have also argued that the attorney general is sworn to uphold the laws of the land, and that personal ideology isn’t even a factor. This is a nice ideal, but it’s certainly not true of John Ashcroft, who, as Attorney General of Missouri, attempted to use the anti-trust laws to prosecute his political rival, the National Organization for Women.
Students join funeral procession at SOA
Original Chimes Article Here
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Klaas Hoekema
WORLD NEWS EDITOR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Klaas Hoekema
WORLD NEWS EDITOR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Let’s go stick it to the man!”
So went the rallying cry from sophomore Marie Mulder, as she and 16 other Calvin students left Calvin on Nov. 19 to protest the U.S. Army’s School of the Americas.
The students, along with three other Grand Rapids residents, made the 16-hour drive to Fort Benning, Ga., to join a demonstration led by the non-profit organization SOA Watch against what the school’s opponents often call the “School of Assassins.”
“The School of the Americas was started with the intentions of preventing communism and promoting stability in Latin America,” said student Eric Ebels. “While communism did fail to gain a foothold, the impact of SOA graduates on Latin America has been disastrous. The history of abuses perman rights violations in their home countries. According to SOA Watch, manuals released by the Pentagon reveal that until 1991, the curriculum included “interrogation techniques like torture, execution, blackmail and arresting the relatives of those being questioned.”
The student organization Calvin Students for Social Justice planned and led the trip to Georgia to give Calvin students a chance to speak out against the school.
“I don’t know if what we did will result in the school closing down or not,” said student Joel Swagman, “but I wanted at least a chance to say I do not support civilians being slaughtered with my tax money.”
“The protest is important because it brings to light the atrocities connected to the School of the Americas,” said Ebels. “Protestors have taken it upon themselves to educate the public, with amazing results.
A few years ago virtually no one, including elected officials, knew of the SOA. This summer, for the first time, the House of Representatives voted to cut the SOA’s funding.”
The protest was held at the gate of Fort Benning, a large military reservation that houses the School of the Americas. Since demonstrations are prohibited on the grounds of Fort Benning, it was illegal for protesters to cross the line into the reservation. On Sunday, Nov. 21, however, more than 4,800 people crossed the line in an act of civil disobedience coordinated by SOA Watch. The purpose of the protest, according to Mulder, was “to commemorate the people who have been killed and to remember them and honor them.”
With this in mind, the act of crossing the line was organized as a funeral march.
At the front of the procession were people carrying coffins to represent the people killed by graduates of the SOA. These were followed by thousands of people carrying crosses marked with the names of individuals killed by Latin American death squads. As people walked across the line, organizers read the names of victims out loud.
“I felt that by crossing the line in the funeral procession I was honoring and mourning the deaths of those killed by the SOA,” said student Meagan Luhrs. “It was an act of civil disobedience, but it was for the dead, not for the glory or sake of being in a protest and receiving attention.”
The protesters hoped to bring the coffins and crosses to the SOA buildings, a few miles inside the base but were stopped by military police about a mile inside the gate. The officers loaded most people onto buses and transported them off the post, but 65 people who physically resisted boarding the buses were taken to a processing center to be photographed and fingerprinted. The 11 Calvin students who crossed the line boarded the buses without being processed.
Two days before the protest, the New York Times reported that Army Secretary Louis Caldera has drawn up plans to change both the name and the curriculum of the school, in order to shift the focus toward instilling democratic values in Latin American leaders. The details of the changes should be revealed in the coming weeks.
Opponents say that the changes will not be enough, however, and that the school must simply be shut down.
“The School of the Americas’ reputation is so bad that even if they put these changes in place, I’m not sure it goes far enough,” said Representative Joe Moakley (D-Mass.), as quoted in the Times article. “It’s like putting perfume on a toxic dump.”
Many of the Calvin students who went to the protest say that the SOA should not be a part of U.S. policy in Latin America, even if the changes are made.
“The United States is seen as an oppressive force by many Latin Americans,” said Ebels. “The School of the Americas is a primary source of this oppression. If the U.S. wishes to mend relations with Latin America, closing the SOA would be the first step.”
“I’m not saying the U.S. shouldn’t play any role, or that they should forget all their economic interests in Latin America,” said Mulder. “But it’s not our place to say that everyone else should have the same type of democracy we have, and it’s not our job to enforce that ... by violent means, especially.”
Abortion is a form of birth control, statistics wrong
Original Chimes Article Here
[This is not one of mine, but a rebuttal someone wrote to this piece of mine.]
When I read Swagman’s article in the Chimes last week in Crossroads I could not help but laugh at his ridiculous statistical claims. Where he gathered this information I’m not sure, he doesn’t say, but I gathered some information on my own so Calvin students can know the truth about these numbers. I called America’s Crisis Pregnancy Hotline and spoke with the Executive Director.
First Swagman claims that “80 percent (of abortions) deal with more complicating factors,” such as the woman’s health, incest or rape. In fact, the real number is even less than 2 percent, which is quite a difference. Swagman also claims that before abortion was legalized an estimated 1.2 million abortions were conducted annually. Actually there are about 1.2 million abortions performed annually now that it is legalized compared to an estimated 100,000 abortions prior to legalization.
But numbers and statistics are not the real issue here. The real issue is, do we value the sanctity of human life? Planned Parenthood gives the public arguments about government invasion of privacy and a woman’s right to choose to skirt the real question: Is the fetus a baby? Nobody in his or her right mind would kill a baby. I have heard many stories of women who were thoroughly convinced that they were simply getting rid of a “blob of tissue” only to be horrified at the sight of well formed body parts extracted from them.
In most cases, contrary to Swagman’s story, abortion is a form of birth control, a convenient way to end an unwanted pregnancy. I have personally been to Planned Parenthood, posing with a friend of mine as a pregnant couple, to do research.
The information we were given was clearly written to show that having a baby is very inconvenient to a woman’s social life and future plans, and suggested abortion as a “safe” alternative.
These brochures asked questions such as “Does having a child fit the lifestyle I want?” and “What’s in it for me?” If those aren’t questions of convenience, I don’t know what would be.
We need to open our eyes and see that abortion is a very selfish act, as well as a business for Planned Parenthood.
We need to be sympathetic to women who feel trapped into this decision and realize that it is not an easy position to be in. But we also need to see the abortion industry for what it is. One way to start is by getting our facts straight.
Update: In order to give this some context, I am reposting below the original article that this letter was in response to.
Original Chimes Article Here
Pro-choice is not pro-abortion
[ see also Human life begins at conception ]
It is with a tired attitude that most writers now approach the issue of abortion. After being a controversial topic for the past 30 years, what is left to say that has not been said already? You have heard all the arguments; if you are not already convinced of one position or another, who am I to think my rhetoric will win you over?
However, as protesters on both sides have recently been in the news once again, I would like to explain why I am pro-choice.
Perhaps the biggest fallacy of the pro-life movement is equating pro-choice with pro-abortion. I am not going to deny that abortion is sketchy moral territory. The fundamental principle behind pro-choice is not that abortion is okay, but that a woman should have legal authority over what happens to her own body.
The decision over whether or not a woman should carry a child to term is not a decision that should be made by society. It is a personal choice, and should be made by the woman in question. To ask a woman to go through nine months of pregnancy is no light request.
Planned Parenthood states strongly that, “There can be no more extreme invasion of privacy than requiring a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. If government is permitted to compel a woman to bear a child, where will government stop? The concept is morally repugnant. It violates traditional American ideas of individual rights and freedoms.”
We cannot fight abortion by making it illegal. In every case where a society has outlawed abortions, the practice has continued illegally. In the United States, for example, before abortion was legalized, some estimate that illegal abortions were as high as 1.2 million annually. If done legally and correctly, abortion is 11 times safer then giving birth.
However, illegal abortions are much more dangerous. It is roughly estimated that in the two decades before legalized abortion, thousands of women died and ten of thousands were mutilated by botched illegal abortions.
Making abortion illegal is also discriminatory towards the poor. The rich can travel wherever is necessary to obtain a safe legal abortion, while the poor are forced to resort to back alley abortions.
If abortion cannot be combated by making it illegal, what can be done?
The first answer is to try to create an atmosphere in which abortion is unnecessary. Contraceptives should be provided to those who are sexually active and there should be an increased education effort to inform young people on how to use these contraceptives. However, since contraceptives can and do fail, this is only part of the solution.
The second answer is to try to make abortion less desirable. This is done by helping a mother provide for a child once it is born. Planned Parenthood cynically notes the irony of many on the religious right, who on the one hand fight against legalized abortion, while at the same time fight against health and nutrition programs for these children once they are born: “The anti-abortion groups seem to believe life begins at conception, but it ends at birth.”
Finally, much of pro-life rhetoric portrays a woman having an abortion as someone who simply does not want to be inconvenienced by having a baby. In fact, only 20 percent of abortions occur as a form of birth control.
The other 80 percent deal with more complicating factors. For example, in many cases, the woman’s health is at risk. Sometimes the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. In other cases the fetus is severely deformed.
The abortion debate is not quite as simple as slogans on both sides have made it out to be. We need to keep abortion legal so that women in these situations will have help.
We can not legislate abortion away -- it is here to stay whether it occurs legally or illegally. Abortion should, therefore, be kept safe and legal.
[This is not one of mine, but a rebuttal someone wrote to this piece of mine.]
When I read Swagman’s article in the Chimes last week in Crossroads I could not help but laugh at his ridiculous statistical claims. Where he gathered this information I’m not sure, he doesn’t say, but I gathered some information on my own so Calvin students can know the truth about these numbers. I called America’s Crisis Pregnancy Hotline and spoke with the Executive Director.
First Swagman claims that “80 percent (of abortions) deal with more complicating factors,” such as the woman’s health, incest or rape. In fact, the real number is even less than 2 percent, which is quite a difference. Swagman also claims that before abortion was legalized an estimated 1.2 million abortions were conducted annually. Actually there are about 1.2 million abortions performed annually now that it is legalized compared to an estimated 100,000 abortions prior to legalization.
But numbers and statistics are not the real issue here. The real issue is, do we value the sanctity of human life? Planned Parenthood gives the public arguments about government invasion of privacy and a woman’s right to choose to skirt the real question: Is the fetus a baby? Nobody in his or her right mind would kill a baby. I have heard many stories of women who were thoroughly convinced that they were simply getting rid of a “blob of tissue” only to be horrified at the sight of well formed body parts extracted from them.
In most cases, contrary to Swagman’s story, abortion is a form of birth control, a convenient way to end an unwanted pregnancy. I have personally been to Planned Parenthood, posing with a friend of mine as a pregnant couple, to do research.
The information we were given was clearly written to show that having a baby is very inconvenient to a woman’s social life and future plans, and suggested abortion as a “safe” alternative.
These brochures asked questions such as “Does having a child fit the lifestyle I want?” and “What’s in it for me?” If those aren’t questions of convenience, I don’t know what would be.
We need to open our eyes and see that abortion is a very selfish act, as well as a business for Planned Parenthood.
We need to be sympathetic to women who feel trapped into this decision and realize that it is not an easy position to be in. But we also need to see the abortion industry for what it is. One way to start is by getting our facts straight.
Update: In order to give this some context, I am reposting below the original article that this letter was in response to.
Original Chimes Article Here
Pro-choice is not pro-abortion
[ see also Human life begins at conception ]
It is with a tired attitude that most writers now approach the issue of abortion. After being a controversial topic for the past 30 years, what is left to say that has not been said already? You have heard all the arguments; if you are not already convinced of one position or another, who am I to think my rhetoric will win you over?
However, as protesters on both sides have recently been in the news once again, I would like to explain why I am pro-choice.
Perhaps the biggest fallacy of the pro-life movement is equating pro-choice with pro-abortion. I am not going to deny that abortion is sketchy moral territory. The fundamental principle behind pro-choice is not that abortion is okay, but that a woman should have legal authority over what happens to her own body.
The decision over whether or not a woman should carry a child to term is not a decision that should be made by society. It is a personal choice, and should be made by the woman in question. To ask a woman to go through nine months of pregnancy is no light request.
Planned Parenthood states strongly that, “There can be no more extreme invasion of privacy than requiring a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. If government is permitted to compel a woman to bear a child, where will government stop? The concept is morally repugnant. It violates traditional American ideas of individual rights and freedoms.”
We cannot fight abortion by making it illegal. In every case where a society has outlawed abortions, the practice has continued illegally. In the United States, for example, before abortion was legalized, some estimate that illegal abortions were as high as 1.2 million annually. If done legally and correctly, abortion is 11 times safer then giving birth.
However, illegal abortions are much more dangerous. It is roughly estimated that in the two decades before legalized abortion, thousands of women died and ten of thousands were mutilated by botched illegal abortions.
Making abortion illegal is also discriminatory towards the poor. The rich can travel wherever is necessary to obtain a safe legal abortion, while the poor are forced to resort to back alley abortions.
If abortion cannot be combated by making it illegal, what can be done?
The first answer is to try to create an atmosphere in which abortion is unnecessary. Contraceptives should be provided to those who are sexually active and there should be an increased education effort to inform young people on how to use these contraceptives. However, since contraceptives can and do fail, this is only part of the solution.
The second answer is to try to make abortion less desirable. This is done by helping a mother provide for a child once it is born. Planned Parenthood cynically notes the irony of many on the religious right, who on the one hand fight against legalized abortion, while at the same time fight against health and nutrition programs for these children once they are born: “The anti-abortion groups seem to believe life begins at conception, but it ends at birth.”
Finally, much of pro-life rhetoric portrays a woman having an abortion as someone who simply does not want to be inconvenienced by having a baby. In fact, only 20 percent of abortions occur as a form of birth control.
The other 80 percent deal with more complicating factors. For example, in many cases, the woman’s health is at risk. Sometimes the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. In other cases the fetus is severely deformed.
The abortion debate is not quite as simple as slogans on both sides have made it out to be. We need to keep abortion legal so that women in these situations will have help.
We can not legislate abortion away -- it is here to stay whether it occurs legally or illegally. Abortion should, therefore, be kept safe and legal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
