by Miki Hirama

A couple of days ago I witnessed a brief discussion between one of our College Republican friends (yes, we have some) and John (our valiant president) at a Barnes and Noble. John saw a book with “Islamofascism” in the title. He then objected to the frequency in which conservatives use the word “Fascism”. John claimed that conservatives overuse the term and many times they use the word to refer to people that aren’t fascist at all. Our Republican friend defends the term by saying that many Islamic cultures tend to gravitate toward fascist ideas.

I didn’t feel the need to say anything at the time because I thought that neither of them were completely wrong (nor completely right). But I thought about it a little more and decided that words like “Islamofascism” simply do not belong in an intelligent political discussion.

First, I believe that it is important to make a point about the nature of language itself. Language, like clean air or national parks, is a public good. No one really owns any of these things, but many people have a stake in the public goods and benefit from them (at least anybody who wants to express themselves, breathe, or fish in lakes at the park). But all of these public goods require maintenance or else they degrade. For example, if you neglect the amount of pollution your nation produces you might not have clean air to breathe anymore, or make the lakes so dirty that you can’t eat the fish. The same thing can happen to language. While the degradation of language might not happen due to pollution, it can still occur as a result of neglect or just plain laziness. Here I’m talking about the use of slang in our everyday lives and our overall inability to properly express ourselves. Slang is labeled as slang simply because it makes languages more ambiguous and less clear. For example, the word “gay” just used to be an adjective that meant happy or content, and then the meaning was twisted and is now used to refer to homosexual people. Even more recently the word is now used to describe something that is not cool (on that note what the hell does “cool” mean anyways?) And now sometimes I have no idea what the word means anymore.

The degradation of language can also happen intentionally for sinister reasons. This mostly comes from government officials, interest groups, or members of the media, who have their own agendas. These are people who not really interested in having an open debate on an issue, but instead choose to confuse everybody else into believing that they are wrong. The manipulation of language I’m describing is the same as the it is depicted in George Orwell’s novel, 1984, as newspeak. The vocabulary of “newspeak” consists of “words which had been deliberately constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, which not only had in every case a political implication, but were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them.”

I believe that “Islamofascism” is one of these words (among many, many others) that have been deliberately constructed. Ok, did I lose any of you just now? Well, it doesn’t really matter if you agree with me or not because the use of words like “Islamofascism” comes from both language neglect and manipulation. Think about it. Are you 100% sure on the exact definition of Islamofascism? If you’re not sure, then who do you think is? The fact of the matter is words are simply tools of expression. They only have as much power and meaning as can be understood by other people. And while many people may not actually know the correct definition of “Islamofascism” it’s clear that it has a negative connotation. I mean, just say the word out loud once or twice. Islamofascism. It almost sounds like a racial slur. To many people, it’s just a politically correct word used to insult Muslims.

So can we just look the exact definition of the term up in a dictionary and restore the meaning that it was meant to have? The answer is a resounding “no”. Meanings of words are inherently subjective. There’s no such thing as an exact definition of a word, especially one that was invented by politicians and their pundits. So what’s the purpose of a dictionary? Dictionaries don’t tell you the exact definition of a word, it just tells you what other people think it means. Samuel Hayakawa, a Canadian literary scholar, writes in his essay, “How Dictionaries Are Made”, “The writing of a dictionary is not a task of setting up authoritative statements about the ‘true meanings’ of words, but a task of recording, to the best of one’s ability, what various words have meant to authors in the distant or immediate past. The writer of a dictionary is a historian, not a lawgiver.” In order to put new meaning into a word you have to have a large-scale consensus about a definition of a word.

We put up with this problem in our language system for most words. However, the difference with words like “Islamofascism” is that they are completely unnecessary. It’s the polar opposite of slang (which is just as bad), it’s jargon. You can express yourself more clearly and efficiently by avoiding it. The use of the word just fogs up the issue with ambiguity and, therefore, does not deserve a place in mature political discourse.

by Necole Duncan

Most people have accepted by now that global warming is not a debate. However, when you Google search the term the first site you get is globalwarming.org, which deceptively promotes itself as “reasoned thinking…from cooler heads”. The videos on the page are all clips of skeptical commentary from conservative pundits on FOX and CNN. An Inconvenient Truth, for which Gore won a Nobel Prize, is referred to as the “alarmist view”. For example:

How does this happen? The majority of scientists are saying that, yes, there are natural climate fluctuations, but the changes occurring now are happening at a much faster rate than usual. The evidence is building up. In 2007 the United Nations scientific panel established to study climate change presented its final report. They concluded that there can be no doubt that there is a warming trend, and that human activity has “very likely” played a large part in that trend over the last 50 years. That “very” is a huge step. We can see the effects of global warming ourselves in weather patterns of recent years. The polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate. If you speak to professor Jane Waterman on campus, she will tell you that the polar bears only have another twenty or thirty years before they are completely extinct. They are being considered for the endangered species list, though of course the Bush Administration is opposing the move

The answer lies with the environmental skeptics. Those who either refuse to see that there is a problem, because it is not in their best interests, or those who recognize the problem but have other priorities. Governing often consists of a collection of trade-offs based on values. Changes in policy to protect the world from global warming (higher factory standards, restrictions on auto emissions) would cost a great deal of money, and much of the burden would fall to private business and factories. These are collections of people with a great deal of money, powerful interest groups, and therefore disproportionate political power. They pay for negative ads, such as ’Al Gore’s Penguin Army’ (see below). Others fear the impact that such regulation would have on the economy, or don’t believe that the government has a right to place restrictions on private businesses.

One of the reasons scientists have trouble defending themselves in the face of these accusations is that it is difficult to make absolute statements about a phenomena as complicated as climate change. Measurements are imprecise and difficult to obtain, and sometimes there is no absolutely conclusive evidence. Hence the “theory” label that usually precedes the term global warming. However, there is plenty of sound research linking emissions and global warming, though it is difficult to wade through all the bias to get to it. Peer reviewed scientific journals are a good start.

So what can we do about it? 174 states, including the majority of the world’s developed nations, including the E.U., have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, which seeks to reduce greenhouse emissions. The U.S. signed it, but backed out, and it was never ratified. We can support the institution of this important measure, work to raise awareness of green alternatives such as hybrid cars and energy sources such as wind, solar and thermal energy, and make changes in our own lives. It is important to consider our ‘ecological footprint’, or the impact we have on Earth’s limited resources. Then maybe our grandchildren will get to see polar bears, too.

Necole

by Chris Chambers

Wait a minute. Suppress your contempt at my absurd statement and hear what I have to say. First off, let’s examine my assertion: “You vote for the person and not the issues.” It seems pretty clear. At least, it seems clear to me.

When voting, at least here in the United States, a candidate’s name appears on a ballot. Sometimes, as in a presidential contest, they run as a pair … George Walker Bush and Richard Cheney in 2004, for instance. Nowhere on the ballot does it list their positions on key issues or their upbringing or even their lineage. One votes for a combination of names and party identifiers. Who one votes for, in the privacy of the voting booth, is an inherently subjective matter. One doesn’t always vote for who they think will be the best fit for their constituency, who will most affect their life for the positive, or even who is the most competent. More often than not, a voter relies on their party identification as if a crutch to rationalize their choice.

“But,” the astute observer might inquire, “Isn’t the goal to elect the best leader for the constituency?” Not really. Who determines who the best is? Obviously not the voters. In any election, there is a minority of people who feel that their candidate was the best one for the job. There are no objective criteria to determine the “best possible candidate.”

“Well then, wouldn’t it be the goal to vote on the issue that most concerns us?” This is a rather quaint and simple-minded reason to vote. All candidates have their skeletons. Did you know that Barack Obama, while being vehemently against the war, supports curtailing NASA’s budget? Clinton isn’t any better. Did you know that under her healthcare plan, which mandates everyone buy into it, one would have their wages garnished if they choose their private healthcare over hers. Oh yeah, she also authorized the President to use force against Iraq. This authorization was pounced on by President Bush and is the reason why we’re still in Iraq now – almost five years later.

“Well, who should I vote for?” If you’re seriously asking this question, then you shouldn’t be voting. It’s up to every citizen to be well-informed of the process and the candidates before they vote. Their personal histories are fair game, their issue positions are fair game, their personalities are fair game, hell, if you want, even their poise and appearance are fair game. The President is not only the Commander-and-Chief of the United States but our figure-head to the entire world. A Buffoon-in-Chief isn’t respected in world affairs.

When voting for a candidate, evaluate them as a whole person. During the primary process, the primary reason to vote for someone, I feel, is their electability. Damn their particular positions. Who is the best person to beat the other guy in the general election ought to be one’s foremost concern. Are their positions mainstream enough to get them elected? Do they appear to be authentic? How eloquent are they? Do they appear to be from a good background? How have they handled their personal lives?

Case in point: There is/was an article on The Huffington Post the other month saying how Obama and Edwards were 95% alike on 73 key issues. With this in mind, why has Obama done so much better than Edwards in the primary? The answer is: everything but the issues, apparently. All of these subjective reasons – voting for “hope” and “change,” electing the first half-black and half-white person to the high position, voting for the tallest candidate, whatever – play an important role in a voter’s vote.

Now, I fully understand that a lot of people will still disagree with me. My aim is to inform and prod people into thinking about themselves. Don’t lie to yourself. Don’t be timid in who you vote for. Vote for whoever you want to after you know who they are. And if you think that researching a candidate’s background is too cumbersome then, well, maybe you should stay home on Election Day. The country will be better off with you not voting.

Hello all.

We’ve had some issues with some of the comments being posted on the blogs, and since we don’t want anyone to be discouraged from writing, here are some rules that you will have to follow, or your comment (or blog) will not be approved for posting.

Good Manners and Respect Dos and Don’ts

• DON’T use “um,” be snotty to another poster, or make the argument personal
• DO know the difference between differences of opinion and personal attacks
• DON’T present your opinions as facts
• DON’T post the same opinion over and over in the hopes of wearing other people down or “winning” a discussion; just move on
• DO use proper spelling, capitalization, punctuation, et cetera
• DON’T argue with our decision to not post your comment. Try modifying it, following the rules here.
• DO report an offensive comment to us and we’ll make the judgment on whether or not it should be removed.

I think these rules will go a long way in ensuring that this blog stays active and generally friendly. Thanks for your cooperation!

by Samantha Sanders

Yup. I admit it. I am pro-life.

It took me a long time to come to this realization. Ever since high school, when I realized I was liberally-minded and decided to be a Democrat, I always considered myself pro-choice. I was a member of the Model United Nations team, where about 90% of our members considered themselves Democrats and almost all of my friends were of the pro-choice camp. My girlfriends and I were feminists on the rise, aspiring to attend George Washington University and be politicians on the Hill, or lobbyists for the National Organization of Women.

Even then, it always irked me when someone would refer to my pro-choice stance as “pro-abortion.” I was deeply offended that someone would assume that just because I believed in a woman’s right to choose, that I would “support” abortion. I mean, c’mon. Who actually “supports” abortion? In my opinion, I think most people would prefer an alternative and I doubt many people would enthusiastically encourage someone to have an abortion. At least, I wouldn’t. Despite that queasy feeling I got in my stomach every time someone called me a “pro-abortionist”, I continued to consider myself pro-choice… until about my sophomore year of college.

I was driving South on the Florida Turnpike, returning to UCF from a trip to Gainesville. That’s when I saw it – a billboard with a beautiful baby fetus with the words: “A baby’s heartbeat begins at 3 weeks.” A couple minutes later, another one: “A baby’s brainwaves begin at 8 weeks.” If any of you have seen Juno, my reaction was reminiscent to when Su-Chin tells Juno (who’s on her way to an adoption clinic) her baby already has fingernails. I continued driving for a few minutes and then I thought, Really? A Heartbeat? That soon? But, most women don’t even realize they’re pregnant until well after that.

And from that moment on, I knew I was pro-life. However, I don’t consider my stance to be at all conservative (and I now get offended when people assume that) – I still support a woman’s right to choose, and I believe an abortion should be definitely permitted in cases of a mother’s health, rape, or incest, and in some cases, when it comes to very young girls becoming pregnant. However, I do not support abortions based on social reason, and I believe states should enact general restrictions and guidelines that can be applied on a case-by-case basis, depending on a doctor’s or a judge’s recommendations.

But, these are *my* beliefs. My values. My choices. I have no flippin’ clue what it feels like to be pregnant. Let alone be pregnant at 14 years of age. Or be pregnant and alone. Or be pregnant and scared shitless. I wouldn’t even dare to claim that I would *never* have an abortion, because frankly, how can I be sure? I’d like to think I wouldn’t, and I’d like to think that most women wouldn’t. But, I would never want that decision to be made for me, and I certainly would never inflict that kind of demand on another woman.

So, yes. I am pro-life… personally. I am also pro-choice… politically. I think it’s possible to be both.

by Ariel Dansky

One of Hillary’s biggest advantages in her campaign is her name recognition; even I can’t deny that. In fact, I think it is perfectly acceptable for her to emphasize the fact that she’s married to Bill Clinton in order to gain support. Understandably, after a president as incompetent as George W. Bush, it is no surprise that Americans are nostalgic of their nation as it was when Bill was president (and personally, I think Hillary will make a better president). In all, I do not find anything wrong with Bill being actively involved in Hillary’s campaign.

However, when angry, outspoken, red-faced images of Bill are plastered all over news stations on multiple channels at the same time, this is when it has gone too far. During the days leading up to South Carolina, Bill remained in South Carolina campaigning for Hillary, while Hillary was visiting several other states which would be holding their primaries on Super Tuesday. Apparently, Hillary’s advisors did not want to put too much emphasis on South Carolina because they did not expect her to win. After all, South Carolina’s voting population was fifty-percent African American, and the demographic was largely expected to support Obama. While in South Carolina, Bill capitalized on the “race” issue and implied that Obama was the favored candidate, possibly to lessen the potential fallout if Hillary did not win South Carolina. Although Bill’s intentions were to help Hillary in South Carolina, in the end, the image of Bill’s squandering for her read negatively. And in American politics, image is everything. Overall, Bill’s negative image in his campaigning may have contributed to Hillary’s loss in South Carolina.

However, in Florida, Hillary won a substantial victory with fifty percent of the vote, while Obama came in second at thirty-three percent. Although Hillary won by as much as seventeen percentage points, newscasters claimed that it was “not a significant win” for Hillary. I disagree. Although our delegates did not count, there is still a chance that they may be seated at the Democratic National Convention. After all, Florida is a swing state, and it is unfair not to include the delegates from such a large and diverse state. Further, in a way, the diversity of Florida’s population mirrors that of the nation as a whole, and Hillary’s performance in Florida may have given us a preview of how she will perform in many other states. Therefore, if Hillary’s victory in Florida told us anything, it is that despite all of the opposition she faces, she is still a front running candidate, and may very well be the front running candidate.

With Super Tuesday coming up on February 5, we may soon know who our democratic presidential candidate will be. Or we may not. In my opinion, it will be the latter. Although traditionally the presidential candidate has been fairly well decided by super Tuesday, America today is very different than it was years ago. The race between Hillary and Obama is a heated one, and it may very well may go on until the Democratic National Convention (and maybe by then our delegates will be seated).

By John Martino

This past Sunday, Caroline Kennedy, President John F. Kennedy’s daughter, wrote a truly heartfelt and beautiful op-ed in the New York Times. “A President Like My Father” put in words what I have known since 2004, but I am excited to have the opportunity to express it now.

John F. Kennedy inspired a generation of Americans, including the likes of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and my father. He asked every American to give something back, and many did their best and followed through. For a long time, I had been waiting to be inspired, and I had been waiting for my opportunity to make a contribution to the country.

In 2004 I finally found my inspiration to get involved, and I finally found my purpose. In July I watched the Democratic National Convention, expecting a truly boring experience; but as I watched, my world stood still. A young Illinois State Senator, still a few weeks shy of 43, put me on my feet. He was loud and vibrant, chilling and jarring. His rhetoric stirred me, and made me feel the same way my father felt when he first heard Kennedy. The country as I knew it couldn’t be more polarized, yet this youthful guy was talking about bringing it together. Barack Obama’s keynote address made me want to get involved in politics and continues to inspire me and countless others today.

This past Saturday night, Obama, now 46, won a historic victory in the South Carolina primary. His victory truly exemplified how far our country has come and showed us why we need him so badly. A new “change” coalition has clearly formed: whites and blacks, men and women, old and the young, Democrats and Republicans, Partisans and Independents.

A few weeks ago, Obama was criticized for saying that Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election was an election of change. What about this statement is not true? Despite what Hillary’s radio ad claimed, Obama never said Reagan had good policies, nor did he say that Reagan was good for our country. Obama simply said that Reagan inspired a lot of people, which no one can argue with. Many Democrats left the party because of Ronald Reagan, and Barack is our best chance of getting them back, our best chance of healing old wounds.

This past Monday Barack Obama stood next to another member of the Kennedy family, Senator Ted Kennedy, brother of John F. Kennedy. Kennedy said Obama had taken on the Kennedy mantle, that he had taken on the ideals of hope and change. Kennedy explained how the politics of the 1990s had to end and the politics of tomorrow must begin today.

Back in 1960 my father served a cappuccino to John F. Kennedy during the height of his presidential campaign. My father at the time was in California, like so many other struggling actors, and working as a waiter. Kennedy asked my father how he made such a good cappuccino, and my father told him. Forty seven years later I volunteered at a Barack Obama private fundraiser, only being allowed to attend because I had made hundreds of phone calls for the event. Although I had seen him speak before I had yet to personally speak to the man I had idolized since 2004. That night Barack Obama offered me his hand, and asked me what got me interested in politics. I told him the truth-he did.

by Nick Harper

When America’s founding fathers wrote the Constitution, was it their intention to extend authority to individuals’ homes and bodies? I do not believe so. In fact, this is exactly the type of oppression that they came to this land to escape from. How can we truly call ourselves a free society when the government attempts to regulate private behaviors and “Big Brother” is always watching? People often refer to the United States as “the land of the free,” but there are many other countries where personal freedoms are more protected.

One such freedom that the American government attempts to regulate is the use of recreational drugs. While doing drugs is not something that I would consider to be a smart decision, I believe that people should be able to make decisions for themselves of what to put into their bodies, and that what people do in the privacy of their own home is no one’s business, as long as no one else is being harmed. My biggest concern with current drug laws has much less to do with drugs than it has to do with personal freedom.

The use and cultivation of marijuana should not be illegal. Once considered to be an underground drug used primarily by black jazz musicians, marijuana has now evolved into a mainstream drug, with the baby boomer generation having come of age smoking it. It is a naturally growing plant on our earth, rather than a more dangerous chemical creation. No one in the history of the world has ever died from an overdose of marijuana. You cannot physically smoke enough of it to kill you, which is amazing when you consider that you can drink enough water to kill yourself. Does this suggest that water is more toxic to the body than marijuana? Marijuana is prescribed for the sick in some situations, yet the use of it by the well is a criminal activity, although it is a victimless crime.

American drug laws are hypocritical. Our government allows and even financially supports the tobacco and alcohol industries, which have proven negative health impacts, and cost billions of dollars to the economy each year, in terms of health alone. This gives legal sanction to activities that are much more harmful than the smoking of marijuana. If the use of alcohol and tobacco are legal, then certainly marijuana should be as well.

Many of the current drug laws in America are based upon reactions from misleading and false information about drugs perpetuated during the first half of the twentieth century. The first law about marijuana came about as a result of an active media campaign against it spearheaded by Rupert Murdock. It demonized the drug through scare tactics designed to make it seem very evil and dangerous. “Reefer Madness” was a propaganda film made in 1936 that showed a group of high school students experiencing every dire thing possible as a result of trying marijuana. Since that time, the government has attempted to exert increasing control over the use of drugs.

The government’s “war on drugs” has been a complete failure and cost the American taxpayers a great deal of money. Despite all the laws passed, drug use continues to rise. The government is not going to be able to stop people from using drugs. This war is unwinnable. Two-thirds of all prisoners are incarcerated for drug-related offenses, causing them to be overcrowded. This is a tremendous drain on our economy. It gives people criminal records for not having done anything that many people consider to be truly criminal. There are far more serious things that law enforcement officials should be focusing their efforts on than busting the casual marijuana user or dealer.

The real social issue with government control of drug use is the loss of personal freedom. Since it is foolish to believe that Americans can be stopped from using drugs, a new approach toward this problem is needed. The government should rethink current drug laws and stop prosecuting people for minor offenses. The money saved could be used to educate citizens about drugs with truthful, scientific evidence, so that people can make their own informed and intelligent decisions for themselves.

by Joe Costa

Fifty-one thousand, seven hundred twenty five; as I sit here and write this in the middle of January, I wonder about the significance of this number.  To me, it looks like it could be a number as relatively trivial as the projected undergraduate enrollment population for the 2008-2009 school year.  However, a number such as this one has much more terrifying implications; it is the number of marijuana-related arrests so far in 2008, a frighteningly high number for a drug that many of us have tried or used, and that few have ever had any sort of real consequences for.  While the broadest topic of this week is obviously the War on Drugs, I would like to particularly tackle the necessary decriminalization of marijuana possession.

The fact is, I can’t think directly of any major consequences, heath-related or otherwise, that marijuana offers that aren’t otherwise found with alcohol- and cigarette-use, in equal or greater amounts.  Most of the marijuana users that I’ve encountered aren’t criminals or bad people.  In fact, the only thing that most users I know pose a threat to is their mom’s snack cabinet and that secret stash of Hot Pockets at the back of the freezer.

But really, to deal in facts instead of half-witty quips and lame stereotypes, recreational marijuana uses cause about the same amount of lung damage that an average cigarette smoker causes to themselves.  Many will argue that marijuana contains more tar and other substances that cause lung damage; however, most of these researchers are also neglecting to take into account that the vast majority of marijuana users will not smoke 20 joints (or the equivalent) in a day, while millions of Americans are currently pack-a-day smokers.  As a matter of fact, even the most jaded burnout who doesn’t leave his or her couch for anything aside from the alarm on the microwave signaling that his or her pizza rolls are ready, probably doesn’t smoke more than maybe five or six times a day.  A high number, for sure, but not even remotely in the arena of the millions of cigarette smokers who routinely bounce through a pack every day.

As for the judgment-hindering effects of marijuana, it is hard to deny the negative affects on one’s judgment.  Yes, marijuana is prone to causing breakdowns in the judgment of users.  Some of the effects of a marijuana-induced high include sleepiness, laziness, an inability to operate heavy machinery (read: door knobs), and an increased appetite.  However, alcohol, the most popular drug in the United States (according to the NORML website), has been known to cause an even more extreme lapse of judgment and is actually more dangerous than marijuana use by far when it comes to driving while under the influence.  In fact, according to Paul Armentano and his article in High Times in August of 2002, “emerging scientific research indicates that cannabis actually has far less impact on the psychomotor skills needed for driving than alcohol does, and is seldom a causal factor in automobile accidents”.

A study done by Britain’s Transport Research Laboratory, which had volunteers under the influence of either alcohol or marijuana try their hand at a driving simulator, actually stated that “marijuana only adversely impacted subjects’ ability to maintain a constant speed and control while driving around a figure-eight loop.  Reaction time and all other measures of driving performance remained unaffected.  Researchers also noted that the subjects who had smoked marijuana – unlike alcohol users – were aware of their impairment and attempted to compensate for it by driving more cautiously.”  Even with this as the case though, most pro-marijuana decriminalization lobbyists have made it a point to regulate driving when combined with marijuana use, among other things.

To summarize my two main points, marijuana usage is actually proven to be less dangerous than the two most popular drugs in the United States today; alcohol and tobacco.  While an individual joint of marijuana may contain up to four times the amount of tar as one cigarette according to the Surgeon General’s website, most marijuana users are also not as prone to smoking the equivalent of an entire pack of cigarettes a day, as millions of cigarette smokers are.  In terms of impaired judgment, marijuana users are also much less likely to be a danger to others on the road while driving impaired compared to those driving under the influence of alcohol.

But just because marijuana is not as dangerous as tobacco and alcohol does not mean that the decriminalization and legalization of it should not be regulated by laws much like alcohol and tobacco are.  NORML, who serves as the primary lobby for the decriminalization of the drug, has adopted a five-part manifesto called the “Principles of Responsible Cannabis Use”, which outlines the definition of “responsible cannabis use” and includes the regulations that one must be a legal adult, that one cannot drive while under the influence, that one must be wary of the appropriateness of the setting, that one must resist abuse, and that one must respect the rights of others to not become involved in the use of the drug if that is their desire.

The criminalization of marijuana is both expensive and impractical; jailing non-violent criminals for something as trivial as using a drug that is less dangerous than both alcohol and tobacco is crowding our jails and costing the American people more and more money each year.  With the proper restrictions in place, and a tax on the sale of legalized marijuana, the government would be able to take a great deal of money and invest it into other ventures that are much more vital than imprisoning nonviolent transgressors, such as health care or education.  Not for nothing, but the snack food industry could always use an increase in sales.  Let Hostess and Little Debbie thrive!

by Merideth Sipula

Before I go into further detail about the article and other things I wanted to inform you about, I’m going to express my view on the topic. In a scientific point of view, which is how I look at most things, as a future science teacher, I do believe that there is a “gay gene,” and therefore homosexuality is not a choice. I also believe that it is a natural thing that has been seen in the wild. In fact, homosexuality has been observed in over 1,500 species. And in some species, like giraffes, homosexuality is more common than heterosexuality. I could go on, but I’ll make that the end of my science lesson for the day.

As a citizen, and someone who cares about the happiness of others, I am for equal rights for gays, especially adoption rights. There are so many children out there who need homes and loving parents, and that means a mom and a dad, or a mom and a mom, or a dad and a dad, so long as they are qualified. I am also for gay marriage because really, if two people, two citizens, love each other, then who’s to stop them from having the same rights as heterosexual married couples who love each other. Does any one stop heterosexual couples from getting married even if they’ve only known each other for a month, and are only destined to contribute to the high divorce rate? No. (Well, except maybe a priest if they want to get married in a church.)

And just as a human, I am for tolerance of overall human differences. Because in the end, we’re all made up of the same key biological ingredients (don’t worry, there’s no science lesson here), we’re all capable of having emotions, and reasoning, and loving. And if that means a man loving another man, or a woman loving another woman, then so be it.

And the article I read last weekend (see link below) deals with just that: human tolerance. The article is about a student at nearby Stetson University who is gay and found hateful words etched into his door, and then later found “death to fag” written on the dorm laundry room wall. The student didn’t feel safe anymore and ultimately decided to leave the school and Florida to move back up north where he’s from. An official from the school said that “although the school doesn’t condone hate words in any way, there was no rule condemning it.”

What really caught my eye in the article was that the student decided to take matters in to his own hands and contacted Judy Shepherd, the mother of Matthew Shepard, and asked her to come speak to the school about tolerance. For those of you who don’t know, Matthew Shepard was a 21-year-old student at the University of Wyoming (political science major) who was killed for being gay. Two men posed as being gay at a bar and offered Shepard a ride in their car, where he was robbed, pistol whipped, tortured, tied to a fence in a remote, rural area, and left to die. He was discovered eighteen hours later by a cyclist who first thought Shepard was a scarecrow. He was in a coma, never to regain consciousness, and remained on full life support until October 12, 1998 when he died.

Since then, his story has become an eye opener for the need for stricter hate-crime laws, and on March 20, 2007 the Matthew Shepard Act was introduced (officially known as Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007). The federal bill would expand the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The bill would also provide $10 million in funding for 2008 and 2009 to help State and local agencies investigate and persecute hate crimes. It would also remove the limitation of federal involvement under the existing law that the victim of a bias-motivated crime must be attacked while engaging in a specified federally-protected activity, like voting, attending school, or serving on a jury.

The bill passed in the House in May 2007 and in the Senate in September 2007 as an amendment to the Senate Defense Reauthorization bill, and was approved by voice vote. However, surprise surprise, President Bush has indicated he may veto the Defense Reauthorization bill if it reaches his desk with the hate crimes legislation attached.

Though fortunately the student at Stetson was able to escape a threatening situation, the fact of the matter is that it will be 10 years this year since the hate-crime against Matthew Shepherd, and there still has not been a stricter law implemented. With 73% of Americans supporting hate crimes legislation that includes sexual orientation (2001 poll), it’s obvious that the people have spoken. I just hope when the time comes for Bush to sign that bill, he’ll listen.

Links:

http://www.wesh.com/news/15036203/detail.html?rss=orl&psp=news (article)

http://www.matthewshepard.org/site/DocServer/HRC-LLEHCPA-One-Pager1-23-07.pdf?docID=461 (Matthew Shepard Act)