BOSTON—President Obama’s inauguration speech carried many of the same overtones and themes that John F. Kennedy’s speech took when he assumed the presidency in 1961, calling for hope and change while attempting to empower the people to affect that change on the world.
On the surface, the similarities between Kennedy and Obama are as numerous as they are pointed. Both Obama and Kennedy were young men when they made their run for the White House, bringing excitement to the office, along with a following that few presidents have come even close to creating. However, the strongest similarity between Kennedy and Obama is the use of rhetoric by both presidents to accomplish their goals
“One of those things that presidents have to do is to make and lead public opinion as well as following it,” said Bruce Schulman, a history professor at Boston University. “Both Kennedy and Obama… mobilized voters and the public at large with inspiring rhetoric. I think that both of them were students of rhetoric of previous great orators. [Both men] understood the importance of that part of the job.”
Kennedy’s rhetoric did not translate into tangible domestic results during his brief tenure as president, and his strong stance on foreign policy even forced Kennedy to take a more strong-arm approach, such as the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, to keep his actions on par with his rhetoric.
“[Kennedy] had a pretty abysmal record at getting domestic programs through the congress,” said Schulman. “If you look at his three most important domestic initiatives… those all went nowhere as president.”
Although Kennedy’s strong rhetoric did not help his foreign and domestic policies, his call to action resonated with the American people.
“The most successful part of Kennedy’s rhetoric realizing itself was this call to service,” said Schulman. Schulman noted that Kennedy’s most successful accomplishment as president was his establishment of the Peace Corps. “The political mobilization of young Americans bloomed in ways that Kennedy wanted and then in ways that Kennedy never envisioned.”
In his inauguration speech in 1961, Kennedy famously challenged Americans, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
Obama, too, called for action on the part of the American people.
“For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies… What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world.”
Throughout Obama’s campaign for President, opponents criticized Obama’s rhetoric as nothing more than talk. They argued that rhetoric alone meant nothing. Ted Sorensan, Kennedy’s main speechwriter and aide, disputed that sentiment as he reflected on the power of Kennedy’s rhetoric.
“The right speech,” said Sorensan in his memoir, “delivered at the right time by the right speaker can ignite a fire, change men’s minds, open their eyes, alter their views, bring hope to their lives, and in all these ways, change the world. I know. I saw it happen.”
Monday, February 9, 2009
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Concealed Carry on Campus Met with Trepidation
By John Wray
BOSTON—As you doze away in your calculus class, you are jarred awake by the sound of gunfire and screams in the hallway. Panic begins to break out, the door swings open, and a man with an assault rifle steps into the room. In the moment of crisis, you reach into your jacket, pull out your concealed firearm and shoot the gunman dead, saving dozens of lives.
This is the result that a student movement known as Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) envisions if it gets its way. SCCC, which according to its website has close to 30,000 members nationwide, is petitioning lawmakers to allow guns on college campuses. The movement has gained both momentum and national attention in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting on April 16, 2007 and the Northern Illinois University shooting on February 14, 2008.
But Dan Sheehan, a Virginia Tech senior during the shootings, doesn’t support the movement. During a phone interview, Sheehan recounted how that day affected his opinions on guns.
“Most people have never experienced or been around real gun violence. They’re used to playing Grand Theft Auto or Halo,” he said. “I think most people are pretty naïve as to the realities of gun violence.”
Sheehan spoke about why he believes that colleges are different and should stay gun-free.
“It’s a very emotionally-charged time of your life,” he said. “I think that frankly, most people aren’t mature enough to carry a gun.”
During a telephone interview, Dr. James Fox, a Northeastern Professor who has written numerous books on school shootings, described the typical multiple-homicide school shooters as people who feel like their life is not worth living, many times because they think their career has been destroyed by doing poorly in school. The shooters often want to take out their anger on those that they feel are responsible for their problems.
Boston University Police Department spokesman Sgt. Jack St. Hilaire has worked as a police officer for the past 23 years after leaving the Air Force, where he was a military policeman training others in firearm usage. Sgt. Hilaire thinks that, because of the volatile nature of these shootings, allowing guns on campus can only do more harm than good.
“I think this movement of allowing students to carry guns is absolutely ludicrous,” said St. Hilaire in an interview at his office. “It would never ever solve the problem. In fact . . . it would probably, based on my experience, increase injuries and death rates.”
St. Hilaire pointed out many problems with the movement, emphasizing training as a fundamental base for firearm use. St. Hilaire also pointed out the complexities of a situation involving gunfire.
“It’s so dynamic in a shooting situation,” St. Hilaire said. “The last thing you want to do is kill an innocent person.”
Before Columbine, where two gunmen killed 13 students before turning the guns on themselves, officers were trained to secure the area and wait for the tactical team to arrive at the scene and deal with the situation. Now, officers who arrive at a scene and hear gunshots go in without waiting for backup.
“It’s part of the regular training,” said St. Hilaire.
But SCCC maintains that allowing guns on campus will act as a deterrent and a safeguard to violence. Jessica Mondillo, an 18-year old freshman in Boston University’s College of Communication, is a supporter of SCCC.
“I would like to see firearms brought onto the campus,” said Mondillo at an interview at her school. “I understand that people think that college students with firearms is going to be a problem and going to be dangerous. At the same time, they assume that they are just going to be handing 18-year-olds guns [even if students] aren’t trained to use them, but that’s not the case.”
Mondillo, a self-proclaimed moderate, emphasized she doesn’t want just anybody to have a weapon, but only those people who already have a permit to carry a concealed firearm with them in areas outside of campus. People with permits to carry a concealed weapon can carry it anywhere but courthouses, government buildings, schools and other select places that have been declared gun-free zones.
Krista Zalatores, the newly elected president of the Boston University College Democrats, talked about her perception of government’s role in gun control.
“While people do have the right to bear arms, I don't have a problem with background checks or making people wait a few days to receive their guns,” Zalatores said in an online interview. “It is the purpose of the government to protect the rights of the people, the highest of which is the security of life.”
States allowing concealed carry have increased dramatically over the past 20 years. As of 2006, only two states – Illinois and Wisconsin – did not allow some form of concealed carry. Forty of the fifty states are termed “right to carry” states, meaning they will issue guns to residents if residents are 21 and meet certain past criminal history and training standards. In 1986, only 35 states were “right to carry” states, and most of them had much more restrictive laws regarding concealed carry than they do today. Utah recently passed legislation allowing students to carry guns on campus.
In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, schools around the country have also taken steps to protect students in the event of a similar situation. John Hopkins University has installed an advanced surveillance system on campus that monitors movement and automatically warns operators of any suspicious activity. According to the university, crime has dropped 43 percent since the system was installed.
Boston University has enacted a system called “Send Word Now” that notifies students via cell phone in case of an emergency situation. Other schools have considered allowing guidance counselors or school mental health professionals to break the doctor-patient confidentiality code to help notify authorities if a student seems out of sorts. Dr. Fox cautions against that idea.
“That seems to be an extraordinary response to a problem that is not a huge one,” said Fox. “In the long run, doing extraordinary and extreme responses to a problem that is not out of control can do more harm than good.”
Dean of Students for Boston University, Kenneth Elmore, also expressed fears about rash action.
“I think that privacy of the individual is still a very important concept,” he said as he reclined on a couch in his office. “I’d be a little weary about being too extreme.”
While the debate over guns in schools rages on, many agree guns are still an integral part of American society.
“Guns or weapons are this unfortunate but necessary evil in our lives,” said Elmore. “But also, they represent freedom. They represent freedom in our lives.”
For Sheehan, a student who lived through the very type of shooting SCCC is trying to prevent, the idea of a student carrying a concealed weapon that day doesn’t sit well.
“Maybe in the most minute of chances,” Sheehan said, “there is someone who has a concealed weapon in Norris Hall who is able to shoot the killer.”
But Sheehan still thinks guns on campus would do more harm than good.
“Schools are supposed to be places of tolerance and learning,” he said. “And guns have never really been ambassadors of either.”
--30--
BOSTON—As you doze away in your calculus class, you are jarred awake by the sound of gunfire and screams in the hallway. Panic begins to break out, the door swings open, and a man with an assault rifle steps into the room. In the moment of crisis, you reach into your jacket, pull out your concealed firearm and shoot the gunman dead, saving dozens of lives.
This is the result that a student movement known as Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) envisions if it gets its way. SCCC, which according to its website has close to 30,000 members nationwide, is petitioning lawmakers to allow guns on college campuses. The movement has gained both momentum and national attention in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting on April 16, 2007 and the Northern Illinois University shooting on February 14, 2008.
But Dan Sheehan, a Virginia Tech senior during the shootings, doesn’t support the movement. During a phone interview, Sheehan recounted how that day affected his opinions on guns.
“Most people have never experienced or been around real gun violence. They’re used to playing Grand Theft Auto or Halo,” he said. “I think most people are pretty naïve as to the realities of gun violence.”
Sheehan spoke about why he believes that colleges are different and should stay gun-free.
“It’s a very emotionally-charged time of your life,” he said. “I think that frankly, most people aren’t mature enough to carry a gun.”
During a telephone interview, Dr. James Fox, a Northeastern Professor who has written numerous books on school shootings, described the typical multiple-homicide school shooters as people who feel like their life is not worth living, many times because they think their career has been destroyed by doing poorly in school. The shooters often want to take out their anger on those that they feel are responsible for their problems.
Boston University Police Department spokesman Sgt. Jack St. Hilaire has worked as a police officer for the past 23 years after leaving the Air Force, where he was a military policeman training others in firearm usage. Sgt. Hilaire thinks that, because of the volatile nature of these shootings, allowing guns on campus can only do more harm than good.
“I think this movement of allowing students to carry guns is absolutely ludicrous,” said St. Hilaire in an interview at his office. “It would never ever solve the problem. In fact . . . it would probably, based on my experience, increase injuries and death rates.”
St. Hilaire pointed out many problems with the movement, emphasizing training as a fundamental base for firearm use. St. Hilaire also pointed out the complexities of a situation involving gunfire.
“It’s so dynamic in a shooting situation,” St. Hilaire said. “The last thing you want to do is kill an innocent person.”
Before Columbine, where two gunmen killed 13 students before turning the guns on themselves, officers were trained to secure the area and wait for the tactical team to arrive at the scene and deal with the situation. Now, officers who arrive at a scene and hear gunshots go in without waiting for backup.
“It’s part of the regular training,” said St. Hilaire.
But SCCC maintains that allowing guns on campus will act as a deterrent and a safeguard to violence. Jessica Mondillo, an 18-year old freshman in Boston University’s College of Communication, is a supporter of SCCC.
“I would like to see firearms brought onto the campus,” said Mondillo at an interview at her school. “I understand that people think that college students with firearms is going to be a problem and going to be dangerous. At the same time, they assume that they are just going to be handing 18-year-olds guns [even if students] aren’t trained to use them, but that’s not the case.”
Mondillo, a self-proclaimed moderate, emphasized she doesn’t want just anybody to have a weapon, but only those people who already have a permit to carry a concealed firearm with them in areas outside of campus. People with permits to carry a concealed weapon can carry it anywhere but courthouses, government buildings, schools and other select places that have been declared gun-free zones.
Krista Zalatores, the newly elected president of the Boston University College Democrats, talked about her perception of government’s role in gun control.
“While people do have the right to bear arms, I don't have a problem with background checks or making people wait a few days to receive their guns,” Zalatores said in an online interview. “It is the purpose of the government to protect the rights of the people, the highest of which is the security of life.”
States allowing concealed carry have increased dramatically over the past 20 years. As of 2006, only two states – Illinois and Wisconsin – did not allow some form of concealed carry. Forty of the fifty states are termed “right to carry” states, meaning they will issue guns to residents if residents are 21 and meet certain past criminal history and training standards. In 1986, only 35 states were “right to carry” states, and most of them had much more restrictive laws regarding concealed carry than they do today. Utah recently passed legislation allowing students to carry guns on campus.
In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, schools around the country have also taken steps to protect students in the event of a similar situation. John Hopkins University has installed an advanced surveillance system on campus that monitors movement and automatically warns operators of any suspicious activity. According to the university, crime has dropped 43 percent since the system was installed.
Boston University has enacted a system called “Send Word Now” that notifies students via cell phone in case of an emergency situation. Other schools have considered allowing guidance counselors or school mental health professionals to break the doctor-patient confidentiality code to help notify authorities if a student seems out of sorts. Dr. Fox cautions against that idea.
“That seems to be an extraordinary response to a problem that is not a huge one,” said Fox. “In the long run, doing extraordinary and extreme responses to a problem that is not out of control can do more harm than good.”
Dean of Students for Boston University, Kenneth Elmore, also expressed fears about rash action.
“I think that privacy of the individual is still a very important concept,” he said as he reclined on a couch in his office. “I’d be a little weary about being too extreme.”
While the debate over guns in schools rages on, many agree guns are still an integral part of American society.
“Guns or weapons are this unfortunate but necessary evil in our lives,” said Elmore. “But also, they represent freedom. They represent freedom in our lives.”
For Sheehan, a student who lived through the very type of shooting SCCC is trying to prevent, the idea of a student carrying a concealed weapon that day doesn’t sit well.
“Maybe in the most minute of chances,” Sheehan said, “there is someone who has a concealed weapon in Norris Hall who is able to shoot the killer.”
But Sheehan still thinks guns on campus would do more harm than good.
“Schools are supposed to be places of tolerance and learning,” he said. “And guns have never really been ambassadors of either.”
--30--
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Warm Reaction to Clinton-Obama Ticket
By John Wray
BOSTON-- On the day of the Pennsylvania primary, which could go a long way toward determining the Democratic candidate for the general election, Boston University students reacted positively to the idea of a dual Democratic ticket.
Across the board, students said that while a ticket may not eliminate their trepidation about the other candidates, it would help to calm their fears. They also questioned whether it would be feasible.
Those who called themselves Democrats said that they would vote for any Democrat over McCain.
“I can’t really put my name behind a hyper-conservative campaign,” said Eric Brassard from Hollis, N.H. Brassard said that, while he would rather vote for Hillary, he would back Obama, despite his lack of political experience. “He can hold a room like nobody I’ve ever seen,” said Brassard.
Kelly Paice, a 21-year-old junior who is double-majoring in broadcast journalism and political science, said she was raised Republican but has some liberal leanings. She would vote for McCain over Hillary or Obama. While Paice said she dislikes Clinton, she had a lukewarm reaction to the idea of Obama as president.
While she would vote for McCain, she thought that Obama would be a better choice than Hillary. “I think he’d be able to bring a new direction to our country that I think a lot of people feel we need,” said Paice of Obama.
Macky Bastien, a 28-year-old banking and finance graduate student, said that she likes Obama for his “positive outlook.” When asked if she would still vote Democratic if Hillary got the ticket, Bastien paused before answering yes. But Bastien said that she would be happier if Obama were Clinton’s running mate.
Even non-U.S. citizens feel that they have a vested interest in the election results. Dan Levy, a journalism graduate student, is a citizen of Canada who was raised in Montreal. Levy said people are more politically engaged in the United States, and that each election brings drastically different viewpoints to the table. “What happens in the U.S. affects the rest of the world,” said Levy. Levy said that he would vote for Obama over Clinton, because Clinton has run a negative campaign.
At the same time, Levy said that he didn’t think that it was possible for them to even run on the same ticket. “It would almost be hypocritical at this point for her to invite him onto her ticket,” said Levy. “But,” said Levy. “I do think that would be a really strong ticket and I would certainly vote for it.”
--30--
BOSTON-- On the day of the Pennsylvania primary, which could go a long way toward determining the Democratic candidate for the general election, Boston University students reacted positively to the idea of a dual Democratic ticket.
Across the board, students said that while a ticket may not eliminate their trepidation about the other candidates, it would help to calm their fears. They also questioned whether it would be feasible.
Those who called themselves Democrats said that they would vote for any Democrat over McCain.
“I can’t really put my name behind a hyper-conservative campaign,” said Eric Brassard from Hollis, N.H. Brassard said that, while he would rather vote for Hillary, he would back Obama, despite his lack of political experience. “He can hold a room like nobody I’ve ever seen,” said Brassard.
Kelly Paice, a 21-year-old junior who is double-majoring in broadcast journalism and political science, said she was raised Republican but has some liberal leanings. She would vote for McCain over Hillary or Obama. While Paice said she dislikes Clinton, she had a lukewarm reaction to the idea of Obama as president.
While she would vote for McCain, she thought that Obama would be a better choice than Hillary. “I think he’d be able to bring a new direction to our country that I think a lot of people feel we need,” said Paice of Obama.
Macky Bastien, a 28-year-old banking and finance graduate student, said that she likes Obama for his “positive outlook.” When asked if she would still vote Democratic if Hillary got the ticket, Bastien paused before answering yes. But Bastien said that she would be happier if Obama were Clinton’s running mate.
Even non-U.S. citizens feel that they have a vested interest in the election results. Dan Levy, a journalism graduate student, is a citizen of Canada who was raised in Montreal. Levy said people are more politically engaged in the United States, and that each election brings drastically different viewpoints to the table. “What happens in the U.S. affects the rest of the world,” said Levy. Levy said that he would vote for Obama over Clinton, because Clinton has run a negative campaign.
At the same time, Levy said that he didn’t think that it was possible for them to even run on the same ticket. “It would almost be hypocritical at this point for her to invite him onto her ticket,” said Levy. “But,” said Levy. “I do think that would be a really strong ticket and I would certainly vote for it.”
--30--
Great Debate Argues Over Viability, Environmental Effects, of Biofuels
By John Wray
BOSTON—As the Great Debate drew closer, the debaters sat backstage and joked with each other about their debate strategies as they waited for their cue to go on stage. As the laughter subsided, Sean O’Hanlon, a debater arguing for the use of biofuels, paused and warned, “I think there are going to be some interesting surprises.”
The surprise was apparent as the debaters stepped onto the stage. The smiles and joking that were visible backstage were replaced with hard-hitting arguments both for and against the use of biofuels and renewable energy sources as a critical component of U.S. energy policy. At the center of the debate were the issues of global warming and the viability of biofuels, with both sides arguing that their platform was best for both.
“Biofuels are an energy solution that is, for the most part good, and has the potential to be great,” said Brooke Coleman, the lead speaker for the affirmative and founder of the Northeast Biofuels Collaborative.
Robert Bryce, lead speaker of the opposition countered that, “If you want more hunger and a hotter planet, then cooking up more biofuels is a recipe to achieve just that.”
Bryce, an author of many books about the energy business, also spoke about the impracticality of biofuel. “Even if we used all of our corn and soybeans to make fuel, we’d still be importing 10.9 million barrels of oil per day,” Bryce said in his prepared remarks. “And we wouldn’t have anything to eat.”
However, the affirmative team argued that the opposition simply derailed biofuel. “He didn’t offer any solution to our energy crisis,” said Boston University College of Communication senior Neil St. Clair during his rebuttal. St. Clair said that the only viable solutions right now are renewable energy sources. “Fossil fuels will run out. Maybe biofuels are the answer, maybe not… I don’t know,” said St. Clair in an interview after the debate. “But,” as he observed during his speech, “some action needs to be taken now to prevent catastrophe in the future.”
The semiannual debate, in its 13th year, offered a prominent topic facing America. “I always try and get something that is a front burner in the news,” said Robert Zelnick, the chairman of the debate.
With rising gas prices and increasing demand for a more eco-friendly policy in Washington, the discussion about the viability of biofuels has increased in recent months, as more government mandates made biofuels a legal necessity in the country.
“The subsidy is the problem,” said Kenneth Green, an environmental policy analyst speaking for the opposition. “Not the type of fuel.” The opposition argued that government subsidies increased the price of biofuels for American taxpayers. But they argued that those resources could be used to research better methods of renewable energy resources without harming the environment and stealing food from the country.
Still, the affirmative side was declared the winner at the end of the debate as the audience was asked to vote for who debated better.
Coleman’s closing argument, the last of the debate, summed up his argument against the opposition. “If we cannot achieve everything,” said Coleman, “is it better to not achieve anything at all?”
--30--
BOSTON—As the Great Debate drew closer, the debaters sat backstage and joked with each other about their debate strategies as they waited for their cue to go on stage. As the laughter subsided, Sean O’Hanlon, a debater arguing for the use of biofuels, paused and warned, “I think there are going to be some interesting surprises.”
The surprise was apparent as the debaters stepped onto the stage. The smiles and joking that were visible backstage were replaced with hard-hitting arguments both for and against the use of biofuels and renewable energy sources as a critical component of U.S. energy policy. At the center of the debate were the issues of global warming and the viability of biofuels, with both sides arguing that their platform was best for both.
“Biofuels are an energy solution that is, for the most part good, and has the potential to be great,” said Brooke Coleman, the lead speaker for the affirmative and founder of the Northeast Biofuels Collaborative.
Robert Bryce, lead speaker of the opposition countered that, “If you want more hunger and a hotter planet, then cooking up more biofuels is a recipe to achieve just that.”
Bryce, an author of many books about the energy business, also spoke about the impracticality of biofuel. “Even if we used all of our corn and soybeans to make fuel, we’d still be importing 10.9 million barrels of oil per day,” Bryce said in his prepared remarks. “And we wouldn’t have anything to eat.”
However, the affirmative team argued that the opposition simply derailed biofuel. “He didn’t offer any solution to our energy crisis,” said Boston University College of Communication senior Neil St. Clair during his rebuttal. St. Clair said that the only viable solutions right now are renewable energy sources. “Fossil fuels will run out. Maybe biofuels are the answer, maybe not… I don’t know,” said St. Clair in an interview after the debate. “But,” as he observed during his speech, “some action needs to be taken now to prevent catastrophe in the future.”
The semiannual debate, in its 13th year, offered a prominent topic facing America. “I always try and get something that is a front burner in the news,” said Robert Zelnick, the chairman of the debate.
With rising gas prices and increasing demand for a more eco-friendly policy in Washington, the discussion about the viability of biofuels has increased in recent months, as more government mandates made biofuels a legal necessity in the country.
“The subsidy is the problem,” said Kenneth Green, an environmental policy analyst speaking for the opposition. “Not the type of fuel.” The opposition argued that government subsidies increased the price of biofuels for American taxpayers. But they argued that those resources could be used to research better methods of renewable energy resources without harming the environment and stealing food from the country.
Still, the affirmative side was declared the winner at the end of the debate as the audience was asked to vote for who debated better.
Coleman’s closing argument, the last of the debate, summed up his argument against the opposition. “If we cannot achieve everything,” said Coleman, “is it better to not achieve anything at all?”
--30--
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Draft Fears Lead to Strong Sentiment
By John Wray
Editor's note: The following article was assigned at the beginning of class and due after 80 minutes. We were to go out to find and interview a student somewhere on campus. We then were to propose a hypothetical question to the student: If the U.S. went to war with Iran and there was a draft, would you serve?
BOSTON—With the growing threat of United States intervention in Iran, Iain Bernhoft, a Boston University graduate student, says he would not serve if there were a draft.
“I think I’d move to Canada,” Bernhoft said when asked what he would do if drafted. But, he added with a chuckle, “I think I’m a little old for the draft.”
During an interview at a coffee shop, Bernhoft’s scraggly brown hair and equally wiry beard complemented his button-down shirt and brown sports coat. With a book open on the table, he talked about his graduate program in English, which he hopes to finish in 2011. When he explained his views on a possible draft, Bernhoft cited the United States’ role in Iraq when talking about his decision. “The War in Iraq has clearly been a mess, whether it was well intentioned or not,” Bernhoft said.
Bernhoft went on to explain that his political views wouldn’t play into the decision, saying that it was unimportant whether it was George W. Bush or Barack Obama who ordered the draft.
He noted that the United States’ increasing role as the global policeman is a troubling trend. “Should [the U.S. have been intervening] with the genocide in Rawanda? Well, yeah,” Bernhoft said. “Should they be [intervening] with nation states?” asked Bernhoft. “I think it would be a disaster.”
--30--
Editor's note: The following article was assigned at the beginning of class and due after 80 minutes. We were to go out to find and interview a student somewhere on campus. We then were to propose a hypothetical question to the student: If the U.S. went to war with Iran and there was a draft, would you serve?
BOSTON—With the growing threat of United States intervention in Iran, Iain Bernhoft, a Boston University graduate student, says he would not serve if there were a draft.
“I think I’d move to Canada,” Bernhoft said when asked what he would do if drafted. But, he added with a chuckle, “I think I’m a little old for the draft.”
During an interview at a coffee shop, Bernhoft’s scraggly brown hair and equally wiry beard complemented his button-down shirt and brown sports coat. With a book open on the table, he talked about his graduate program in English, which he hopes to finish in 2011. When he explained his views on a possible draft, Bernhoft cited the United States’ role in Iraq when talking about his decision. “The War in Iraq has clearly been a mess, whether it was well intentioned or not,” Bernhoft said.
Bernhoft went on to explain that his political views wouldn’t play into the decision, saying that it was unimportant whether it was George W. Bush or Barack Obama who ordered the draft.
He noted that the United States’ increasing role as the global policeman is a troubling trend. “Should [the U.S. have been intervening] with the genocide in Rawanda? Well, yeah,” Bernhoft said. “Should they be [intervening] with nation states?” asked Bernhoft. “I think it would be a disaster.”
--30--
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Immigration in America
By John Wray
Editor's note: The following is a side-bar article meant to be printed alongside a larger article that discusses immigration reform. The article is meant to take the immigration debate and relate it to everyday Americans.
BOSTON-- While the debate over immigration reform is fierce, immigration’s undercurrents flow through ordinary Americans like Stephanie Clark, a 19-year-old from Irvine, Calif., studying at Boston University. Clark’s background is as multifaceted as America’s.
Raised in a predominantly white area of California, Clark has a background with bits of Irish, German, French, Native American and Japanese. Her father’s father met his wife in Japan during World War II.
“They got married on a warship on the way back to the States,” Clark said.
She described how her grandmother was treated upon her arrival on U.S. soil. She was persecuted for her ethnicity and spoke little English in a foreign country at the age of 19, but she persevered, learning to speak English and raise a family.
Clark’s diversity doesn’t stop there. Her father is French and German, along with other nationalities that not even he knows.
“Two of my aunts are actually related to the Hatfields from the Hatfield-McCoy rivalry,” Clark said, referring to the 19th century families, split down Union and Confederate lines, who were involved in numerous confrontations over land disputes, many of which resulted in murder. Not only is Clark related to the Hatfields, but she also noted that “somewhere along the line one of my members of the family actually married into Ben Franklin’s family.”
When asked about her views on immigration today during an on-campus interview, Clark spoke candidly. Raised in a Republican stronghold in Democratic California, Clark holds views on immigration that are based in part upon her interaction with immigrants. She relayed the story of a house painter she knew who worked for her family, and how it changed her view of immigrants.
“He’s just trying to make a better life for himself and his family,” Clark said.
Clark extended that logic to immigration reform as a whole. “It would be stupid to close off our borders to [Latin America] entirely,” Clark said. “You’d be essentially eliminating an entire section of the labor force if you deport all of them.”
Clark talked about how the ideal of American immigration should shift from the idea of a melting pot to that of a stained-glass window. While each of the pieces of glass is a different color, the edges blend into one another, creating a whole picture. This way, the glass retains specific sections that are unique, while blending together to form a larger, more important picture that uses each of the pieces separately.
“If the colors of the stained-glass window were to be melted together, the beauty would be lost,” Clark observed.
Clark herself is an example of a stained-glass window. Her roots extend from the islands of Japan to the hills of Ireland, from the Hatfields to the Franklins, but all of them have combined to form Stephanie Clark’s stained-glass window. Without immigration, that composite would never have been possible.
“Since America has become its own country we’ve had immigrants from all over the world,” she said. “It’s made America what it is.”
--30--
Editor's note: The following is a side-bar article meant to be printed alongside a larger article that discusses immigration reform. The article is meant to take the immigration debate and relate it to everyday Americans.
BOSTON-- While the debate over immigration reform is fierce, immigration’s undercurrents flow through ordinary Americans like Stephanie Clark, a 19-year-old from Irvine, Calif., studying at Boston University. Clark’s background is as multifaceted as America’s.
Raised in a predominantly white area of California, Clark has a background with bits of Irish, German, French, Native American and Japanese. Her father’s father met his wife in Japan during World War II.
“They got married on a warship on the way back to the States,” Clark said.
She described how her grandmother was treated upon her arrival on U.S. soil. She was persecuted for her ethnicity and spoke little English in a foreign country at the age of 19, but she persevered, learning to speak English and raise a family.
Clark’s diversity doesn’t stop there. Her father is French and German, along with other nationalities that not even he knows.
“Two of my aunts are actually related to the Hatfields from the Hatfield-McCoy rivalry,” Clark said, referring to the 19th century families, split down Union and Confederate lines, who were involved in numerous confrontations over land disputes, many of which resulted in murder. Not only is Clark related to the Hatfields, but she also noted that “somewhere along the line one of my members of the family actually married into Ben Franklin’s family.”
When asked about her views on immigration today during an on-campus interview, Clark spoke candidly. Raised in a Republican stronghold in Democratic California, Clark holds views on immigration that are based in part upon her interaction with immigrants. She relayed the story of a house painter she knew who worked for her family, and how it changed her view of immigrants.
“He’s just trying to make a better life for himself and his family,” Clark said.
Clark extended that logic to immigration reform as a whole. “It would be stupid to close off our borders to [Latin America] entirely,” Clark said. “You’d be essentially eliminating an entire section of the labor force if you deport all of them.”
Clark talked about how the ideal of American immigration should shift from the idea of a melting pot to that of a stained-glass window. While each of the pieces of glass is a different color, the edges blend into one another, creating a whole picture. This way, the glass retains specific sections that are unique, while blending together to form a larger, more important picture that uses each of the pieces separately.
“If the colors of the stained-glass window were to be melted together, the beauty would be lost,” Clark observed.
Clark herself is an example of a stained-glass window. Her roots extend from the islands of Japan to the hills of Ireland, from the Hatfields to the Franklins, but all of them have combined to form Stephanie Clark’s stained-glass window. Without immigration, that composite would never have been possible.
“Since America has become its own country we’ve had immigrants from all over the world,” she said. “It’s made America what it is.”
--30--
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
BUSH’S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESSES ECONOMY, FOREIGN POLICY
By John Wray
President George W. Bush gave his seventh and final State of the Union address to congress on Monday night, pushing for his economic and foreign policies, as well as decrying the congressional practice of earmarking.
With recent economic decline, those polled say that economy has taken over the Iraq war as the most important issue facing our country. During the fifty minute speech the President decried tax increases, declaring to members of congress that, “if any bill raising taxes reaches my desk, I will veto it.”
President Bush addressed the nation’s increasing debt by outlining a plan that “terminates or substantially reduces 151 wasteful or bloated programs” putting America on track for a surplus by 2012.
President Bush also reported on the successes of the troop surge in Iraq. The President noted that in the last year, “high profile terrorist attacks are down, civilian deaths are down, and sectarian killings are down.”
The President again emphasized the policy in Iraq termed “return on success” which will bring over 20,000 troops back from Iraq in the coming months. Bush cautioned, however, that subsequent troop withdrawals “will be based on conditions in Iraq and the recommendations of our commanders.” The President noted that premature troop withdrawals could lead to increased violence and the “disintegration of Iraqi security forces.”
President Bush’s strong economic and foreign policy rhetoric highlighted the partisan divide in congress. On issues regarding tax cuts and troop levels in Iraq, Republican lawmakers stood and cheered while Democratic members of congress sat stoic across the aisle.
Both sides stood to applaud, however, when the President decried the congressional practice of earmarking bills, where additions to bills are added at the last minute so that congress cannot review them. Bush cautioned congress that, “if you send me an appropriations bill that does not cut the number and cost of earmarks in half, I will send it back to you with my veto.”
President Bush also announced his Executive Order to Federal agencies to ignore earmarks that have not been voted on by congress saying, “if these items are truly worth funding, the Congress should debate them in the open and hold a public vote.”
--30--
President George W. Bush gave his seventh and final State of the Union address to congress on Monday night, pushing for his economic and foreign policies, as well as decrying the congressional practice of earmarking.
With recent economic decline, those polled say that economy has taken over the Iraq war as the most important issue facing our country. During the fifty minute speech the President decried tax increases, declaring to members of congress that, “if any bill raising taxes reaches my desk, I will veto it.”
President Bush addressed the nation’s increasing debt by outlining a plan that “terminates or substantially reduces 151 wasteful or bloated programs” putting America on track for a surplus by 2012.
President Bush also reported on the successes of the troop surge in Iraq. The President noted that in the last year, “high profile terrorist attacks are down, civilian deaths are down, and sectarian killings are down.”
The President again emphasized the policy in Iraq termed “return on success” which will bring over 20,000 troops back from Iraq in the coming months. Bush cautioned, however, that subsequent troop withdrawals “will be based on conditions in Iraq and the recommendations of our commanders.” The President noted that premature troop withdrawals could lead to increased violence and the “disintegration of Iraqi security forces.”
President Bush’s strong economic and foreign policy rhetoric highlighted the partisan divide in congress. On issues regarding tax cuts and troop levels in Iraq, Republican lawmakers stood and cheered while Democratic members of congress sat stoic across the aisle.
Both sides stood to applaud, however, when the President decried the congressional practice of earmarking bills, where additions to bills are added at the last minute so that congress cannot review them. Bush cautioned congress that, “if you send me an appropriations bill that does not cut the number and cost of earmarks in half, I will send it back to you with my veto.”
President Bush also announced his Executive Order to Federal agencies to ignore earmarks that have not been voted on by congress saying, “if these items are truly worth funding, the Congress should debate them in the open and hold a public vote.”
--30--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)