8/29/2007

Call 1-800-LARRY-CRAIG for a good time

The recent barrage of Republican scandal can add another chapter to its book of misadventures: the airport sex-capades of Idaho Senator Larry Craig.

Craig has scored top marks from socially conservative groups like the Family Research Council, and has been lauded as a defender of “family values.” In recent years, Craig has worked to add a definition of marriage amendment to the Constitution and voted against a bill to extend hate crime protection to acts motivated by sexual orientation.

And now this.

It is past ironic that so many conservative Republicans have been caught engaging in such reprehensible sexual behaviors when their political personalities are defined by social conservatism—the least part of which is public sex between strangers. Maybe that’s it—there’s the political personality, and then there’s the person. The two are two, not one. With all the graft, deceit and hypocrisy in this era’s American politics, these facets of our politicians have become more exaggerated and divergent than ever before.

There is something quite Puritanical about it all—that while trying to expel the demons and impurities of society at large, these men themselves fall victim. In these conservative circles there seems to be a denial of any and all human urges, an unwillingness to recognize the innate, biological justification for homosexuality, and an insistence on hiding behind the veneer of a super-human, saintly and sinless shtick.

Many Evangelicals have created a false sin hierarchy, placing homosexuality near the top, and greed and hatefulness near the bottom. Within this system, even discussing the possibility of homosexuality within Larry Craig-ian circles is dangerous at best.

In so tirelessly fighting homosexuality in American culture, Craig’s feelings of self-loathing and the repression and denial of aspects of his sexual being have resulted in the senator’s anonymous, reckless pursuit of public sex.

Pastor Ted Haggard, former President of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), resigned his post in November after news of his involvements with male prostitutes were made public.

In Jesus Camp, Haggard put his face close up to one of the documentary-makers’ cameras and chided “I think I know what you did last night[…]If you send me a thousand dollars, I won’t tell your wife.”

Haggard’s words turned out to be stunningly on-the-mark. But instead of describing the behaviors of others, they described his own: secretive sexual involvement with a male prostitute. Haggard stepped down as pastor of his mega-church and as President of the NAE last November.

In fairness, Democrats are not any less guilty of similar activity (there is no evidence that such inappropriate sexual behavior is motivated by political party). Gary Condit, Jim McGreevey and Bill Clinton all immediately come to mind.

It is possible these people are not even gay. Maybe they were so repulsed, so revolted, so horrified at the concept of their own potential gayness that instead of rationalizing and thinking and praying about the matter, they engaged in this destructive, unexpected behavior. The sad thing is, stories like this will be less and less unexpected from this point forth.

8/27/2007

Why hello there

I'm Chris Girard, one of captains of the opinion section ship this upcoming year, along with Chris Auclair (my co-editor. I'm sure Chris will be blogging here posthaste). I am a Sophomore Political Communication/Theatre Studies double major and a contributor to last year's opinion pages.

It is a little odd I am so involved with the Beacon and journalism is neither of my two majors, but I feel Emerson's PoliCom courses will render me sufficiently equipped for what is to come. I have a lot to learn and a tough act to follow. Last year's editor, Pat Boyle (a fellow PoliCom major), brought professionalism and wide coverage of issues to the opinion page, and his impact on the section is evidenced by the sizable pack of talented writers contributing to the section. I look forward to a good year filled with provocative, well-informed writing and comprehensive coverage of the issues of our time.

I'll start on that later. Right now, I must feed my cat.

4/28/2007

Out with the old, in with the new at the Beacon Opinion Blog

Hey guys,

First, I want to thank all those who have followed this blog since Mike and myself launched it last semester. Your comments and feedback have been valuable.

I will be leaving The Beacon to begin a co-op with The Boston Globe next semester. My assistant Britt will be moving on to the sports page and our editorial cartoonist, busy with his BFA, will not be staying as a weekly contributor.

So that means I will no longer be maintaining this blog. That job will go to the new opinion co-editors, Chris Auclair and Chris Girard, who will begin in September. Both currently bloggers, they should have no problem taking over and improving the blog.

Thanks again and see you in September,

Pat

4/19/2007

Congress Takes a Crucial Step for DC Representation

The results are in according to the Associated Press, and the House has made a 241-177 decision to grant DC voting representation in Congress. This legislation would increase the body of the House from 435 to 437 seats (additionally adding an extra seat for Utah as well to maintain Democrat/Republican balance). The bill now moves on to the Senate, then finally to the President (who has, once again, threatened a Veto).

I watched the debate preceding the vote on C-Span, and was pleased to see champion of such legislation and frequent Colbert guest Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) lay a verbal smackdown to the opposition. Hopefully this footage will surface online soon, because it was AWESOME. Tom Davis, a Republican of Virginia's 11th district (my home turf), also showed his support, stating that his fellow Republicans needed to "see through the fog of armchair constitutional analyses and do the right thing."

The "fog" that Davis is referring to is the argument that the language of the Constitution states that members of the House shall be chosen "by the people of the several states." Many Democrats, however, cited multiple examples where similar language has been bypassed by Congress in order to apply certain federal principles to DC citizens (i.e. Income Taxes, etc).

Furthermore, it is my sincere belief that this matter should be observed from a perspective that looks to the inherent morals and values of this country. We are a Representative Democracy. The 23rd amendment already affords DC residents the right to vote for President. There is no reason these people should not have equal say in the coequal Legislative branch. A citizen of DC is a citizen of the United States, and now for the first time in over 200 years, our government is treating them like one.

***EDIT***

Yes, I found it!

4/17/2007

UK Press Union Boycotts Israeli Goods

The National Union of Journalists, a 40,000 member union in Britain, has voted to boycott Israeli goods in protest of their military policies in the occupied territories.

While I understand the mindset behind such an act, I'm surprised and a little disappointed that it is coming from a journalists union. Does such a policy not compromise the objective perspective reporters are supposed to have? A journalist union should not be in the business of taking one position over another in such a tangible way.

Tragedy in Virginia

Here at the Beacon Opinion Blog, our thoughts go out to all those affected by the savage shooting at Virginia Tech.

4/13/2007

The Presidents' Cash Out

According to an Associated Press article published by Yahoo News, the Bush family reported an annual income of $765,801 last year. Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Mary, reported approx. $1.6 million. I suppose I should not be surprised, and its understandable that families in such a position would have some serious investments (we all know about Dick Cheney's). Still, I find concern in these numbers being so high.

The Presidential salary is $400k. The Vice President makes $200k. Considering the time commitment these jobs require (or SHOULD require), it seems inherently excessive that so much extra money is being collected. When exactly are they taking a break to pursue other financial interests? SHOULD they be pursuing other financial interests? I imagine they have people working for them who do all of their investing, and that they probably don't forgo their administrative duties to direct these people. However, based on Cheney's ties to Halliburton it is not far fetched to theorize that such investments may affect policy decisions.

To put things into perspective, the Clinton's actually left the White House in debt. The Washington Post reported that they were approx. $12 million in the hole (due to campaign and legal fees) to be exact. Sure they're worth a combined $60 million now, but at least they waited until AFTER Bill's Presidential term to make that money (it came almost entirely through book deals and speaking fees for non-charitable events).

It seems practical that a President's financial sources should be limited to taxpayer dollars. It would certainly help to fix the problem so many have with lobbyists and the private sector holding too much sway over the federal government.

***UPDATE***

Obama's family income came in at $991,296 last year. This number, while also high, has been fully accounted for by the newsmedia. $506,618 are from book royalties, and the rest is largely salary money from him and his wife (who technically makes more than he does). I suppose its fair to say that transparency along these lines would be adequate and perhaps more ethical than restricting income for politicians.

4/12/2007

Fox News's love of Tony Snow

First Cal Thomas. Now Bill O'Reilly:

One of the reasons I cut the Bush administration some slack is that Snow answers my questions on and off the record. And if Tony Snow tells me something, I can bank it. He doesn't lie or mislead, ever.
Wow.

Bringing the Sudan conflict one click closer

In our age of rapid technological advancement, there is naturally much commentary about its potential dangers, from tangible things like how the Internet is an effective tool for hate groups to the more vague, as in how it is eroding real human relationships.

The future of technology in general and the Internet specifically remain to be seen. But The Christian Science Monitor has reported a really fascinating story that shows how it is now easier than ever to take a close look at the world thousands of miles away without ever leaving your computer.

Even more interestingly, that world is the war-torn nation of Sudan in Africa. From the article:

"Now anyone with a high-speed Internet connection can zoom in on satellite images of any of the 1,600 devastated villages and get detailed information provided by the United States Holocaust Museum in Washington.

The collaboration is an effort to raise awareness about the three-year-old conflict that has killed more than 200,000 and displaced more than 2.5 million people by giving ordinary people access to images generally available only to spies, diplomats, and heads of state."

How truly incredible this story is. If the Internet can be used in this way, imagine how it will change our very concept of history. The genocide in Sudan can never be denied; the evidence, in the form of decimated villages, is right here on our hard drives.

RIP Vonnegut

Novelist Kurt Vonnegut dies at 84

The world lost one of its funniest and most irreverent voices with the passing of Kurt Vonnegut. I'm not going to describe his wit and brilliance for you. He can do that himself:

"Just because some of us can read and write and do a little math, that doesn't mean we deserve to conquer the Universe."

* * * *

"The best jokes are dangerous , and dangerous because they are in some way truthful."

* * * *

"Thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or conservative."