foxchasefive.com

Oops. It happened again.

As all of you know, I spent some time in Washington serving as a Congressional Page. Sigh. In the past two years the page program has experienced more scandals than [insert name of generic politician and/or celebrity]. This time the pages were caught stealing third in the dorm elevator, a contraption which I personally rode (pun intended). Apparently, there were spectators to the stimulating show. Also, two pages were caught stealing from a nearby shopping center. Two members of the newly constructed scandal-proof page board resigned as a result, quite justifiably in my mind. However their criticism is unfortunately misplaced, highlighting one of the problems with the congressional page program. The issue is not inadequate supervision; this occurs with sometimes overabundant zealotry. The problems results from an inadequately scrupulous admissions process and too much idle time. Read the rest of this entry »

Fox chase Five: The ONLY Place where free speech is not a thing of the past.

Alright. It’s time for an all out rant. First I’m going to give a bit of an unbiased recap of a fairly sequence of events that is anything but bizarre. So Don Imus, the host of a televised radio show recently made some comments concerning the Rutger’s women’s basketball team.
IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night between — a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the women’s final.

ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night — seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points.

IMUS: That’s some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and –

McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.

IMUS: That’s some nappy-headed hos there. I’m gonna tell you that now, man, that’s some — woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like — kinda like — I don’t know.

McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing.

IMUS: Yeah.

McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes — that movie that he had.

IMUS: Yeah, it was a tough –

McCORD: “Do The Right Thing.”

McGUIRK: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

IMUS: I don’t know if I’d have wanted to beat Rutgers or not, but they did, right?

ROSENBERG: It was a tough watch. The more I look at Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors.

IMUS: Well, I guess, yeah.

RUFFINO: Only tougher.

McGUIRK: The [Memphis] Grizzlies would be more appropriate.

That is an exact transcript of what conspired. I would just like to point at that first of all Imus did not make this comments without a significant prompt, and beyond that, they were clearly in jest. I have frankly heard Sports Center anchors make more offensive comments. Second of all, I don’t see much racism in the quote- unless it is taken out of context. The nappy headed ho’s comment would be offensive on it’s own as it is insulting specifically to the black members the team. HOWEVER, Mr. Imus follows this “terrible” comment by comparing Rutgers to Tennessee, whose players are do not seem so rough. Included with the comment about the players of the Tennessee team was the fact that their black players are of lighter skin- an inference from the reference to the Spike Lee movie. Yes, calling someone a nappy headed ho is clearly offensive and even misogynistic. However, in the context that Mr. Imus made that remark- at a prompt from another member of the radio program, and only in comparison to the less scraggly looking members of the Tennessee team, it is difficult to make a case that they remark were blatantly racist.

What’s more is that Imus immediately went onto Al Shapton’s radio broadcast and apologized, lending himself no excuse, and admitting the inappropriate nature of his remarks. Not only does should this have remedied that situation, which was inflated by poor media coverage to being with, but it should have excused Imus from any official repercussions. Even more so, many of the conservative television networks, such as fox, routinely have advocates for policies such as the closed border approach to immigration. Many of their comments include justifications such as to the lack of assimilation, criminal nature, low values, etc. that immigrants bring to this nation. These comments frankly, are downright racist and yet they are still tolerated. Look, frankly, I don’t care if you want to be racist, it is a free society. Hatred is bad, but it must still be protected. However Mr. Imus’s remarks certainly held no malice nor hatred, and even the case for the racism of the comments is shaky. Let free speech be and stop antagonizing people for remarks that are blown out of proportion by the predatory media and overly racially conscious American public. To quote one of my inspirations “white guilt compels this nation’s extremely pale majority to support a minority like Barack Obama and give an otherwise homeless Soledad O’Brien a job.”

I’d just like to wrap this up by saying a couple of things. First of all racism is not bad on it’s own. People are allowed to hate. I am not a racist, nor do I support racism, but there is nothing illicit about it. Racism is only bad when it materializes as harmful consequences, such as physical violence or discriminatory behavior. Second, not only was Don Imus’s comment far from heinous, but also he promptly and sincerely apologized. Thirdly, the media ravages poor men like Imus (and in some cases terrible men like George Allen), but often without the proper context of defense allowed. In the media, you are guilty until proven innocent. In the meantime, the American public begins to drool as the often mindless dribble of the popular media sneaks into their empty minds (a true Vaman inspirational). People don’t think anymore. And on a last note, Al Sharpton is a racist. Don Imus made an inappropriate comment. I wish society were not prejudiced, and I wish affirmative action were not necessary. However, there are certain things that must be accepted in today’s society, and that is that blacks are often discriminated against and disenfranchised. None of this justifies the guilt crusade that is put on by the leaders of the radical black movement when one person slips out of line. Racism cannot and will not be eliminated from society. It should be. However, we should work to live in mutual comfort and harmony, comfortable that each other’s remarks are only in jest and have no real world impacts. This is the case of Imus’s comment. Yet, due to the seemingly morbid fear of some members of the black community (ahem Mr. Sharpton) that Strom Thurmond will rise from the grave and throw shackles around their feet, people are unable to take comments for what they truly are. That’s about all I have to say.

By Sam Hocking (someone who is insprired by Mr. Muppala, who he feels is certainly a nappy headed pimp)

Section II of Article 14 of the Constitution states that “the right to vote at any election…is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime”

America stands as the world’s bastion of political freedom, the shining beacon of liberty, the proverbial city on the hill. However, when it comes to the rights of convicted criminals, the same standard is not upheld. The United States constitution in antiquated verse allows for the restriction of the voting rights of convicted felons. This is not only terribly oppressive, but also extremely impractical. It runs contrary to all of the ideals which the United States represents and allows for the denial of an essential right to what is a fairly large portion of US citizens. Millions of people are convicted felons. A great majority of these men and women had their voting rights usurped by their state governments. Statistics suggest that these numbers range from 1.5 to 3.9 million people are completely bereft of voting rights. None of these people have any representation within the United States government. Felons must be allowed to vote both while they are in jail and once they are released. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for this restriction, though there are a number of reasons reject this discriminatory statute.

First of all, if felons are not represented in government, there will be significantly less consideration of the conditions of prisons or the treatment of convicted felons. Prison conditions will never improve and more likely deteriorate if nobody within the prisoner demographic is represented within the government. When legislators and presidents need to cater to a frequently abused and often disenfranchised demographic the treatment of these people will certainly improve. Also, the legal system will be forced to become fairer towards defendants. Furthermore, giving felons voting rights helps to reassimilate them into society; it makes them feel more accepted and normalizes their status as normal, functioning members of our country.

More importantly, however, stripping felons of their voting rights stands in direct contradiction and opposition to all ideals of American liberty, Republican government, and free choice. The American ideal of democracy is the simple concept of one person, one vote. Though it may seem shallow, this idea gives way to a profound and important goal of perfect representation. The effect upon every person’s life should be considered when laws are made in a democratic society. Excluding felons is nearly as egregious as excluding slaves or women, both of whom were once considered a lesser grade of person. Some dissenters may argue that felons are a lesser grade of person; that they do not live by the same standards of morals, nor respect normal standards, and therefore should be disenfranchised. This argument is the most ignorant statement possible. Should we have IQ requirement for voting? Should we silence all dissenters and relegate all voting minorities to the bottom of society. While a great majority of felons are terrible people, and deserve all the punishment they receive, this does not entitle them to be gouged of the allowance to choose? Still more, a great majority of felons are prosecuted for victimless crimes, such as drug use, or a litany of other offenses which for which the government claims jurisdiction.

Liberty and equality are the two tenets of American society which allow it to function democratically. When some have rights others do not, when some are restricted without due cause, when people no longer have a chance to change, and when choice is no longer a right but a corrupt and contracted privilege, democracy will die, and so will America. Aristotle spoke truthfully when he said, “If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.” We have made immeasurable bounds of progress with regards to equal rights and individual liberty. However, when antiquated and ancient rhetoric define the boundaries of modern law, it is time to reassess. That time has come and we must stop restricting the voting rights of this country’s felons.

By Sam Hocking