|
Congresswoman Barbara Lee
Re: Re: Who's the baby? . . . The war is real
A little melodramatic? . . . rape death and assault . . . well. There is no direct link from crappy TV to bloodthirst and turmoil. Millions of people watch this stuff everyday without attacking grandma afterwards. A few sick people may react badly to some of it because they are sick. They grow up in a tough community, or get made fun, or have problems at home, and they are drawn to violence on TV. It can provide a release, sometimes a justification for other things in their life and mind. They either misinterpret a message or take something more seriously than the filmmakers did. I have no doubt that violence can have a negative effect on people. But only in context of other problems in their life. Without a direct causal relationship between art and violence, any prohibitive legislation would be no different than all other arbitrary censorship. It would be political posturing bound to be shot down in the courts. Senator Rockefeller was right when he said violence is the issue Congress should be addressing and working to prevent. But Congress has to weigh their role. (Even if their was a direct link), when dealing with criminal activity, you can proscribe free speech or you can prevent that activity. The first is as irrelevant as it is unconstitutional. Tim O'Keefe
Re: Who's the baby?
There are many things I want to say about the hearing Tim mentions below, but we are trying to keep these posts short, so I will try to do that in my response. I must admit that I am not entirely sure what I think about this issue (the effect of media violence on children) yet.
For now I will address the fact that, as someone pointed out earlier, this issue would not be one if American television viewers were not so entertained by media violence. During the hearing on the 26th, audience members in attendance with good seats were able to view examples of the kinds of objectionable material available on television today for children's consumption. As an audience member without a good seat, my only knowledge of the contents of these clips came from the woman next to me, who would summarize in a phrase each of the scenes for me, "Blood and gore... domestic violence... rape." I could only see the faces of the hearing attendees in the audience who could see the screen. I saw a range of reactions - some horrified, some smiling. I am hoping that those people smiling were looking at something outside the window, or that the clip opened with a cute bunny rabbit, or (most likely) that I am terrible at reading facial expressions, but I think that even without this example of people who seem to like these scenes, we can all accept that this kind of violent entertainment does not find itself without an appreciative and large audience. Scenes depicting rapes and murders may be enjoyable and entertaining for some, but I think we would also concede that the same could be said for pornography, and we do not allow that to be easily accessed by children or shown on primetime television. To answer Tim's last question and to be maybe a little melodramatic: if by "speech that is not safe for everyone" and "deal with," you mean "speech that incites violence and brings not only psychological harm to our nation's children but also the harm those children could later inflict on society" and "suffer from the deaths, assaults, and rapes it causes," then no, I am not so sure we should simply "deal with" this violence in media.
If the panelists were correct in their stating that this epidemic of media violence is truly a public health hazard, I think that we would have reasonable grounds for taking action to guard our nation against it, as we do with other public health hazards.
Malin von Euler-Hogan
Who's the baby?
Senate held a hearing yesterday on the effect of media violence on children. There was a basic consensus that such violence can have a negative effect on kids. Chairman Rockefeller said that was the only issue worth considering. But he's a legislature, not a babysitter. The senate deals with the law, guided and restricted by the constitution. The Harvard panelist professor Tribe made the point that restricting the first amendment is not in the long term interests of our children. Some kids go crazy and it gets blamed on a movie or a song. But isn't that the price of freedom? If we truly believe in the first amendment, shouldn't we be prepared to deal with speech that is not safe for everyone? Tim O'Keefe
U.S.-Cuba Relations: New sanctions on Sudan force a re-examination of U.S. policy with Cuba
On May 30, 2007, President Bush announced new sanctions on the Sudanese government in an effort to quell the violence in Darfur. This most recent round of sanctions serves a largely symbolic purpose and will most likely have no tangible effect on ending the conflict. Some might ask why more comprehensive sanctions are not imposed on Sudan, especially when the U.S. does exercise stronger sanctions on other, possibly less deserving, countries. Cuba is one example. The recent sanctions on Sudan demand a re-examination of U.S.-Cuba relations. Current United States policy in Cuba punishes Cuban citizens by withholding what would be an extremely beneficial relationship. The United States should begin normalizing relations with Cuba based on the following three reasons: First, United States policy in Cuba is not consistent with its policy in other countries. Cuba is considered a state sponsor of terrorism even though the intelligence community admits that it does not have evidence that suggests that Cuba is supporting or cooperating with terrorist organizations. There is no evidence that Cuba is engaged in terrorist activities of any sort against the United States and the rest of the world. Additionally, supporting the embargo with the fact that Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism contradicts U.S. policy in other parts of the world. Sudan, a country that shares Cuba’s title of a State Sponsor of Terrorism and is a known cooperator with and supporter of terrorist organizations, is not sanctioned with the same sort of comprehensive embargo, even in the face of the genocide in Darfur. Inconsistent rhetoric and policies abroad garners neither domestic nor international support and trust for U.S. foreign policy—two things sorely needed in the face of the now extremely unpopular war in Iraq. Second, Fidel Castro handed over power to his brother Raul after falling ill in August of 2006. This transfer of power, albeit to another member of the Castro family, represents the most significant change in the Cuban government since Fidel himself came to power in 1959. The United States should sieze this opportunity to try and promote democratic values in Cuba before Raul’s administruation becomes as establisehd and inpenetrable as his brother’s had been for nearly fifty years. Third, talks in early June of 2007 between Cuba and Spain emphasize that Cuba is in fact ripe for change. Spanish and Cuban “Officials ‘discussed international cooperation on human rights, the death penalty and respect for human rights and the fight against international terrorism,’ as well as technology and communications, the joint Cuban-Spanish statement said.” (AFP June 1, 2007) This new willingness to discuss previously ignored issues underlines the possibility for progress in Cuba. These recent sanctions imposed on Sudan should remind the U.S. of its unjust treatment of Cuba, and given the recent transfer of power along with a new open-mindedness within the Cuban government to the protection of human rights, the U.S. should begin to normalize relations with Cuba in order to take advantage of this possibly fleeting opportunity. Cat Zweig ADA Legislative Intern
Wrong Track
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) speaks out on "Fast Track" and the negative outcomes seen in trade deals negotiated under the system. 
Shortest Oped in History?: Stop Colombian Trade
This article from ADA's very own Amy Isaacs started as a 650 word piece. That version can be found at the Miami Herald website. However, this 150 word version from the Kansas City Star Opinion page, June 25 get the job done too. Should Congress approve trade pact with Colombia? NO The key problem with the pending free-trade agreement with Colombia and others like it is the model that the United States is currently using to negotiate and approve trade deals. Trade Promotion Authority, also known as “Fast Track,” gives the president overwhelming power to negotiate trade deals even though the Constitution assigns those powers to Congress. The process works itself out largely behind closed doors, leaves many of the affected constituencies out, and provides Congress with nothing more than a yes or no vote on already negotiated deals. Taking the place of our elected representatives are corporations who wield inordinate power to tailor trade rules around their needs. Congress should take a step back before approving questionable trade deals not only with Colombia but also Peru, Panama and South Korea. Our vitality at home and abroad depends on making sound decisions. Amy F. Isaacs, Americans for Democratic Action
|
|
