"Dreams Die Hard" Film Viewing and Discussion

Every year, between 15,000 and 18,000 people are illegally trafficked into the US for forced labor. Considering the controversial and horrifyingly surprising nature of modern slaver, particularly in the United States, it was heartening that a good number of people turned out for the viewing of "Dreams Die Hard," a film on this contemporary tragedy. Spread out in Fulton 511, it seemed that the number of people that did attend were truly there to learn more about human trafficking through the film, presentation and Q&A hosted by the AID-offshoot Rallying Effort Against Contemporary Trafficking (REACT). The goals of REACT, Lisby Mumford explained, are to raise awareness about modern-day human trafficking and to work with the community and other schools to be active on the issue in our area. Judging by the intense interest of the crowd in the film and presentation, it seems that REACT had a ready audience for its very important message.

"Dreams Die Hard" told the stories of three individuals who were forced into slavery in the United States, and the individuals and groups that aided them after their harrowing ordeals. Along with the narratives of each of the stories were remarks on the nature and breadth of modern slaver, in the US and around the world. One of the speakers of the film defined slavery as one person controlling another by force and threat of violence, given no payment and generally exploited economically. For the average person, the idea of modern slavery is often difficult to understand, as it seems it would be easy for someone in such a situation to simply escape by making himself known to the police or the community. But there are so many disadvantages crippling the powers of those who end up in situations of forced labor: language barriers, shock at the situation, lack of knowledge of where one is, and as time goes on, mental conditions such as battered person syndrome.

The movie made a point of emphasizing the idea that much of the slavery in the US has to do with the exploitation and corruption of the dream of making a better life in the US. People simply looking to improve their lives and the lives of their families are trapped in slavery in various ways. In the Boston area, specifically, sex trafficking is the most prevalent form of forced work; in Brighton, a police raid uncovered brothels that kept and exploited Estonian women.

One of the more powerful statements in the film that was surprising to the students in attendance was that one of the most important parts of helping to free modern slaves in the US is the vigilance of average people in their neighborhoods. People who are active and involved in their communities are instrumental in finding and caring for those who were trafficked into the country. Such a sentiment really dug into the audience, and showed the great importance of raising awareness that there is a large modern slavery problem.

Also shown in the film and the presentation were some of the organizations and groups that are working to combat the existence of modern slavery in the US. Organizations mentioned were the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking (CAST), the Coalition for Immokalee Workers (which works specifically for the rights of migrant workers, and aids former slave-laborers), and CASA of Maryland (an immigrants rights organization).

The issue of contemporary human trafficking is woefully underrepresented in major media news, which is part of why efforts need to be made to raise awareness of the issue. There needs to be a sharp increase in corporate responsibility, as well as a turn toward more active consumerism on the part of the average person. A recent effort to train electricians to recognize trafficking victims in their day to day work is an example of a way for communities to be much more proactive about helping out with this issue.

As evidenced by the size and attention of the audience of this presentation, modern slavery is an important issue to quite a few people. As a community, we just need to make sure that this becomes and issue that everyone is aware of, and knows that they can do something about.

Despite Limited Audience, Student Forum Proves Very Worthwhile

The relatively few students that watched the Student Forum on Presidential Candidates this Wednesday were treated to a spirited representation of Sens. McCain and Obama. 

The event was held in Devlin 008, a venue that turned out too large for its audience. Only a small fraction of seats were occupied, with a few spectators noting a lack of advertising for the event as a possible reason for the low turnout. 

Nevertheless, the show did go on. Representing Sen. McCain were John Hynes and Alex Guittard, with Joshua Darr and AID of BC President Michael Madormo representing Sen. Obama.

Among topics discussed in the forum were the economy, foreign policy, leadership ability, temperament, and fiscal policy. All four representatives appeared very well-versed in the stances of their respective candidate, with heavy arsenals of statistics to back up general policy points. 

Discussion in the forum closely mirrored discussion in the media and in the actual Presidential Debates this election year. The McCain side stressed less government intervention, calling tax increases "irresponsible" in tough financial times like these, while Obama's representatives pointed out that the deregulation that McCain (along with Pres. Bush) has stood for for so long obviously is not working for the economy. Also, there was a lot of debate about Iraq. Hynes and Guittard argued that we should leave Iraq in victory, not defeat, and Darr and Madormo pointed out the economic advantages of pulling out of the costly war as soon as responsibly possible. 

One topic that was especially interesting was that regarding the personalities of the two candidates. Which senator has the temperament and background best suited for the presidency? John McCain is the more "fire-bellied" of the two, with an outstanding record of military service. On the other hand, Barack Obama has, as Darr put it, "icewater running through his veins," and boasts an outstanding scholastic background. The Republican side argued that McCain has real world experience and can make a quick decision when necessary. Obama's BC representatives noted that their candidate is more worthy of trust in regards to important, complex situations that require critical analysis. Hynes and Guittard were quick to note that "scholarly" Presidents such as Jimmy Carter were not very effective in office. For their part, Darr and Madormo argued that our current President is proof enough that we do not want Joe Six-Pack running the country. 

All in all, those that attended the Student Forum were stimulated to further consider their all-important votes in only thirteen (thirteen!) days. Election Day will be here before we know it; take advantage of the few opportunities left to evaluate these very different candidates. 

The Mock Debate that Made a Joke of its Real-Life Counterpart

Students at BC have been catching election fever with all of the BC VOTES initiative around campus, and the event then night of Wednesday, October 8 was yet another way for students to really get into the current politics of the country. The event was a mock debate, with Mike Reer arguing the side of the Republicans and Senator John McCain, and Josh Darr presenting the views of the Democrats and Senator Barak Obama, and the debate was moderated by Professor David Deese. In format, the debate was similar to the real presidential debates, although with a wider view - questions were asked from five issue areas, and "candidates" were given up to two minutes to speak on each question. After the pre-determined questions were asked, the "candidates" were also given time to ask their opponent a question a question relating to the issue area. At the very end of the debate, the "candidates" were posed questions that had been written by the audience during the debate.

The beginning of the debate was somewhat predictable - the "candidates" mainly stuck to talking about the issues as their true counterparts had debated them, so the discussion was not initially fresh or new. After a while, though, the debate seemed to loosen up, and the "candidates" started talking about the issues in ways that were not necessarily memorized from prior presidential debates, which got the audience more excited and interested about the points brought up. Professor Desse complimented Mike and Josh throughout the debate on how respectful they were of one another and how well they stayed within the time limits. Their good presentation was also visual, as both wore suits, and both wore presidential-looking red ties.

On the issues, Josh Darr pointed out that the US needed to regain its status on the international stage by having a charismatic leader who would work well with our "European Allies". Later, Mike Reer made and interesting argument about victory in  Iraq, explaining that in a way, there were two wars being fought - one versus Saddam Hussein, and one versus the insurgency. As the debate went on, the opponents began to drop the characters of their respective parties' presidential nominees and moved into speaking from their own views and experiences, which actually made the debate more intelligent and enjoyable. Both Mike and Josh were able to pull on knowledge of their own (that their candidates do not necessarily have or express) in order to make their points, giving legitimacy to their arguments. It was clear that the debaters could come to much more sensible solutions than the actual candidates, probably due to the fact that they do not have to pander to party constituents and platforms, a fact that was not overlooked by the audience, who were attentive throughout the night.

The debaters really made the even worth attending. Mike and Josh were willing to agrees on certain aspects of their opinions without gritting their teeth about it, which was a refreshing change to the terse similarities acknowledged by the actual presidential candidates. When prompted to ask one another questions, the two opponents asked thoughtful questions and received thoughtful, polite answers. And throughout the night, Mike and Josh were amusing and engaging, getting lots of applause from the audience. The mock debate was definitely the remedy to the prior night's debate's lack of new ideas, and seemed to inspire much more intelligent discussion in its aftermath. 

In Heated Final Debate, Candidates Fight for "Joe the Plumber's" Vote

Anyone who was bored by the first two presidential debates got something entirely different Wednesday night. With election day fast approaching, the battle for votes between Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama grew especially heated during the third and final debate. BC students were invited to view C-SPAN's telecast of the debate at Robsham Theatre, cosponsored by AID.

Wednesday's clash of candidates was held at Hofstra University and moderated by CBS's Bob Schieffer. It was conducted in the traditional, non town-meeting style, the topic being domestic policy.

Sen. McCain was more feisty than we have ever seen him. The Republican, lagging behind Obama in recent polls, was extremely passionate and at times confrontational in his arguments throughout the night. Whether such emotion was due to desperation or simply a desire to be strong with his views is unclear. Obama, for his part, remained relatively cool and collected, no doubt comforted by his lead in nationwide polls.

During one segment of the debate, Mr. Schieffer asked the presidential hopefuls to address the negativity in their campaigns. Obama and McCain each took advantage of the opportunity , with McCain focusing on Obama's "connection" to Bill Aires and Akorn, and Obama saying that "100%" of McCain's ads have been negative (a questionable statistic). Obama mentioned chants of "terrorist" and "kill him" at Republican rallies, while McCain admittedly felt hurt by some things said by the Democratic campaign.

In addition, the candidates spent much of the debate attempting to portray themselves as friends of the middle class via dialogue about, and at times with, "Joe the Plumber." He started out as an anecdotal figure met by Obama on the campaign trail, but ended up a metaphor for the middle class as a whole. Joe was mentioned around twenty times throughout the night (the Robsham audience laughed heartily as the metaphor dragged on for far too long).

Wednesday night suggested some things about this election. One is that it is going to be nasty down the stretch. If the overall tone and content of the debate is any indication, there is still a lot of mud left in the arsenals of both parties. Also, the middle class will be a key talking point. With the economy showing little or no signs of improving, Sens. McCain and Obama each will want to appear to be the one that will rescue "Joe the Plumber" from his tough times. Finally, we can be sure that the election will be a turning point in our history. Amid the negativity, many fundamental differences between the candidates were exposed Wednesday. In such a time of crisis, the track that this nation takes for the next four years will be of great significance. So, come election day, GET OUT AND VOTE!!!

Presidential Debate - Free Food, Laughter, and (Not Enough) Information

With only a month left before the Presidential Election, the voters have only a few more opportunities to evaluate the candidates and decide whom to vote for. The Presidential Debate this Tuesday provided such an opportunity. BCVotes2008, a group on campus dedicated to educating BC students about the 2008 election and, you guessed it, getting them to vote, sponsored a viewing of the debate in the Yawkey Center. AID cosponsored the event. There was a decent turnout at the Yawkey Center, with about three quarters of the seats filled. I suspect that the free wings and pop didn't hurt the attendance level. 

The second in the trio of debates this year was held in Nashville and moderated by Tom Brokaw. It was conducted in a town-hall format, with many of the questions being asked directly by a few of the eighty undecided voters that made up the live audience. 

Given the state of the economy (not good, if you've been living in a cave for the last month), it was no surprise that economics dominated the early portion of the debate. Among the other topics touched upon were taxes, healthcare, foreign policy, and energy. I'm not going to provided an extensive summary of the debate - watch it on YouTube if you didn't on Tuesday! - But in general what happened was: 1) Obama tried to connect McCain with George Bush and McCain sought to repudiate that connection (poor W!) and 2) Obama preached for government intervention and McCain for government to get out of the way of the private sector. 

One of the things that I noticed was the relative lack of meaningful discussion in the debate. This is a crucial time in our history, and still both candidates seemed much too concerned with bringing down his rival. Finger pointing was rampant throughout the debate from the economy to the War in Iraq to healthcare. Although there were definitely some useful policy points put forth, the issue-to-smear ratio was not where it needed to be. 

Also, it is clear that both candidates have embraced the current media climate of sound bites and one-liners. There were actually some funny ones throughout the night, including McCain's description of trying to nail down Obama's tax policies as "like nailing Jell-O to a wall" and the Illinois Senator's remark that "the straight talk express lost a wheel."

All in all, BC viewers at the Yawkey Center got a little bit of everything at Tuesday's debate viewing: Free food (the wings were messy but still excellent), humor (the facial expressions of the candidates were fodder for roaring laughter at times), and of course positions of both senators on a few issues. Hopefully we can have less of the humor and more of the issues at the final debate before we all cast our votes in November. 

Vice Presidential Debate Watch

As the general election this year draws ever nearer, BC students continue to be encouraged to become part of the political process and register to vote to continue their influence at the polls. On Thursday, October 3rd, student were invited to a viewing of the Vice Presidential Debate, between Democrat Senator Joseph Biden and Republican Governor Sarah Palin, hosted by BC VOTES. As explained in a recent email: "BC VOTES is a collaborative effort between the UGBC, Americans for Informed Democracy (AID), the College Democrats, the College Republicans, student leaders, various university offices, and the Student Programs Office at Boston College." BC VOTES events are held frequently around campus, some to help students register to vote, some to engage students in mock debates on issues, some to watch debates and election results as a group, and all to influence students to be informed and involved with current politics in the US. This particular debate watch was well attended, with more than 100 students turning out for the event.

The debate itself was an interesting event, especially considering the circumstances - there was a notably heavy media presence waiting in the wings to analyze the "winner" at the end of the night, and the debate itself was taking place while the House of Representatives considered the financial bailout bill that had just passed through the Senate. The debate actually started with a question about the bill, which resulted in some creative working of words by both VP-candidates in the attempt to differentiate between them, as both of their running mates voted "yes" to the bill. It became clear early on that both sides had a similar tactic of pointing out differences between their opponent and his or her running mater; the attempt to drive a wedge between vice-presidential and respective presidential opinion was threaded throughout the night. Senator Biden countered such attempts by talking about his support for Senator Obama, while Governor Palin explained that her differences with Senator John McCain were what made their pairing the "maverick" ticket.

Relating to the method of answering the debate questions, Senator Biden tended to bring ip what he deemed relevant facts and figures to attempt a full answer, while Governor Palin often picked up on one aspect of the question's topic to discuss at length. Both strategies could be seen as good choices for the potential VPs - Senator Biden's kept him from becoming overly emotional about the topics; Governor Palin's kept her from seeming uninformed about the topics. As far as strengths in the debate, Senator Biden seemed to be relatively consisten in doing his best to fully answer the questions and drawing a link between McCain/Palin's policies and President Bush's policies throughout; Governor Palin made an effort to answer the questions on her own terms and stress issues such as energy policy and the Iraq was where she could bring up more personal examples.

The students who attended this BC VOTES event seemed to take a lot from the debate and the opinions presented by the vice-presidential candidates. On the whole, this audience was very respectful of the debate-viewing, mostly refraining from any distracting responses to what the senator and governor said (there were a few instances of almost universal laughter at some of Senator Biden's grins and Governor Palin's references to Joe-Six-Pack). In the end, the debate watch was a success in inspiring attendees to think more critically about the candidates - leaving the debate watch, almost everyone was engaged in a discussion over the candidates' positions on the issues and the question of whom had won the debate.