AMERICANS FOR INFORMED DEMOCRACY OF BOSTON COLLEGE

Professor Noam Chomsky on the Future of American Policy

2009-02-12T12:11:00.000-08:00

This Tuesday, Boston College had the great honor of welcoming renowned American intellectual Professor Noam Chomsky to our campus, to talk about the future of the United States with regards to both domestic and international affairs. Known as the father of modern linguistics, Professor Chomsky is also a cognitive scientist, political activist, and philosopher. His lecture at Boston College was highly anticipated and extremely well attended - the entirety of Gasson 100 was filled with people, and others listened in from outside the room to Professor Chomsky's views on America's path forward at home and around the world. The lecture itself was interesting and engaging, and at times amusing, and it was a privilege to all that attended to hear from such an influential person.

Professor Chomsky started his lecture by noting the historical election of Barak Obama as President of the United States, touching on the significance of having a black family in the White House. He went on to mention how this even was a result of the cultural changes that had been evolving since the 1960's in this country. He did say, however, that it was cultural development and not institutional change that made this possible, and went on to make this distinction one of the main points of his lecture, as he delved into the concept of American democracy as compared to that in other countries. The nation that was the basis of much of his comparison was Bolivia, which explained was engaged in real democracy, where individuals could and did have great influence over politics and policy. This as compared to the democracy of the US as seen in President Obama's campaign, with individuals looking for a mandate and leader to follow, without attempts to define that mandate for themselves. Citing this comparison, Professor Chomsky argued that, to a large degree, the aim of US democracy is, by necessity, to undermine democracy elsewhere.

Professor Chomsky qualified this interesting argument by calling modern times the "Age of Orwell" and saying that when the US speaks of "promoting democracy" that such a statement is a sort of doublespeak in that what is actually done in some cases is quite the opposite. He explained that the difference between democracy in name, as in the US, compared to democracy in action, using the example of Bolivia, could result in a clash of civilizations.

He went on to talk about the process of elections in the US today, posing the opinion that elections are now run almost entirely by the Public Relations industry that attempts to manipulate people's decisions by creating a predominantly uniformed electorate. As evidence of this concept, Professor Chomsky said that people identified with President Obama's campaign and were of the opinion that he stood for the things that they stood for because the campaign, as all other modern campaigns, was run not on obvious statements of opinions on issues, but on personality and general likability. The campaign discussions, he explained, tried to focus on anything but what really mattered.

The next topic of Professor Chomsky's lecture was the current financial situation in the US. The big question, he though, was that of "Who owes what to whom?" and he proceeded to describe the issues with this question based on the ideas of real democracy versus the views of people in the US. He said that in a democracy, the public would take over the banks in a situation like that which the US currently finds itself in, but that the US public has been conditioned to think that nationalization of private institutions is bad. This was another example, too, of the ways in which democracy could be seen as being undermined by the US version of it. Along the same lines was Professor Chomsky's idea that the capitalist society of the US is not conducive to the effective practice of democracy as capitalism encourages each individual to work only for himself, not for the benefit of society at large.

The main point that Professor Chomsky made about American foreign policy under the Obama administration was an agreement with the opinion of Condoleezza Rice, that for the most part, foreign policy would be run in much the same vein as it had during the presidency of George W. Bush. He also talked about the need for the US to maintain positive relations with our allies as we move forward.

During the question and answer portion of the lecture, Professor Chomsky fielded a question about the role of the Internet in the processes of democracy. He was quick to point out that the development of the Internet had come out of the state sector for about thirty years at its inception, and that only more recently had it become an entity not fully under the control of the state. Currently, he explained, the Internet could be a good tool for democracy, as it is hard for the government to control. At the same time, he made clear his opinion that a person would really have to know what he was looking for in order to get particularly insightful material, especially with regards to social and political affairs.

Professor Chomsky gave the Boston College community an excellent lecture on the path ahead of the US following the election of President Obama. He was bold in his opinions, and gave his audience plenty to think about over the course of this administration. Although some of his opinions might have been construed as surprising or even troubling to some, he tempered his points with some statements that got the audience laughing. The Boston College community was honored to host Professor Noam Chomsky and learn from his views.

Whitson Talks Human Rights

2008-12-05T19:37:00.000-08:00

Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director of the Middle East and North Africa divisions of Human Rights Watch, spoke about her experiences doing human rights work in the Middle East on Friday night in Higgins 310.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) is a non-partisan organization that analyzes possible violations of laws of war and human rights. HRW does on the ground work to uncover facts about the situation in question. For example, it investigates casualties of war on a case-by-case basis to find out exactly how people died and determine if there were any illegitimate practices involved. HRW also uses photos and other evidence to determine what type of munitions were used and where they were fired from.

The main goal of Human Rights Watch, according to Whitson, is to stand up for the rights of civilians. When innocent peoples' human rights are violated, HRW gathers facts surrounding those cases and exposes them.

When asked during the Q & A whether or not HRW's published reports actually made a tangible difference, Whitson responded that they indeed did. Short-term, much of the punishment for violations comes from the United States government in the form of economic sanctions. Whitson indeed admitted that HRW often has to "ride on the coattails of U.S. political power." In the long-term, exposing the mistreatment of civilians has an effect in the mere raising of the issue among the general public of the country of concern. When an issue such as women's rights is actually discussed in Middle Eastern countries, at least some measure of social progress is virtually inevitable. She pointed to progress in the United States on racial and gender issues over the past century or so as evidence of the feasibility of major social ideological shift.

Whitson stated that she personally finds satisfaction in standing up for people all over the Middle East and Northern Africa whose plights are often ignored.

Appropriately enough, an Egyptian human rights activist was in attendance Friday night. When he asked Whitson if there was any hope for the country that he had lived in all of his life, her response was an emphatic: "yes."

Anyone considering a career in human rights work certainly got a good sample of what it would entail. For everyone else, Whitson's remarks shed light on just how lucky Americans are to have a level of freedom that many are fighting to achieve for themselves.

The Rise of China

2008-12-04T08:30:00.000-08:00

Right before break, Americans for Informed Democracy hosted a panel titled "The Rise of China: American Security and the Political, Social, and Cultural Consequences of Economic Development", the first panel in a series on Rising Nations. Despite the panel being so close to Thanksgiving, there was a good turnout to hear Professor Ross of the BC Political Science Department and Professor Fewsmith of the BU International Relations Department discuss the effects of China's rapid ascension to relevance on the global stage. Each professor was given time to explain his views on the impact of the rise of China. Professor Ross focused his analysis of China's rise on its affects on US policies toward other Asian nations. Professor Fewsmith took up the economic and cultural changes that have occurred across China as the result of unexpected political changes and evolution in the past thirty years. At the end, the panel was opened up to questions from the audience, who ended up having a lot to say, and so gave the professors further chance to really get into the details about the Rise of China.

Professor Ross began his opinion by explaining that in "catching up" to the rest of the developed world, and becoming relatively more powerful, China has caused other nations to be relatively less powerful on the world stage. As a result of this changing in the global power structure, policies of other nations toward China and toward one another naturally need to evolve as well. Through the examples of South Korea and Taiwan, Professor Ross discussed the development of new Asian alliances with China versus the US, with the two mentioned above becoming much more dependent on and attuned to Chinese policy, rather than US relations. In the case of those two nations, the US has had to accept its lesser position to China, and has been accommodating toward the rise of China in that respect. Elsewhere in Asia, though, the US has been building up troops and weapons so as not to be standing by idly while China becomes a major world power. American buildup in the rest of East Asia represents a subtle method of resistance to the rise of China. Professor Ross then concluded that as such, the rise of China is creating two Asias - one bound mainly to the interests of China, and the other tied ever closer to US policy.

Professor Fewsmith started off his analysis discussing China's recent growth as the result of some drastic alterations to its political structure that have set the nation up for economic development. Such changes that China needed for development, that is has had for the past 30 off years now, are bureaucrats in charge of the political structure, and institutionalization, as opposed to the cult of personality of Mao Zedong. An interesting point that Professor Fewsmith made was about how there has been toleration in China for some corruption, as long as the promise of economic growth is realized. Interestingly, Professor Fewsmith argued that the Chinese economy really took off because of corruption in the system. The political system has also changed so that more and more economic elites also wield significant political power. With this rise of elitism, which is a cause of the rise of China, there as has also been a rise of populist movements as a counter. Professor Fewsmith indicated that while the elitist eastern coast of China has been on the rise an experiencing growth in recent years, the lower-class interior of the country is floundering. Such a conflict of interests in China would have influences on future growth.

The questions and answer portion of the panel had to do mainly with Sino-American relations. Professors Ross and Fewsmith went over the Chinese response to the current US financial situation, pointing out that the Chinese government has created a stimulus package for Chinese citizens. This package follows a recent trend of de-urbanization in China, where around seven million Chinese workers have moved back into rural areas, where there is little to no productive work for them. Compared to the US, though, China is better able to handle mass unemployment, as it has more resources designated toward maintaining the stability of the nation. The Rise of China event was a definite success judging by the interest shown in the topic through the question and answer portion of the panel. The inaugural panel in the Rising Nations series has set a good precedent for future panels.

BC Chronicle "Last Lecture"

2008-12-01T18:33:00.000-08:00

The first "Last Lecture"

BC debuts a "Last Lecture Series" in the spirit of Carnegie Mellon University professor Randy Pausch

By Sean Smith | BC Chronicle Editor

A Very Fitting Inaugural Last Lecture

2008-11-20T21:31:00.000-08:00

Tuesday night, Americans for Informed Democracy sponsored the inaugural lecture of the Last Lecture Series at Boston College. The premise of the Last Lecture series is a challenge to the professors speaking to give a lecture on the final message they would wish to impart on students, were it their last chance to speak. AID and the BC community at large were immensely honored to have the premier speaker in this series be Rev. Michael Himes, who is, without a doubt, one of the best lecturers on campus. This fact was not only very aptly demonstrated by the speaker himself, it was also reflected in the huge audience that turned out for the event and the rapt attention they paid to the lecture, despite many seated on the floor or standing for the duration. Regardless of their positions, the entire audience was deeply moved by Father Himes's outstanding Last Lecture.

It was an important event for the Americans for Informed Democracy club on several levels. Father Himes emphasized the need to ask the right questions, which is especially meaningful for AID. As a non-partisan club seeking to inform students about the important issues, AID strives to provide information and let the students make their own decisions. Many AID events on campus involve having guest speakers who talk about the issues that they care about. From these events, attendees can learn from the questions and answers the speakers present. This kind of constant conversation was another emphasis of Father Himes's lecture, which all in attendance could take to heart.

Father Himes's Last Lecture was a powerful and moving event that drew a crowd bigger than the venue could contain. This excellently delivered and emotionally charged oration was an incredibly influential event for AID; a jumping-off point of sorts, in terms of getting attention for the club. Now present in the BC consciousness, the Americans for Informed Democracy club is wrapping up this semester with big plans for Spring!

Inaugural "Last Lecture" A Success

2008-11-18T19:08:00.000-08:00

AID sponsored its inaugural "Last Lecture" event Tuesday night, headlined by Reverend Michael Himes.

It was the first in a planned series of orations inspired by Randy Pausch's popular book, The Last Lecture. Rev. Himes was asked to reflect upon what he would say were he giving the final lecture of his life and then give that lecture to BC students.

Originally scheduled to be held in Higgins 300, it was eventually moved to the Murray Function Room due to the anticipation of a large crowd. Truth be told, the size of the audience ended up being better suited for Robsham Theatre, with an estimated thousand people packing into every inch of available space.

After jokingly proposing a solution to the problem of providing the promised desserts to everyone in attendance (it involved a few loaves of bread and some fish), Rev. Himes discussed the importance of giving ourselves to others and how we can go about doing it. Paradoxically, he said that if we try to hold on to life, we will lose it; it is when we give our lives away that we are truly living.

During the discussion Rev. Himes suggested that the best way to learn something is to teach it. In addition, he expressed that it is not enough to reflect on reality; we must be actively engaged in life to gain a full appreciation for and understanding of it. He also explored the concept of friendship and its immense value. But all of his lecture spoke in one way or another to the overarching concept of giving oneself to others.

...

Rev. Himes's lecture was truly amazing. I find it difficult, if not impossible, to do it justice in my own words. What I can say is that his speech was one of the most remarkable experiences I have had in my first year here at BC, one that I will not soon forget. The next "Last Lecture,"planned for Spring 2009, will have a tough act to follow.

Why You Really Should Listen to Your Professors

2008-11-07T13:38:00.000-08:00

Although an election is not really over until all the votes are counted, and one of the candidates concedes to the other, this election had, in many minds, been decided for a good time prior to the results on the Fourth. This idea came out especially strongly in the panel discussion on foreign policy, hosted by AID last week (October 28). Of the three professors on the panel, Marc Landy, Mike Chapman, and Mark Sheetz, the two former stated outright that they believed that Senator Barak Obama would win the election. Despite this, the panel was well-balanced ideologically, and ended up being a fascinating event that all in attendance appreciated and enjoyed.

First to present his opinion was Professor Sheetz, who gave the most even amount of time to the foreign policy positions of both candidates in this election. He began his analysis of the policies by explaining that he would try to use as much of the candidates own words as possible, and also touched on the idea that agreement on certain issue between the candidates was not necessarily a positive thing as both candidates could be wrong. The analysis then went across the subject areas of diplomatic hotspots, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China, and humanitarian issues. One of the similarities between the candidates' positions that Professor Sheetz emphasized was their common belief in the moral and cultural supremacy of the United States. More than once, Professor Sheetz referred to Senator Obama's more idealistic notions as derived from some "airy-fairy land," and he also expressed his regret that Senator McCain appears to want to return to a Cold War stance toward the world at large. The comparison of the two candidates concluded with the explanation that both candidates seemed to want to get back to the US being the leader of the free world, and in the pursuit of this, expanding the military.

The second panelist to speak was Professor Chapman, who introduced himself again as a history professor and explained how from his perspective, he was much more concerned with the long-term picture of things. He went on to say that he did not particularly believe that presidential issues tend to have much to do with the real way that foreign policy operates at any given moment, mainly because of the imbedded issues at work. In that sense, Professor Chapman explained that much of US policy is directed toward perceived hotspots which may or may not necessarily be useful allies or campaigns. The emphasis in this explanation was mainly on the ethical burden the US carried based on its self-assigned need to police the world, and how the true effects of things happening now will not be seen for years to come. Some of the urgent problems Professor Chapman spoke on, that he felt the new president would face, were the issues of such a strong Israel and weak Pakistan, oil issues, Turkey and the Kurds, and the Balkans. He also expressed the European sentiment toward the US, the idea that what gives the US the right to meddle with the world. Throughout these explanations, there was no particular emphasis on a specific candidate, as the professor said early on that he fully expected Senator Obama to win the election and so there would be no point in talking about the two sides.

Last but not least to voice and opinion on the state of foreign policy in the US was Professor Marc Landy, who introduced himself as the interesting part of the panel; the dissenter of sorts. He also agreed from the beginning with Professor Chapman, that Senator Obama would win the election easily. Professor Landy then went on, with plenty of spirit, to talk about how the US has been and will continue to be a global leader, and that the next president should continue to employ such a policy in dealing with international affairs. Using one of the words both his fellow panelists had said more than once, Professor Landy talked about how the US has "meddled" in other nations in some good ways, such as the Cold War, the first Gulf War, and possibly even Iraq now. Militarily speaking, he explained that both the Democrats and the Republicans have made some historic mistakes in their policies. Mainly, that the Democrats put too much stock in the "happy talk" of diplomacy and underrate military strength, and that the Republicans overrate the spreading of democracy as a policy and might be overly optimistic on the potential for democracy around the world. Professor Landy, unlike Professor Sheetz, was heartened, he claimed, by the similarities in the candidates. He concluded with a statement of optimism at Senator Obama's appreciation of the role of the US in the world.

The panel concluded with a Question-and-Answer section, where some points were clarified, and some new points were discussed. Professor Sheetz talked about Senator McCain's policy with regards to humanitarian intervention as being very safe, politically - that McCain had set it up so as to have an out so he would not have to commit to any causes that were not immediately beneficial to the US. Professor Landy was asked about who the "good guys" and the "bad guys" were in Iraq, and concluded that once everyone was on the same page as the US, everyone would be a "good guy". Professor Chapman explained that though he did not agree with all of Senator Obama's domestic policies, he was excited about the change Obama would bring to the realm of foreign policy.

All in all, the panel was a huge success, both in the discussion of the state of foreign policy in the US and in getting students fired up about the things to come in the future. And, with the results of the election overtly predicted by two of the three panelists, showed that professors really do know what they are talking about.

A Night for the Ages

2008-11-07T13:11:00.001-08:00

On one of the most significant nights in our nation's history, Barack Obama became the first African American to be elected President of the United States of America.

He won in comfortable fashion over GOP candidate John McCain and was declared the winner around 11pm Eastern time. Senator McCain conceded the election with grace, congratulating Obama and urging that all Americans put their support behind him, no matter who they voted for.

An hour later, Obama gave a stirring victory speech, highlighting the historic significance of the election, the greatness of our nation, and the challenges that lie ahead.

Key moments on Tuesday were Obama's victories in Pennsylvania and Ohio, two states that McCain had hoped (and maybe needed) to win. Obama also won Virginia and Florida, all but sealing the end result.

In addition, Democrats gained seats in both the House and Senate. As of today they have a 57 - 40 advantage in the Senate and a 259 - 176 majority in the House of Representatives.

...

No matter how you feel about Mr. Obama's ideology, no one can deny the significance of his win. Only 60 years ago African Americans had a difficult time voting in this country, but now we will have an African American in the White House. We are far from an end to racism in America, but surely Tuesday was a giant leap in the right direction.

Tuesday night was significant in another way in that it likely signaled the dawn of a new era in American politics. In a startlingly consistent demographic trend, the younger the voting block, the more heavily it supported Senator Obama. The election in this way seems to be an ushering in of the younger generation.

But the greatest gift that President-Elect Obama has bestowed upon America is inspiration. Not since JFK and MLK has America seen a leader with such ability to inspire and unite a people. Not convinced? Watch his speech. If it doesn't give you goosebumps, check your pulse.

Clearly, we now have a great opportunity to bring about great change in our country. But in Mr. Obama's own words, "This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were." Our next President cannot bring change alone - it is up to us to make it happen.

Hey Liberals, Don't Worry

2008-11-03T06:10:00.000-08:00

Cushioning the blow, in case of an upset. Opinion from William Kristol.

From the New York Times, November 3, 2008.

Barack Obama will probably win the 2008 presidential election. If he does, we conservatives will greet the news with our usual resolute stoicism or cheerful fatalism. Being conservative means never being too surprised by disappointment.

But what if John McCain pulls off an upset?

I’m worried about my compatriots on the left. Michael Powell reports in Saturday’s New York Times that even the possibility of an Obama defeat has driven many liberals into in a state of high anxiety. And then there’s a young woman from Denver who “told her boyfriend that their love life was on hold while she sweated out Mr. Obama’s performance in Colorado.” Well, what if Obama loses Colorado? Or the presidency? As a compassionate conservative, I’m concerned about the well-being of that boyfriend — and of others who might be similarly situated. I feel an obligation to help.

So let me tell liberals why they should be cheerful if McCain happens to win.

1. It would be a victory for an underdog. Liberals are supposed to like underdogs. McCain is a lonely guy standing up against an unprecedentedly well-financed, superorganized, ExxonMobil-like Obama juggernaut. A McCain upset victory would be a classic liberal happy ending.

2. It would be a defeat for the establishment. Obama’s most recent high-profile Republican endorser was D.C. insider Kenneth Duberstein. Liberals should be on the side of hard-working plumbers, not big-shot lobbyists — oops, sorry, big-shot strategic advisers and consultants. And Duberstein said that Colin Powell’s endorsement was “the Good Housekeeping seal of approval on Barack Obama.” Doesn’t that comment embody everything that liberals (and many conservatives, including me) find creepy about smug establishment back-scratching and gatekeeping in America?

3. It would be a victory for the future. With President Bush’s approval rating at about 25 percent, a McCain triumph would mean Americans were making a judgment on two future alternatives, not merely voting on the basis of their resentment at the past performance of George W. Bush. It would mean voters were looking ahead, not back. Liberals should therefore welcome a McCain win as a triumph of hope over fear, of the future over the past.

4. It would be a victory for freedom. Obama supporter Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic writes that “tyrants and génocidaires would sleep less soundly during a McCain presidency.” Liberals should be opposed to tyranny and genocide. Wieseltier also acknowledges that McCain “was splendidly right about the surge, which is not a small thing; and the grudging way Obama treats the reversal in Iraq, when he treats it at all, is disgraceful.” The surge advanced not only our national security but the cause of freedom in the world. Liberals should be votaries of freedom.

5. A McCain victory would be good for liberalism. Look at recent history. Jimmy Carter and a Democratic Congress begat Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress produced Newt Gingrich. Who knows what would follow a President Obama and a Democratic Congress? Here’s one possibility: President Sarah Palin.

So liberals shouldn’t be too upset at the idea of McCain winning. Could it happen?

It’s possible. What if the polls, for various reasons, are overstating Obama’s support by a couple points? And what if the late deciders break overwhelmingly against Obama, as they did in the Democratic primaries? McCain could then thread the Electoral College needle.

McCain would have to win every state where he now leads or is effectively even in the polls (including North Carolina, Indiana and Missouri). He’d have to take Florida and Ohio, where he’s about four points down but where operatives on the ground give him a pretty good shot. That gets him to 247 of the 270 votes needed.

McCain’s path to victory is then to snatch Pennsylvania (which gets him to 268), and win either Virginia, Colorado, Nevada or New Mexico (states where he trails by about four to seven points) — or New Hampshire, where he’s 10 points behind but twice won dramatic primary victories.

As for Pennsylvania, two recent polls have McCain closing to within four points. Pennsylvania is the state whose small-town residents were famously patronized by Obama as “bitter.” One of Pennsylvania’s Democratic congressmen, John Murtha, recently accused many of his western Pennsylvania constituents of being racist. Perhaps Pennsylvanians will want to send a little message to the Democratic Party. And that could tip the election to McCain.

It’s an inside straight. But I’ve seen gamblers draw them.

If McCain wins, think of this column as a modest contribution to cheering up distraught liberals. If Obama prevails, I’m confident there are some compassionate liberals out there who will do the same for hapless conservatives as they hobble out to the wilderness.

"Dreams Die Hard" Film Viewing and Discussion

2008-10-23T19:20:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-22T18:50:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-17T08:19:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-15T20:22:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-08T05:35:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-06T06:08:00.000-07:00

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.