Commentary, perspective, and point-of-view from the Globe's columnists and editorial-page editors and writers.
|
« July 2, 2006 - July 8, 2006 |
Main
| July 16, 2006 - July 22, 2006 »
July 14, 2006
My parents are both from India and moved to the U.S. in the 70’s. Although I grew up in America and cannot speak Hindi very well, I am still told, in a very derogatory manner, that I have an Indian accent.
Senator Biden’s comment, "you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent” was a remark that amplified a stereotype of Indian Americans.
What’s it going to take for the stereotype of this stereotype to fade? When will people stop seeing all Indians as ‘The Simpson’s’ character Apu Nahasapeemapetilon, someone who was created to be laughed at? The economic boom in India didn’t remove this image, nor have the thousands of Indians in engineering and medicine.
Joe Biden's remark was not, as he said, misinterpreted, nor was it the same as "I could have said that 40 years ago about walking into a delicatessen and saying an Italian accent in my state.”
The comment was directed at the stereotype of an Indian storeowner who says phrases like “Thank you come again.” It represents Biden’s, and many other Americans, image of an Indian American.
As someone who was in the Senate for so long, there is no excuse for this kind of remark, for pointing out to Americans that if you look a certain way, you must be a certain way.
Posted by Swati Gauri Sharma at 05:12 PM
July 12, 2006
Offering what he calls his “first endorsement,” David Kravitz of Blue Mass Group proposes an excellent candidate for state auditor. Who is it? Well, someone who “clearly has a talent for spotting waste and mismanagement, particularly when it comes to the Big Dig, and for speaking up loudly about it, no matter who he irks in the process.” What could be more timely, or more appropriate -– particularly for the constitutional office that, as Kravitz points out, is essentially the state's whistleblower-in-chief?
Add the facts that (1) this is someone who actually wants to hold statewide office, but doesn’t have a chance of winning, say, the governor’s office, and (2) that the incumbent auditor, Joe DeNucci, is a largely complacent hack who has held the job since the Dukakis Era, and Kravitz says it all adds up to an idea whose time has come: Christy Mihos for Auditor.
Read the whole thing. And read, too, the Jon Keller rumination that triggered it.
Posted by Jeff Jacoby at 11:32 AM
July 11, 2006
My generation -- today’s college students -- has not seen substantial Supreme Court decisions that give us faith in the judiciary. There hasn’t been a Brown v. Board of Education or a Nixon v. United States, when the Court ordered President Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes.
The court’s Guantanamo ruling appears to be a landmark case that should inspire respect because it rules that prisoners of war should have due process. But this decision seems to be a by-product of fear: the Supreme Court fighting not to lose power to the Bush Administration.
A real landmark decision would have been an order for all prisoners at Guantanamo to have an actual sentence.
Since the 1980’s, the Supreme Court has had a series of rulings that could be designated as “landmarks,” but only for portraying partisan ruling and horrible judgment. In United States v. Morrison, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to make the act of rape a federal crime. Instead, a clearly partisan 5 to 4 rule declared that Congress did not have jurisdiction in the case, and declared PARTS OF the Violence Against Women Act unconstitutional. Too focused on reducing the power of Congress, the Court made no decisions about the incident of rape.
In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress went too far when it passed the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act. The problem: Congress relied on it’s constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce, but majority of justices said that carrying a gun to school did not constitute economic activity.
A 2005 ruling seems to contradict the gun ruling by saying Congress could rely on its commerce clause powers to regulate drug use even when no commerce or economic activity was involved. This was a loss for two California residents who grew their own marijuana for medical use but were not engaged in commerce, specifically the buying or selling of marijuana.
The founding fathers decided that the justices should have a high salary and a life-long appointment so that they would rise above partisanship and power struggles, and simply interpret the Constitution. A new generation is waiting to see that happen.
Posted by Swati Gauri Sharma at 03:18 PM
July 11, 2006
Driving to work this morning was awful, like driving in a funeral cortege, knowing that the painfully slow crawl of cars along the Turnpike was one symptom of the Big Dig ceiling collapse that killed Milena Del Valle.
It feels like the tragedy has traveled in shockwaves through the roadways and streets. The grief and horror that grip Del Valle’s family and friends seems to belong to eveyone, since anyone could have been driving by when the concrete fell.
Officials will “get to the bottom of what happened.” Others will have to build the emotional bridges that carry the daily traffic back to life as usual.
July 11, 2006
Every four years, there's a debate over just what the endorsement of the state Democratic Party convention is worth. Generally speaking, the answer has been: Not a whole heckuva lot.
But so far, the polling suggests that his convention victory has given Deval Patrick a decent boost.
In the weeks before the Worcester gathering, Patrick seemed either to be third in the race or tied for third. But two surveys since then have showed him with a lead. The latest is the State House News Poll, which was conducted June 28-30.
In a sample of Democratic primary voters, Patrick leads with 35 percent. Businessman Chris Gabrieli tallied 22 percent. Attorney General Thomas Reilly, meanwhile, was third with 19 percent.
At 193, the Democratic primary sample is small, which of course makes the margin of error large: plus or minus seven percent. And it's also true that the ad campaigns, which usually affect lightly committed voters, have yet to start. Still, the poll seems like fair evidence that Patrick's convention investment was worth the effort.
``I think the convention clearly gave him a bounce,'' says pollster Gerry Chervinsky. ``Reilly started as the frontrunner, Gabrieli came on with his ads, and now Patrick has come on because of the convention.''
So who makes the next big move? One question close political observers have been asking is this: Given that his personal fortune is his big advantage, why wasn't Gabrieli on the air in June?
Or, as Chervinsky puts it: ``What is he waiting for, with all the money he has and can spend?''
July 10, 2006
Barbara Anderson, the grassroots activist who heads Citizens for Limited Taxation, is absolutely merciless in skewering the Michael Dukakis-led committee that plans to police campaign advertising by Democratic candidates in the gubernatorial race this year. "Democrat Party Babysits its Candidates," Anderson’s press release is headed, and since it doesn’t seem to be posted on the CLT website, I offer it here for your enjoyment:
"We of course are loving the sight of the Democrat Party making a complete fool of itself by publicly stating that its own candidates don’t have the maturity or judgment to create their own ads.
"If this is true, and I for one don’t think it is, then the last person who should be in charge of maturity/judgment issues is former Governor Mike Dukakis.
"We have watched in amazement as he criticizes Republican governors for leaving after one term or running for another office. This is the governor who ran for president for a year around the country while still hanging around and taking his paycheck as governor! The Dukakis administration, which included Phil Johnston, faked revenues and hid bills in order to create the mirage of the "Massachusetts Miracle" that he ran on. When he finally left office our economy was in the toilet, and the state fiscal crisis (when the true revenue numbers could no longer be hidden) caused two major tax increases. The income tax rate is still not returned to its pre-'Massachusetts Miracle' 5 percent."
Then comes an interesting revelation into the history of 1988’s most famous presidential campaign spot:
"Negative ads? I was the person who told Al Gore’s campaign to use the Willie Horton issue, when their opposition research people came to my office looking for tax issues. They called us back just before Super Tuesday and asked us to fax everything we had on the Horton issue, but it was too late for Al Gore. However, the Republicans knew what to do with it. They created the perfect ad, showing Dukakis’ arrogance and softness on crime, in time to warn the American people.
"I understand his sensitivity on the issue of negative ads, but I’m surprised, after what Dukakis did to the Commonwealth, that he shows his face in public here."
Truly, hell hath no rage like a taxpayer-warrior scorned! Do you think Dukakis still views Anderson as one of the "gutless wonders" of Massachusetts politics?
Posted by Jeff Jacoby at 04:19 PM
July 10, 2006
Last Thursday's debate between incumbent Joe Lieberman and challenger Ned Lamont highlights one battle the anti-war movement has already won: its message has penetrated mainstream debate.
Since the War in Iraq began in 2003, the anti-war movement has struggled to be heard. In the first weeks of the invasion, opponents were largely ignored, and their arguments were largely relegated to independent publications and academic circles. The movement got little help from Democrats who voted for the War in 2002, and supported the war during the 2004 election.
However, the public’s view on Iraq has evolved. As they have learned about the intelligence failures, the deceptions, and the news on the ground, the message of the anti-war left has become, in many ways, the message of the American people.
And considering the extent of the coverage for the Lamont/Lieberman race, and more specifically, the debate, it is clear that the voice of the public -- which is firmly opposed to the war -- is finally being heard in the media.
C-Span gave live coverage to the debate, which was also the lead story on MSNBC’S Hardball where it was labeled: “Showdown in Connecticut.” And the Lieberman/Lamont race has become a national story, underscoring the growing discontent among Democrats over the compliance of many Senate Democrats regarding the war.
More and more, prominent Democrats have catered to the anti-Lieberman sentiment within the Democratic Party base. Even Hillary Clinton – who, for years, has ignored her anti-war critics while pandering to the right – has had to publicly proclaim that she will support the winner of the Democratic primary. Others have said the same thing.
It's striking: In 2004, the anti-war movement looked dead. Both political parties were in favor of the occupation and no presidential candidates were discussing leaving Iraq, The New York Times Editorial Page called for more troops, and a Republican-controlled Congress was keeping the administration from being held accountable for its failings.
Now the anti-war left has exposed the flaws of the Bush war plan and widened the parameter of debate on Iraq. They are watching as the Republicans try to hold on to control of Congress. They also appear to be ousting the hawkish Lieberman out of either the Party or the Senate – or both.
We will not know who will win in Connecticut, or how long US forces will stay in Iraq. But the important thing is that we are finally having a debate about the war, and the electorial fate of the pols who enable and/or support it.
In that respect, the Ned Lamont campaign has already been a remarkable success.
Posted by Michael Corcoran at 10:06 AM
July 9, 2006
In Sunday's New York Times Frank Rich calls for the press to be vigilant in the face of baseless attacks from the White House, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, conservatives in Congress, and others.
From Rich's column:
"[The White House] has manufactured and milked this controversy to reboot its intimidation of the press, hoping journalists will pull punches in an election year. There are momentous stories far more worrisome to the White House than the less-than-shocking Swift program, whether in the chaos of Anbar Province or the ruins of New Orleans. If the press muzzles itself, its under-the-radar self-censorship will be far more valuable than a Nixonesque frontal assault that ends up as a 24/7 hurricane veering toward the Supreme Court.
"Will this plan work? It did after 9/11. The chilling words articulated at the get-go by Ari Fleischer (Americans must ''watch what they say'') carried over to the run-up to the Iraq war, when the administration's W.M.D. claims went unchallenged by most news organizations."
Rich ends by saying how important it is that reporters get the truth to the American people. He is right: The last thing we need in the face of important elections and continued government secrecy is a frightened press corps.
Rich argues:
"We can believe that reporters, rather than terrorists, are the villains. We can debate whether traitorous editors should be sent to gas chambers or merely tarred and feathered.
"Or we can hope that the press will rise to the occasion and bring Americans more news we can use, not less, at a perilous time when every piece of information counts."
Posted by Michael Corcoran at 03:36 PM
July 9, 2006
Shouldn’t John Kerry’s new policy of “endorsing only candidates in contested primaries who are veterans,” as the Globe’s Rick Klein reported last week, be getting a bit more scrutiny? After all, a veterans-only rule would tend to rule out women, gays, and the handicapped. Hard to believe that’s a corner Kerry really wants to paint himself into.
Ann Althouse is right: “Status as a veteran is a ridiculous single issue basis for deciding between candidates.” If Kerry doesn't want to endorse his Democratic colleague Joe Lieberman, why doesn't he simply say so?
Posted by Jeff Jacoby at 03:00 PM
|
