Commentary, perspective, and point-of-view from the Globe's columnists and editorial-page editors and writers.
|
« July 9, 2006 - July 15, 2006 |
Main
| July 23, 2006 - July 29, 2006 »
July 21, 2006
It rained and drizzled and rained again last week as the Legislature met in joint session to consider -- and delay consideration of -- proposed constitutional amendments, but that didn't deter a crowd of 400 or so who lined Beacon Street.
Gay marriage supporters gathered in front of the State House while opponents lined up on the Common side. It might as well have been a canyon rather than a city street that separated them.
On the gay marriage side, Wayne Ryerson, a retiree who lives in Provincetown, had a basic question for the folks on the other side: Who has been hurt?
Across the street, Cynthia Palmer of Holyoke had this answer: "The constitution." Further, Palmer felt that she and her family had suffered.
"I can't go shopping if I am going to see two mannequins with male heads and female breasts and have my kids see them," she fumed. How, exactly, gay marriage has brought about those mannequin shenanigans she never explained.
Now, I don't think it's fair to assume that everyone who opposes gay marriage is homophobic or hateful, labels that strike me as both tedious and counterproductive. And yet, what else, exactly, can you conclude about someone who offers the kind of comment I got from another opponent of gay marriage?
"The fruit of our love is children," she said. "The fruit of their love is AIDS."
There's probably nothing that will change the views of those so opposed to gay marriage they will stand out in the rain to press their point. But for everyday citizens who may be in the middle of the road, who find themselves torn by opposing arguments or undecided on the matter, let me offer something that Cathryn Blackwell, 35, of Boston, told me. She had been to any number of weddings for heterosexual friends and relatives over the years, but had never thought she would ever be able to have a wedding of her own.
"I had attended my brother's wedding a couple of years before, but I never thought I would be in that situation," she said.
Last year, however, she and her partner married.
"Nothing has done more to validate my feeling as being part of this world," she said. "We had a wedding and my brother and my parents and everybody came. I was surprised at how many people were so happy for me."
"We have a home and a mortgage and a dog and a yard. It is all very routine -- and I'm very grateful for it," she said. "I know why I am out in the rain."
July 20, 2006
There are many reasonable, and some outlandish, reactions to the bomb blasts in Mumbai, India. Naresh Fernandes's op-ed in the New York Times captured the sentiments and strength of the residents in Mumbai after the attacks.
But, what’s the next step? If Lashkar-e-Taiba was involved, a terrorist group that is based in Pakistan, should India attack Pakistan? The question is addressed in an op-ed by Xenia Dormandy in The Washington Post. She assumes that Pakistan had a hand in the attacks. And the column highlights the need for Pakistan and India to step up the peace talks. Dormandy does not address the possibility that another terrorist group could have planned the attack, such as the Students' Islamic Movement of India.
The Boston Herald and the Wall Street Journal view the bombings as another reason that the India-U.S. bond should be strengthened. This may be true, but the attacks that took place in India should not be responded to by force. There shouldn’t be a “war” on terror. Steps should be taken to understand and evaluate the reasons behind the attacks.
If the reason is Kashmir, Pakistan and India must step up the peace process. But that’s not simple. Many Kashmiris have been driven from their homes, and now reside in places like New Delhi and America. In my Shrewsbury neighborhood, two families speak of having to leave their homes and belongings, forced to flee from Kashmir to save their lives.
The foreign press is quick to point to India and Pakistan’s three wars in sixty years. But, newspapers don’t fully grasp the enmity. The violence from the partition in 1947 still echoes in people's minds. My grandmother and her family were among the many civilians who had to leave home in Lahore, Pakistan, and move to India because they were Hindu. Many Muslims, similarly, were forced to move to Pakistan because they were Muslim. Whole trains full of people were massacred. And riots still take place in India, renewing old wounds.
Too many lives have been lost. It’s time for India and Pakistan to get over the past and seek a peace settlement for the future.
Posted by Swati Gauri Sharma at 05:31 PM
July 19, 2006
Washington D.C.
From the Campus Progress 2006 National Student Conference
Some people equate college with liberalism as if they were mutually inclusive. Higher education is considered a bastion of liberalism -- People's Republics within Ivory Towers -- preaching progressive dogma to unchallenging students, who in turn, join a vast left-wing conspiracy to ruin traditional values, and pass out birth control pills to high school students.
Or something like that.
But this characterization is no longer accurate. For several decades conservative organizations such as The Heritage Foundation and The Leadership Institute have been investing in think tanks and student outreach groups, funding conservative papers, and grooming conservative leaders, while their liberal counterparts watched the ever-so-precious world of political discourse shift sharply to the right.
Despite the fact that the College Republicans have far more funding, and by many estimates more involved students, than their progressive counterparts, conservatives still perpetuate the idea that the ultimate contrarian act for a college students is to be a conservative -- to stick it to those elitist, capitalism-loathing, preachy liberals.
As one student said in The Nation (Feb 13, 2006): “"The right actually ends up looking cooler than the left … I don't know how this is possible, but it's true!"
Liberals now seem to understand how the long-term strategy of the right –- providing funding, information, internships, and a forum for students to network and organize -- is one that they ought to adopt.
The American Prospect, a liberal Washington-based monthly offers a writing fellowship for progressives, and explains their motives for doing so on their website.
“In recent decades, the flowering of conservative political thought has been stimulated not just by changing public values, but also by strategic investment on the part of conservative foundations, think tanks and magazines. These investments, in turn, have helped to nurture a generation of conservative intellectuals, whose work now pervades newspaper opinion pages, magazines, congressional testimony, broadcast commentary, and public debate.”
And now, Campus Progress, the student outreach program sponsored by The Center for American Progress, a think-tank founded by President Clinton’s former chief-of staff John Podesta, has begun funding progressive publications –- more than 30 so far –- and holding conferences to start a unified progressive movement among college students.
This is the good news. At last the student left has some kind of support system, some funding, and some opportunities to organize.
While having the likes of George Soros open up the checkbook is a start, there are still political obstacles to overcome if Campus Progress wants student progressives to have a unified message.
This is difficult because much of the left is divided. There is the Center for American Progress. It is part of the Washington establisment and has little in common with much of the left, including those who call for a dramatic shift in our foreign policy, a withdrawal from Iraq, who oppose the relationship between US and Israel, who wish to campaign against Democrats who have neglected to protect progressive ideals, and who oppose the triangulation theory championed by centrists Democrats.
Posted by Michael Corcoran at 04:42 PM
July 19, 2006
This blogger writes about living in Beirut as violence escalates.
One of the posts:
"My parents are talking about evacuating. My dad says it looks like things are going to escalate and we might end up without power, water or anything. Not that I wouldn't enjoy being in Europe for a while, but not knowing I have people I care for and everything I own back here :( If anything happened to my photos I would be devastated...
I HATE THIS."
With the sight gaining traffic, the writer notes how much has changed due to technology.
"I suddenly find myself with dozens of new readers and I'm grateful for all the support and understanding I'm finding here. I've been telling people this is a huge difference with the 80s when we couldn't even call each other up on the phone, let alone communicate with the outside world. I'm so happy to see there are so many people out there willing to look at the events with a clear mind and make up their own opinion."
Posted by Michael Corcoran at 01:07 PM
July 18, 2006
Are negative primary ad wars really a major contributor to the Democratic Party's four straight gubernatorial losses? Democratic State Committee Chairman Phil Johnston thinks so. That's why he has established a committee of prominent Democrats to police the primary-campaign TV ads.
But there are far bigger reasons Massachusetts Democrats have been on a gubernatorial losing streak. Unless he or she is of independent means, the nominee emerges in mid-September having spent virtually all of the campaign's resources to get there. That has usually spelled an advantage for the Republicans, who more often field wealthy, self-financed candidates, and who have had fewer hotly contested primaries.
So what would a party really intent on solving that problem do?
First, it would lead an effort to raise our yearly campaign contribution limit, now set at $500. Other industrial states have a much higher cap on individual contributions.
To see another problem here in Massachusetts, consider: Voters in Alabama, New Jersey, Iowa, Washington, Montana, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Maine, among other states, are already sizing up their general election candidates.
Why? Because those states, mirabile dictu, have spring or early summer primaries. That gives voters ample time to assess the bigger general election differences between the candidates.
Not here, however. Instead, we spend months and months mulling smaller intra-party differences, then allow a hurried seven weeks or so for the general election, where the contrasts are much more important.
This year, our primary won't roll round until Sept. 19.
Why? Well, the overwhelmingly Democratic Legislature has never wanted to move to a more reasonable schedule. Lawmakers rarely have primary challengers, of course, and they simply don't want to give Republicans enough time to launch a real general election challenge.
That may serve their interests, but it hasn't served the party's gubernatorial candidates particularly well. Nor is it really in the interest of voters to have a primary campaign that drones on like an existentialist's nightmare, followed by a dizzying rush to a fall finish.
So top Democrats might better come to Beacon Hill and make a simple point to the legislative leadership: It's time to think about overhauling the state's election laws in a way that establishes a fairer process for candidates of both parties.
|
