Michael Wilbon wrote a good piece today on the most-recent arrest of Maurice Clarett. In 2003, the kid was on top of the world with a national championship under his belt as a freshmen and countless NFL execs ready to throw boatloads of cash his way. Fast forward three years, he gets arrested with two handguns, an assault rifle and a bottle of Grey Goose near the home of an individual who was expected to testify against him next week in an armed robbery case. By the way, for added effect he was also wearing a bulletproof vest, which served as a nice defense against those pesky police stun guns. It took pepper spray to bring him down.
While being recruited by Ohio State, Clarett accepted thousands of dollars in cash, cars, and God knows what else. All he had to do was run like hell every Saturday, and he certainly delivered. In doing so, he fit in...he was one of the fellas. And he stayed out of trouble. It's hard to tell what he would have become if had he stayed in school and matured a year or two more, both on and off the field. For a kid who didn't have much direction or focus, it didn't take much lobbying from the wrong crowd to get him to go pro and pursue the dollars. Instead, that premature decision ruined his golden opportunity to make a better life for him and his family and lead him to where he is today.
It seems like many of these D-I programs operate like they're semi-pro sports franchises. They recruit to get wins, which brings in the cash, keeps the alumni happy and most importantly, allows the coaches to keep their jobs. They seem to lose sight of the fact that the thugs they recruit and herd through the system actually reflect poorly on their institution when they have their "difficulties" with the law. This is especially the case in college football. College basketball has its Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, Stanford, etc. but the average college football program undoubtedly makes Bob Huggins blush.
Maybe it's a much larger societal issue. But maybe it's more about programs who, in their quest for millions in TV and bowl game revenue, treat their athletes like commodities and not as student athletes who might also need a little coaching off the field.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Victory in the War on Terror?
The war on terror is over, according to James Fallows.
In this month's the Atlantic, Fallows argues that the United States is winning the war on terror and the time has come to declare it over. Doing so, would enable the United States to begin a more effective military and diplomatic campaign in the Middle East.
Fallows makes a convincing argument that declaring a war with no clear end in sight or benchmarks for victory, cheapens the meaning of war. A standing state of war, he argues, has baited the United States into a lack of fiscal discipline and predisposes us to overreact. As Fallows put it, "the terrorists real destructive power 'lies in what they can provoke us to do.'"
Notably absent from the list of reasons why the United States is losing, perhaps lost, its moral authority in the world is that the terrorists have baited some into legitimizing the Bush Administration’s effort to circumvent FISA courts and test the constitutional limits of the 4 th amendment right "of people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath of affirmation..." The Administration has defended the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and maintains that "no change in the law is needed because the president has the inherent constitutional authority to order wiretaps without warrants in defense of the country."
While confident in their constitutional authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps, the administration has worked with Senator Arlen Specter and put forth legislation that would revise FISA law. The Specter bill has been called by Patrick Radden Keefe of Slate Magazine "an act of abject congressional capitulation masquerading as a hard-won compromise." Unfortunately, that might be the most apt description for this bill.
To give a little background, warrants are supposed to be requested from the FISA courts to wiretap international calls and e-mails by American citizens. Warrants have not been hard to come by. In fact, of the 20,000 surveillance requests in the past 27 years, the FISA court has turned down fewer than .0005 of these requests. There is also an exception to emergencies that allows initial wiretapping to begin immediately so long as the administration later seeks a court order.
Specter's bill would exempt FISA's warrant requirement for any e-mail to or from an American to anyone oversees. This bill expands the e-mail dragnet by allowing monitoring of e-mails if the government doesn't know that all senders or recipients are in the U.S. This legislation would also enable them to monitor every international call by American residents and businesses in the U.S. without seeking a warrant.
Taking into account the ease of attaining a warrant through the FISA courts and the flexibility given to carry out emergency wiretaps this bill is an unwarranted expansion of surveillance power. To those that argue that the war on terror warrants further eroding our constitutional rights to keep our nation safe from another attack, I say, the terrorists have achieved a small, but significant victory. Terrorist have baited some into giving up those rights we cherish as Americans. The protection given from unreasonable searches and surveillance by the constitution was meant to prevent the abuse of government power by people like Jay Edgar Hoover, who used personal information acquired through unconstitutional means for political gain.
Whether the war on terror is over, as Fallow argues, or will continue indefinitely, we should not capitulate as Specter has done by willingly forfeiting the constitutional protections that have given our country the moral authority to speak out against injustices carried out by abusive governments around the world.
In this month's the Atlantic, Fallows argues that the United States is winning the war on terror and the time has come to declare it over. Doing so, would enable the United States to begin a more effective military and diplomatic campaign in the Middle East.
Fallows makes a convincing argument that declaring a war with no clear end in sight or benchmarks for victory, cheapens the meaning of war. A standing state of war, he argues, has baited the United States into a lack of fiscal discipline and predisposes us to overreact. As Fallows put it, "the terrorists real destructive power 'lies in what they can provoke us to do.'"
Notably absent from the list of reasons why the United States is losing, perhaps lost, its moral authority in the world is that the terrorists have baited some into legitimizing the Bush Administration’s effort to circumvent FISA courts and test the constitutional limits of the 4 th amendment right "of people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath of affirmation..." The Administration has defended the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and maintains that "no change in the law is needed because the president has the inherent constitutional authority to order wiretaps without warrants in defense of the country."
While confident in their constitutional authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps, the administration has worked with Senator Arlen Specter and put forth legislation that would revise FISA law. The Specter bill has been called by Patrick Radden Keefe of Slate Magazine "an act of abject congressional capitulation masquerading as a hard-won compromise." Unfortunately, that might be the most apt description for this bill.
To give a little background, warrants are supposed to be requested from the FISA courts to wiretap international calls and e-mails by American citizens. Warrants have not been hard to come by. In fact, of the 20,000 surveillance requests in the past 27 years, the FISA court has turned down fewer than .0005 of these requests. There is also an exception to emergencies that allows initial wiretapping to begin immediately so long as the administration later seeks a court order.
Specter's bill would exempt FISA's warrant requirement for any e-mail to or from an American to anyone oversees. This bill expands the e-mail dragnet by allowing monitoring of e-mails if the government doesn't know that all senders or recipients are in the U.S. This legislation would also enable them to monitor every international call by American residents and businesses in the U.S. without seeking a warrant.
Taking into account the ease of attaining a warrant through the FISA courts and the flexibility given to carry out emergency wiretaps this bill is an unwarranted expansion of surveillance power. To those that argue that the war on terror warrants further eroding our constitutional rights to keep our nation safe from another attack, I say, the terrorists have achieved a small, but significant victory. Terrorist have baited some into giving up those rights we cherish as Americans. The protection given from unreasonable searches and surveillance by the constitution was meant to prevent the abuse of government power by people like Jay Edgar Hoover, who used personal information acquired through unconstitutional means for political gain.
Whether the war on terror is over, as Fallow argues, or will continue indefinitely, we should not capitulate as Specter has done by willingly forfeiting the constitutional protections that have given our country the moral authority to speak out against injustices carried out by abusive governments around the world.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
The Chasm Grows
The saga of Joe Lieberman raises quite a few questions... and concerns.
On one hand, his constituents may be taking him for granted. For three terms, he has worked tirelessly on their behalf; championing a progressive agenda, embodying the values you seldom find in an elected official, and relying upon the credibility he has built (on both sides of the aisle) to become a leader on national security and homeland security issues. On the other, he has not only championed the Iraq War, but he has become an apologist for a President that is reviled by his constituents. Thus the two schools of thought come into play... Do you remain loyal to the senator who has always represented you well, even though he may have strayed from you on this particular issue? Or, are decisions of war and peace simply too meaningful to leave to a senator who has shown a willingness to vote contrary to the wishes of an overwhelming majority of his constituents?
These questions represent the uphill plight of moderates in democratic politics today. After all, ideology should shape politics, politics should not shape ideology.
During primary elections, political parties and their surrogates pump millions into the coffers of partisan loyalists to ensure defeat of their moderate opponents. This is in spite of the fact that a majority of Americans identify themselves as closer to the center of the political spectrum than either of its extremes. To these power brokers, an empty suit is far more valuable because partisan interests are sure to take a priority each and every time a vote is cast. Over time, party memberships become more polarized, districts are redrawn to further entrench incumbents, the majority party begins to disregard the long-established rights of the minority, trust amongst Members and civility in both Houses deteriorates, and the overall divisiveness in Congress grows. Ultimately, the divisiveness becomes infectious as the populace begins to identify more with their political party, and less with the ideology that initially led them to join that party.
To stop the vicious cycle, we look for principled leadership from both sides but all we find are more attack ads, more partisan puppets, and more and more money being dumped into the system to perpetuate the cycle.
We are also finding less and less Joe Liebermans. Now ask yourself if that's a good thing.
On one hand, his constituents may be taking him for granted. For three terms, he has worked tirelessly on their behalf; championing a progressive agenda, embodying the values you seldom find in an elected official, and relying upon the credibility he has built (on both sides of the aisle) to become a leader on national security and homeland security issues. On the other, he has not only championed the Iraq War, but he has become an apologist for a President that is reviled by his constituents. Thus the two schools of thought come into play... Do you remain loyal to the senator who has always represented you well, even though he may have strayed from you on this particular issue? Or, are decisions of war and peace simply too meaningful to leave to a senator who has shown a willingness to vote contrary to the wishes of an overwhelming majority of his constituents?
These questions represent the uphill plight of moderates in democratic politics today. After all, ideology should shape politics, politics should not shape ideology.
During primary elections, political parties and their surrogates pump millions into the coffers of partisan loyalists to ensure defeat of their moderate opponents. This is in spite of the fact that a majority of Americans identify themselves as closer to the center of the political spectrum than either of its extremes. To these power brokers, an empty suit is far more valuable because partisan interests are sure to take a priority each and every time a vote is cast. Over time, party memberships become more polarized, districts are redrawn to further entrench incumbents, the majority party begins to disregard the long-established rights of the minority, trust amongst Members and civility in both Houses deteriorates, and the overall divisiveness in Congress grows. Ultimately, the divisiveness becomes infectious as the populace begins to identify more with their political party, and less with the ideology that initially led them to join that party.
To stop the vicious cycle, we look for principled leadership from both sides but all we find are more attack ads, more partisan puppets, and more and more money being dumped into the system to perpetuate the cycle.
We are also finding less and less Joe Liebermans. Now ask yourself if that's a good thing.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
“Past error is no excuse for its own perpetuation.”
In a speech by the junior senator from New York, a raucous crowd was reminded that “All this - questioning and uncertainty at home, decisive war abroad – has led us to a deep crisis of confidence: in our leadership, in each other, and in our very self as a nation.” The implications of a war, of our own doing and being waged on the other side of the world, were playing an increasingly prominent role in the everyday lives of Americans. The exposed fissures in public opinion polarized the country, entrenching those who believed it was the only course our nation could follow to maintain its credibility and its ultimate security, and those who believed that course endangered both.
The senator continued… “I do not want – as I believe most Americans do not want – to sell out American interests, to simply withdraw, to raise the white flag of surrender. That would be unacceptable to us as a country and as a people. But I am concerned – as I believe most Americans are concerned – that the course we are following at the present time is deeply wrong… I am concerned – as I believe most Americans are concerned – that our present course will not bring victory; will not bring peace; will not stop the bloodshed; and will not advance the interests of the United States or the cause of peace in the world.”
The speech was given almost 40 years ago in a fieldhouse on the campus of Kansas State University by Robert Kennedy, a mere three months before he was killed. In the speech, Kennedy went on to chide LBJ when he quoted Sophocles’ Antigone: “All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil. The only sin is pride.”
LBJ had the lessons of history and the realities of the present to guide him to more just conclusions, but he chose to ignore them. While President Bush is a similar situation, he also has the advantage of applying the lessons learned by McNamara, Johnson, Nixon and Kissinger. They are lessons that he can not only draw upon from the historical record, but from conversations with those who were intimately involved. Instead, he chooses to follow an estranged course that spends billions of dollars each week at the expense of the services provided to our own citizens. It is a course that has cost the lives of over 2500 of our brave men and women in uniform. And it is a course that further and further damages our Nation’s credibility while emboldening and inspiring a new generation of jihadists around the world.
The full extent to which the Bush Administration’s foreign policy has eroded our security is yet to be known, but until the well-being of American citizens takes priority over one man’s pride, it appears that we are in for a long and difficult journey.
The senator continued… “I do not want – as I believe most Americans do not want – to sell out American interests, to simply withdraw, to raise the white flag of surrender. That would be unacceptable to us as a country and as a people. But I am concerned – as I believe most Americans are concerned – that the course we are following at the present time is deeply wrong… I am concerned – as I believe most Americans are concerned – that our present course will not bring victory; will not bring peace; will not stop the bloodshed; and will not advance the interests of the United States or the cause of peace in the world.”
The speech was given almost 40 years ago in a fieldhouse on the campus of Kansas State University by Robert Kennedy, a mere three months before he was killed. In the speech, Kennedy went on to chide LBJ when he quoted Sophocles’ Antigone: “All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil. The only sin is pride.”
LBJ had the lessons of history and the realities of the present to guide him to more just conclusions, but he chose to ignore them. While President Bush is a similar situation, he also has the advantage of applying the lessons learned by McNamara, Johnson, Nixon and Kissinger. They are lessons that he can not only draw upon from the historical record, but from conversations with those who were intimately involved. Instead, he chooses to follow an estranged course that spends billions of dollars each week at the expense of the services provided to our own citizens. It is a course that has cost the lives of over 2500 of our brave men and women in uniform. And it is a course that further and further damages our Nation’s credibility while emboldening and inspiring a new generation of jihadists around the world.
The full extent to which the Bush Administration’s foreign policy has eroded our security is yet to be known, but until the well-being of American citizens takes priority over one man’s pride, it appears that we are in for a long and difficult journey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
