Post-Imus: Responsibility, Free Speech, and Bigotry

Times are definitely changing and it's a sad reflection on society where some people can feel comfortable using such derogatory and hurtful vocabulary as Don Imus did on his radio show. The thing is though, that this isn't the first time this happened and sadly it most certainly will not be the last time someone expresses such hateful viewpoints on the airwaves.

Why has this story received so much attention? Why does it continue to stay in the news after weeks since it happened?


I think in many ways it makes reference to a schism we are seeing in American society today. Unforunately, many times instead of being united we are becoming more divided. Imus was speaking, cajoling, with others in a "locker room-type" of situation. Imus felt very comfortable, perhaps, even abot the law in expressing those views.


We should demand for equality and for an end to bigoted comments on the airwaves, but in a certain way Imus said what many people think and don't say. It's unfortunate, but it's the truth. And it's not exclusive to older, white men... let's be fair, here... it happens between and among everybody... no matter the race, religion, or socioeconomic background.


Free Speech is perhaps the most important right we have because it allows us to speak up for all our rights but to what extent can we defend someone's right to defame and belittle some young women who achieved such greatness at the Rutgers' Women's basketball team?

Imus may have been hired for shock value but even he should have realized he crossed the line and it was wrong. The belittlement of those women was wrong. The punishment should be in proportion with the behavior. There is no need to go overboard and use him as the poster child of what´s wrong in the US media but he does not to leran that´s absolutely not acceptable.

Sharpton comments on Romney's Mormon factor

Last week at a debate between Reverend Al Sharpton and author Christopher Hitchens, Sharpton raised some eyebrows with comments about Mitt Romney. These comments seemed bigoted towards Mormons and at the same time, made Sharpton look hypocritical.

"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation," said Sharpton.
The Reverend apologized and has said his comments were not directed towards Mormonism or the LDS Church but instead specifically to Mitt Romney. The Civil Rights Reverend also stated that Hitchens was the only one who was making bigoted comments against Mormonism and its members.

I do not have the power to decide what was the intent behind Rev. Sharpton's remarks and so have to take his apologies at face value. What I can question is whether or not there is a double standard in this country, and it is clear to me that there is. Somehow there is no problem making obviously prejudiced statements towards an American-born religion, to call it that, but there is a problem making similar statements against other groups, religious or ethnic.

Now I'm not condoning any type of bigoted or prejudiced comments. I find them not only hateful but also antiquated, ignorant, and not what we need in 21st-century American society.

With that said, I applaud Rev. Al Sharpton's motions for the firing of Don Imus after his unbelievably hurtful and bigoted remarks. I also applaud him for marching with Glenn Beck and hundreds of others demanding the record companies to become accountable and cease the continued use of heavily bigoted and divisive words, violence, the proliferation of drugs, and the misogyny of women.

In order not to downplay these important motions on the part of Rev. Al Sharpton it is imperative that he choose his words carefully because this is not the first time he has made comments like these.

And just to set the record straight, Mormons are believers of God, believers of the Jesus Christ, and in my opinion obviously Christian, despite some differences in theology. These differences in theology are in reality not all that different from other differences between Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, and other Christian denominations' views. There are differences in the different churches of Christianity, but they are united by the Lord Jesus Christ.

So my two cents: Al Sharpton needs to watch his words and actions in the future; otherwise he will simply be cast off as a hypocrite and even a bigot.

Paris to live the "Simple Life" in the "slammer"

Paris Hilton is off to jail for forty-five days starting in June. The news has taken headlines on all major news channels, magazines, and newspapers. Scorn and disdain for the multi-million dollar heiress famous for being famous has been at an all-time high and with good reason. But what will result from all of this?

Paris has been seen crying even stating before a judge that she does not read her mail and has people do those kind of things for her, and so she had absolutely no idea about the provisions on her probation. Was that the worst thing she could have said or what!?! Most people really just don't tend to feel sorry for multi-million dollar heiresses who even amass more fortune simply by being famous for being famous.

As expected Paris appealed the court decision in hopes of reducing the aforementioned forty-five days to a lesser amount of days or to something less severe such as community service perhaps. At best ,she will receive some protection from certain inmates who have already produced vague threats.
In my humble opinion, Paris needs to go to jail and serve the forty-five days as determined by the court decision. It is no one's fault but Paris' if she doesn't make sure her personal assistant is informing her on everything- especially legal issues. This girl is obviously not an idiot as she tries to portray herself in the media.

She has created a personal fortune and is not just an heiress anymore. Just last year alone she made a reported $8,000,000. She may be famous for essentially nothing but scandal, but she has some intelligence and should take those forty-five days to reflect on her life. It is my belief that Paris will come back stronger and better than ever, à la Stewart, and maybe even somewhat more mature.

Some people are worrying for her safety. I say, if she needs protection, give it to her! She is a well-known person and could potentially be harmed, perhaps even severely. The judge and the courts have the right to sentence but do not have the right to put someone's life in jeopardy.

For forty-five days Paris will be able to meditate, really meditate unlike what happens in some celebrity rehab facilities, and will hopefully learn from her doings and learn that no one is above and beyond the law. To echo Jane Fonda's sentiments, if Paris were "poor and black" she would have received this sentence or something far worse much earlier.

So Paris... take responsibility, meditate, and come back stronger than ever.

-EDGZUN

Photo from www.hfxnews.ca

Reflections on an important French election

So why should we on the other side of the pond care about elections en France anyway? Well, it was a question that I periodically asked myself as I was completely taken by the éléctions. I knew that it was important for me because I've always been a francophile and have been enamored by everything français. But what about the rest of us?

Before we delve into these issues let's set the stage.

There were four main candidates:

Nicolas Sarkozy, a pro-American conservative
Ségolène Royal, a socialist, heavy on ideals and vague on how to implement said ideals
François Bayrou, a centrist who called for the unity of all French people
Jean-Marie Le Pen, a dangerous, perhaps even racist, über-Right conservative

Back in November 2005 massive riots broke out throughout the République Française making the French question their national identity, their economy, and their ever-growing rate of unemployment. Sarkozy, then Minister of the Interior, proved to lay down the law and even called those under-privileged, sons of immigrants in French ghettos, racaille, or scum. This created much internal discord and branded Sarkozy as divisive.

Flash forward to April 2007 and at the first-round elections voter participation was at an all-time high. The French became excited or at least actively involved in their government. People didn't want to see what happened five years ago, when over low participation and high participation from the Front National put Jean-Marie Le Pen through to the second rounds.

The majority of the French were relieved Le Pen did not reach the final rounds for a second time but many were disappointed with the loss of the centrist candidate, François Bayrou. What became clear, however, was that most French want real changes in their government.

As expressed by Sarkozy, the French chose two very different paths to become a France that truly provides opportunity to its constituents, and a France that raises its fallen importance in the European Union and the world. Despite differences in ideology between Royal and Sarkozy, both are relatively young politicians, in their early fifties, both grew up after World War II, and both are of a different era. Decades ago an unwed woman with children in an open relationship would have been deemed to be "living in sin," and a divorced man son of an immigrant would have also had slim chances to be on the path to the Elysée.

After the results for the May 2 election were in, Sarkozy came out victorious with 53.06% of the vote and is now set to arrive at the Elysée on May 16th. The result has not been a peaceful one and there have been several disturbances throughout the République. Many disenfranchised groups have expressed their disagreement with the results of the election.

From a personal point of view I cannot say that I was ecstatic for the results but Sarkozy may just be "what the doctor ordered." Sarkozy won because he was capable of uniting all conservatives in France from the center-right to the far-right. Sarkozy also had clear proposals and proactive ways to combat all of France's woes. Ségolène Royal, despite the fact that she perhaps seemed more compassionate, she also seemed to lack any depth of knowledge of the real issues. She had great ideas did not discuss extensively how she would implement that. To make matters worse, she also made several gaffes in the international scene and the French questioned her ability to represent the interests of the nation abroad.

Now how does all of this affect the United States? Great question. Sarkozy has decidedly been pro-American and has stated his interest of fostering a close relationship between both countries and will at least be on better speaking terms than Chirac has been with Bush. Once Bush is out of power the relationships between the United States and France may grow even closer. But where these elections really matter is how they present a gallicized reflection of the political climate in this country as of late.

In terms of the candidates this is quite reminiscent of John Kerry and Bush back in 2004. Many Americans became disappointed and some downright upset with Bush after his handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. John Kerry became the answer for millions of Americans and for others simply the "lesser of two evils." In the end, something quite similar happened with the American voters. Despite the fact many Americans were against the war, and millions wanted to pull out effective immediately, many others felt Kerry would not be able to lead the war. Furthermore, many deemed it dangerous to change commander-in-chief in the middle of a war.

In France, most voters felt they knew what to expect with Sarkozy and that he would be able to lead France to a better future. Even many Bayrou supporters felt Sarkozy was "the lesser of two evils." Sarkozy, in this case, would be able to lead France with a strong hand, clear plans, and the voters knew what to expect of him.

A similar scenario could happen in this country if we do not select the best Democratic and Republican candidates for the 2008 elections. We need to question these candidates, learn, observe, and hopefully in the primaries the best candidates will win. With two strong candidates there will be room for a true dialogue among the American people, so that we can decide where we want to go. Many of the questions that France faced are questions we face; Unemployment, Healthcare, Higher Education, the shrinking of the Middle Class, the role of immigration in this country, and our national identity as Americans regardless of our ethnicities or religions.

Let's learn from this French election, hope for improved relationships with our friend since the the times of the Revolutionary Wars, and let us hold our leaders and presidential candidates accountable, so we can select the best candidates, have a real open dialogue, and move forward in this great nation.

-EDGZUN



Here are some additional thoughts directly after the elections for all you francophones out there...

"alors sarkozy a gagné comme j'ai pensé et beaucoup d'autres d'ailleurs.
je ne peux pas dire que je suis content avec le résultat mais j'espère qu'il maintiendra sa promesse de travailler pour tous les français. j'espère qu'on verra beaucoup de choses positives dans les cinq ans prochains.
j'ai regardé la transmission en direct en BFMTV et je pense que sarkozy a gagné en partie parce qu'il a pu ramasser les votes de la droite entière... extrême et centre.
il a pu bien exprimer ses idées et propositions de manières claires.
malheuresement je pense que sègolène royal n'a pas pu exprimer bien ses idées et elle est perdue dans beaucoup de généralités.
c'est dommage parce que ségolène avait beaucoup d'idées très positives dans le cadre social mais j'espère qu'avec sarkozy on verra des changements positifs dans l'économie.
en tout cas, on a vécu des élections sans précédant. on a vu des candidates d'une "nouvelle école," d'une nouvelle géneration, d'un dynamisme neuf et ça est positif!"

photos from en.wikipedia.org