"ary 16,200|
Tuesday, January 16, 2001
Opi NION
Page 11
/or
ire
THE BATTALION
■ospital wait
owassuclu
Jan Morem,
lions began"
Itie hospito.
El,
to him,k
s to squeei:
«e could i
•re here »|
■iiforasiiitj;
, crying.
J lay in into
ace and are-
ubes snal®
ring to amf.
se. who si.
■re vented k
--aid Moren:
I that hist
lioning
ne could s;
er God."
ner, return
had left
oandoned
straight
nospital toij
mg up. |
in mud an;[
bin. hebr»
Moreno’s®
111 '
moves ns
g hands »i;
. thanked
•manres|
Thank God'
motionles
lid there
any more,
■ve can d«
accept.”
Drowning out the Hate
MTV admirable for marathon addressing badly needed hate-crimes legislation
I
nm
■ ; .-j
&
sn
■ W : W / l
mm
MARIANO
CASTILLO
M TV is often
accused of
influencing
young people with
its programming.
The network hopes
its accusers are
right — at least
this time.
The network's
gutsy decision to run 17 commercial-
free hours of hate crime-related pro
gramming is an important step in edu
cating the public. The show kicked off
a year-long campaign to raise aware
ness of hate crimes.
The program consisted of reports
of hate crimes committed in the na
tion that were read by celebrities, it
was a simple show — the text of the
story was on a gray background —
but it was very effective.
The 17 hours were preceded by a
movie about the murder of Matthew Shep-
ard and a special. “Fight For Your Rights.”
On a network that has evolved
from music videos to shows like “Un
dressed" and “TRL,” the hate crimes
special must be commended. “Fight
For Your Rights" takes an issue that
people do not like to talk about and
places it in the spotlight. More impor
tantly, the campaign is geared toward
young people so they may make bet
ter choices in the future.
For that 17-hour block, every teen
who tuned in to IVtTV looking for
Carson Daly, Britney Spears or “The
Real World” got this message in
stead: “Flate crimes begin with dis
crimination. Fight for your rights.
if
Take a stand against discrimination."
Especially now, as power is trans
ferred between administrations in
Washington. D.C.. intolerance and hate
issues need to be addressed. The num
bers speak for themselves.
The FBI reported 7.947 hate crimes in
the United States in 1995. Texas had the
seventh highest number, with 326 hate-
motivated crimes reported. California led
the nation with 1,751 cases. Since then,
high-profile crimes, including the drag
ging death of James Byrd Jr. and Shep
ard's murder, have put pressure on law
makers to create hate-crime legislation.
MTV's special did not shy from
the sometimes-gruesome details of
the hate crimes. The programming
paved the way for more discussion,
and hopefully, for the public to con
tinue the fight against hate.
The stories included in the pro
gram were not edited, giving the
viewers a realistic picture of why hate
crime is an issue of concern. The
show produced a stark and refreshing
ly blunt look at these crimes. If MTV
has the power of influence that critics
claim, maybe its young viewers will
decide to take a stand against hatred.
MTV managed to avoid stereotypes
in its programming by presenting hate
crimes committed by various races.
One example was a 1999 case from
Riverside, Calif., which showed that
discrimination is not the problem of
just one race. In Riverside, three His
panic men are accused of beating up a
black man in a racially motivated at
tack.
MTV did a good job of covering
hate crimes that were not based on
race. According to the FBI. the ma
jority of offenses were directed at
blacks (3,805), Jews (1,145). whites
(1,511) and male homosexuals (915).
A large part of the program's suc
cess lies in its use of the Internet. The
hate-crime special utilized television
and the Internet in an informative and
refreshing way.
The show, as well as MTV’s Web
site, published information that pushed
the idea that hate-crime legislation
needs to be addressed nationally. On
television and online, the program
urged viewers to write President-elect
George W. Bush and Congress.
“Fight For Your Rights” is a great
idea that follows the path of “Rock
the Vote,” MTV's voter-participation
project. ABC, CBS and other stations
should follow MTV's example and
try harder to give viewers program
ming with social value.
It is unfortunate that such quality
concepts as “Fight For Your Rights”
are given worse time slots than shows
such as “When Sex Goes Pop” and
“Hips, Lips and Gender Benders.”
At least it is a start.
Television and the Internet are in
creasingly becoming huge influences *
for younger generations. Taking advan
tage of that trend by putting social is
sues in the limelight is a goal all net
works should strive for. Hopefully.
MTV has the influence to begin change.
Mariano Castillo is a junior
journalism and international
studies major
hSt.
n
Cabinet of diversity
ew era of compassionate conservativism falls victim to partisan divide
MARK
PASSWATERS
[sually, a
I newly
'elected
(resident enjoys a
roneymoon” pe-
jod with tire
fess and the op-
psing party be-
j>re his view-
tints come under tire. George W.
ush, who could use any possible
eak, saw his honeymoon end before
lie was even sworn into office.
I Bush’s Cabinet nominations al-
n ady have the press up in arms. In
spite of assurances they would
work toward “a new spirit of bipar-
Isanship,” liberal members of the
democratic Party have further in-
lamed matters.
I Cabinet nominees should be given
V opportunity to answer a confirma
tion panel’s questions about their
■ews before being crucified in print.
Apparently, this nicety has also gone
Oi : the window with the arrival of the
■tew bipartisanship.”
I The media has given Bush credit
for nominating a diverse Cabinet. In-
di d, with the exception of Bush not
■iving a short, fat white man, Bush
h i trumped President Bill Clinton’s
feiist. which Clinton called a “Cabinet
with a face like America’s.” With the
selections of four women, two
African-Americans, two Latinos, one
Asian and one Arab-American, Bush
has some conservative members of
the GOP griping about the lack of
white males in his Cabinet.
The New York Times, usually not a
Bush fan, notes he has “put forward a
governing team every bit as ethnical
ly and racially diverse as President
Clinton’s.” The Washington Post, an
other paper that cannot be considered
pro-Bush, said, “Bush has accom
plished his predecessor’s goal of as
sembling an administration that looks
more like America.”
Then come the complaints. It is
claimed that Bush’s people are inex
perienced, or that they are too experi
enced. Then, of course, comes the
loudest cry: 'They’re too conserva
tive!” The New York Times, in a Jan. 2
column, called Bush’s picks for “criti
cal domestic policy posts acceptable
to his party’s conservative wing.” In a
Jan. 3 editorial, The New York Times
called Bush’s picks for Interior and
Energy secretaries “an insult.” The
Washington Post wrote that Bush’s
picks can “be expected to pursue his
conservative agenda with gusto and
discipline.”
But Bush is, after all, a “com
passionate conservative.” Bush
himself has said it should not be a
surprise that a president would
nominate people who agree with
him. Like Clinton, Bush and his
appointees should be given an op
portunity to establish themselves,
and their agendas, before they are
targeted for general scorn.
But Bush and his people are not
getting such a break. Members of the
opposition have already marshaled
their forces to hunt down several of
Bush’s nominees.
The opposition has already
drawn blood. Linda Chavez, the
nominee for labor secretary,
withdrew from considera
tion after it was revealed
she allowed an illegal
immigrant to live in
her house several
years ago.
Frankly, the inci
dent should not alarm
Bush and his staff.
Zoe Baird, Clinton’s
first nominee for attor
ney general, was shot
down over the same is
sue. The information, how
ever, was not mentioned by
Republicans until Baird’s con
firmation hearing.
With the departure of Chavez,
the new annointed “enemy No. 1”
is former Missouri Sen. John
Ashcroft. Now, Ashcroft —
Bush’s pick for attorney general
— has gone from an esteemed
public servant to the modern ver
sion of Hitler in the eyes of liberal
activist groups.
The National Organization for
Women (NOW) opposes Ashcroft’s
confirmation on the grounds that he is
pro-life and will, according to NOW
President Patricia Ireland, “gut a
RUBEN DELUNA/The Battalion
woman’s right to an abortion.”
How Ashcroft could do this re
mains under speculation. He could
suggest rules regulating the use of
RU-486, the so-called “abortion pill,”
and that is all. Any other individual
action would be against the very law
— Roe v. Wade — Ashcroft would be
sworn to uphold. His new boss has
also repeatedly stated he does not
think the nation is ready for abortion
to be outlawed.
The other misleading allegation is
that Ashcroft is racist. This charge
stems from his refusal to vote for the
elevation of Ronnie White, an
African-American Missouri Supreme
Court judge, to a federal judgeship.
This isolated decision does not look
good on the surface, but a closer look
shows that Ashcroft voted for 26 of
the 28 African-American judicial
nominees forwarded by Clinton and
was joined by 54 other senators in
voting against White.
As governor of Missouri,
Ashcroft appointed eight African-
Americans to state judicial positions,
including the first African-American
ever to sit on the state’s Supreme
Court. He appointed the first
African-American to the Missouri
Public Defender Commission and
had three other African-Americans
in his Cabinet. In fact, according to
Dr. Kris Kobach’s column in The
New York Post, “given the choice,
Ashcroft virtually always chose the
African-American candidate.”
In spite of these facts, the hue and
cry from the opposition has been
staggering. After such a malicious
and vindictive presidential campaign,
the nation needs to recover.
Allowing George W. Bush’s nom
inees for Cabinet positions to have
their say in front of the Senate’s con
firmation panels before publicly
shredding them would help that re
covery process. Instead, members of
the news media and Bush’s political
opposition have been more than hap
py to unfairly assault people who are
willing to give up their private lives to
serve their country.
George W. Bush ran for presi
dent on the concept that he could
unite the nation. Once he was final
ly elected. Democrats in Congress
promised to work with him to
change the tone of the discussion in
Washington. The early returns on
this new era of bipartisanship could
lead one to paraphrase The Who: v
Meet the new bipartisanship —
same as the old bipartisanship.
Mark Passwaters is a senior
electrical engineering major.