Lessons learned from the ‘Eagleton affair’
By Eric Rollins
If you’ve read Hunter S. Thompson’s Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail ‘72 you’d know the name Tom Eagleton. If you really paid attention you’d have understood the moral of that story.
Politicians can make mistakes; although they need to be perfect professionally and privately, some miscues are allowed. The American public can deal with a former drug problem, maybe a different minor indiscretion here and there. But from things like what became dubbed as the “Eagleton affair,” it’s apparent that its not the miscue that hurts a politician, it’s what they do after the truth comes out.
George McGovern, a senator from South Dakota, was running for the Democratic nomination in 1972 against better-known veterans like Hubert Humphrey, George Wallace, and Ed Muskie. In January of 1972 he was considered fifth or sixth on the depth charts in most primaries; by August he was number one. What it took was some guts, the willingness to run a nationwide grass roots campaign, and the knowledge of what battles he could win and lose.
Muskie had fizzled by early summer and George Wallace, just as it seemed he was going to finally go for the candidacy, was shot, paralyzed, and forced to drop out. The feeling among Democratic voters that spring and summer seemed to be progressive, and McGovern was their man. He was an honest, rural, newcomer, some fresh blood to fight against Nixon. The dichotomy of the Democratic Party across the country at that time is well documented in Thompson’s book, with the blue-collar coastal fronts, the minorities, women, and some loose canons in the south.
After he miraculously won the nomination, he went conservative on his run for the White House, and let Wallace’s supporters in the South and Mayor Daley’s midwestern political machine in Chicago strong-arm him. Although he promised the American public he wasn’t just in it for the nomination and that he wanted to win the whole thing, it was easy to see with his post-Convention moves that he wasn’t telling the truth. He went with safe choice Tom Eagleton, a senator from Missouri, to be his running mate instead of fighting harder to get Ted Kennedy or Walter Mondale to join the ticket.
Eagleton turned out to have a bit of a twisted past. Alcoholism troubles were leaked, as were reports of prior bouts with depression that required electroshock treatment. The leaks were later considered to be Nixon’s doing, but even so, it was a bad decision to pick Eagleton in the first place. Worst of all, McGovern refused to address the situation when it first came out, missing the window of opportunity to quickly right his wrong.
He made his bones on the trail as being decisive in battle and to have strong convictions. He floundered with the Eagleton problem and made statement after statement saying he was not going to bounce him from the ticket.
Time passed and the press got more aggressive in researching Eagleton and McGovern eventually replaced him with an equally safe candidate, Sargent Shriver, instead of fishing out Kennedy. The indecisive maneuvers surrounding the Eagleton affair left him with no chance, compared to the slim chance he already had. Plus, his aloofness from the whole affair at the beginning was a complete departure from his previous transgressions while he was campaigning.
If you want more details on the 1972 race, read Thompson’s book. The point is that politicians and governments can make mistakes and their people will forgive them. It’s all about how the situation is handled from then on out. Granted I don’t think this goes for all things; Ted Kennedy would still not have won the presidency if he didn’t try to cover up the Chappaquiddick, that incident in itself was enough to condemn him.
It all seems to come from a lack of honesty and having a lapse in political savvy. Handling a situation correctly is just as important as the onset of the situation itself. For example, Watergate was not so much the break in at the Democratic National Headquarters by men under Nixon’s control, it was the alleged cover up and the pay offs. These sorts of things take off in the media and the public is more than willing to oblige. The more recent “Scooter” Libby trial is an example of how to handle a situation correctly. President Bush positioned himself immediately as an outsider to the whole affair, and Cheney was more than able to push it on Libby, even though he was the one who most likely told Libby about Valerie Plame’s identity as an agent.
More locally, Deval Patrick has found himself making beginners’ mistakes left and right, but he has always been upfront about his slip-ups and the media hasn’t clamped down on him yet. The whole $10,000 curtains thing was a potential public relations nightmare, but before it got carried too far he issued a statement saying that he would pay for them.
The car thing was handled well, too. He may find himself in trouble soon with his wife, however, and that is something more delicate than a more expensive car or curtains. He recently added a person to the state payroll at $72,000 a year to be his wife’s personal assistant (what does she do again?) and it was just recently released that she may be headed to a rehab clinic due to exhaustion and depression. I hope he remembers the “Eagleton affair,” and McGovern’s inability to be consistent and how carried away little things can get with such a bored mass media.
With a very superficial presidential race coming up, handling little public relations problems may prove to be the turning point. For instance, Obama apparently has unpaid parking tickets; that better be handled quickly. Hilary wrote a dissertation on a socialist community organizer. No one is that upset about it, they just want an explanation. Giving an elusive response or giving none at all will hurt her more than the dissertation itself. Handle things honestly and quickly and public relations problems will go away; remember that, politicians!
Hypocrisy surrounds factory raid
By Tom Celona
Tuesday March 6, federal immigration officers raided Michael Bianco Inc., a military contracted corporation in New Bedford. In this raid 327 undocumented workers, mostly women, were arrested and, as a result, left over 100 children either at school, with baby sitters or with care givers. It has been reported that the workers were performing for less than minimum wage in unlawful conditions. Michael Bianco Inc. won the $82 million contract to make leather back packs in 2004 and increased its work force from 150 employees then to about 500 this year to accommodate the increased workload. In exchange for the promise of good jobs for residents, the city of New Bedford signed a five-year agreement with the company totaling $80,000 in tax breaks. At this time, Michael Bianco inc. has received $57,000 in credits from the city.
Mayor Lang has expressed certainty that the city will retrieve all of the funds back from the corporation. The company owner Francesco Insolia and some other top managers were arrested along with their workers. South Coast Today, the Boston Globe and the Associated Press have heavily reported this issue, but it seems that nobody is asking the right questions.
The Providence Journal reported John Kerry as saying “The events in New Bedford today [March 6] shined a light on a tragically broken immigration system and reminded us all that too many American companies brazenly break our immigration laws. These companies have been emboldened by the fact that, for too long, there has been no accountability for illegal hiring practices.” This is a classic case of a politician repeating what he believes the public wants to hear, without addressing any of the root problems of our country’s undocumented worker problem.
If the government considered undocumented workers a problem it would be stopped. It is no secret that factories, restaurants, and the agricultural industry collectively employ the vast majority of undocumented workers. Illegal immigrants are not hard to find. We know where they live. We know where they work. If we truly wanted them removed, we would. But it doesn’t even take that much. If someone who came here illegally couldn’t get a job, they would eventually go home to a place where they are legal citizens and can live in a culture familiar to them. Furthermore there would be no incentive for more people to risk life and limb entering the United States.
There is a record of every legal citizen and every legal immigrant in this country. We have a record of every temporary visa that is issued. I remain unconvinced that a very simple worker identification system could not be created where a photo ID gets the employer the legal status of any potential employee. But instead, we build a wall, which accomplishes nothing except worsening Mexican diplomacy.
The truth is that not only do we want undocumented workers here; we need them here to be competitive in a global market. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that between 9 and 12 percent of the work in this country is done by illegal immigrants, which is between 7 and 10 million undocumented workers. In 2006, unemployment was totaled at 7 million people by the department of labor, and this does not include those who are no longer receiving unemployment benefits. But they would cost more per hour, work fewer hours and demand humane conditions.
The news frequently reports our aspirations to participate in a free global economy. It is routine to hear of the great wealth a global economy brings to our nation and nations abroad by participating in the trend of globalization. In a free market global economy it is impossible for a country with high humanitarian standards to compete with those manufacturing power-house countries in which sweatshop conditions set the industry standard.
It is hard to compete with countries with lower humanitarian standards. It is so hard that in our cities we scrap the metal that has piled up, sell and ship that metal across the globe, and then buy the products from them cheaper than we could have produced. Is it superior knowledge of manufacturing techniques that enables Mexico, Taiwan, China and company to produce goods at a fraction of our cost? No. The truth is that all of our humanitarian laws are in place to keep the voting people of the United States quiet. Most citizens do not want to see each other in unhealthy work conditions, so we vote to protect ourselves. But if we truly cared we would not send such a large percentage of our gross national product to such places. Much more weighty than the highly touted democratic vote is the economic dollar. We support sweatshop-enabled countries because the goods are cheaper, and we can compete with it because we run our own sweatshops below the public radar. Every once in a while there needs to be a large raid to calm the more conservative types, and show that we are doing something to ‘protect our jobs’ and ‘hold these free loaders accountable.’ So we create more humanitarian crises to cover up the ones we have already created.
The dust is yet to settle on this issue, and I am sure more facts will surface in the coming weeks. I hope a bunch of rich legal citizens go to jail for a long time for what they have done to these people. I hope that Michael Bianco, inc. loses its contracts to the military. And I hope we will someday have a consistent policy on immigration.
Journals, grants tough to crack
By Lew Kamm
Chancellor Professor of French Literature
I enjoyed reading Yale Magrass’s article on “Misplaced Priorities” in the March 8 issue of The Torch. As easy as it might be to respond to several of the issues he has raised, I would like to focus instead on what I believe is a possible misunderstanding on his part when it comes to peer reviews of grant proposals and articles submitted for publication.
I’ve previously served as an associate editor of a peer-reviewed journal and continue to serve on the editorial board of two such journals. No article is accepted for publication unless two readers with established expertise in the specific field find it worthy of appearing in print. What makes an article worthy?
Is it well written according to accepted standards of English (or a foreign language) and accepted practices within the discipline?
Does it clearly and distinctly lay out its contribution to the topic in a well-organized manner?
Is the article’s topic appropriate and valuable for the “biases” (Yale Magrass’s term) of the journal - in other words, the journal’s stated focus and audience? I continue to be astounded by the number of colleagues who submit articles to journals for which the article is fundamentally inappropriate. One simple example from among so many that I could offer: Romance Notes, published by the University of North Carolina, specializes in articles that do not exceed 10 pages. In spite of this stated editorial policy, the journal continues to receive longer submissions from colleagues who are thus demonstrating more ignorance than brilliance.
Does the author demonstrate a grasp of the bibliography on the topic and appropriately incorporate it into the article?
Does the article represent a significant contribution to the field or topic, especially in view of the journals stated policies and goals?
Is the article properly addressed? (Too many colleagues don’t even proofread their typing of the address. Perhaps one of the more celebrated examples is an article sent to the editor of The French Review. Alas, the article was addressed to The Ranch Review. Would you even read that individual’s submission?) For the sake of brevity, I won’t throw out additional questions but will remind everyone that the competition is tough. If two readers don’t say “yes” to all of these kinds of questions, then even a good article will not be accepted initially. Many journals return detailed comments to authors and occasionally encourage them to re-submit a revised article. Other journals do not offer a second chance.
As for the world of grants, I’ve been blessed and have been awarded eight major grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities (as well as several other smaller grants). I’ve also served on national grant panels, consisting of five colleagues each. If, according to the published and clearly stated standards and expectations of the granting agency, ALL of the panelists find your proposal “excellent,” you have a fighting chance to have your proposal funded. If you bat less than a thousand, forget it. There is only so much money available, and your proposal has to be that good, plain and simple.
In short, whether one is talking about the “biases” of peer reviewed journals or of the world of grants, the fact remains that most journals and most grant agencies clearly delineate precisely what is expected for an article or grant to be competitive, and most adhere to their stated policies very closely, very carefully, and very professionally. NOT being able to respond competitively to these facts of life in the world of academia may constitute one reason why more articles aren’t accepted for publication and why more colleagues aren’t awarded major grants. MEETING these challenges explains why many of our colleagues, especially those who have joined our faculty in the past several years, should be applauded and praised as UMass Dartmouth continues to evolve.
Don’t blame me, I voted for Muffy!
By Lee Lukoff
Muffy is the nickname for former Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey coined by Herald Columnist and talk show guru Howie Carr. I was one of about 44% of the voter plurality that decided not to vote for Deval Patrick. Deval talked the talk, he gave impassioned speeches and he enlightened countless moonbats into believing he was someone we could trust as our governor. Deval’s victory was due partly because the past three Republican Governors had left the state for greener pastures, and unions like the Mass Federation of Teachers contributed $3 million dollars to his campaign. At the Speak Up Speak Out Forum earlier this year, I was the only student who stood up for Healey, but nobody listened; professors were eager to indoctrinate their students into voting for Deval, so they could get a retroactive pay raise that Mitt Romney wouldn’t give them.
As a student of political science, I could see through the smokescreen that Deval’s campaign put out through the drive-by liberal media. Chants of “Together We Can” unified the masses of the uniformed electorate. During his campaign, I heard so many promises that sounded too good to be true. There was calls for “Universal Pre-School,” “Property Tax Relief,” “Affordability for State Universities,” “10,000 more policemen on the beat,” “Statewide WIFI,” “Renewable Energy Policies,” “Commuter rail expansion to New Bedford” and many other promises.
Political experts to be in the range of $8 billion dollars estimated Deval’s total spending proposals. However, the average voter didn’t know this because they relied upon slanted and biased media coverage from the likes of The Boston Globe. Deval also won because Kerry Healey ran a terrible campaign. She focused more on Deval’s legal work for convicted rapist Ben Laguer then talking about why she should be elected. It also didn’t help that the Globe planted a story that accused the Healey campaign of leaking information that Deval’s brother in law was an unregistered sex-offender. According to the Globe, it was the rotten Republicans that planted the story to undermine Deval. In reality, it was the Globe’s sleazy writers that dug up the story. The media, the union money and a poor public relations image contributed to Healey’s loss despite the fact most voters agreed with her on what mattered the most, the issues.
After the election, I gave Deval the benefit of the doubt before judging his actions as governor. I thought maybe he’d pull off something creative and balance the budget without raising taxes, as previous Governor’s had done. As a lame duck Governor on his way out, Mitt Romney of all people, came to Deval’s aid. As a favor to Deval, Romney used 9C Budget Cuts to ax 300 million from the current budget. As it states in the Massachusetts Constitution, the Governor has to balance the budget each year, so instead of setting Deval up for failure, he gave him a nice pat on the back and left to run for President. Most of the money Mitt cut was for failed government programs and earmarks, which included the infamous Gazebo in Braintree and many other pet projects across the commonwealth that were not necessary for the state as a whole.
When his term began, Deval decided to reverse Romney’s cuts despite the fact that the state was facing a $1 billion dollar budget deficit. The deficit loomed because our state legislature, which is 87% Democrat, loves to spend money and override the Governor’s veto. As it is the governor’s job, Deval then proposed his budget. As Deval issued his budget, the pork could be seen quite clearly, it was in the Executive Office’s allocation. Unlike Mitt Romney, who took no salary from the state and stripped the executive office of all the money he could, Deval had a different strategy.
His strategic plan involved a lot of luxuries that the average taxpayer will never get his hands on. Deval first tried to use the State Police’s Helicopter for free rides, but he was caught red-handed just like Gov. Jane Swift was back in 2002. The media found out, and Deval, facing a looming public relations mess, decided to switch gears by calling it a “rookie mistake”. But hey if you can’t fly, why not drive? Deval then decided to fire up his new taxpayer provided sports car, a $46,000 Cadillac DTS! This was totally outrageous in my opinion. Why not drive around in some of the cars the state already owns like say, The Dart Van?
After his traveling debacle, Deval decided to settle in to his new office. He spent $10,000 for new drapes, $27,000 for new office furniture, and lastly $72,000 for a secretary for his wife; Diane Patrick. Diane makes six figures a year working for Boston based law firm Ropes & Gray and apparently lives quite lavishly in Milton. While the taxpayers are still waiting for Deval to follow through with his campaign promises that I mentioned earlier in this article, no statement reinforces what Deval has done since he took office then the old adage “To the victor goes the spoils!”
If his first 90 days are any implication for the rest of his first term as governor, I have no idea what else could be next! What can be predicted is that Deval’s campaign promises will not get placed into action unless he raises taxes or hikes fees. One of his first actions to balance the budget included a hike on meals and hotel taxes to make up for the shortfall. His justification, “I want to use the revenue for tax relief for seniors.” Even the Boston Chamber of Commerce and House Leader Sal Dimasi came out strongly against the tax hikes since they would damage the economy and actually decrease total tax revenues.
Since his first ninety days in office have been a public relations mess, I want to make it known that to the careful eye this situation could have been prevented if voters were somehow better informed before they voted. Like every politician, I just wanted to remind everyone that Deval Patrick the candidate promised a lot of great things, but his proposals are expensive and these proposals will most likely not be implemented because of the large political debt he owes to the unions who elected him. The best advice I can give to an uninformed voter is that next time there is an election don’t listen to teachers who have a financial bias against a certain candidate. What you should do is study the policy proposals of each candidate and stay away from slanted news coverage whether it be liberal or conservative media.
Today you hear countless Americans talk about how they aren’t to blame because they voted for John Kerry in 2004. I share common ground with the Kerry supporters. Like most Democrats, I share the belief that my candidate should have won in the past election. Like previous bumper stickers where Massachusetts residents lauded themselves for being the only state to vote against Richard Nixon in 1972, I stand proud to be one of the few students here at UMD who can gladly say “Don’t blame me- I voted for Muffy”!
Wage peace on your government
By Lance Gagnon
In recent years, I’ve heard a few sayings thrown around comparing our generation to the Baby Boomers. Tons of people have claimed that the Iraq War is our generation’s Vietnam. Advocates of gay rights have referred to the current gay marriage movement as the next Civil Rights Movement. Even the more conservative members of our society are claiming similarities, pejoratively referring to anti-war advocates as “hippies.” While there may be some similarities between the conflicts of the two generations, I’m not so sure our generation deserves such a comparison. After all, have we really done enough in reaction to the problems of our times to earn these claims?
As the war continues to rage on, killing over 650,000 Iraqi citizens (50% of which are under the age of 15) and thousands of Americans who didn’t get to choose whether or not they’d die for oil, our generation remains relatively silent on the issue. Sure, we had millions of people in the streets of our cities expressing their feelings before the war started, but after that everything changed. Once the realization that our president doesn’t believe in democracy settled in, we went back home to grumble to ourselves about it. It was as if we hadn’t been protesting the systematic murder of our family members or the slaughter of innocent people. Since the war began, we’ve treated it with little more protest than we’d give to a tax we don’t like.
This is in sharp contrast to the Vietnam War. Back then, protests could be found on college campuses across the nation. Large numbers of people could be found in Washington DC trying their best to convince the government not to send them to their deaths for a pointless war on communism. Even Abbie Hoffman’s Yippie movement, with its theatrical political performances that bordered on the absurd, did more to end the war in Vietnam than the relative silence that our generation has provided. Sure, we may feel as angry as an anti-Nam protester, but we definitely don’t show it.
It’s much the same way we react to the gay rights movement. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that the movement has a long past with plenty of positive action to advance it. Previous generations have worked hard to gain what has been achieved so far. But our generation’s reaction to the fact that segregation is back in our country has been mediocre compared to the last time we fought this problem. Honestly, can we really say that we are fighting anti-gay marriage laws as hard as civil rights activists of the 1960s fought to end Jim Crow?
The Civil Rights Movement had something going for it that current movements seem to have very little of: direct action. Rather than merely voting on some trickster with empty promises of positive change, activists of the time performed boycotts and civil disobedience to push immediate change onto our society. They may have violated the so-called “order” imposed by the law, but there was an absolute need to do so. If they had simply continued to obey Jim Crow, we might still be as racist of a nation today as we were back then.
Granted, there have been a few cases here and there of gay marriages being performed in states that have outlawed them, but again this is relatively little civil disobedience compared to that which happened a handful of decades ago. If the current civil rights movement is to be comparable to the previous one, there should be mobilizations of people - both gay people and heterosexuals - demanding that marriage licenses be issued to newly married gay couples. And not before the weddings; the ceremonies should go on whether or not the state approves of it. It’ll only be after the movement shows the state that they’ll have their rights whether it’s legal or not that the laws will finally change.
But somehow, our generation hasn’t really embraced such methods on the scale that the Boomers did. And it’s really ironic that we don’t, because unlike the Boomers we’ve been raised to believe that Martin Luther King Jr. - a man who is famous for breaking the law in order to change it - is a hero. We’ve understood since we were young that there is something right about disobeying our government when it betrays us, yet even the most liberal individuals amongst our generation have acted relatively conservative when faced with the need for disobedience.
And as much as I’d hate to admit this, this says something rather bad for our own ethics. While I think the Bush administration holds the vast majority of responsibility for the atrocities committed in Iraq, I think we the people must also admit that we have a duty as members of this so-called democracy to truly show our opposition. I think Noam Chomsky put it best when he said “It is the fundamental duty of the citizen to resist and to restrain the violence of the state. Those who choose to disregard this responsibility can justly be accused of complicity in war crimes, which is itself designated as ‘a crime under international law’ in the principles of the Charter of Nuremberg.”
If that is the case, then we are, in fact, a nation of criminals. We may not get arrested for our crimes, but the ethical burden of having allowed for the deaths of hundreds of thousands will stay with us forever. And with that in mind, why should we be any more worried about committing further “crimes” by disobeying our criminal government? Isn’t action against criminals what we normally call law enforcement? Wouldn’t disobedience against a murderous regime actually be what we were told patriotic citizens should be willing to do in Iraq? If anything, disobeying our government’s call to war wouldn’t hinder the fight for democracy; it would get it started in the country that needs it most.
This is not to say that we should wage war on the government. Any violence against the state is more likely to hurt the people than the state itself, and the state is more than capable of stopping violent rebellion. But maybe we should try something that our government hasn’t. Instead of waging war, we should try waging peace. The Boomers, before they sold out and raised us to do the same, did this themselves and succeeded in both ending a war and improving the state of civil rights. If we were to work towards gaining the spirit of civil disobedience ourselves, chances are we could do so as well.
The lessons of Walter Reed
By Ben Tansey
If you have been following the news lately, then it is likely that you have heard about the horrors that were perpetrated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Suffice to say, the care provided to injured American soldiers was less than adequate. It is a nightmarish fact that our wounded soldiers were being provided with standards of care that could only be described as ghoulish. Certainly not befitting of heroes returning from fighting the good fight against the Islamic hordes abroad, keeping them at bay, lest we find them on our shores before we can say “Allahu Akhbar” (as the Bush narrative tells it). Walter Reed teaches us a painful lesson, but one that we have been taught many times before. However, no matter how often or how painfully it is beaten into us, the vast majority staunchly refuses to accept it. This is what happens when you let the government handle healthcare.
Looking for the dream of Euro-Canadian public health provided in government hospitals and paid for on the public dole? Well, here it is! What, not what you were expecting? This is the inevitable result of turning over something as important as the public health to the public sector.
But surely, I doth protest too much, you say. It must be that this had more to do with corrupt officials, with people who deliberately skirted their duties. It was not a systematic error, it is something that we can fix, and then avoid in the future! I agree that heads ought to roll over this crime. And with a story of this high publicity, it is thankfully likely that they will. However, I also say that yes, this is systematic! This sort of thing will emerge again, given enough time, regardless of whether it ever gets such large coverage again. Why, you ask? The reason is, no price.
The price mechanism is the one, and the only, method by which data can be transmitted through the market to allow for rational economic calculation. In any instance of a public good, it is impossible to collect data on how best to invest resources, or to know where, when, how, and to what extent to invest. Only through the price mechanism in a free market can consumers effectively tell producers that information, through their decisions to purchase or hold off on certain goods and services. Ludwig von Mises showed in his Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth that, for this reason, having any kind of socialist economy was literally impossible. This does not apply only to full on state-communism, as promulgated by the Soviet Union. It applies to any and all “social programs” of egalitarian wealth redistribution.
Because public healthcare operates without a price mechanism, it operates with no ability to rationally invest resources so as to maximize welfare. For that reason, substandard care will always and everywhere be the rule, and not the exception, of government-controlled healthcare.
SOUL SIGHTINGS
Do what Jesus did, host a Seder
Mid-March has traditionally been a time to unwind from the harsh winter cold and to take a break from the daily routine of the busy schedule on college campuses. It is now almost Spring Break, when many students and faculty will be heading off to warm climates to spend a relaxing week off from classes and campus activities in sunny Florida, or for those who enjoy the cold weather, they will head to the mountains to ski and enjoy winter’s cold arctic chill on the ski slopes. I wish all the students and faculty a good Spring Break, safe traveling, and restful days before returning for the final weeks of the semester.
The week after Spring Break, the Center for Jewish Culture/Hillel, in cooperation with the Women Resource’s Center and the Frederick Douglass Unity House, will sponsor a multi-cultural women’s Seder on March 27 from 5 to 8 p.m. in the South Alcove of the Campus Center. At this annual event, students and faculty of different religious and ethnic groups will join together to celebrate and learn about the holiday of Passover and read about the exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt and how similar this experience of the ancient Jews from the Bible was to other groups around the world. Students and faculty will also have an opportunity to share their own stories and to sample the traditional foods of the traditional holiday of Passover. To reserve a seat at this year’s Seder, please contact Kim Sylvia at the Women’s Resource Center at ext. 4584 or email Kim at ksylvia@umassd.edu by March 16.
The Jewish holiday of Passover this year will begin on the evening of April 2, and for those Jewish students who will remain on campus for the holiday, they will be able to share the Seder meal with a local Jewish family in New Bedford or Dartmouth. Students should contact me at the Religious Resource Office, 210 Campus Center, ext. 9241 as soon as possible, so that I can make arrangements with the families in the area who would like to host a university student for the first two nights of the holiday. Passover is one of the most important holidays for Jews, and as it is a family-oriented holiday, I hope that we at UMD Hillel will help students to share the beauty of the holiday on campus by helping to arrange special foods and family holiday meals.
Passover comes in close proximity to Easter, and the two holidays share many characteristics. For example, for the Christians who celebrate Holy Thursday and Jesus’ Last Supper, they should be aware that this supper was actually a Seder that Jesus celebrated with his disciples. Both religions share common bonds and the two holidays are thus important ones for both Christians and Jews. It is important in today’s world that we also share our different traditions with each other, and so, this year, I hope that not only Christians and Jews, but other groups on campus, African Americans, Native Americans, Muslims, Hindus, and others will come together to share their families’ stories and histories and join us at our own multi -cultural women’s Seder this year on Tuesday, March 27. It is by joining together and learning about our neighbors that we will learn that our traditions are similar. It is by sharing and listening to each other, that we can hope to bring peace and understanding to our world.
B’shalom,
Cindy Yoken,
Hillel Director
Medical Marijuana
By Allison Browning
Picture this. Walking down the street, you watch a glorious scene of a group of older women strolling along, and one of them looks as though her arthritis may be acting up. You begin to wonder if she needs your assistance. No need; she pulls out her bowl, takes a nice hit, and serenity is found.
It can cure a weak stomach and lack of appetite better than ginger ale and saltines ever could. With this drug, little aches and pains are a thing of the past. Eating dad’s “special dinner” tonight and feel like you might spend the night over the toilet? Not a problem, this drug can even control vomiting. All these things are hugely beneficial to the medical world. Too bad pot’s illegal.
Medical marijuana has been a hot button topic on the medical scene for years. The argument is that there are too many harmful side effects of cannabinoids to legalize it in every state. Some doctors believe that if recreational use of the drug is still outlawed, and prescriptions are watched as closely as those of cocaine and morphine right now, than there shouldn’t be an issue regarding the drug. Others disagree, believing it is too much of a liability to legalize such a mind-debilitating drug.
Marijuana has been proven to be a major pain reliever in such diseases as peripheral neuropathy, Multiple Sclerosis, Glaucoma and Diabetes. People regularly used marijuana for pain relief in the 1800s, and several studies have found that cannabinoids have analgesic effects. In fact, this may work as well in treating cancer pain as codeine, a mild pain reliever. Cannabinoids also appear to enhance the effects of opiate pain medications to provide pain relief at lower dosages.
Federal law recognizes marijuana as a Schedule I drug, which classifies it as one of “the most dangerous drugs that have no recognized medical use.” As of now, the U.S. Penal Code states that any person can be imprisoned for up to one year for possession of one marijuana cigarette and imprisoned for up to five years for growing a single marijuana plant.
So, throughout all of the arguing that has been going on for years now over the effects of this mind altering drug, doctors have not yet found a plausible way to say that marijuana is proven debilitating to patients who take it for medical purposes, under supervision.
For all those recreational smokers out there, don’t get too excited. There are certainly proven side effects to argue the other side’s point. Research has found that marijuana can be dependent, and can cause withdrawal symptoms. There are also links to increased risk of heart attack, and heightened risk of chronic coughing.
Even though they may have been churning butter high back in the 1800’s, and although there are no ways to prove that marijuana is debilitating when taken for medical purposes, research is still years away from finally proving one way or the other how this drug affects humans. One solution is to continue studying the drug and testing it to find any other possible solutions. The other is a little less orthodox. Maybe these doctors need to just get high and hug it out.
|
