Cry Me a River
By Jermaine Smith

It’s a free country, or at least that is the rumor. Lately, however, that seems to apply merely when everyone agrees with your opinion.

During the United States’ relatively short history, the nation has endured a host of discriminatory practices toward a variety of religions, sexual orientations and ethnicities. Our nation’s past is not always a proud one, but most times a hopeful one, as we grow from our earlier mistakes to build a healthier society.

Nevertheless, there are times when we can be too sensitive.

Rush Limbaugh, the infamous radio talk show host with a penchant for instigation, made the mistake of voicing what many feel a tactless opinion on an ESPN sports show. Although it is simple to write off Mr. Limbaugh’s opinion as racist or prejudiced, this attitude does not challenge our country to think. Very few agree with the statement, and it may have been imprudent, but is it fair to label it bigotry?

Alexis de Tocqueville once said, “the greatest dangers of the American republics proceed from the omnipotence of the majority.” It seems our sensitive nature has created a sense of supremacy; alternative viewpoints, regardless of significance or intention, meet harsh criticism and, in some cases, even harsher consequences. In Mr. Limbaugh’s case, it cost him his job.

However, Mr. Limbaugh is not the first case citizen to bristle America by exercising his right to free speech. Look no further than the war in Iraq and one will find an unrelenting firestorm of criticism. From anxious soldiers to ,frustrated senators, there was no safe harbor regarding the war outside of popular opinion. Despite their backgrounds, these men were labeled as unpatriotic because they voiced an outlook that did not correspond with the fashionable view.

America, its past hatred and current discrimination still fresh, condemns all that challenges the status quo. Mr. Limbaugh, unfortunately, finds himself the latest victim of a society that fears its own criticism: America would rather make him the scapegoat than examine its own behavior. In this particular case, the topic was only football players and their relationship with the media. Mr. Limbaugh’s criticism, intended to address the media’s mishandling of African-American quarterbacks, has made him into the poster boy for racial insensitivity.

What is it that we Americans fear? It is far too easy to ascribe our problems to these scapegoats. Are the allegations of discrimination and treason earned, or are they contrived? It seems omniscient America is stifling the freedom of expression, and in turn, we must ask ourselves if the wisdom of collective judgment is failing.

In recent decades, much controversy has arisen over issues of social equality, the most recent examples of which are affirmative action and homosexual marriages. While such issues often bring to the surface what some perceive as offensive comments, it is important to not lose sight that when people speak their minds, there can be positive change. It took almost 150 years for women to get the right to vote, and nearly another 30 to allow blacks and whites to attend the same schools. What gives us the audacity to think our decisions, perhaps meaning well at the time, are absolute? We have been wrong before, as our history indicates.

It is time for America to stop being so sensitive about its choices and accept a little criticism. How do we hope to improve our nation when we cast all who oppose the standard into exile? If our nation trusts in the values on which it stands, we must rededicate our energy to the pursuit of justice and equality, not mud slinging.

On the other hand, perhaps the reason our country is so swift to crucify is that, ultimately, we are not so virtuous ourselves. Until we examine our own belief systems and accept what we as a country must address, no one’s opinion is safe; the majority rules, and in these cases, it is crying foul.

Just Say No?
By Anna Schwartz

The Bush-sponsored $87 billion Iraq spending bill currently being ushered through Congress will send the nation soaring into deficit, and is a zero-sum loss for spending on domestic concerns. But aside from partisan hostility, on what grounds can the Democrats reject the bill? This $87 billion, if spent efficiently, will recreate the infrastructure that we blew up last March – a fact that John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, and John Edwards seem to have forgotten or wish to forget about.

The Democratic Presidential candidates currently in Congressional office have rallied around the position of rejecting the White House-sponsored bill (save Joe Lieberman, who should not be considered a Democrat in the first place). John Kerry’s position is the most practical of the five: his approval of the Iraq spending would be conditioned upon the reduction of the Bush tax cut by an equal amount and ensuring that other nations share the economic burden of reconstructing Iraq.

Did the other Democrats forget to enroll in Foreign Policy 101 in college?

Although it may prove to be a pipe dream, the Bush administration’s plan of creating a stable democracy in Iraq – replete with all of the necessities for a functioning state, such as roads, electricity, and running water – is an excellent long-term foreign policy goal for the United States to pursue. Earlier this month, Dr. Rice’s speech at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations outlined the Bush administration policy -- culled from the rhetoric, this is the key point around which the policy revolves: “A free, democratic, and successful Iraq can serve as a beacon, and a catalyst, in this effort [toward progress in the Middle East].”

A democratic Iraq is a means to an end as well as an end in and of itself: although the administration touts the project as a moral mission, that is only part of the picture, as American interests can be measured not just in tax dollars, but in the stability of the region as a whole. A prosperous and free Iraq could create a domino effect in the Middle East, or so the Bush administration hopes. But the most compelling reason to shell out $87 billion? It would prevent Iraq from becoming a breeding ground for terrorism.

With that said, $87 billion is not a magic number. Despite this, Dennis Kucinich’s position that Congress should not approve a cent of it is untenable – dropping bombs and going home is a terrible policy that would have unthinkable consequences. Leaving Iraq in a state of total chaos with no money, government or order will undoubtedly facilitate the rise of a regime like the Taliban.

Those liberals and Democrats who did not support the war in the first place had good reason: despite David Kay’s waffling, there has been no concrete evidence that Saddam had acquired or was ready to use weapons of mass destruction. Opposing the war was an excellent move for some Democrats, and the same plan has thus far worked brilliantly for the Dean campaign. Despite Democratic opposition, the war transpired and American troops remain in Iraq, whether liberals are keen on the idea or not. Leaving the country in tatters is not a viable foreign policy option.

Opposing Bush’s proposal will ultimately not harm the President himself – sticking to his guns on the Iraq policy has increased his approval rating by a few points over the past weeks – but will harm the Iraqi people. Though the Iraqi people are not Congressional constituents, security in Iraq will ultimately do wonders for American national security interests.

President Bush may have been wrong initially about Iraq, but his current course of action is spot on. War is costly; the aftermath is costlier. The Democratic Presidential Candidates should embrace nation building, the type of foreign policy that Clinton championed. The war on terror has affected America’s course in foreign policy. But just saying no is just not an option.