Obama's Mistakes: The Reverend Wright Controversy

MICHAEL FIRER '09

Even the most rabid of Barack Obama supporters (you know who you are) would have to admit that, recently, the “candidate of change” has made a few mistakes. The man makes risky decisions and hopes that people will understand his reasoning. Sometimes the risk is worth the reward, and Obama is praised with the buzzwords you’ve all heard enough times that there is no need for me to repeat them. Sometimes, though, Obama’s comments and actions are seen as the shocking follies of an inexperienced and naïve candidate who simply can’t break free of his ideals. The reason I am concentrating on Obama and not Hillary Clinton or John McCain as well is because the other candidates do not have these problems. Obama’s attempts to break the stereotype of the dishonest politician separated from the people and using any means necessary to win have caused unique problems to come up, and his directness and sincerity have only put him in precarious situations. While the risks Obama takes, such as addressing controversial subjects or not giving up parts of himself that are less than savory to the American public, have frequently received a positive response, by acting like other politicians, he could avoid these risks altogether and achieve a more stable and secure lead.

Every politician makes mistakes, but Barack Obama needs to start approaching his own like most politicians do. The best example of what I mean can be seen in Hillary Clinton. Clinton had often claimed that the plane she was in on a trip to Bosnia in 1996 had come under sniper fire, once saying “I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” Recently, however, it was revealed that Clinton’s remarks were untrue, and there was even video footage that showed her walking calmly along the tarmac and stopping to kiss a young girl. When questioned about the issue, Clinton did not reaffirm her claims or try to explain the issue away. Instead, she used the classic political tactic of shifting blame (she claimed she was merely repeating what someone told her), avoiding the issue (she never did explain why she spread the story after stepping off the plane and realizing that there was blatantly no danger), and moving on (while it’s become a common joke against Clinton, note how little time the issue spent in the public’s eye).

Now take Barack Obama. He rarely runs attack ads or uses any sort of mudslinging on the grounds that they are shameful things to do. And they are shameful things to do, but Obama can’t expect the campaign for the most important job in America to be civil. He’s been lucky that most of Clinton’s attacks have backfired because if the attacks were more effective, Obama would never have achieved many of his successes. Obama’s sincerity and humanness, and the problems with the two, were nowhere more obvious than in his handling of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright controversy. First off, those entering the political realm are wise to disassociate themselves from anything that could come back to bite them in the future. Obama stayed connected to Wright, the seemingly (I only use seemingly because, at this point, the man’s true beliefs have been muddled beyond comprehension) racist anti-American reverend of a church that said Louis Farrakhan “truly epitomized greatness.”

When the controversy arose, instead of explaining that he technically wasn’t associated with the church anymore or that he should have left it a long time ago, he explained that Wright had been his friend and reverend since childhood, and that he himself does not hold Wright’s beliefs, but does not hate the man. Sure, this was the honest, sincere answer, but it merely added fire to the controversy. His honesty, unusual for a politician, dug him deeper into the hole that the controversy had created. Later, he delivered a speech devoted to the topic of race in America. Groundbreaking for a politician, sure, but not the politically sound thing to do. While clearly not a positive tactic, it is nevertheless true that (to avoid losing votes) candidates must avoid any and all controversial issues. Obama was lucky his speech on race went over well. In making his recent comments that Americans cling to guns and religion, though, he was not so lucky. It may have been his honest opinion, but this honesty certainly didn’t help his campaign.

Understand that I do not think that this idea of a new, honest politician who states his true beliefs, as opposed to merely what is safe, is a bad thing. I support Obama, and it is for that reason that I want him to be more careful, even if that means giving up just a little of the personality and sincerity that has made him the revolutionary candidate he is believed to be. If Obama goes up against John McCain, he’ll need to ease up on his respectable act and start trying to win voters through the use of means that are more standard and less sincere. Unfortunate, yes, but those tactics are also the only ways to stay ahead in a competitive political race for the highest office in the world.

Read more!

See Hillary Run

JARED BELLOT '08

As yet another month of presidential primaries drags on, Democrats seem to be no closer to deciding on a presidential nominee. The two main contenders, frontrunner Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, continue to drag each other down into the mud in hopes of gaining an advantage in the upcoming primaries. Meanwhile, the presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona is using his ‘opponent free’ time to reintroduce himself to voters and catch up on fundraising. In many recent polls, John McCain has tied with both Democrats in projected results of the November election. When former state senator George Bachrach spoke at Beaver earlier this year, he called the 2008 election “the Democrats’ race to lose”. Historically, it is rare to see a single party hold the White House for more than two terms, especially when the existing administration suffers from low approval ratings. However, with these lengthened primaries, it seems that the Democrats may have lost the advantage they once held over John McCain and the Republican Party.

Despite Clinton’s large base of support, there seems to be a growing consensus that she will not win the Democratic Presidential nomination, and that she should withdraw from the race for the good of the party. Senator Patrick Lehay of Vermont was recently quoted, saying, “There is no way that Senator Clinton is going to win enough delegates to get the nomination. She ought to withdraw, and she ought to be backing Senator Obama”. Experts say that there is a less than 5% likelihood that Senator Clinton will win the nomination, and yet she still says that she will not withdraw from the race until the DNC in August. Senator Clinton claims that there are many states left where she is still very competitive, and that she will not withdraw from the race if there are still states which she can win. Hillary’s claim is true, she can still win in Pennsylvania, and Ohio, but unless she sweeps Barack in all of these states, Hillary will not be able to gain the votes needed to secure the nomination. Super delegates, while important, will not completely skew the election. Hillary can still finish strong by bringing home some important states, but ultimately, she will most likely finish short.

Many say that there is nothing wrong with Sen. Clinton staying in the race, that she still may win the nomination, and that even if she doesn’t win, the feeling of competition that Clinton brings can only help Sen. Obama when it comes election time. This argument does have its points. It is true that a healthy sense of competition harms no one. However, when the competition resembles a death match, it only harms those involved. Slinging mud at your opponent will not help make them stronger, it is instead helping your opponent. When Clinton continues to question Obama’s experience levels, stating that he will not be ready to enter the White House on day one of presidency, she is not boosting her ratings, she is simply lowering his. The two Democrats seem to forget that it is not each other they are fighting. They should not view each other as enemies, but rather, allies.

I feel as though Hillary’s refusal to step down is seriously harming the Democratic party. Battle lines have been drawn, and Democrats are split down the middle. Indeed, in Beaver alone, fierce arguments were commonly erupting in the hallways and classrooms between Clinton and Obama supporters. Yet I don’t understand; who is this helping? How does Clinton benefit from the hatred of Obama supporters? How does Obama gain anything by having Micah Telegen attack the junior senator’s credentials? Nothing good is coming from this lengthened and hateful competition. Obama supporters refuse to vote for Clinton should she become the nominee, and many Clinton supporters feel the same way about Obama.

So why does Hillary stay in the race? Understandably she was the predicted nominee from early on, and many had expected her to become the next president of the United States. After all who could possibly defeat the Clinton machine? Certainly not a first term senator from Illinois who had served in the US senate for merely 3 years before he announced his plans to run for the highest office. At the time, such a scenario seemed absurd. However, that is exactly what happened. Whether Clinton refuses to believe this to be the case, or whether she still is holding on to that 5% chance that she can become commander-in-chief, she remains in the running to become the Democratic nominee. But one is left to wonder, ‘why does she continue to run? When will she stop? And where will she take the Democratic Party?’

Read more!

Jury Duty Is No Joke

JAN DEVEREUX

Ed. note: while so far the content of the Beaver Reader has been dominated by high school students, we welcome contributions from all members of the community, including middle schoolers, faculty, alumni, and parents. The following is a guest editorial by Director of Communications and parent ’07 Jan Devereux.

Once you turn 18, you become eligible for jury duty. Apart from serving in the military, jury duty is the most important civic responsibility a U.S. citizen has. Voting is also important, but as a juror you hold a fellow citizen’s fate in your hands. As the judge I sat before today described it, jury duty is an “awesome” responsibility – that’s awesome in the original sense of the word. As she reminded us, America is one of the few countries in the world that entrusts ordinary citizens with such an awesome power.

Yet most of us are annoyed when we are called to report for jury duty (it can be as often as every three years for a Massachusetts resident). Let’s be honest, there’s never a convenient time to wait around a courthouse with a bunch of strangers and no cell or Internet access. They don’t even sell coffee in the courthouse. The majority of those summoned spend the day waiting without being chosen, and go home feeling like the court has wasted their time. For the self-employed, jury service can be a financial hardship, too. Like others, I have joked with my friends about ways to avoid getting picked as a juror: “Just say you don’t trust the police, or cross your arms and glare at the defendant. That’ll get you off the hook.” Even without resorting to such tactics, I had never been selected for a jury. Until today.

And, after today’s experience, I will never again joke about jury duty. I learned it is no laughing matter.

With about 200 other potential jurors, I reported to the Middlesex Superior Court in Woburn at 8:00 this morning. As part of our orientation, we watched a video that explained courtroom procedure and reminded us of our duty to remain impartial. While the video’s cheesy production values were ripe for an ironist’s snickers, its solemn message was straight out of a high school civics book. Innocent until proven guilty. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Decide only on the evidence presented.

After three hours of waiting, I was chosen (“impaneled”) to sit on the criminal trial of a young man accused of two counts of illegally possessing a firearm. Conviction of a weapons offense would likely mean jail time for the defendant. A visibly pregnant young woman, probably his wife or girlfriend, was the lone spectator in the courtroom. Our jury’s decision would affect not only the defendant, but also his unborn child. As I raised my right hand and swore to uphold the laws of the court, I felt the full weight of my awesome responsibility.

I’ll never know whether I was selected because the prosecution figured that as a well-educated professional and a resident of the People’s Republic of Cambridge I support the strict enforcement of gun laws (I do), or whether the defense hoped that as a mother I might have a soft spot for the clean-cut young defendant with a baby on the way (I might). I never got the chance to prove my impartiality because another juror’s careless joke got us all dismissed even before the opening arguments.

Right after the selection process concluded, we jurors were escorted to a small waiting room where a uniformed court officer explained that the trial might last up to three days. At that point another juror blurted out, “It’ll be a short trail – he’s guilty. Ha-ha.” The rest of us squirmed, stunned at his inappropriate “joke.” This guy was probably the same fool who would joke about having a bomb as he went through airport security. The court officer was obligated to report the “joke” to the judge and the attorneys, who ultimately decided that the joke had prejudiced us all, and we could no longer be trusted to remain impartial. The judge scolded us about disrespecting our awesome responsibility and wasting the court’s time and our own tax dollars. All of us were dismissed, and the selection process would start over with a fresh group of untainted jurors. The defendant’s day in court would drag on a few hours longer.

Ironically, being sent home midday and excused from jury duty for another three years was the outcome the joker and most others had hoped for. He probably thought he had done us all a favor. Equal parts relieved to be sprung by lunchtime and disappointed not to be able to prove myself a worthy juror, I wondered how the joker would feel if he ever found himself in court, either as a defendant or a victim, and heard a juror joke about his case. If he keeps joking around, he won’t have to wait long to find out.

Image from beavela at Flickr.
Read more!

Creative Commons: Some Wrongs Reversed

TOPH TUCKER ‘08

Here’s something you may not know: every piece of work produced is automatically protected by full copyright law. Every piece, including this newspaper—until now.

With the rise of modern computers and the internet, so too has the world seen a boom in sharing, collaboration, remixing… and copyright infringement. Every Beaver student has probably gotten the plagiarism talk at least half a dozen times, and we all know how Google and the web make it more tempting than ever to just copy and paste whole chunks of work done by other people. And we know how that’s wrong. And it is.

But life is not a history paper. When you’re talking, not about the serious study of the rise and fall of civilizations, but about a movie you saw the other day, doesn’t copyright law seem like overkill? Another thing you may not know: no matter how well you format your MLA citations, you’re only allowed to quote so much before it goes beyond “fair use.” So while emailing your friend a link to a review is fine, emailing the whole review—even if you also include a link—may technically be illegal.

What if that’s more strict than even the creator wanted? Enter Creative Commons. It’s meant to fill the gap between All Rights Reserved and no rights reserved, between full copyright and the public domain. And starting today, The Beaver Reader is being published under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Basically, readers are allowed to share and remix our work as much as they want, just as long as they give us credit and don’t impose harsher restrictions on any work they base on our work.

It’s not as if it will make a big difference; it’s not as if anyone can track whether people are copying our work or giving us credit anyway. So from a reader perspective, almost nothing has changed. It’s as much a gesture as anything else. We support a culture where information flows freely. And by ending each page with “Some,” not All, “Rights Reserved,” perhaps we have reversed some wrongs.
Read more!

On Dedham

LUCAS JUDSON ’13 (middle school)

Dedham is by far the awesomest town ever. Tons of cool people that would take too long to list are from Dedham, the awesomest sports are from Dedham, cool stuff is from Dedham, and Dedham House of Pizza is awesome.
Read more!

Voicing Concerns: A Letter to the CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch

EMILY BELOWICH '11

Dear Mr. Jeffries:

I am writing to tell you about how the sizing of your clothes can impact a young woman’s body image and how that might affect the way in which you market and sell merchandise. I am a 14-year old girl and a freshman in high school. I am five foot seven and weigh approximately 123 pounds. I participate in two varsity teams at school, cross country and basketball. I work out a lot, take good care of my body; I eat right, and care very much about the way I look. I know for a fact that many girls like me are interested in your merchandise, so I hope you will hear what I have to say as a customer.

Last weekend I went into one of your stores, Hollister Co., in Natick, MA, to look for jeans. The last time I shopped there I bought a pair of corduroys, size three. When I walked into your store, a saleslady asked if I needed help finding anything. I told her I was looking for a pair of jeans, size three. She took out two pair of jeans for me to try on. When I got into the fitting room, I tried on the jeans. I could not button either pair, and the jeans were too short. I was confused; I am normally a size two or three, or a 27 wide, and these jeans were labeled a three long. I did not understand why this size wouldn’t fit when all of my other pants this size fit without a problem. I became so upset at what I thought was a change in my body that I ended up leaving the store in tears. Overall, I did not have a good experience shopping here. In fact, I didn’t really have any intention of going back to the store again at that point in time.

As you are well aware, body image is such an important issue for girls, especially teenagers. I think that in order to prevent an experience like this from happening again, you should train the salespeople to first look at customer closely, suggest that the customer bring in a few sizes and tell the customer that the sizes run small. It would not only benefit the customer, but it could even increase the sales in your company. It would have made me feel much better had I been told that the sizes run small. Knowing that, I wouldn’t have been upset trying on a size five. For me, the experience at your store wasn’t a great one. The experience of shopping at Hollister should be fun, not upsetting. I hope that you will take this feedback into consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Emily S. Belowich

Read more!