[Politics] Symbolic Politics Targets Urban Language

The City Council of New York is poised today to pass a measure symbolically banning the “N-word.” To reiterate, the ban has no teeth or weight of law behind it; it is merely a symbolic measure aimed at reversing the casual use of the word in music, movies and among urban youths.

The problem is that symbolism of this kind has no place in politics, particularly due to the fact that it is a symbolic measure about a symbol itself. Such politics is, first and foremost, a waste of taxpayer dollars. But secondly, it often has the opposite effect that it intends to. As is often the case when you involve yourself with symbols, irony ends up rearing its head, and, in politics, that is a pretty ugly head. In the case of this measure, the symbolic banning of the “N-word” is said to target casual use of the word, which lawmakers say soften its meaning. So, in other words, the lawmakers wish to put all of the racist and derogatory meaning back into the word; they wish to define the connotation of the word as being worse than what it is currently used as.

The “N-word,” by the way, is nigger. There I said it. I hope no one was hurt, because the only meaning I put behind it was to refer to the word itself, as to make my discussion of the issue straight-forward. And that too is what is at the heart of this issue. The concern and political correctness surrounding use of the word, even when simply referring to it or another’s use of it, only lends more weight to its derogatory meaning (and it is the only racial slur that gets such treatment). I understand the history behind the word, and I understand the many generations of pain it caused, and, to some extent, that it still does. But a previous generation’s pain is not necessarily a current generation’s pain, and in linguistics, I don’t think it should be. And banning the word can only delay any dwindling of its casual use; any dancing around the issue, by not saying the word when we are referring to it for example, will only further put off a resolution of the issue.

Many of the lawmakers behind the bill probably remember a time when our nation was run by segregation and Jim Crow, but the generation growing up, my generation, we have not had blatantly racist politics ruling us. And our language reflects this.

The problem with the symbolic banning of the word nigger (or nigga, I’m not sure how specific the bill gets with the colloquialism) is that the lawmakers wish to make word meaning stagnant and unchanging. They seek to preserve racism within the word, and thus set a dangerous precedent about whether or not word meaning and connotation can be fluid.

I can understand the concern over “I’m-not-a-racist” white youths using the word casually to refer to blacks or even each other, and this problem should be addressed, but only by the cultural dialogue between youths of different races, which propagates popular culture in the first place. To target elements of black culture, such as hip-hop, for its use of the word is downright absurd, and, in my opinion, detrimental to its purpose. The black youth culture uses the word casually to reclaim it, to make it their word, to say, “you cannot hurt me with this word; this is my word.” What the lawmakers are looking to do is say, “No, you must be hurt by this word; this word is hateful; it cannot be our word.” Again, adults should not expect that the pain they feel behind the word should be the same for their children. It may be an unfortunate fact that older generations could be dealing with for the rest of their lives, but, for future generations, the casual use of the word can only have the effect of continuously lessening the harm in its meaning. A measure symbolically banning the word can only have the effect of forcing future generations to be equally pained by its use.

Words are symbols, and symbols are fluid. It’s not just that they should be fluid, they ARE fluid. Meaning changes over time, and often words that were once considered negative, are by future generations turned on their head to have positive meanings, like with the words “bad,” “fat/phat,” and even “punk.” If the current generation can overcome and redefine the meaning and negativity of the word nigger, then they are demonstrating empowerment, not willing racism.

It is the place of our social culture, not our political one, to determine the proper uses and meanings of words in a given era. “Liberal” adults must respect the changing of the guard and get off their racially-aware high-horse, because, in fact, the desire to prescribe such strict meanings to words is actually just a form of fascism.

read more......

[Politics] Leave Cigarette Advertising Alone!

Advertising groups are taking on Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy for his proposed bill to once again limit the nature of tobacco advertisements, and they do so rightfully. Advertising Age is reporting that several groups are tossing the "unconstitutional"moniker Kennedy's way as the Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is set to introduce a bill limiting tobacco print and outdoor ads to black-and-white text only and banning promotional giveaways such as hats and t-shirts, among other restrictions, in an another meaningless effort to curb youth smoking.

Simply because smoking is extremely unhealthy, it does not mean that our government should restrict the first amendment rights of tobacco compnies to advertise their completely legal product. The fact that we villainize the tobacco industry and its advertising and barely gasp at the fast food industry and its advertising is beyond me. Few of this country's problems can be linked to tobacco advertising, or smoking in general, and yet every year more and more tax dollars are wasted debating legislation on how to punish the tobacco industry and smokers.

I am not opposed to certain limitations on smoking, and even tobacco advertising, but it seems that we are constantly looking for new political paths to curb their business simply because some teenagers still smoke. It is also apparent that of the loads of unhealthy products on the market, many of which are unhealthy for teens and adults, only tobacco receives national attention and legislation to restrict it. Let me make something absolutely clear: as long as cigarettes are illegal, there will always be teenage smokers, and that is not the fault of tobacco advertisements. At some point, we need to stop blaming the industry that is selling a legal product and start remedying the problem by directly engaging those in danger. Ultimately, that is where our responsibility lies, and still no further really than what is ultimate somone else's choice.

The fact of the matter is, this is a free-market democracy. Corporations are entitled to free speech just like individuals, and perhaps more importantly, there is still a free-market that can choose what is and is not acceptable. If the people are truly outraged by tobacco advertisements, they can boycott the media companies that place those ads; and if the media companies want to preserve a certain reputation, they can stop running tobacco ads their audience does not want. But people aren't complaining, at least not a significant enough portion to merit a true response from the industry. So why are our legislators still so obsessed with fighting big tobacco? Is it because they failed to do anything about it until 20 years ago? Or is it to make up for their lack of concern about marketing practices in numerous other industries?

read more......

[Politics] Outpatient Care for Troops "Unacceptable:" Gates

Following a Washington Post report on the dillapidated conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington D.C., Seretary of Defense Robert Gates on Friday deamed that the state of outpatient care for wounded troops was "unacceptable." The report from the Washington Post indicated that among the problems soldiers had to deal with rat and cockroach infestation, among other disrepairs, and that they faced extreme red tape to obtain the proper treatments. Read the Reuters report.

Unacceptable does not even begin to describe the atrocity of the situation. The nation's current health care crisis is woeful, but the fact that our troops aren't even receiving proper or sanitary care in a timely manner is deplorable. If we cannot properly treat our wounded soldiers then we cannot afford to be bogged down in endless military struggles. The least we can afford our soldiers, as long as we have trouble giving purpose to their activities in Iraq, is the proper outpatient care in the event they are injured. I am remaining hopeful that Gates, our new Secretary of Defense, will aggresively address the problems better than his predecessor did.

In the meantime, if you have the means, you can improve the life of a wounded soldier by donating to The Wounded Warrior Project, which brings much needed and much appreciated supplies to wounded soldiers. Wounded vet Robert Loria informed me of the organization at a VoteVets.org event last October, and I was sure to make a contribution at the end of the year.

read more......

[City] State Appeals Court Upholds Footloose Laws

On Friday, the New York State Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, upheld the city statute banning dancing by three or more people in most bars and taverns. The suit was brought by a group of "social dancers" who claimed that the cabaret restrictions limited their right to free expression. The court ruled that "recreational dancing is not a form of expression protected by the federal or state constitutions," and continued on to say that the laws are meant "to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the public by limiting noise, congestion and various hazards in residential areas." In all, there are 4,811 establishments licensed to serve liquor and only 276 licensed to allow dancing.

The cabaret laws, which were first enacted in 1926 as a means of restricting interracial groups from jumpin' and jivin' at Harlem jazz clubs, began being reinforced under the rule of Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who sought to "clean up" 42nd Street, and, in the meantime, keep everyone stiff-legged as they go out on the town. Now, with a chance to overturn the ridiculous statute, the state instead upholds it using equally ridiculous logic to maintain the absurdly fascitic.

Firstly, the first amendment affords us the right of free expression, and dancing is most certainly a form of expression. The cabaret laws were enacted specifically to prevent racially liberal individuals from assembling and expressing themselves. The fact that they began in Harlem is significant, because though the white status quo may have not used dancing as a form of free expression, dancing has played a hugely important role in expression for African and African-American cultures. And though it may not be racially motivated today, the laws, if nothing else, do have the effect of curbing an important form of expression, and with awful, not to mention, contradictory reasoning.

The claim that the laws help to curb congestion and noise is downright ridiculous. If they are in fact seeking to curb congestion, then they obviously intend to prevent nightlife establishments from being part of a vibrant economy, by preventing people from gathering in bars. But clearly the laws have not had that effect as bars and taverns are as crowded as ever. The only way to slow congestion in one nightlife area is to increase it in another, by forcing people to plop down thrity-dollar covers and $10 per drink at licensed clubs (where you can also find drug-dealing and violence among the dangers and problems of dancing).

What's worse is the court's claim that the laws are intended to limit noise. Limit noise? Anyone who lives in New York City knows that the city only pretends to care about limiting noise. I can attest to this personally because I live on a very busy street that specifically has signs noting the $350 fine for unnecessary honking, and yet as I sit here writing, the car and truck horns are blaring behind me and their violation never has been, and never will be, enforced. Also, if the city did care about noise, why would they force all of the the drunken cigarette smokers to stand out on residential streets yapping between cigs at all hours of the evening? Oh, that's right, because the city cares about our health. Well guess what Mayor Bloomberg, dancing is a form of cardiovascular fitness!

read more......

[Education] Grades Up, Skill-Level Down

What is happening to our nation's schools? Two new reports from the Department of Education's National Assessment of Educational Progress, are showing that while students are challenging themselves with harder courses, and maintaining better grades, their 12th grade reading levels are falling significantly lower than what their peers achieved 13 years ago. What this means is that despite some significant gains being made at the elementary level, the effect of advancing skill levels at that age are not translating to skills later in life.

Some attribute the decline in scores to a 12th grader's tendency to care less about such assessment tests, which I can understand. But the discrepancy between grades and test results seems more closely linked to the trend of grade inflation, which is documented well by other surveys.

The problem then is not simply about education, it is about our tendency to reward appearance over reality. The irony in this is that it has a taken a wholly unacceptable turn. In past years, people complained that standardized testing was biased, superficial and downright not indicative of a student's academic abilities. These concerns were yielded to by many college admissions offices which sought to de-emphasize the importance of the SAT in favor of grades. Now, tests and surveys are showing that grades are equally, if not more, unreliable than the standardized testing that pigeon-holes students. This is because everyone is rewarded by lower standards and higher grades: the students, the teachers and the school administration, except that the real expense of this grade inflation will be America's standing in the world.

Individual achievement is important. It is important to provide our students with the tools they need to find success in the world, and often those tools are work arounds to ridiculous obstacles put in their way. I can certainly understand how in our current educational state these obstacles are ten times worse than those of previous generations, as students are expected to achieve more and more between advanced achievement classes, standardized tests and extracurricular activities. Expectations are higher and harder to meet. But instead of dismantling obstacles, such as superfluous piles of meaningless homework assignments and endless practices for athletic programs, teachers and administrators are instead inflating students grades to give the appearance of achievement. The only effect this can have is to make us as individuals less driven towards higher goals, and it can only create more complacency about the fact that our standard of education is quickly losing ground to other developped and developping nations.

For a very interesting and enlightening article on the "inverse power of praise" check out last week's edition of New York Magazine.

The fact is we can increase standards and grades, but more importantly the quality of our education and the skill level of our students. We can do so while continuing to emphasize the importance of extracurricular achievement and social skills as well. It wouldn't even be that tough. It just takes a little more initiative and a little less reliance on hundred-year-old concepts of teaching.

When I look at the difference between how college students are taught and guided and how high school students are treated, it is immediately obvious that we could be teaching our students more in less time, and that their academic, critical thinking, reading and writing skills could vastly improve in that time. Part of achieving that goal though will be to treat junior high and high school students as individuals capable of learning and synthesizing information from multiple sources while engaging them in the classroom with substantive information instead of busy work. And it can only work as well by deemphasizing the importance of the educational barometers that make us beholden to the appearance of intelligence and not intelligence itself.

For more information on the National Assessment for Educational Progress reports read this article from the San Jose Mercury News

read more......

[Politics] Council on Foreign Relations Gets Sexy New Look

The New York Post is reporting that nonpartisan foreign policy organization and publisher of Foreign Affairs magazine, the Council on Foreign Relations has decided to admit U.N. goodwill ambassador and sexiest woman alive, Angelina Jolie, to its list of prestigious members.

Other members Jolie may have a chance to hobnob with include Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Alan Greenspan and Henry Kissinger.

read more......

[Politics] Condi Invokes Poor Understanding of History to Attack Dems

In it's continued effort's to prove Godwin's Law, the Bush Administration, via Secretary of State Condileeza Rice, has compared the Democratic Congress efforts to repeal the 2002 authorization for the Iraq War to a fictionalized change in course on the European front of World War II following the fall of Adolf Hitler. On Fox News Sunday yesterday, Rice said of the Democrats' move:

Chris, it would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change, then, the resolution that allowed the United States to do that so that we could deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown. It's a part of a continuum of what we're trying to do in Iraq.

Firstly, U.S. officials need to stop taking credit for overthrowing Hitler. It was not a unilateral effort on our part in any manner; it took a true allied force on several fronts. Secondly, if you are going to speak in such poor taste as to invoke Hitler to attack your opponents (and especially if you are Secretary of State), you should have some knowledge of history when you do so. I'm not sure if Condoleeza Rice is aware of it, but Germany did not end up a unified democracy following the collapse of Hitler's regime. I seem to recall that half of the country became communist and they erected a concrete wall dividing the two nations. Oh, and we did adopt a new approach. It was called The Marshall Plan. Look it up Condi, it might give you a some insight then next time you want to compare your fellow Americans to Hitler's allies.

Read Tim Grieve's take on Salon.com.

read more......

[Health] At Last, Support Your Local Girl Scout Troop, and Not Your Cardiologist

Girl Scouts will finally be ridding artery-clogging trans-fats from their cookie recipe according to a report from ABC News. Finally, we can teach our children about health issues, without asking them to hawk products that will kill us...

But isn't that kind of hypocrisy what capitalism is all about? In any event, at least Mike Bloomberg can stop demonizing little girls for the content of their treats.

And finally, I can enjoy a few delicious Samoas (in the unlikely event that a girl scout actually buzzes my apartment).

read more......

[Politics] No Offense Jimmy, But You Will Only Ruin Al's Chances

According to Salon.com, Jimmy Carter has practically been begging Al Gore to join the 2008 race for the White House, and is preemptively giving Gore his endorsement. Smartly, Gore has nearly told Carter to stop calling him.

I really do respect Jimmy Carter, a man I consider to be of the best intentions, but, with each passing year, he somehow makes himself an even more divisive figure. His recent book accusing Israel of creating an apartheid state is only the latest move to enrage people on both the right and left. I, like many others, am starting to believe that Jimmy Carter just doesn't get how politics must change in a post-9/11 world.

I'd love to see Al Gore join the race too. I think he could bring a good perspective to our current political state. But, Mr. Carter, the surest way for his candidacy to sink to the bottom of the Potomac will be by receiving a public endorsement from you.

read more......

[Politics] Bombs Are Not the Answer to Iran

As the eyes of the world look toward Iran and its pursuit of nuclear technology, the U.S., by some interpretations, is preparing to attack to Iran in what would be another "go it alone" military pursuit. Such an attack, aimed at halting Iran's nuclear programming and curbing its hostilities toward Israel and the West, is still very much on the table according to Bush Administration. But the U.S. military is reporting today that an air campaign, involving thousands of bunker-busting missiles for a period of several weeks, would likely leave the Iranian nuclear program mostly intact. For one thing, U.S. intelligence is not comprehensive enough to know the location of all of Iran's nuclear facilities, and additionally, our military is acknowledging that it is very likely that many of these facilities are buried too deep in the ground to be affected by our highly-advanced bunker-busters. If nothing else, these facts alone should prevent us from engaging in such an attack.

While those that are optimistic that such an attack would at least set Tehran back several years in its development of nuclear arms, it is crucial, in my opinion, that we make such an attack, not only a last resort, but also one that must be pursued by a true international force. I recognize that Iran's President Ahmadinejahd is highly defiant and confrontational, and certainly not to be trusted, and inherit within this admission is the belief that at some point relatively soon, a military attack on Iran may be necessary. But now is not the time. While preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons should be a high priority for the U.S. and the entire world, such an attack that does not destroy their program will have one seriously negative effect: it could give the population of Iran good reason to back their government's hostile approach to the world.

It is a known fact that most of Iran's population is relatively progressive in its beliefs, as compared with much of the rest of the Muslim world. In fact, most Iranians do not support their own government. And the only way to lose their support of democratic ideals is to attack them. One thing we should know by now as an unaffordable mistake, is to turn progressive Muslims into hostile hard-line fundamentalists. We must, in fact, do the opposite and give monetary and even military support to such progressives where it is reasonable to do so, so that they may pursue their own freedom (much in the same way France did for us during the American Revolution).

We must also engage our enemies. And while I am skeptical that a diplomatic approach, specifically multilateral discussions, could work in Iran, I do believe that it is avenue we must approach before dismissing it. Few believed such an approach could work with North Korea as well, and while the recent agreement between North Korea, its neighbors and the U.S. may not provide an ideal set of assurances for our nation, it does represent a growing optimism in all parts of the world that diplomacy between enemies and neighbors can still be an effective path in sustaining peace.

read more......

[Television] Fallon May Take the Ranks from O'Brien

Broadcasting & Cable is reporting that Saturday Night Live regular Jimmy Fallon is close to signing a deal with NBC to take over the 12:30am late-night slot, currently held by Late Night with Conan O'Brien, who is set to become the new host of the Tonight Show in 2009.

As a writer for early episodes of The Simpsons Conan O'Brien can be hailed as one of the comic geniuses of our time. But even Conan's wit and charm has dwindled after so many years in the late-night talk show format. On the other hand, Jimmy Fallon has NEVER been funny!

read more......

Man-Animal War: Chimps Go Spear Hunting

So far this week, one of the greatest stories I have read was a BBC report on a study that showed African chimpanzees had taught themselves to fashion spears out of tree branches and use them for hunting. This is awesome!

In the cases cited, chimps broke off branches from living trees, removed excess leaves and side branches, occasionally stripped the bark and in certain instances actually used their teeth to sharpen one end. The chimps would then use their shivs to jab other smaller primates, often probing tree holes where their prey might be hiding.

What's even better is that contrary to the popular belief that adult male chimps act as the hunters, it was younger, mostly-female chimps that were fashioning the spears. In fact, adult males were almost naturally the slowest to pick up on chimp technology. In other words, Lizzie Borden is just part of the natural order.

Scientists are saying that this has huge implications for the theory of evolution. I say, animals are taking the planet back and God bless them. Us humans have had our chance and we're plenty capable of defending ourselves, but keep on the look out. When the chimps, the elephants and the dolphins join forces there will be hell to pay. And don't think that cute little hamster in the cage across the room isn't in on it as well. He'll gnaw through your jugular while you sleep. Sweet dreams.

read more......

[Politics] Words Matter: Why I Plan to Support Obama

Last Saturday, Barack Obama announced his candidacy for president in Springfield, IL, the birthplace of Abraham Lincoln, two days before the anniversary of the late president’s birth. It was a frigid day in the Midwest, but for the fired-up crowd of 17,000 the climate was perfect; and for many I think it seemed as if Lincoln’s vow to unify a nation and bring blacks out of the lowest tier of society was finally being fulfilled. But Obama, who is the most powerful black man to have ever run for president (and with a better chance at the office than any of his predecessors), views his race as merely a novelty this early in the election. And for all the romanticism and historical significance of a black candidate finally having a real shot at the presidency, I totally agree with Obama, and consider his perspective on the matter genius. By calling his race a novelty, it makes the issue a novelty; it makes his race just insignificant enough not to make him a “black” candidate, just an American candidate. It takes the drama out of the enormous racial barrier he could very well break, and declares just so simply that America is indeed absolutely ready for a black president, as much as we are ready for any other president (or any novelty for that matter). That’s smart. And, by calling his race a novelty, he does one other thing: he openly plays to that idea of novelty by making his announcement where and when he did. That’s honest.

Recently, someone asked me if I thought that Hillary Clinton needs to measure up to different standards because she is a woman. I absolutely think that she does. If Hillary Clinton wants my support she needs to have a different message, a different voice than the rest of the candidates, in other words, the white males who dominate the presidential election pool every year. She does not need a “woman’s” voice. She just needs her own voice.

Because he is black, Barack Obama has to measure up to a different standard too; he has to present a new perspective, a new vision and a new message. And he is doing that.

In his speech, Obama called his forthcoming journey “this improbable quest.” It is not improbable because of his race. It is improbable because he is young and speaks for a generation still young enough not to have dismissed their ideals as hopeless. It is improbable because he does not have to be right all of the time, because he does not mince words, make excuses or nuance his position for strategic gain. It is improbable because he is not beholden to party politics, because he is an organizer reaching across the aisle for support, breaking with his party when he disagrees and invoking the likes of Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon when presenting his beliefs. It is improbable because he has big ideas about transforming the security, economy, healthcare and politics of this country, and because he believes that he can achieve those goals through a consensus. It is improbable because he wants the citizenry to fuel the change and take the charge of the future to make this nation everything it can and should be. It is improbable because it runs counter to everything that politics has been since as far back as I can remember.

He said on that cold February morning:

That’s why this campaign can’t only be about me. It must be about us. It must be about what we can do together. [It] must be the vehicle for your hopes and your dreams. It will take your time, your energy and your advice to help push us forward when we’re doing right, and let us know when we’re not. This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change. By ourselves this cannot happen. Divided we are bound to fail.

That’s why I am in this race. Not to hold an office but to gather with you to transform a nation…I want us to take up the unfinished business of perfecting our union and building a better America. And if you will join with me in this improbable quest, if you feel destiny calling and see as I see the future of endless possibilities stretching out before us; if you sense as I sense that the time is now to shake off our slumber and slough off our fears and make good on the debt we owe past and future generations, then I am ready to take up the cause and march with you and work with you. Today, together we can finish the work that needs to be done and usher in a new birth of freedom on this earth. Let’s get to work.

Critics have said that Obama is nothing but a great speaker and nothing without his voice. That is certainly not the case, but let’s suppose for a minute that it is. When it comes to our presidential candidates, should their words, and the voice they put behind them, not play a significant role in how we judge them? What more do we seek from our candidates when we watch debates and speeches and press conferences than the words they use to address the issues at hand?

People have said the exact opposite about our current president, that it doesn’t matter that he is a bad speaker. Actually, it does matter. Words are how we see and know the world before we act in it. Words are thoughts and thoughts inform our actions. Words are the first means by which we can reach out to others and thoughts are the seed from which they blossom. Words pave the avenue of progress and reform, and they raise our children to be women and men of honor. So, can you really vote for someone because they are a great speaker? It is, in my opinion, a much better standard than voting out of fear or simple opposition.

I think people have become so cynical as to truly believe that in politics all words are simply manipulation; and maybe it is because I have a keen sense for when words are being used to manipulate that I have no such universal belief. Words are our opportunity to express our concerns, our beliefs and our dreams, and I am more than happy to support someone who takes this opportunity with their words. If I thought every politician was lying every time that they spoke, I would have to believe that words have lost all of their beautiful purposes—that no one cares, that I should resign all hope. But I refuse to let language be the martyr of cynicism and politics as usual. There is power in words and there is meaning in how people use them. Who that has ever cried at a eulogy or heard a child tell them “I love you” can honestly say words do not matter?

Obama has passion, and you cannot fake passion. He is not endowed with a thunderous voice and spine tingling intonations; these are not manifestations of genetics. They are manifestations of passion. Passion is nothing if it is not honest, and I can vote for a man that uses words honestly. And for once in a long time, I have that option.

read more......

[Education] Welcome to High School, Please Check Your Civil Liberties at the Door

I sympathize with Andy Castro, a senior at Waubonsie Valley High School in Aurora, IL and teen columnist for The Beacon News Online, I really do. I wanted to write about the Super Bowl this week as well. But unfortunately, a story in the papers about a new school policy in a New Jersey school district has been weighing heavily on my mind too(and simultaneously giving me flashbacks to days in high school).

Pequannock Township High School in New Jersey, this week, revealed a new method of using tax-payer dollars to “educate” their students: by randomly testing them on Monday morning to see if they consumed alcohol over the weekend. The test being used is a urine screening for ethyl glucuronide (EtG), a byproduct of metabolized alcohol that is present in urine up to 80 hours after the consumption of alcohol. Each test costs $20 and are being paid for by a $120,000 federal grant, meaning tax dollars from Maine to Hawaii, presumably earmarked for education, are paying for this endeavor (I, for one can think of hundreds of better uses for the money that could benefit our country’s dire need for improved education). According to the school superintendent, the test is being used to helped curb incidents of drinking and driving.

I’ll state the obvious to begin with: how would a Monday morning test for alcohol consumption indicate whether or not the person who had been drinking got behind the wheel afterward? Obvious answer: It wouldn’t. But there is another problem with the test as well. Apparently, the EtG test has a high rate of producing false positives because it detects very small amounts of alcohol such as those found in hand sanitizers, mouthwash, cough medicine and 8,000 different foods (including Balsamic vinegar). And according to the Federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration more studies are still needed before the test will be capable of distinguishing between alcohol and consumer products; yet another good indication that our federal tax dollars are being wasted on a test that the federal government admits is flawed.

Because of these flaws, the school will not be implementing a punishment to students testing positive, but will inform the parents of the student's test results and will require alcohol counseling. Though this may not be “punishment” per say, it is certainly a presumption of guilt, one which could only make students more bitter, and one which still denies them, what I think is their constitutional right to a defense. And what will this “counseling” tell the students? Let me take a wild guess, “Alcohol is bad. Don’t drink.” The problem is, all high school students are smart enough to see the hypocrisy in alcohol-consuming adults telling them that drinking is bad. Clearly, they need a new message.

But first, let’s consider some of the arguments in favor of the test being put forth by school officials. The district Superintendent Larrie Reynolds says, “Our purpose is not to catch kids, but to deter them kids from using alcohol.” But, of course the purpose is to “catch” them; anything said to the contrary is a clear lie. The Pequannock school board vice president, Michael Benavente added, “We want to give kids, who are faced with peer pressure to drink, a reason to say, ‘No.’” But, it is also a reason for other kids to ridicule and psychologically attack such a person for the rest of their high school lives. The way to avoid such ridicule in high school is not to be beholden to the school’s fear tactics, but to make the decision for yourself. The statement, “I don’t want to drink, because I don’t want to,” is much stronger and much less subject to ridicule than, “I don’t want to get in trouble at school.” If anything, kids may drink just to avoid being pegged as someone intimidated by the school’s invasive policies. (When will teachers and parents realize that you cannot create a deterrent to something by making it seem more dangerous?)

The American Civil Liberties Union is standing in defense of the students. The executive director of the ACLU issued the statement, “Medical care and treatment are issues between parents and children. Random drug testing is a poor substitute for substantive programs that are proven effective in deterring drug and alcohol use.”

This is the real issue. The school is not trying to deter the students, it is utilizing, what I call, the “gotcha” method of prevention. A deterrent addresses the issue before it happens, not afterward. Testing students is only meant to catch them after the fact, which has no proven basis for prevention.

Another community in New Jersey implemented a similar, and actually more harsh “gotcha” tactic, which is being implemented by the police, with the school levying punishment as well. The city of Montvale has forbidden underage residents from being in the presence of alcohol on private property, with Pascack Hill High School issuing two-week suspensions for those in violation of the law. This means that a student could be at a party, on the weekend, not drinking, merely in the presence of alcohol, and be charged and given a two-week suspension from school (which is completely absurd, as I can think of no more stupid a “punishment” for someone you believe has a drug problem than leaving them at home, unsupervised, with nothing to do for two weeks).

Of course, when there is a high school party that the police show up to, do the students wait to be charged? No, they run. Harrington Park Police Chief David Moppert said, “If you’re not doing something wrong, you certainly don’t run.” First, this is blatantly false, for many reasons, but particularly in this case, where the law applies to those merely attending the party whether they were drinking or not. But in Moppert’s defense, the students that did not run, and yet were charged (including his child), were those that had not been drinking. (And for the record, any half-fit high school student can outrun any cop, whether they are intoxicated or not).

I can speak to this fact as someone that recalls being at a party in high school where such a fleeing occurred when the police showed up. I had not been drinking, yet as those that had been drinking fled, beers in hand (and inevitably making their way back to their cars), I was left waiting at the house for 45 minutes while another police officer came to administer a breathalyzer so that I could drive home (I in no way objected to this test, except that the police were completely unprepared to consider that there was a responsible individual in this position). Thankfully, it is not illegal not to be drinking at a party in San Jose, CA, but had I been living in Montvale, New Jersey today and facing the same circumstances, I would be given a two-week suspension for having not been, and not acting, guilty.

The “gotcha” method of prevention again proved itself completely useless.

If schools, parents and teachers wish to deter kids from irresponsible behavior, such as drinking and driving, they need to employ methods that provide education and awareness, not demonization and bullying.

I am not a parent, but I was raised by two of them, and raised well. When I was probably ten or eleven, long before I had ever even considered drinking, my parents said something to me I’ll never forget. “When you get older, you are going to drink alcohol," they started, “I have no problem with that, and couldn’t stop you if I wanted to, but, listen to me when I say NEVER EVER drink and drive.” Throughout my entire high school career I never got behind the wheel of a car after having a drink, and for that matter rarely made an effort to get intoxicated come weekend time anyway. This usually made me the designated driver, but I had no problems with that. In fact, I have that very statement to thank for making me crave responsibility from a very young age. As cheesy as it sounds, I practically got high off of it.

The fact is if you want to teach a child to be responsible, you cannot do it by saying that you do not trust them. The second someone realizes they do not have your trust they have no reason to prove themselves to you. If you want a child to be responsible, you have to be honest about what is and is not dangerous and challenge them to be responsible (while still keeping them on a short leash). Saying “gotcha” to them for doing something you will admit they likely will be engaging in a few years down the road (or not giving them a leash at all) is ineffective at best, and most likely damaging in its efforts to create an intelligent and responsible adult.

But maybe education is not their intention to begin with. I am reminded of another common, and Supreme Court upheld school policy that is enforced in almost every public school in the country. In most public schools, certainly the ones that I attended, it is forbidden for a student to wear clothing advertising cigarettes, alcohol, or even promoting the legalization of drugs, among several other specifically designated political stances. Neither a police officer, a mayor, or a Supreme Court justice cn tell anyone on the street to take off their shirt for its message, but a school principal can tell a student they must, or face suspension if they don’t. The reasoning, says the Supreme Court, such a message could be disruptive to the learning environment. That’s bullocks!

Again, I have a personal story to relate in this manner. When I was a senior in high school I had a t-shirt for a Scottish light beer brand (forgive me if I can’t remember which) that had a picture of the rampant lion on it. I love the rampant lion, as I am part Scottish (my parents didn’t name me Stewart just to be cruel), and I wore the shirt upwards of twenty times to school, never so much as getting a second glance during class time, nevermind creating an outright disruption. Finally, one day, the shirt caught the eye of one of the History teachers, who immediately told me to turn the shirt inside-out or face strict punishment. Rather than fight the system in the two months I had left before graduation, I never wore the shirt again.

Clearly, the shirt had never been a disruption, and I didn’t even care for the fact that the logo was one of a beer company, so what was the threat? At the risk of sounding paranoid and conspiratorial, I will say the following: I was simply being taught from a young age to be willing to forfeit my civil rights. This is precisely what Pequannock High, Monmouth County (which first implemented the random EtG testing), and the Montvale community are doing to the high school students. Rather than taking the time to be honest with teenagers and educate them about alcohol, or free speech, and the responsibility that comes with those rights, they are looking to “get them;” “get them” for what will admittedly be, someday soon, their civil right. It is a fear tactic meant to prevent them from freely engaging in a world they are still learning about, and instead creates contrived consequences for the action they take in their private lives, and we “adults” take right in front of them.

Chuck Columbo, a senior at Pequannock Township High, said, “Any kid that goes out and has a regular high school time on the weekends, is going to get in trouble immediately.” That’s right Chuck, it is a “regular” time; this is what everyone, our parents included, did during high school. These are not different or more deviant times than the ones these school boards saw. They are the same, only with overly-worried parents and authorities implementing Gestapo-like tactics toward “prevention.”

To Chuck Columbo, his fellow classmates and students in the city if Montvale, I have this to say: go out this weekend, and enjoy yourslves as you would, but do so responsibly. Remember that rebellion is not doing the opposite of what someone tells you to do, and responsibility is not avoiding risky behavior. Rebellion is doing the opposite of what others expect of you, and responsibility means taking the proper precautions when you do engage in risky behavior. Your school officials do not trust you; avoiding your "regular time" will only confirm for them that their invasive tactics work. Showing that you can be responisble in that "regular time" will undermine their attempts to deem you untrustworthy, and will be the truest fom of rebellion you can demonstrate. Get your designated drivers in order (if you are reading this, it is your turn to do it), be home by curfew, get your homework done Sunday night and don't be afraid of a Monday morning drug test. The only way to empower your position is to prove these parents and teachers wrong by showing that you can be responsible with your good times. If you do that, the only ones that will look immature and untrustworthy will be those school officials.

Oh, and to Andy Castro, go Bears!

read more......