Perspective

No Means No

A Separate Peace
Ideological Rifts in the Anti-War Movement
by Katie Monticchio

Taking It to the Streets
An International Day of Protest
by Lizz Thrall

In the "Right" Place
The Dangers of Multiculturalism
by Patrick Taylor Smith

Introspective
An American in Cape Town
by Liz Thornberry

Salmagundi

The Back Page
The Real State of the Union
by Jason Abaluck

Salmagundi

LOTS AND DEFICITS: Massachusetts, like the rest of the nation, has fallen on some hard economic times recently. Governor Romney and his administration have big plans to make up the estimated $2 billion shortfall for the next fiscal year. When we elect a corporate business-type governor, we should expect to see new and innovative ways to cut the state budget--cutting state mental health care, for instance, or increasing the tax on prescription drugs indispensable to our senior citizens. As Romney let us know during the campaign, as a corporate executive, he had to deal with dire financial straits without having the option of raising taxes. Perhaps not, but in business the alternative is layoffs. Perhaps those more in need of social services could be sent out of state, say, to New Hampshire. With no income or sales tax, they must have wonderful social programs up there.

One of Mitt's plans calls for introducing casino gambling to Massachusetts. Regardless of the cost in gambling addiction treatment and related problems that casino gambling would bring to the commonwealth, I suppose the state needs some dough at this point. But what will happen to the commonwealth's heretofore-biggest cash cow, the state lottery? Once casinos are allowed into Massachusetts, slot machines will be sure to follow. People won't wait in line for scratch tickets at the 7-11 or Lil''Peach if they can head over to Suffolk Downs not just for the ponies, but the wall-to-wall slot machines. And this is presuming slots will stick to casinos and racetracks. They could make their way into bars, convenience stores, and statehouse lobbies everywhere. This will not only kill lottery revenue, but introduce the crime, addiction, and other social problems that come wherever casinos take over. Many who become addicted to gambling are treated for that and related problems at the state's expense. If the commonwealth needs more revenue, there must be a better way than casino gambling.

--Brendan Connors

TICKLE THEM PINK: What is the pinkest site on the web? Not the Barbie homepage, or a preteen's overwhelmingly girly weblog; no, rather it is the vaguely ridiculous outpouring of Code Pink, which advertises itself as "Women's Preemptive Strike for Peace."” These triumphant females“"choose pink, the color of roses, the beauty that like bread is food for life, the color of the dawn of a new era when cooperation and negotiation prevail over force."”Since "women have been the guardians of life,"”according to Code Pink's mission statement, they are called upon, one and all, "to be outrageous for peace."”These demonstrators have proceeded to stage a White House vigil and to converge upon anti-war demonstrations wearing preposterously-hued garb from head to toe, carrying pink balloons and pink signs.

I hate to criticize the anti-war movement. My own personal sympathies make me want so badly for the peace activists to make sense and not make themselves into complete idiots. But when a group takes the worst clichés of hyper-femininity-gone-awry and embraces them to the point of ridiculousness, I can do nothing but hang my head in shame for these poor misguided women. What are they doing? Why do they actually believe this will gain them legitimacy? Why are they wearing so much damn pink?

I am all for empowerment. I am not for drenching oneself in a color symbolizing the worst of societal stereotypes of silly and frivolous women, and calling that empowerment. Ideally, I would want these women to succeed in catching the administration's attentions for lofty and noble reasons. But right now, I want it to happen just so they change out of the shiny pink jumpsuits.

--Katie Monticchio

DEATH TOLL 17,000 AND CLIMBING: This past week we have been inundated by the news coverage of the tragic fire that killed close to a hundred (at the time of publication) in a Rhode Island nightclub. It seems that nightclubs are fairly dangerous places nowadays: 187 dead in Indonesia, 21 in Chicago, and 97 in Rhode Island. I always knew there was a reason I hated to dance and never went anywhere near the deathtraps.

Anyway, the coverage of the Rhode Island catastrophe has taken control of the airwaves. We are treated to accusation and counter accusation with regards to who gave permission for the pyrotechnics that were used. We watch morbidly on one channel as network news plays over and over the recording of the chaotic last moments of the perfomance, but if we flip to the other channel we see a doctor explaining how the bodies should be identified...

This is not to say that such events should not be covered, but some perspective is needed here. While network news and newspapers spent a week repeating, ad nauseum, the same details, none of these vendors spent one second telling the people of New England how many children died, worldwide, from malnourishment and neglect that very day. We think that 97 dead in a nightclub in Rhode Island is a tragedy (and it is) that deserves weeks of coverage. However, yesterday over 17,000 children died from lack of food, today another 17,000 or so died, tomorrow another 17,000 or more will die, and so on. Now, I am not saying we should give up all our worldly possessions and move to Africa to feed the starving and cure the sick. Most of us have neither the time, the training, nor the means for that kind of endeavor. Furthermore, many NGO's are corrupt, manned by Christian zealots or both. And even if we donate money, food, and medicine to troubled areas in Africa and Asia, the despotic governments currently in power are likely to seize such shipments and kidnap aid workers (e.g., Somalia).

So I do not expect such problems to be fixed tomorrow, but what I ask is a little box in the corner of a newspaper or 15 seconds at the end of the broadcast telling the American people the "Butcher's Bill"”for the day. All I ask is that such tragedies be kept in view, instead of hidden under a malaise of apathetic and profit-driven journalism.

--Patrick Taylor Smith

YOU'VE COME A LONG WAY, BOSTON: The Boston Public Health Commission (BPHC) set an important precedent in its recent decision to ban smoking in all workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Considering that, according to the American Lung Association, secondhand smoke causes more than 30,000 deaths annually from lung cancer and cardiovascular disease, it would seem a no-brainer that banning smoking in public areas such as workplaces would be a positive step in ensuring that everyone's right to clean air is respected. Nevertheless, conservatives are opposing this bill under the guise of "democracy"”and "freedom."” In the February 19, 2003 issue of the Salient, staff writer Matthew Ciardiello laments that the BPHC "usurped the freedom of individuals to decide for themselves" whether to smoke by banning smoking from public areas. Of course Ciardiello does not address the fact that the "freedom" to decide whether to smoke is not given to those of us who have to sit anywhere in a room with smokers. When someone decides whether to risk his health to eat fatty foods or drink alcohol, the choice is inflicted only on the person making the decision. Yet everyone in the vicinity of a smoker is forced to inhale at least 40 carcinogens; where is their choice? Furthermore, there cannot be an "individual right" to smoke as long as it impinges on the rights of others. To say that the right to smoke outweighs the rights of everyone else to clean air is analogous to claiming that I have the "right" to spray toxic chemicals in public areas simply because I feel like it. After all, how dare the government ever interfere with what makes me feel good?

Perhaps most disturbing is the lack of concern voiced by opponents of the bill for the health and safety of workers who are constantly exposed to secondhand smoke in their places of work. According to the BPHC, secondhand smoke at the workplace increases one's risk of contracting lung cancer by 34 percent - 50 percent for bar and restaurant employees. No doubt many of the people working in these establishments have no choice but to work in smoking facilities out of economic need. There simply aren't many alternatives for low-wage workers, and Ciardiello's claims that workers can "easily find another job"”if "they find secondhand smoke such an annoyance or a risk" defies economic reality. Instead, Ciardiello's belief that workers should have to choose between unemployment or exposure to toxic chemicals effectively ensures that the most economically vulnerable in our society are left without any way to protect themselves.

--Gabriel Katsh

Questions? Comments? Please contact perspy@hcs.harvard.edu