It is a sad day. One of the world’s greatest entertainers, if not the greatest, passed away at the young age of 50 years old. Michael Jackson was rushed to the UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles today after suffering what is assumed to be a cardiac arrest. With the world looking forward to his comeback tour starting in just a few weeks, a silence has befallen the musical industry.

It is unusual to cover celebrities on the U.S. Common Sense website, but Michael was not your ordinary celebrity. For decades he was involved in charitable work both in the United States and around the world. Starting back in the late 1970s, he provided his talents and money to hospitals, various awareness groups, scholarships, combating world hunger, and more. Most of his charitable giving went to hospitals that specialized in care of children, including burned victims, those with cancer, and those suffering from leukemia, and AIDS. Some might argue that the large amount of money he gave led to his financial troubles that he faced later on in life. However, by that point he greatly impacted the world through his music and charity that he would find people willing to support him in his time of need, even during highly publicized legal cases.

For a complete list of his humanitarian efforts, visit this site.

There are few people that have impacted the world as much as Michael. I would group him with international icons such as Mother Teresa, President Ronald Reagan, Princess Diana, and Pope John Paul II. All of these individuals used their talents or positions of influence to improve the lives of people around the world, from fighting hunger to ending oppression. I doubt that Michael will be remembered more for his charitable work than his art, but it is something that we should all remember.

Have you ever tried to buy a hand gun? I haven’t, but I understand there is a laundry list of items that can bar you from legally obtaining a permit during your background check. According to the Department of Justice website, you are prohibited from purchasing a gun if the person:

- is under indictment for, or has been convicted of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year
- is a fugitive from justice
- is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, a controlled substance
- has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
- is an illegal alien or has been admitted to the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa
- was dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces
- has renounced U.S. citizenship
- is subject to a court order restraining him or her from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child
- has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
- is under age 18 for long guns or under age 21 for handguns.

What seems to be missing from this list, however, has become the subject of concern by Senator Frank Lautenberg. According to a recent Government Accountability Office report, 963 background checks were performed where the applicants name appeared on the national terrorist watch list. Lautenberg’s concern isn’t about these individuals applied for a permit, but that over 90% of the applicants were approved.

The national terrorist watch list, also known as the No Fly List, was created following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The names on the list represent people who are deemed to be aiding in or have participated in terroristic activities. So why would someone on the list be able to obtain a permit? This is where the issue gets cloudy.

The watch list isn’t perfect, and has grown exponentially over the short few years. What started out with just a few hundred names at the end of 2001 has grown to over 500,000 by some estimated. Additionally, there has been a series of obvious “false positives” on the list, where innocent people have been identified as a security risk. One of the false positives was sitting Senator Ted Kennedy. In 2004, he complained to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge about being delayed due to his name showing up on the list. A few other sitting and former politicians as well as celebrities have found themselves in similar positions.

So what action, if any, should be taken on this issue? Personally, I think the background system should not include screening against the terror watch list as a prerequisite to obtaining a permit. Unlike the search of a person’s criminal background based on their social security number, the risk of an innocent person being denied the right to practice their Second Amendment right due to the fact their name might match up with an alias of another person is too great to be used as a practical screening process. Additionally, even if the person is rightfully suspected of having dealings with terrorists, if the person hasn’t broken the law, they should not be denied. “Innocent until proven guilty” is the corner stone of our legal system

Related articles:
The Washington Independent - “Gun Lobby Questions Accuracy of Terrorist Watch List”
CNN - “People on terrorist watch list allowed to buy guns”
Associated Press - “More than 800 gun buyers on terrorist watch list”
Google News - “People on ‘terror watch’ list able to buy guns: US”

Ten days ago, the citizens of Iran went to the polls and vote in the presidential election. While there were multiple candidates on the ballot, two figures were viewed as the main choice. The incumbent, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was facing a tough battle from Hossein Moussavi following years of economic strife and a severe drop in international standing. While Moussavi wasn’t too different from Ahmadinejad in domestic policy, he was seen as a much-needed change to improve relations with the international community.

The polls opened, and millions of voters came out across the country to voice their opinion. So many in fact, that the polls were held open for a few additional hours to ensure everyone had a chance to cast their ballot. From this point, the joy of voting suddenly hit a snag. For starters, the millions of ballots were counted in only a matter of three hours, which seems odd for an election that had to be extended due to the overwhelming turnout. Added to this problem was the conflicting election results leaked to the media. Both men claimed victory by winning at least 60% of the vote. (It was noted today that there were voting discrepancies in 50 of the largest cities in Iran, though that only accounted for 3 Million votes.)

The confusion over the election, and feeling of voter fraud drew millions of Moussavi supporters and reformists into the streets across the nation, shouting their discontent and carrying signs that read “Where is my vote” in English. These protests have been met with police lines trying to deter the activists then increased violence when the Basij (the militia) started to beat - and in some cases, kill - the protesters. One of the victims has been identified as Neda Agha-Soltan, a young woman who was engaged to be married. Much like the unknown student who was crushed by a tank in Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, Neda has become the face of the deadly oppression the government can impose upon those challenging their authority.

So the question becomes, “What action should the United States take?” There are two schools of thought. The first is a strong, up-front condemnation of violence and force used against the protesters. In 1981, President Reagan addressed the violence and force used against the public uprising in Poland by challenging the government directly. He said:

The men who rule them and their totalitarian allies fear the very freedom that the Polish people cherish. They have answered the stirrings of liberty with brute force, killings, mass arrests, and the setting up of concentration camps. Lech Walesa and other Solidarity leaders are imprisoned, their fate unknown. Factories, mines, universities, and homes have been assaulted.

…

I urge the Polish Government and its allies to consider the consequences of their actions. How can they possibly justify using naked force to crush a people who ask for nothing more than the right to lead their own lives in freedom and dignity? Brute force may intimidate, but it cannot form the basis of an enduring society, and the ailing Polish economy cannot be rebuilt with terror tactics.

The other school of thought is to take a softer approach, hoping not to antagonize a government that already despises the United States and spinning any statement as an attempt to label the protests as interference by the West. President Obama has said:

Obviously all of us have been watching the news from Iran. And I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football — or discussions with the United States.

Having said all that, I am deeply troubled by the violence that I’ve been seeing on television. I think that the democratic process — free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent — all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they’re, rightfully, troubled.

With two distinctly different approaches, leaving one to ask which action is correct? That is rather hard to say, as the variables are different. While I believe Obama should strike a slightly more forceful tone and standing up for the rights of people to protest without fear of violence, I don’t think directly challenging the Iranian leadership is the right idea. And while I personally believe the United Nations has turned into a rather worthless organization when it comes to standing up to human rights under oppressive governments, I think Obama should be actively pursing an international resolution calling for an end of violence towards the protesters. That way, it shows that the world supports those rallying in the streets without directly challenging the leadership of the nation.

When all is said and done, will these protests matter? As stated earlier, there isn’t a glaring difference on the issues between Moussavi and Ahmadinejad. However, we might be surprised if the protesters are successful in overturning the election. Moussavi has been the face of the reformist movement during the rallies, and might change his positions to match those of the public. While the President answers to the Ayatollah, a President backed by a powerful populist movement (especially women) might be able to force the Supreme Leader to initiate change in favor of basic human rights for all within Iran.

Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that these current protests will lead to a complete collapse of the existing government power structure, meaning the ruling class will remain. However, with a series of gradual changes in domestic policy and rights, long-term changes are possible. Till that day comes, it is my hope that no other protester will meet the face of Neda - Iran’s “Angel of Freedom.”

Related articles:
Powerline - “A Word From Ronald Reagan”
The New York Times - “Both Sides Claim Victory in Presidential Election in Iran”
Cafe Sentido - “Rivals Ahmedinajad & Mousavi Both Declare Victory in Iran Election”
Hurriyet Daily News - “Status quo likely victor in Iran vote”
America Blog - “Secret document declares Mousavi winner”
Progress Politics - “President Obama regarding Iran Election Situation”

I started writing this article about the Senate resolution to apologize for slavery in the United States. The past tense is used since, while reading various articles on the topic, I came across a sentence that just stood out. In the Washington Post article “Senate Backs Apology for Slavery,” Carol M. Swain of Vanderbilt University said something that bothered me. To quote the article:

Even among proponents of a congressional apology, reaction to yesterday’s vote was mixed. Carol M. Swain, a professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University who had pushed for the Bush administration to issue an apology, called the Democratic-controlled Senate’s resolution “meaningless” since the party and federal government are led by a black president and black voters are closely aligned with the Democratic party.

“The Republican Party needed to do it,” Swain said. “It would have shed that racist scab on the party.”

This is something that has bothered me for such a long time. Why is it that the Republicans get such a bad rap in regards to racism? A simple look into history shows roll the Democrats play in not only prolonging racism in the country, but also delaying the progression towards equal rights. Let us walk through the history real quick and see how things have evolved. From the establishment of our country through the Civil War, slavery was legal. It was even an integral part of our Constitution. The argument over slavery progressed from our founding fathers (who owned slaves but argued against the practice) up through the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Stephen Douglas, a Democrat, was less a proponent on slavery as he was a proponent for allowing people to vote for or against slavery. This unique position was evident in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, where the residents of the territories could determine if their position as a free or slave state when they entered the union. This act (and slavery in general) became the core topic of debate between Lincoln and Douglas four years later. Even though the two men were campaigning for the same Senate seat (where Douglas, the incumbent, won), the debates were followed on the national level. The Whigs, and eventually the Republicans, were taking the position that slavery should not be allowed to expand across the nation. Becoming the face and voice for that position, Lincoln cemented his popular support in the Northern states as well as in the West, defeating Douglas by 500,000 votes in the Presidential election just two years later.

As we know, the nation fell into Civil War under Lincoln’s watch. Two years after becoming President and fighting the largest war in the nations’ history, Lincoln issued two executive orders that became to be known as the Emancipation Proclamation. These orders proclaimed that slaves in the Confederate states (starting in 1863) would be freed. In 1864, Lyman Trumbull (Republican, Senate Judiciary Committee), with co-authors Charles Sumner (Republican) and John Brooks Henderson (Democrat) submitted an amendment proposal to abolish slavery. This amendment was adopted in 1865, becoming the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Following the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment and the death of Lincoln, the Republican Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 expanding and protecting the freedom of blacks in America. The freedoms and protection of blacks were later cemented into the Constitution when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868. This Amendment, primarily written by John Bingham (Republican), declared that:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Fast forward 100 years, we find the nation debating racism in the South. Despite the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, Jim Crow laws continued to spread in the South leading to the segregation of the black and white populations. For years both Republican and Democratic legislators worked to draft a civil rights package that would override the abuses by Southern Democrats in the core former Confederate states. In the early 1960, the Republicans introduced a handful of bills into committee that would later be incorporated into the Civil Rights Act of 1964. When the act reached the floor of the House and Senate, a higher percentage of Republican (80% in the House, 82% in the Senate) politicians voted for the passage of the Act than the Democrats (61% in the House, 69% in the Senate).

So why is racism the “scab” of the Republicans, especially after all that they have done on behalf of blacks within our country? Why isn’t it the “scab” of the Democrats fought against the rights of blacks, stemming from Douglas’s unwilling to stand up against the practice to Senator Robert Byrd’s marathon filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Is it merely the fact that the Dixiecrats broke away from the national Democratic organization and joined with the “states’ rights” side of the Republicans in the second half of the 20th century? Or are people simply uneducated when it comes to racism in our nations’ history?

Whatever it may be, it is beyond time that people mature and accept people for who they are. People cannot choose what skin color they are born with, nor does skin color make you better or lesser than the person next to you. As the Declaration of Independence states, “all men are created equal.” Both political parties have much to apologize for over the years, as does the Federal government itself. It is my hope that this bill is the last chapter on the issue of racism in our nation, and that we can move forward as one.

Related articles:
BellaOnline - “Democrats and Racism”
World Socialist Web Site - “The Republican Party and racism: from the ’southern strategy’ to Bush”
U.S. Constitution Online - “Constitutional Topic: Slavery”
Teaching American History - “The Constitution and Slavery”
New Visions Commentary - “Bill Bradley Fouls the Civil Rights Act”
The Dirksen Congressional Center - “Major Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964″