Gay Marriage Backers File Lawsuits

REPORTING FROM SAN FRANCISCO AND LOS ANGELES -- After losing at the polls, gay rights supporters filed three lawsuits today asking the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, an effort the measure's supporters called an attempt to subvert the will of voters.

"If they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it," said Frank Schubert, co-chairman of the Proposition 8 campaign. "But they don't. They go behind the people's back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of society." - Los Angeles Times

Thank you, Frank. You are right.

Michelle Obama's Dress

While Obama's eloquent victory speech moved me to tears, unfortunately so did Michelle's dress. Barack looked sharp as can be in a dark navy suit, which was custom made by Hart Schaffner Marx, but I just wasn't feeling Michelle's splotchy red and black Narciso Rodriguez frock.

It might seem a little shallow to be discussing fashion the day after such a big moment in America's history, but I'm not the only one buzzing about Mrs. Obama's election night attire. Yahoo! users are searching like crazy for info on her dress, while critics are weighing in on whether it was a hit or miss. - Omg Yahoo!

Why is this the top story on Yahoo.com? I have lost almost all of the faith (which is next to none) I once had in the media. What kind of sick creatures blog about this irrelevant topic? A "little shallow"; that's like saying Bill Gates is only a little rich. Oh yeah and this is the reason why the Étudiant is a celebrity blog on April 1.

Étudiant Election Special

Chomsky on War Crimes

If you're a Noam Chomsky fan, then you've probably heard this provocative statement plenty of times: "if the standards of the Nuremberg Trials were applied, then every post World War II American president would have been hanged as a war criminal." Here are some of each president's war crimes, according to Chomsky, from Truman to Clinton (this is taken from a 1996 interview with Tom Morello) :

Well, with Truman you could start with, shortly after he entered office there was the bombing of Hiroshima, which maybe one could give an argument for -- well, I don't think so -- but it is almost impossible to give an argument for the bombing of Nagasaki. That was mostly just trying out a new weapon to see if it would work. Then there was an utterly gratuitous bombing, a one thousand plane raid at the end of the war -- right in fact after Japan surrendered -- called the "finale," the grand finale. Then comes, for example, the support for the brutal counter-insurgency campaign in Greece, which killed about 150,000 people to basically restore Nazi collaborators and demolish the resistance. And then we could go on from there.

Eisenhower. The Eisenhower administration, the Truman and Eisenhower administration, the bombings -- whatever you think about the Korean War, and there is a pretty complicated story when you really look at it, but nevertheless the bombings in North Korea in 1951 and 1952 was just an outright war crime. You can read in the Air Force history about how in the Eisenhower years they had nothing left to bomb, everything was flat, so they just bomb dams, which they exalt how wonderful it was to see the water flooding down and killing people and wiping out the crops and so on. Well people were hanged for that, for less than that. They were hanged for opening dikes in Nuremberg. And then again we can proceed with what happened in Guatemala and elsewhere where it was a terrible crime in the Eisenhower years.

Kennedy is not even worth discussing. The invasion in South Vietnam -- Kennedy attacked South Vietnam, outright. In 1961-1962 he sent Air Force to start bombing villages, authorized napalm. Also laid the basis for the huge wave of repression that spread over Latin America with the installation of Neo-Nazi gangsters that were always supported directly by the United States. That went on and in fact picked up under Johnson.

In the Nixon years, for example, the bombing of inner Cambodia in 1973 was a monstrous crime. It was just massacring peasants in inner Cambodia. It isn't much reported here because nobody paid attention, but it was quite a part in helping create the basis for the Khmer Rouge. Well, the CIA estimate is that 600,000 people were killed in the course of those US actions, either directed or actually carried out by the United States.

In the Carter years there were major crimes, for example the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, which happened to start under Ford and led to the nearest thing to genocide since the holocaust, maybe 1/3 or 1/4 of the population has been slaughtered. That was using 90% US arms. In the Carter years, when the Indonesians were actually running out of arms in their attack on this country, Carter actually increased the flow of arms in 1978, which was the worst peak of the slaughter. Carter was backing Somoza and his national guard, openly and with direct military and diplomatic support at a time when they had killed about 40,000 people in the terror of the last days of their regime. Again, that's a sample.

Going on to the Reagan years, its not even a question. In fact the US was condemned by the World Court during the Reagan years for its "unlawful use of force," meaning aggression in Nicaragua. In Central America alone, maybe 200,000 people or so were slaughtered in a very brutal fashion by US run programs. In southern Africa about 1.5 million people were killed and over $60 billion of damage were done according to the UN commission which reviewed it later from 1980 to 1988. That's from South African atrocities that the US was directly supporting. Then, again we could go on. Well Bush, we've already talked about him, but the invasion of Panama for example was simply outright aggression. It was condemned internationally -- the US was able to veto the security counsel condemnations, that doesn't change the fact that they were there.

When we move on to the Clinton years, one of his first acts within a few months was to send missiles to bomb Baghdad. Well, he didn't kill a huge amount of people, only I think 8 or so. But there was absolutely no pretext, there wasn't even a pretext. I mean it was to show what a tough guy he is. In fact the pretext was so ludicrous, it's embarrassing to repeat it. The pretext was that this was self defense against armed attack, because two months earlier there had been a failed attempt by someone who might or might not have been Iraqi, no one knew at the time, to kill Bush or something like that. I mean, it's just ridiculous. About half of military aid and training to Latin America under Clinton was going to Columbia, which has absolutely the worst human rights record in the hemisphere, killing thousands of people in a horrifying fashion. These are all crimes. I don't think it's hard to set up a bill of indictment if somebody wants to.

Now, for post-1996 foreign policy, here are just some war crimes:

Clinton armed and funded vicious dictators in Israel and Turkey. Turkish citizens, particularly suffered through some of the worst tortures known to man.

Well, Bush pretty much goes without saying. I'll just make this simple: the entire War on Terrorism.

So, do I think these rich, white guys should be hanged? No, I don't believe in the death penalty. But, I do believe in social justice, so they should be brought to trial for their crimes, as any other citizen would.

For you Glen

Obama Elected President

Obama Wins: Maine (4), New Hampshire (4), Vermont (3), New York (31), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Connecticut (7), New Jersey (15), Delaware (3), Maryland (10), Washington D.C (3), Michigan (17), Wisconsin (10), Illinois (21), Iowa (7), Minnesota (10), Washington (11), Oregon (7), California (55), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Virginia (13)

That's my prediction. I'd rather Nader get an electoral vote. Imagine that.

Damien Weaver 5th Grade Poli. Correspondent

Iverson Traded To Pistons

The Denver Nuggets have agreed to a deal that would send Allen Iverson to the Pistons in exchange for Chauncey Billups, Antonio McDyess and Cheikh Samb, the two teams announced Monday.

"We are pleased to welcome Allen Iverson to the Pistons organization," said Joe Dumars, Pistons President of Basketball Operations. "Allen has proven he is one of the elite players in the league and we like what he adds to our roster at the guard position. We appreciate everything that Chauncey Billups, Antonio McDyess and Cheikh Samb brought to the organization during their time here in Detroit and we certainly wish them all the best." - NBA.com

This is certainly something you'd expect in February, not November.

France Supports Barack Obama

Aucun hésitant, aucune voix discordante, parmi eux. Ils ont 15, 18, 20 ans. Ils habitent les "Pâquerettes", une cité de la banlieue parisienne, à Nanterre (Hauts-de-Seine). Et, ce vendredi 31 octobre, à quatre jours de l'élection présidentielle américaine, le scrutin n'a plus qu'un seul visage, au pied de leurs barres : celui de Barack Obama… - Le Monde

What does that mean? It means they support Barack Obama. Yes, France...ungodly France...supports Barack Obama. What are you going to do?! We have Al-Qaida in favor of McCain and now France in favor of Obama. What do I suggest? Ron Paul.

Al-Qaida Supports John McCain

John McCain isn't boasting about a new endorsement, one of the very, very few he has received from overseas. It came a few days ago:

"Al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming election," read a commentary on a password-protected Islamist Web site that is closely linked to al-Qaida and often disseminates the group's propaganda.

The endorsement left the McCain campaign sputtering, and noting helplessly that Hamas appears to prefer Barack Obama. Al-Qaida's apparent enthusiasm for McCain is manifestly not reciprocated.

"The transcendent challenge of our time [is] the threat of radical Islamic terrorism," McCain said in a major foreign policy speech this year, adding, "Any president who does not regard this threat as transcending all others does not deserve to sit in the White House." - Seattle Pi

This was just a liberal scare tactic!

WHS Band Crowned NE Champion

The Wakefield High School Marching Band has been awarded a first place gold distinction by the New England Scholastic Band Association. The Band, which is Division 4, scored an impressive 77.6 in an October 11th competition. The second place band -- Plymouth High School -- ended up with a 77.2, showing just how close the competition was. On behalf of the Wakefield Étudiant, congratulations to the Marching Band!

Ben Tan's Radio Report on Drug War

Click here to listen: http://nesportsnews.com/drugwar.mp3 

Transcript:

Ben Tan: Government policies of the last decades has treated drug use as a crime. The office of national
drug control policy says in this year alone our government has spent more than $40
billion on the drug war. Every president since Nixon has declared support for punishing
drug users. Others, however, say that this persecution should end. Professor
Jeffrey Miron is Harvard University's senior economics lecturer and the author
of the 2004 book Drug War Crimes. Professor Miron says that the War on Drugs, for all
its good intentions, has actually lead to more malice.

Professor Miron: I think it's done enormous harm and very little good, if any. It contributes
to crime, it contributes to corruption, it costs substantial resources for prisons, police, and
prosecutors. It undermines civil liberties, it fosters terrorism and insurrection in other
countries and at best it has a modest impact on drug use. And further, it's not obvious
that reducing drug use is a necessarily always a good thing. Just as some people use
alcohol in ways that is perfectly fine for them and others, many people can use
drugs in ways that are harmless or even beneficial for themseleves without harming
others and so we shouldn't assume that reduced drug use is an appropriate goal.

Ben Tan: Professor Miron published his book in 2004 at a time when almost
1/2 million Americans were in prison for drug offensives. Randall Sheldon
is a professor of criminal justice at the University of Nevada in Los Vegas.
He sees the escalation of drug arrests since the 80s as a cause of jail
overcrowding.

Professor Sheldon: To explain either jail or prison overcrowding or both, you
first have to consider something very simple, very elementary: a jail or a
prison is overcrowded for one of two reasons. 1) Too many coming in the
front door and not enough leaving the back door. So what we've seen
since the early 1980s is roughly a five fold increase (500% increase) in
the nation's prisons and jails in terms of the rate of incarceration. For just
drug arrests alone, it is about 1100% increase in drug arrests. So we just
put two and two together. And most of these arrests are for small time
traffickers, possession. The biggest drug, of course, would be marijuana.
So without a doubt, this has been what is happening.

Tan: Opponents of the drug war say it has also caused a greater
issue: racial profiling. A government studied revealed that at the end of
2004, of the almost 250,000 drug offenders in state prisons, 45% were
black and 20% were hispanic. Professor Sheldon says this doesn't
reflect the amount of drug use among races.

Sheldon: Several organizations do surveys of people, both adults and
juveniles, on the incidence of their use of illegal drugs. And every one
of these surveys since they started doing them back in the 1980s
have shown that their is no significant difference between the races.
Some surveys show whites using these drugs more often than
either African Americans or Latinos. Police departments have
admitted that "yeah we've gone into these neighborhoods (meaning
African American or Hispanic) because they are easier to find. There
is easier to find drug use going on in there 'cause they are done
mostly out on the streets, in the alleys and so forth. Whereas in
the suburbs, they are being used behind clothes doors, in people's
backyards, and even businesses and college fraternaties and sororities
and dormitories. That's what we have.

Tan: Opponents of the drug war also cite the toll it takes on the
government's budget. Professor Miron explains how an end to drug
prohibition could benefit the nation's financial situation.

Miron: We currently spend something like $35, 40 billion dollars a year
on the arrest, prosecution, and incarceration of people on drug
related charges. So we would say that those are sources for other uses
if we were to legalize drugs. We also are not collecting tax revenues
(the taxes that would presumably be levied on legal drugs) and so that
means taxes on other things have to be higher for any given level of
goverment expenditure. So the budgetary situation for the U.S overall
would improve by somewhere between $50 and 70 billion dollars if
we were to legalize and tax...tax and regulate the currently illegal
drugs. It's not going to fundamentally change anything about the current
financial crisis or anything like that. It's not going to fundamentally change
the overall path of the U.S economy, but it's not trivial either. There are
many government programs which are far smaller than $50 billion or 70
billion dollars a year so it would make a noticable difference. In
addition to all these other consequences that don't show up in the
government budgets like reduced crime.

Tan: Despite all the arguments against drug prohibiton, the cause of these
drug war opponents may seem lost in today's political climate. After all
how else can the government send the message that drugs are dangerous?
Professor Miron has a suggestion...

Miron: I think the best we can do with respect to drugs is to have them
be legal and then possibly, although not necessarily but possibly, have
relatively mild policies in a legal environment in an attempt to nudge
people against the most irresponsible uses of drugs. One example, which
is almost certainly desirable, would be analogous to drunk driving laws
would be driving under the influence of marijuana or heroin or anything
else. Another type of policy that most countries use in conjunction
with alcohol is minimum purchase ages. So that would certainly be
thinkable, defensable, plausible in the case of legalized drugs.

Tan: Such reform may seem radical next to the policies of the Republicans
and Democrats. Even the reform Question 2 on the Massachusetts
Ballot may bring is a far cry from a nation in which all drugs are legal.
In 2005, a goverment survery said that more than 100 million Americans
twelve and over have used an illicit substance at least once. The
dangerous consequences of drug use can not be denied. A 2000
American Medical Association study says that 17 million Americans
died from illicit drug use that year. How will America's future leader
address the problem? Republican Presidential candidate Senator
John McCain is a strong supporter of the war on drugs. On the other
hand, Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama supports
rehab rather than prison for first time non-violent offenders. This is
still a far cry from the libertarian view that all drug use should
be legal. So how should government approach the drug problem?
The writer H.L Mencken once said "For every complex problem
there is an easy answer and it is wrong." For You Are Here
this is Ben Tan.

An Analysis of the Cold War

By Glen Maganzini

Following the Second World War, the United States emerged as a super power. The democratically centered U.S was opposed in the super power arena by the communist Soviet Union. Both countries competed for influence in the world during this time period known as the Cold War. Whilst neither country invaded the other (a “hot war”), the competition was fierce; ultimately resulting in American hysteria, disillusionment, and insecurity. Principally, many Americans were fearful of communists taking over the world. Internally, McCarthyism flourished as Americans grew weary of countless alleged leftists. More specifically, government officials were called out as communist spies. Even away from home, the fear of communism existed amongst Americans. The Berlin airlift, along with the Soviet’s aiding of Cuba and China’s emergence as a communist nation caused great international worry. Also during the late 1940s and 1950s, the nuclear warfare question gained precedence. The Eisenhower administration did not want to lose out to the Soviet Union so as a preventive measure the administration increased educational and military spending. Eisenhower himself continued Harry Truman’s containment policies towards Soviet and Chinese communism. Though Eisenhower’s efforts to address said fears were meaningful and bold, his “New Look” was not en masse successful.

Communism, the beast from the East, was emerging as a homeland threat – or so many Americans thought following World War II. Joseph McCarthy, a conservative Senator, is credited as the foremost anticommunist “crusader” during the Cold War era. McCarthy in the ‘40s and ‘50s used media manipulation and uncanny swagger to “out” communists in the government and most importantly cause bewilderment to strike the average American citizen. McCarthy was quite successful in creating the kind of frenzy Dwight Eisenhower described in a March 1954 press conference. McCarthy in actuality failed to root a communist, but nevertheless his aimed reduction of radical views and speech could not have come at a better time. John Foster Dulles, Eisenhower’s Secretary of State, like McCarthy, feared communism extending to America. He said, “If world communism captures any American State...a new and perilous front is established which will increase the danger to the free world and require even greater sacrifices from American people.” Eisenhower did in fact adopt a containment policy (more on this later), but he did not effectively settle the Red Scare mess. A Republican like McCarthy, Eisenhower did not publicly address the Senator; in effect propaganda of Communism in America continued and it was not until 1954 that the Senate condemned the “s.o.b” a term used by Ohio Senator John Bricker.

Americans at this time also grew fearful of communism taking over worldwide. In 1954, according to Dulles, the “situation in Guatemala had become so dangerous that the American States could not ignore it.” And America did not disregard it as the CIA and a small rebel Guatemalan group overthrew socialist President Jacobo Arbenz. Even though the coup d’état was mainly for economic reasons (Arbenz started to nationalize), Americans saw this as another step toward defeating communism. Across the Pacific Ocean, China was in its communist infancy. Americans did not want another potential superpower to fall to the “dark” side. Eisenhower responded to American concern by signing a defense treaty with the Republic of China and forming an anti-communist alliance, SEATO, in order to halt the spread of communism in Asian countries. Moving westward, a blockade of West Berlin by the Soviet Union in 1948 caused American uneasiness. The U.S was forced to resupply the Western sector via air. West Germany after World War I was a NATO ally. America still had many troops stationed in Europe and was not willing to give up Europe to the Soviets after having just fought a costly war. The situations in Guatemala, China, Cuba, and Berlin can all be clumped together and placed under the category of fear of communist expansion. In fact, many thought that the Soviets would march past Germany and invade the rest of Europe. This was not the case, but the U.S and the Soviet Union did in fact become enveloped in a bitter non-fighting competition.

A large fear of the post WWII age was that of nuclear warfare. Scared about the increasing ability of the USSR’s strategic bombers, Eisenhower set out to build a fleet of super bombers known as the Strategic Air Command. “Air-atomic” capable land army and navy forces gained precedence. If the U.S was attacked, the country would adopt a Massive Retaliation policy. As the graphic in the U.S News and World Report (1957) indicates, accepting the first blow could devastate the U.S so much, that they would not be able to respond. Many Americans at this time worried if all the nuclear spending would go to waste. In an almost fearful gesture, Eisenhower proposed an “open skies” agreement to Nikita Krushchev, but the Soviet Premier declined calling the policy an “espionage device.” As evidenced, Eisenhower often switched between being nice (open skies) and not being so nice (massive retaliation). Eisenhower decided to go down a slippery slope by threatening to use nuclear weapons in a threatening policy termed “brinkmanship.” Along with arms building, the race to space became a Soviet-U.S arena of competition. Four months after the Soviets launched the Sputnik into orbit, Eisenhower in a special message to Congress announced the growing importance of science and technology education. The National Defense Education Act passed in 1958 primarily to stimulate the advancement of math, science, and foreign language education. All of this educational spending added to the total government budgetary spending – which according to the Department of Commerce was at $92.1 billion in 1959. Getting students to become interested in technology would in effect make the U.S succeed in its propaganda effort. Teenagers could become interested in assisting their country in an attempt to become the top nation. To many a man’s surprise, space research and military potential were interconnected. The dropping of an atom bomb or ballistic missile is easier in space. In the end, no fighting or bomb dropping occurred.

During his inauguration address, John F. Kennedy said, “...Finally to those nations who make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge, but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace...” It was not until 1991 that the Soviet Union dissolved into a democracy. Peace followed, but decades of fear – many times artificial – plagued everyone, not just Americans. Communism tested the values of democracy and nuclear armament tested the virtues of peace. In hindsight, critics look back at the Cold War period and see that Eisenhower did a great job in comforting the ambient fright in the U.S. Facing off against a world power is never an easy task. Eisenhower may have thrown civilian services and welfare programs off the cliff as displayed in Herblock’s popular 1958 cartoon, but he did accomplish his campaign goal of helping the American people live safely in times of political and technological pandemonium.

Drugs at Wakefield High Analysis

Again, these are interviews that I conducted last year. It was supposed to turn into a huge investigative article on drugs at Wakefield High, but it never really burgeoned into anything that large. Here are three sample responses:

Anonymous: I presently do not do drugs.
WÉ: Have you ever done any drugs?
Anon: Yes. I've smoked one cigarette.
WÉ: What is your perception of how many drinkers and smokers there are at WHS?
Anon: The entire freshmen class (class of 2011). Seriously though, I don't think there are that many.
WÉ: How often do you hear about weed in school?
Anon: I always hear about it. The art department does it. It is inspiration for their shit.

-------------------

WÉ: Have you ever done any drugs?
Anon: Yes, I've smoked weed.
WÉ: What is your perception of how many drinkers and smokers there are at WHS?
Anon: I'd guesstimate about 45% of the student body.

-------------------

WÉ: Have you ever done any drugs?
Anonymous Sophomore Girl: No.
WÉ: What is your perception of how many drinkers and smokers there are at WHS?
Anon: 20%.

Sketchy/Creepy/Freak Analysis

Last year, I interviewed three random people (two students and one teacher) on the topic of the words sketchy, creepy, and freak. Precisely, I asked them what each of the words mean.

• Sketchy: 
• "Anyone that is way too sexual in the way that he or she presents his or her self."
• "A stalker."
• "A shady person; you don't trust their instincts."

• Creepy: 
• "Anybody that has the balls to follow you in the middle of school."
• "A strange person who makes you feel uncomfortable and you wouldn't want to be left alone with."

• Freak: 
• "Anyone who thinks they are cool and everyone knows they are not."
• "Someone who does weird stuff for attention."
• "Abnormal in comparison to the rest of society."