Help for Veterans of Iraqi War

I’m pretty sure if you’re the typical movie going American citizen, you have seen the award winning film, Forrest Gump. Lieutenant Dan, an unforgettable character, gets wounded from a battle deep within the jungles of Vietnam. Eventually it resulted in the loss of his legs. Over the course of the movie’s 142 minutes you saw the dramatic rise and fall of this character as he accepted and then refused a fate he didn’t deserve. What’s particularly sad is that Lt. Dan was a foreshadowing of a harsh reality facing returning troops from Iraq.

More and more, I hear stories of young adults around my age, 22, returning home from Iraq without limbs, with dependencies, suffering from PTS and the worst fate—death. We live in a country that claims to be #1, but we haven’t accepted responsibility for providing help to our modern day veterans.

In 2005, The Washington Post ran an article about a wounded veteran, Robert Loria, who returned from Iraq to find out that the government turned its back on him.

Loria had his hand blown off and could not walk as well. As pain increased significantly throughout his body the last thing that entered his mind was him owing money to the U.S. Army. He was hit with a $6,200 debt after putting his life on the line that would eventually alter his bodily functions forever. When The Washington Post looked into this situation, they found 331 soldiers also dealt with this problem. When military authority higher-ups were questioned, the only response they gave was a computer malfunction was messing up the debts (George, A01).

Along with financial problems and physical complications that arise from this war, some of the worse are long term psychological effects that remain untreated. Since the Vietnam conflict, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) has been a main concern and those who suffer from PTSD experience anxiety, depression, sleeplessness, flashbacks, wariness, and in extreme cases, suicide. One of these extreme cases is Marine Lance Cpl. James Jenkins.

Jenkins was a Marine who survived a fifty-five hour battle with the Mahdi militia in Najaf which would eventually mess him up. After returning home he couldn’t sleep for some time because of the hyper sensitive activity of the war and took up gambling which turned into a major problem and even bigger debts. Soon after Jenkins couldn’t function and would eventually take his life. The reason behind this terrible incident was the lack of medical assistance with PTSD (Dobie).

Everyday the news is awash with political jargon and pseudo promises of a better future for America. We’ve heard “change” and “hope” repeated like an old style vinyl record that’s been overplayed too many times. Yet one topic that hasn’t been touched upon enough in presidential debates is treatment of returning veterans. Why is it that these soldiers who are putting there lives on the line for a better world are being pushed aside?

Shouldn’t the current administration be concerned about offering assistance to men and women, to mothers and fathers, and most of all, to these kids? Maybe they should make sure that all returning veterans get the assistance they need whether it is mental, physical or financial.

Citations:
St. George, Donna. “For Injured U.S. Troops, ‘Financial Friendly Fire’.
Washington Post 14 Oct. 20005:A01.

Dobie, Kathy. “Denial in the Corps.” The Nation. 2008. Truthout Issues. 18 Feb. 2008

Matthew Gobbler '08
Wilkes University
Communications Studies

U.S. Past and Current Treatment of Immigrants Based on Greed, Not Need for Diversity

The controversial issue of immigration into the U.S. has been a recurring problem for many decades. Immigration seems to be a fresh “hot” topic due to constant media exposure. Yet, this hot topic that appeared President Bush’s State of the Union Address and many other outlets that discuss immigration as a “problem”, really have roots as far back as the late 1800’s.

There should be restrictions on the amount of people you allow into the U.S., because if immigration is not monitored then it will result in an overwhelming amount of foreigners jeopardizing a national identity. Also, for security reasons we should place limits on immigration. In reality history shows that the U.S. only places restrictions on those countries in which the U.S. does not have any allegiance to (which is understandable), but also even those countries who have had citizens here the U.S. Then, when the U.S. government no longer has use for them they deport them back to their countries.

In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act which suspended Chinese immigration, and indirectly endorsed definitions of race and class to define certain groups as “undesirable aliens”, which made them ineligible for entry citizenship. Defining a certain group of human beings as “undesirable aliens” closes the door of opportunity for the Chinese race, without any consideration. Now prior to this Act, there were German immigrants who lived in the U.S. and established their culture on U.S. soil by creating newspapers, schools, clubs, etc. The Germans were able to stay due to the fact that they were bi-lingual, and that was an advantage in trading. That’s fine, but what is the usual basis for the U.S. to choose between which immigrants are allowed, and which are not? I have yet to see that reasonable basis.

During World War I, the major concern for the U.S. was over shortages of farm labor. This heart-throbbing problem allowed the U.S. to call upon 76,802 Mexican workers temporarily. Six years following the war, the U.S. Border Patrol was established to “secure” the borders. In the 1930’s, which equals the Great Depression, thousands of Mexicans immigrants, and citizens were deported. Now where is the fairness? Mexicans are human beings just as U.S. citizens are, and to give them an opportunity just to take it back is cruel.

Today’s immigrants have families, and need a constant home to go to. They are not toys to be used and played with, and when you’re done you just put them down. This particular situation is like when you’re a baby, and your mother wiggles your food around in the air on a spoon until she gets ready to feed you. But as far as the Mexicans are concerned, they never really got a chance to be fed. Did I forget to mention that with the onset of World War II, the U. S. established the Bracero Program which forced Mexico to import more workers, because of the labor shortage scare? Well they did. During 1942-1967 Mexicans were forced to do the jobs that American citizens refused to, such as working on the farms. This Bracero “strong arm” Program provides temporary work for Mexican’s until the clock says “ding”, and then they are forced to travel back to their country. Unfortunately, it appears that the United Stated government has no regard for those citizens who may be seeking opportunity on the “the land of the free.” Besides, we have the authority to force these individuals out of their homeland to work for us, but after temporary work is over, we kick them out the door. It’s not fair to the Mexican population, especially those that have families to care for. This brings us to post WWII immigration conditions.

Those of you reading this blog, if you don’t know who Hazleton, PA Mayor Louis Barletta is, you will know after I’m done. Post-Gazette.com reported that on March 14, 2007, Barletta testified that his city needs 30 more police officers, because his priority is to establish laws to kick illegal immigrants out of town. He believes that Hazleton is becoming corrupted by violent crime, crowded schools, and a clogged emergency room at the city’s private hospital. He believed that “illegal aliens” are the blame for this list of problems that plague Hazleton, but admitted that he has no idea how many illegal citizens reside in Hazleton. So Mayor Barletta, you know that immigrants are the problem in your city, but you don’t know how many “illegal aliens” live in Hazleton? That seems quite contradictory. Barletta is a direct reflection of our country’s ability to toss immigrants out of our country without any regard to the fact that immigrants are individuals, and treated as so.

Two of the laws initiated by Barletta would punish businesses that hire illegal immigrants and the landlords who provide housing to them. Jose and Rosa Lechuga are legal immigrants who once owned a grocery store in Hazleton, PA before police damaged their store by parking police cruisers nearby in an attempt to intimidate the couple, and force them out of their store. The entire operation that involved removing immigrants out of Hazleton is unfair to those who are business owners, and those who have families. Barletta also believes that the city’s crime rate is caused by immigrants. Since 2000, Hazleton reported 8,575 felonies, and only 20 were linked to illegal immigrants. So Mr. Barletta, who is the blame for the other 8,555 felonies in the city of Hazleton?

Since 1882, when Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act until today our government has labeled immigrants as “undesirable aliens”, or “illegal aliens”, but in the same instances, needed immigrants for one reason or another. Labeling a group of individuals as “undesirable" insinuates that there is no need for foreign individuals. Labeling immigrants as aliens dehumanize their character, what they stand for, and places a cruel title on innocent people who are only seeking opportunity. Using individuals for their services and deporting them back to their country after the United States is done with them is not “cool.” These immigrants have families, jobs, seeking quality education, just like we are. That being said, either love immigrants or leave them alone, because how we treat our guests, is a direct reflection of what “the land of the free” stands for.

Carlton Homes '08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies Major

How Much Do Celebrities Influence the Vote?

Right or wrong, in today’s society many in the younger generations look to celebrities as role models. Celebrities are very important to today’s society. Just take a look at how younger people get their news. Much of the time The Daily Show hosted by Jon Stewart (who was an actor in movies such as Big Daddy before starting his politically geared show) is watched as a primary source for news.

During election time celebrities are out in full force supporting their choice candidate. During the 2004 election, John Kerry visited Scranton, PA and was accompanied by supporter and “friend” Ben Affleck. At the rally there were many younger women there to see Ben Affleck (in fact he was the reason that I went) but while there I got to hear John Kerry and John Edwards speak and I was able to learn a few things about the candidates.

Celebrities are a great way to get the younger generation interested in politicians and what they believe in. Many consider this generation to be apathetic and not interested in what politicians say but if celebrities get them interested then what’s the problem.

Some criticize the use of celebrity in politics. In 2002 singer Kevin Richardson was invited to testify at a Congressional hearing about mountain top removal mining. Richardson, founder of his own environment charity called Just Within Reach, was criticized by Ohio Senator George Voinovich. Voinovich said that Richardson was not at all qualified to testify at the hearing. He stated, “This witness was put in as an afterthought because someone thought it would add to the glamour of the hearing and attract media attention.”

What’s wrong with media attention? The environmental issues being discussed at that hearing were important and the more media attention there was the more people knew about what the issues were. Richardson stated that was one of the major reasons he agreed to testify.

Other celebrities that have been invited to appear in Congress have been Michael J. Fox, Christopher Reeve, Julia Roberts, and Sheryl Crow. Some celebrities don’t just appear before Congress or speak on behalf of other politicians, they become politicians themselves. Ronald Regan was an actor before becoming the 40th President of the United States. Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger and wrestler/actor Jesse Ventura both became governors. Sonny Bono also got into politics, and the singer was elected as a representative for California.

Celebrities are very influential and I encourage them to continue to support politicians and speak out on important issues. The younger generation looks up to celebrities and are influence by what they say. Celebrity endorsements are a great asset to the causes that they support and should be looked at as such. The effects that they have on the issues which they speak about can be very influential and lasting. Think about it, after being diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, Michael J. Fox became the spokesperson for stem-cell research and is still working to inform people on the subject.

Samantha Clarke '08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies Major

The greatest gift ever: asking others to register to vote & voting

There are many misconceptions in society about 18-25 year old voters. One of them is that we don’t vote because we don’t care. I disagree with those who say we don’t care about the political system. When I graduated high school in 2004, I asked all my friends and family to register to vote for my graduation present. Not only that, every year since 2000, I have asked all my family and friends to do this.

Today, all my closest friends and both immediate and extended family are registered. How many people can actually say that all they want for Christmas, Hanukah, their Birthday and graduation presents are to have the ones they care about register to vote? I did it. The fact that politicians don’t listen to my generation is not only disturbing, but undemocratic. This is why I am proposing to ALL people, both young and old, ask those you are close to, family and friends, to register to vote and vote on election day as a present for your birthday, graduation, Christmas, Hanukah or an other holiday or occasion you celebrate.

If they tell you that they don’t know anything about voting, how to register to vote, or that their vote doesn’t count, educate them. There are numerous websites that will provide information on how to register to vote, where to send it, and many also provide information about stances that political parties and politicians take. Some of these websites include: http://www.rockthevote.com/, http://www.register-vote.com, http://www.publiccitizen.org/congress, http://www.lwv.org, http://www.declareyourself.org, and http://www.justvote.org. Moreover, after you encourage and get family and friends to register to vote as a gift, you must make sure to encourage them to vote on Election Day.

Make sure you call your family and friends to ask if they voted. If they haven’t, persuade them. If you don’t want to call them, give them a ride to the polls and vote with them. This is especially true of people my age. Once they see how enthusiastic you are about the democratic process, they most likely will be too. Once politicians realize that we have the power and influence to get people to register to vote and to the polls, they will start to listen to us, the 18-25 year olds, and we will be able to provide fresh ink to the democratic process! If we all do this, we WILL have a very powerful voice and vote in the 2008 presidential election and those thereafter. Politicians would most likely not take our votes for granted. Additionally, since many of us know how to use technology, do research, and can sniff out when we’re being manipulated or BS, politicians will eventually have to be more honest and straightforward. Most importantly, we will be the leaders of this country in 15-20 years!

That’s right; in 15-20 years WE will be running this country and making policy. It seems many of our current leaders don’t realize this, and as a result, they are not sincerely listening to our opinions, which is part of the reason why some people our age can become apathetic and cynical about civic involvement, voting, the government and the democratic process. If we want to be effective leaders in 15-20 years, we MUST and NEED to get involved NOW! So, encourage those around you to give the greatest gift of all, ask them to register to vote and vote on Election Day!

Mark Congdon Jr."08"

Wilkes University Student

Communications Studies Major

Ethics in Politics: A Glimpse at Hillary Clinton

Let’s talk politics. It is ideal to think that politicians of today are free from vice and should work solely toward justice and the betterment of society; although, this is often not the case. At the voting polls, the political process has become a choice between the lesser of evils. Justice may have been the objective of those who have lived before us, the thoughts of great minds of the ancient Athenian democracy such as Plato, Isocrates, and Aristotle, but are of little concern to leaders today. The political process is in dire need of social reform to attempt to put honesty back into government policy.

Even now, candidates for the 2008 presidential election are starting their campaigns, hoping to manipulate the public by feeding them mounds of bullshit, or what they think the public wants to hear, while at the same time making their opposition seem “unfit.” The United States, as a whole has put great emphasis on the individual, which is reflected in the way we conduct Presidential campaigns. Candidates are more concerned with their personal gain and the power associated with the Presidential position, rather than a concern for the people. Politicians #1 top priority is to get elected, rather than represent the American voters concerns. Political campaigns have turned into a game of who can afford to hire the best spin doctor rather than who might have the best innovations in good government. It is about who is born with the silver spoon in his or her mouth or who has an oil well in the family, rather than skills and leadership? It is estimated that candidates will have to raise a $100 million dollar entry fee by 2008 if they want to be viewed as a “serious candidate” (Kirkpatrick). The high cost of politics poses an ethical dilemma, because the other candidates will be significantly disadvantaged if they do not raise as much money.

Hillary Clinton’s, a 2008 presidential candidate, ethics have been put into question. Hillary was the first 2008 candidate to turn down public funding so she could raise more privately. MSNBC corresponders Edward Luce and Stephanie Kirchgaessner, claim that “Mrs. Clinton can probably raise as much as $500 million from her network of loyal backers in New York, Los Angeles and elsewhere, whereas she would be unlikely to receive much more than $100 million from public funds.” Money raised during the presidential election by both the Democrat and Republican parties, along with all other primary candidates, is expected to exceed $1 billion (Kirkpatrick).

The public financing system was established post-Watergate with the hopes of riding politics from the being influenced by the rich moneymakers. With Hillary pulling in her money from private donors, other candidates will most likely have to do that same to compete with her. The ethical issues here are whether the candidates we chose are the ones who are passionate about their issues or if their stance will ultimately make them the most money and gain the most support (Luce).

Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center states that “When you are talking about raising $1m each time, it invites abuse – the ability to buy influence and access.” For instance, even in President Bush’s presidency, prominent donors were rewarded with administrative positions and ambassadorships. If the amount of money privately funded increases, the trade-off will only get worse (Luce). It could lead to the wealthy people of America running the country, while the rest of the public sits back and watches. The rich will become the puppeteers of presidential candidates.

Dana Lehman "08"

Wilkes University Student

Communications Studies Major