Nebraska Death Penalty Column

Here is my column that was published in the April 4 edition of the Creightonian. I wanted to emphasize the urgency that is needed to solve this problem Readers may want to check out a story in the Omaha World Herald and the Nebraska Unicameral Web site for more information. Tell you me your reactions to the story. Do you think I should have included advocacy information for pro-death penalty supporters? The column was meant to encourage political participation, and I did not want to get in a debate over the correctness of the death penalty.

Death penalty divides state Court and Legislature

Let’s make a difference.

No, this is not another Obama transcript from the campaign trail or a speech from your RSP advisor.
But now Creighton students have a unique opportunity to leave a lasting impression on the state in which we live.

Nebraska lingers in death penalty limbo: We have capital punishment but no way to implement it.
The state Supreme Court called “Old Sparky” the electric chair cruel and unusual punishment, but a majority in the Legislature still wants to kill some criminals.

Last week, a bill, LB1063, which would have banned the death penalty was rejected by the Unicameral. Five votes defeated the bill.

To make matters more complicated, Gov. Dave Heinenman released a press statement on his Web site.

“I believe it is now time to move forward,” he said. “Our focus now should be on deciding a legal method of execution for Nebraska.”

However, his efforts to reinstate the death penalty. may be all for nought. Seven out eight members on the Judiciary Committee supported the anti-death penalty bill, so they could possibly pigeon-hole any lethal injection bill supported by the governor.

It takes 30 votes to wrench a bill from a stalling committee–only 28 state senators voted against the bill. Thus, two senators need convincing to adopt lethal injection or five to abolish capital punishment all together.

How will Nebraska pull itself out from this public policy standstill?

This quagmire calls for civic engagement.

While I believe that the state should not engage in the business of killing its own citizens and that the Catholic Church firmly backs this stance, our predicament allows for advocacy on both sides of the issues.

We can e-mail our state senators at http://nebraskalegislature.gov/web/public/contact.

In addition, Nebraskans Against the Death Penalty, and Creighton Students for Life who work cooperate on advocacy projects, plan to continue its opposition to the state’s current policy. Visit their Web site at www.nadp.net for more information.

I could not find any pro-death penalty advocacy groups in Omaha. Justice For All is a Texas based organization, which does some national organizing and petitioning. For more information, visit its Web site at http://www.jfa.net/deathpenalty.html

These are by no means all the resources out there; however, they provide a starting point for students to judge such an important issue and apply their efforts to create an effective political outcome.

And although tracing the skeletal structure of 3,4 dihydroxyphenylacetate or memorizing Thomas Aquinas’s “Quinquae viae” are important undertakings, 10 men currently wait on death row.

Our actions will have real-world consequences.

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Catholic Democrats and the ‘Privatization of Faith.’

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend toured Omaha on March 11 speaking about her book, “Failing America’s Faithful” on the 40th anniversary of Robert Kennedy’s, her father’s, presidential campaign.

The book has two premises.

1. The first argues that conservative Catholics have ignored the Church’s history of social teaching on justice and have instead focused on less important themes. “The Church has shrunk God into three narrow issues: heterosexual marriage, stem-cell research and anti-abortion.” This shift from social justice to single-sided issues occurred during the sex abuse scandals when the Church needed to prove its holiness.
2. The second argues that the Democratic party has attempted disassociate itself from religion and has alienated Catholic Democrats. She believed that the Catholicism and the Democratic Party go together because that the Church has a long history politics (“You don’t remain a Church for 2,000 years unless you are good a politics,” she said) and because the party’s ideology reflects the Catholic social teaching. However, instead of emphasizing community, the Democratic Party has ineffectively chose emphasizing the individual because it is more politically successful.

While Townsend seemed to fit comfortably into the liberal Catholic niche her tone dramatically shift to the right when speaking to Omaha Catholic Democrats at the Firefighters’ Union Hall.

At Creighton she said, “The Catholic Church got the abortion issue wrong.” She went on to criticize the Church because of its sexism and close mindedness. Three hours later, she did not mention the word “abortion,” skipped women’s rights in the Church and offered hope for the possibility of “being on top next week.”

More importantly, she praised State Senator Tom White as a ideal leader for Nebraska Catholic Democrats. Sen. White’s record is a little less praiseworthy. He touted his stem-cell research bill in front of the audience, which included a priest. (In her speech after Sen. White’s, Townsend did not mention her disdain for the Church’s contempt for stem-cell research.)

More importantly, Sen. White said that he was a pro-life politician “beyond the fetus” since he supported the revitalization of Nebraska’s mental health hospitals. However, Sen. White said he would not be supporting the bill in the state senate that would abolish the death penalty. When I said, “Don’t you think the state should not be inolved in the killing of humans business,” he responded about some Catholic theologians in California, as if the state’s name justified his liberal tag.

This dissonance between Townsend’s speech at Creighton and her speech in the city echoes her sentiment that the Catholic Universities lead the way in the social gospel. I still contend that one should not have to scale back beliefs depending on its prediction reception. However, a journalism professor reminded me that she is still asking for a lot of change, but “she has to consider her audience.”

What happens when we don’t value foreign news.

This post sends us a grim message about what happens when we no longer care about foreign news coverage. 

 http://www.metacafe.com/watch/834847/are_americans_really_that_stupid/

I’m sure that the clip has been cut so only the stupid-American answers are broadcasted, but the answers are still frightening.  Note the question about “Whom should we invade next?”

 In addition, the ethnic war in Kenya caused by contested election results came to an end yesterday.  President Kibaki and opposition leader Odinga have created a power sharing agreement, in which Kibaki ceeds some cabinet positions and policy-creating power to Odinga, who will be the new prime minister.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/world/africa/29kenya.html?pagewanted=2&ref=todayspaper

Now that the battles are over, I wonder if news media outlets will continue to cover the deeply rooted ethnic segregation, which has not been solved.  This agreement tries to mask the ethnic tensions, but they still exist.  There could be another civil war. 

My interview with Professor Danial Shea

I woke up at  eight this morning–three hours before my first class–so I could interview Professor Daniel Shea.  He teaches poltical science at Allegheny College (somewhere in north western Pennselvannia), heads the school’s Center for Political Participation, and wrote “Fountain of Youth: Strategies and Tactics for Mobilizing America’s Young Voters.”

 After a shower and a some coffee, I felt more on top of my game.  We talked over the phone about my journalistic endeavor.  He said some surprising things.

Shea believes that the current rise in young voter participation is the 2000 election.  Not the interesting candidates or the issues, which have some effect.  But the 2000 election, the contest in which Bush beat Gore without the popularity vote, taught voters two important lessons.

First, the young voters learned that elections can be very close.  If any readers know rational choice theory, young voters experience the knife-edge threshold, k.  “Young people,” Shea explained, “across the coutnry said, ‘Holy cow, every vote counts. I can make a difference.”

Second, young voters finally understood the importance of an election.  “Our world is drastically different with George Bush as president instead of Al Gore, regardless of one’s party affliation.”  When young voters have seen the consequences of Iraq and global warming, they have realized elections have serious and tangibile ramifications.

In addition, Shea stressed that young people do care about making a difference in the world.  According to his research, volunteering among college aged kids has steadily increased since the early 90′s.  However, young votes have become “cynical” with the poltical process.  They need to see the effects of their participation and not the power of big money and the dirty campaigning. 

Shea believed that political parties must continue to act as political recruiters and should target young voters specifically.  They need to use young people’s communication networks (I get texts from Barack Obama) and should make sure young people stay with the party even if they become disappointed in this electon outcome.

If you give Obama a cookie, he’s going ask for a glass of milk.

 More than 25,000 caucus goers here gave Obama an early Valentine’s Day present last Saturday: 16 delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

            While these delegate may seem insignificant when compared to the 2,000 at the national convention, they accompany an array of other gifts Obama has milked from our state, including Mayor Mike Fahee declaring the new name of Omaha to be “Obamaha.”

            We have given Obama a victory in a state caucus, an endorsement by Sen. Ben Nelson, a Civic Auditorium packed with 10,000 supporters and the name of the city. Could he ask for anything else besides a box of Dove chocolate and a dozen roses?

            Yes.

            He has apparently asked us to be better citizens.

            A significant part of Obama’s appeal to voters, especially the protestant workers of the Midwest, is his challenge to become civically involved, participation oriented Americans.

             One-time congressional candidate Jim Esch delivered a speech as the elected Obama spokesman for Norris Middle school caucus goers. In an effort to sway non-committed declarers, He emphasized Obama’s challenge for change.

“It’s the first time in my life that a candidate has not only talked about what their going to do, but has challenged us to do something,” he said, igniting the crowd to start another one of those ever popular three-syllable chant.

Obama’s speeches play on individuals’ desires to make a difference in the world around them. He talks of sacrificing for long-term goals and “a collective responsibility to recommit ourselves to the dream.”

Voters seem to enjoy drowning in this rhetoric.

Obama has asked Americans to take personal responsibility on a number of policy issues. He has called global warming the “one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation.” 

At the Civic Auditorium Obama mentioned his plan to give students $4,000 per year for college.

There was a catch, however. He said the financial aid would require work in inner-city schools and under-funded hospitals or organizations such as the Peace Corps or the Foreign Service.

“We will invest in you and you will invest in America,” he said. “Together we will march this country forward.”

            While Obama may ride this wave of collective action for the common good with success past the general election in November, four years is a long time for selflessness and sacrifice to Americans, who seem to be impatient and shortsighted.  How long can we cheer for more responsibility and work?

            Before casting their ballot for Obama, voters need to know that “change” does not bake in the oven for a specific amount of time. 

            They need to know that a candidate who proclaims “change” will face an arduous process of rallying individuals around a cause that may not necessarily be their own.

            They need to know that if you give Obama your vote, he’s not only going to ask for a glass of milk, but he’s also going to ask everyone to help buy, refrigerate and pour the milk as well.

Popping the campaign cherry.

I covered my first presidential campaign today. If you don’t believe me, I save the press pass. It will hang my dorm room’s bulletin board, a beacon of an idealistic, young journalist. Writing this at midnight, I am half exhausted and half giddy with a dash of pride.

We had to wait three hours before Obama spoke. However, standing on the press high rise next to CNN and ABC made the coverage even more exciting. I felt a little “inadequate” with my Canon mini ZR 850, until I realized a reporter from a local TV station had the exact same video camera. I had to talk to him; the fates were calling. He told me every reporter for the channel’s website was being armed with the camera, a regular digital, point-and-shoot camera and a laptop. This exchange was encouraging. I knew that although I had little experience, minimal equipment and absolute-zero reputation on a beat, the advancement in the internet and technology had given me, the “noob” reporter, a level playing field.

(I do not wish to endorse Thomas L. Friedman’s book “The World is Flat,” but, in this aspect, he is correct. Technology has given the individual a voice, which is, at times, can be a thunderous echo, in the crowded room of the mass media. I even saw a completely wired journalist: he had his laptop, video camera, digital camera, cellphone and voice recorder all operating at the same time.)

When Obama entered the conference center, I had to restrain myself. I am quite the Obama fan, but I decided to maintain that “3rd party observer” status–I couldn’t embarrass myself in front of the national press. I made friend from CNN, who surprisingly had quite a dirty mouth. When he paired his raunchy vocabulary with a healthy air of skepticism, I realized that I was among friends.

I had a chance to talk with some local media as well.  Reporters and photographers from the Omaha World Herald and other local media told me about the national press running the show.  If NBC is not happy, no one can be happy.  When I told them my newspaper, the Creightonian, had not gotten a website yet, one laughed and commented “That sucks kid. No one is reading your newspaper.”  So until the paper gets this website, this blog will continue its exile at WordPress.

Obama’s speech may have been the least exciting part of the night, only because a get-out-and-caucus speech can only go so far. I have read and heard too many stump speeches this year. I did enjoy Obama’s new plans for students and will be covering them in next week’s column, which just so happens to come out on Valentine’s day.

Your comments on my ROTC Column

Below is my column from the Creightonian last week, Jan. 31. Our editorial board has already received several letters to the editor. The column was risky because people have very strong feelings about the military and the ROTC. I argue that while the ROTC is fine in a state institution, the Creighton community needs to think deeply about its Jesuit mission statement and its relationship to the ROTC program. I hope the column will provoke an interesting dialog, which would benefit the school as a whole. I hope someone outside of Creighton will read this. Do you agree? Disagree? Was it too risky or divisive?

    The ROTC at Creighton University is called the Blackwolves [sic] Battalion, a compilation of students from Creighton and the University of Nebraska at Omaha.

The name “Blackwolves” comes from St. Ignatius Loyola’s family coat of arms—the same Ignatius who laid his sword and armor in front of the Virgin Mary to protest his life as a soldier, the same Ignatius who started the Society of Jesus, which strives for “faith that does justice.”

    This example demonstrates the inherent tension Jesuit universities face when they allow ROTC programs on campus.

The Creighton Community should re-evaluate its ROTC program because in my opinion, as the program stands, it goes against Creighton’s mission statement and because rationalizations for it do not fit within our university’s goal for an undergraduate education.

In its mission statement, the university strives to uphold a Jesuit tradition: being women and men for others, which includes “sharing gifts, pursuing justice, and having concern for the poor and marginalized.”

Although both military training and Jesuit social teaching involve the individual serving for a greater good, arming a country to accomplish a foreign policy objective should not be confused with striving for peace and justice. In an institution that tries to instill social Gospel principles, we as a community should ask, “Where does the Gospel encourage Christians to take up arms to accomplish their goals?”

Proponents of the ROTC program have said that Jesuit universities can “Christianize” the military by planting Christians into leadership positions of the military.

This justification ignores the hierarchal structure of the military. Even with a Creighton education, a lieutenant will not be able to change a pervasive history, which, in my view, is sexist, racist and homophobic, not to mention recruiting practices that target the lower classes.

Another claim emphasizes the practicality of the ROTC — how the program allows more students access to a Jesuit education. This ignores Creighton’s definition an undergraduate education as a totality, encompassing all parts of students’ lives.

Our mission statement says a Creighton education is “directed to the intellectual, social, spiritual, physical and recreational aspects of student’s lives and to the promotion of justice.”

When ROTC instructors are chosen by the Defense Department, the university has limited control of curriculum. There is a reason “Nuclear, Biochemical and Chemical Warfare” is not in the Arts & Sciences Core.

More importantly, a Creighton education is more than just a price tag or even a series of classes. It seeks to instill Jesuit ideals in all students, yet the presence of an ROTC program on campus sends conflicting messages.

I ask our president, the Rev. John P. Schlegel to create a committee consisting of faculty, students and Jesuits. Since Creighton is such a mission driven school, the committee should assess whether the ROTC program executes the university’s mission.

I would make three suggestions to the committee and to the administration to change the ROTC program. First, the university should provide other scholarship information to students wishing to join the program. At times, students join the ROTC when it is a last choice for a full scholarship.

Second, the administration should require ROTC students to take nine credits of Peace and Justice Studies.

Third, Creighton should offer conscientious objection scholarships to ROTC students who want to change their decision after being influenced by the Catholic social teaching, without leaving Creighton in $100,000 of debt.

These suggestions are not meant to attack ROTC students, the war in Iraq or the military as a whole; however, they will ensure the fulfillment of Creighton’s mission statement in one program offered by the university.