ESPN commits fumble in suspending Bill Simmons

ESPN recently suspended popular sportswriter and analyst Bill Simmons for three weeks after Simmons called National Football League commissioner Roger Goodell a liar in his podcast. Simmons was referring to Goodell’s claim during a press conference that he had not seen the video in which former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice clearly assaults his now-wife Janay Rice (neé Palmer) before meting out the original two-game suspension. ESPN’s decision to suspend Simmons is unforgivable. Simmons’ declaration that Goodell is a liar echoed the thoughts of many NFL fans in the past weeks. As one of the few speaking honestly about Goodell’s handling of the situation, Simmons’ voice was refreshing.

Simmons has made a career out of pushing the envelope and being unafraid to speak his mind. It is this no-nonsense approach to sports reporting that landed Simmons a job at ESPN to begin with, but now he is being punished for the same qualities that make him such a popular figure.

Those who have been following the scandal will remember that in July, sportscaster Stephen A. Smith publicly commented that Janay Rice provoked the attack by putting her hands on her then-fiancée first. Smith was suspended for his comments, but for just one week. Two months later, Simmons has received a suspension three times as long because he called out the commissioner of the NFL on the league’s hypocrisy and indecency.

ESPN’s inconsistent suspensions send the wrong message. Smith received a slap on the wrist for blaming the victim of a heinous assault, while Simmons was assigned a lengthy suspension because he had the audacity to speak his mind. ESPN has made it clear where its allegiances lie. Furthermore, one cannot overlook the tragic irony of the fact that Simmons’ suspension is significantly longer than Ray Rice’s original two-game ban.

Simmons is right to call out Goodell. The NFL commissioner claimed that neither he nor anyone else in the NFL’s main office had seen the video because law enforcement would not release it. The entertainment website TMZ, however, had no trouble obtaining a copy of the full video and uploading it for all to see.

Further exemplifying Goodell’s inability to keep his lies straight is the fact that he overlooks that multiple news sources had already confirmed that the NFL received a copy of the video and that someone watched it in its entirety. Additionally, Rice admitted to Goodell months ago that he had assaulted his fiancée, believing that Goodell had already seen the video. Goodell had Rice’s confession as well as the supporting video evidence regardless of whether he saw the whole tape.

Rice’s confession and the initial footage should have been enough for Goodell to suspend Rice indefinitely. Instead, he decided to push forward with his cover-up to keep Rice on the field and the money rolling in.

Goodell’s appalling mishandling of the entire scandal indicates his desire to put profit over morality. His reactionary strategy is an embarrassment for the entire league. Goodell should resign immediately before the team owners decide to can him. At this point, that is the only thing he could do of which I would approve.

When Goodell inevitably loses his spot as commissioner of the NFL, Simmons would not be a bad replacement candidate. At least we would be able to count on his honesty.

A call for compromise between Obama administration, Assad threat of ISIS warrants international cooperation

Much of the media attention surrounding the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria—commonly known as ISIS––has focused on their sweeping and brutal attacks in Iraq. In response to the Islamic State’s streak of violence, President Barack Obama authorized a series of airstrikes in Iraq in order to help local military forces combat ISIS.

The problem with this strategy is that the heart of ISIS operations is located in Syria, not Iraq. Since the beginning of their attacks on Iraq, the Islamic State has been working out of Raqqa, Syria and other communities in the eastern part of the country. The Obama administration publicly ruled out the possibility of coordinating airstrikes with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Aug. 27. I believe this decision was made in error.

If the United States aims to play a serious role in defeating the militant group, it is imperative that the Obama administration cooperates with Assad. The Islamic State cannot be effectively combated without taking action against their large numbers in Syria. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin E. Dempsey emphasized this point, stating that the ISIS cannot be defeated unless its faction in Syria is taken care of.

From an ideological standpoint, the U.S. has every reason not to cooperate with Assad. Unfortunately, war is not the time for idealism. The situation brings to mind an old adage, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Assad needs us, but we also need him. Even though U.S.-Syrian relations have been strained since the start of the Syrian Civil War in 2011, the two nations are in a unique position to collaborate.

The Islamic State is currently Assad’s biggest problem and the Obama administration is concerned about the real potential for an ISIS attack on American soil. Obama’s concerns about a homeland attack are not unfounded. According to the Los Angeles Times, as many as 3,000 Islamic State fighters hold European or Western passports and up to 100 may hold U.S. passports. This means that the ISIS could soon pose as much of a threat to the West as it does to Syria and Iraq. Coordinating a series of airstrikes with Assad’s government would be the lesser of two evils. Failure to do so would allow the Islamic State to continue to operate inside Syria and other neighboring countries without reprieve.

Assad is an unsavory figure, but the U.S. government is taking a “holier-than-thou” attitude by refusing to cooperate with him. It’s not as if we have never committed morally questionable acts during times of war. In the past, the U.S. has not shied away from aiding opposing governments in times of war. During World War II, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt publicly condemned Joseph Stalin’s Soviet dictatorship but ultimately realized that Nazi Germany constituted the greatest threat to world peace. When the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, the U.S. sent aid and entered the war as an ally of the U.S.S.R. despite the two nations’ ideological differences.

This is not the time for the Obama administration to take a moral stance; this is a time for decisive action and cooperation. If the U.S. is serious about uprooting the Islamic State’s grip on Iraq and Syria, it is imperative that we look past our differences for the time being and ally with those who may be able to help.

Meet the Montana man using castle doctrine to defend killing with impunity

Markus Kaarma of Montana was arrested and charged with a felony for the murder of Diren Dede, a 17-year-old exchange student from Hamburg, Germany on Sunday April 27. The case is complicated by Montana’s “castle doctrine,” which was misconstrued in Kaarma’s defense. Kaarma’s attorney Paul Ryan argued in court that his client was protected under the “castle doctrine,” – essentially Montana’s version of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law. It posits that homeowners may use deadly force when they are threatened with physical harm in their home. It does not, however, state that you may intentionally lure someone into your home for the purpose of killing them. As such, Kaarma should receive the maximum allowable sentence for premeditated homicide.

In response to a string of recent burglaries, Kaarma and his wife, Janelle Pflaeger, opted to set up a trap in an attempt to lure any would-be burglars into their garage. They set up motion sensors outside, put a video camera in the garage and left the door open with a purse intentionally in sight. When the sensors went off Sunday night, Kaarma went out to the garage and opened fire on the unsuspecting Dede.

This would be entrapment if it were the police being indicted rather than Kaarma. Entrapment is when a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal act that the person would not have committed otherwise. It is possible that Dede was curious and wandered into the garage because it was left open, not because he intended to burglarize the house.

An interesting aspect of this case is the inconsistency of the evidence. Pflaeger told police she “used the baby monitor to see that a suspect was rummaging through the garage.” Meanwhile, Kaarma told investigators that he did not see anyone, but heard a noise and feared the intruder would hurt him.

How is it possible that Pflaeger was able to see the intruder on a baby monitor, but Kaarma could not see Dede a few feet in front of him? If it was that dark, Pflaeger should not have been able to see anything on the baby monitor either.

The fact that Kaarma blindly fired multiple times without any idea who or what was in the room is startling in itself. What if it was a neighborhood pet, a curious child or a confused senior citizen that wandered in? Kaarma clearly believes in shooting first and asking questions later.

“It wasn’t his intent to kill,” Ryan argued. “It happened very quickly, and unfortunately a young man lost his life.”

First, people with no intent to kill do not blindly fire a shotgun multiple times into their garage. Second, and contrary to his lawyer’s argument, it has been reported that before the incident, Kaarma told his hairstylist that he had been waiting up for multiple nights in an attempt to catch the burglar.

“I’m just waiting to shoot some f–ing kid,” he said.

Kaarma should not be protected under the castle doctrine because he willingly created the situation that let the burglar into his house. He did not yet know whom, but he knew he was going to kill someone.

Kaarma’s statement, coupled with the fact that he and his wife set out to intentionally lure someone into their garage indicates that this is a clear case of premeditated murder. In this case, the prosecution should seek the maximum possible sentence.

Supreme Court rules correctly in college affirmative action ban

On Tuesday April 22, the United States Supreme Court upheld a Michigan policy that prohibits the inclusion of race and ethnicity in public universities’ admissions process. In other words, the Supreme Court has upheld a statewide ban on affirmative action. I am in favor of this ban not because it is “reverse-racism” or anything of that nature, but because affirmative policies are not as beneficial to minorities as many claim. In some cases, these policies can actually hurt minority students.

The initiative, known as Proposal 2, came about in response to the Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger, which ruled that race is an appropriate factor to consider in law school admissions. In 2006, Proposal 2 was approved as an amendment to the Michigan State Constitution by 58 percent of Michigan’s voters. It resurfaced recently as Michigan residents called for the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of Proposal 2.

A number of justices expressed their fears regarding Proposal 2. Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed her belief that Proposal 2 subjected minority applicants to a burden not faced by their white counterparts. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, another outspoken opponent of Proposal 2, stated that, “The Constitution does not protect racial minorities from political defeat, but neither does it give the majority free rein to erect selective barriers against racial minorities.”

Justice Ginsburg seems to be misguided. There is no other barrier being created; the only “selective barriers” are the admission requirements of Michigan’s public universities. If you apply and have the grades, you should be admitted. The argument that race-blind admissions policies foster racist admissions practices is simply flawed.

Additionally, “selective barriers” implies that being admitted to university is the only barrier minority students will face. Minority students admitted to a university that uses affirmative policies may have to deal with other students or even faculty questioning their merit.

There is also a facet of affirmative action called “the mismatch effect.” Richard Sanders was among the first to present the notion that affirmative policies place minorities into schools or jobs they are not prepared for, which sets them up for failure. Sanders argues that average students are being placed in the same classes as more competitive students, creating a cycle of self-doubt, decreased performance and potentially, dropping out altogether.

The definition of “minority” only seems to include black and Hispanic students; for example, The New York Times ran admissions statistics alongside its story about Proposal 2. The chart displays statistics for black and Hispanic students, but not Asian students. Asian-Americans are generally left out of the equation for affirmative action. Perhaps this is because Asian students tend to suffer the consequences of affirmative action.

Princeton University sociologists Thomas Espenshade, Chang Y. Chung and Joan Walling did a study comparing the effects of affirmative action on different racial groups at three highly selective universities. They found that while black students experienced a +230 point advantage in admissions, Asian students experienced a -50 disadvantage. Ultimately, the disparity in test scores reinforces the stereotypes affirmative action seeks to eliminate.

I find it unnerving that a number of our Supreme Court justices tout the benefits of affirmative action without mentioning the outcome of such policies. I will not condone a policy that negatively affects a large portion of the people it purports to help.

Until an affirmative action policy that truly benefits all minorities is developed and implemented, I will remain firmly camped on the same side of the fence as the majority of Michigan’s voters.

Catholic hospitals withholding treatment over religious concerns

In November, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The lawsuit argues that the religious constraints placed on medical professionals in Catholic hospitals result in negligent care for their patients. The ACLU’s argument is based on the fact that Catholic hospitals, by and large, bar the discussion and performance of abortions, even when not doing so could pose serious health risks for the mother.

There is no doubt that the ACLU has solid footing in its case. It is the obligation of medical professionals to make patients aware of all viable treatment options and then allow the patient to make an informed decision. It is impossible to make an informed decision if the options are not even available.

The focal point of the ACLU’s lawsuit is the treatment of Tamesha Means, whose water broke just 18 weeks into her pregnancy. She got a ride to the only hospital within a reasonable distance, Mercy Health Partners. Based on her report of events, she was given medication and told to wait for the pain to stop. She was neither offered the option to induce labor or to terminate the pregnancy nor was she even told that the fetus was unlikely to survive.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Means said, “The pain was unbearable, I told them, ‘I need you guys to help me.’ They told me there was nothing they could do.”

In fact, there was plenty they could have done for Means but nothing they could do within the religious constraints placed on them by Mercy Health. Means’ pain could have been alleviated by procedures that are very common for women in her circumstances.

Unfortunately, the religious directives of the Catholic Church put the medical professionals at Mercy Health in a bind.

According to The Washington Post, Catholic health care providers are given a list of guidelines meant to “provide authoritative guidance on certain moral issues that face Catholic health care today.”

Medical sociologist at the University of California, San Francisco Lori Freedman said of the Means case, “They frequently bring up this exact scenario, where a woman is suffering premature rupture of membranes in the second trimester. In a non-Catholic hospital you would talk about various options: If you want to miscarry naturally, induce labor or do you want us to do a surgical removal.”

On her third visit to the hospital, Means delivered her baby, stillborn.

Means said, “I still had no answers as to why they did nothing to help me, why they didn’t go ahead and induce labor if they knew my baby wasn’t going to make it. They left me in pain for those days.”

The doctors at Mercy Health allowed Means to suffer in pain for two days, a clear violation of the Hippocratic Oath: to care for patients honestly and to the best of your ability.

While many staunch Catholics argue that if you do not like the way Catholic hospitals are run, you should go to a different hospital, the reality is that the number of Catholic hospitals is increasing. Additionally, many of these Catholic hospitals are located in rural areas of the South and are the only hospital within a reasonable distance for patients.

Means is just one example of the way Catholic dogma is affecting how health care is administered in hospitals across the nation. Without the religious directives of the Catholic Church, patients would be better informed of their treatment options and would be able to make decisions about their own health.

FDA's misplaced priorities evident in trans fat ban

The Food and Drug Administration has removed trans fat from the list of edibles that it labels “generally recognized as safe.” Trans fat has been linked to coronary heart disease, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention predicts that further reduction of trans fat in diets could prevent up to 7,000 deaths from heart disease and up to 20,000 heart attacks per year.

States like New York and Pennsylvania, as well some municipalities in California, have already enacted similar legislation against trans fat. Additionally, many of the nation’s largest restaurant chains and grocery companies cut out trans fat from their foods as early as 2005.

Even if the FDA’s intentions for public health are genuine, this new measure hits close to home for many people in the metropolitan area who were outraged by the proposed ban on large sodas in New York City.

Heritage Foundation research fellow Daren Bakst, who is an agriculture specialist, wrote on his blog that the FDA “is ignoring the most important issue: the freedom of Americans.”

Food producers have been required to specify the amount of trans fat in their food since 2006. Those Americans who are conscientious enough to look at food labels and make their own responsible decisions about their diet should not have their diet regulated like children because of the irresponsible decision-making of a few who choose to ignore nutrition labels.

The ban also puts a strain on food producers, who typically use the additive because it increases the shelf life of their products. Many companies use a very small amount of the ingredient for this purpose alone, allowing them to list amount of trans fat as zero if the product contains less than half a gram.

Another question the removal of trans fat from food labels raises is why the FDA chose to single out trans fat, especially given that many companies and localities have essentially preempted this new legislation with regulations of their own.

For instance, if reducing disease and fatalities is of such importance to the FDA, why are they not increasing the regulations on cigarettes or even outlawing them? The FDA has control over tobacco regulation under the Tobacco Control Act. According to the CDC, tobacco smoking is estimated to cause more than 440,000 deaths annually. Given this figure, the 7,000 lives annually that might be saved from the elimination of trans fat pales in comparison to deaths caused by cigarette smoking.

The tobacco industry, however, is a large source of revenue for the federal government as a result of the high taxes on tobacco products. Thus, it is unlikely that we will ever see the FDA make any moves to outlaw tobacco, even though this would be far more beneficial to public health than eliminating trans fat will be.

While the removal of the ingredient has not stirred the kind of libertarian-conservative slugfest that typically follows regulations like this, many are concerned that trans fat legislation could be a springboard for the FDA to start limiting the amounts of sugar, salt and other ingredients in our food.

Harvard University professor Walter Willett said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times that regulating salt and sugar as additives would hardly be as easy as making a decision to ban trans fat. He said that salt is an essential nutrient and that sugar is not harmful when consumed at reasonable levels.

So as far as future regulation of sugar and sodium levels, it appears that our food is safe for now.

Dear Congress: rethink your welfare beneficiaries

The House Agriculture Committee faces mounting pressure in regard to how it will save the farm bill by the end of the fiscal year. In a last-ditch effort, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor proposed a strategy which hinges on a key component to cut $40 billion over 10 years from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps.

In light of this, I can only say that it would be a travesty if these cuts were to pass. Food stamps provide an invaluable safety net to Americans who do not have the means to buy groceries. Have we really become so desensitized that this no longer seems like a priority?

Unfortunately, there is a great deal of stigma and stereotyping surrounding food stamps and those who use them. People on food stamps are often written off as lazy, but the truth is that there is not one face to the plight of poverty in the United States.

On Sunday Sept. 15, The Guardian ran an article titled, “I’m a college graduate who had to go on food stamps.” The author Andy Fitzgerald described a haunting experience searching for a job.

“For nearly eight months, I was unable to secure opportunities that weren’t sporadic or temporary, making it difficult to pay rent and buy food,” Fitzgerald wrote.

Fitzgerald described the night he decided to apply for food stamps in which he took his “final quarters, dimes and nickels to a fast food restaurant, hoping I had enough for a burger and fries.”

Fitzgerald is a graduate of a liberal arts college.

“I have long been an advocate for a strong safety net, but I never thought I would be ‘one of those people’ on it,” he wrote. It is an attitude that seems to be quite common today. I will not deny that even I have felt that way before.

Far too often we let ourselves forget about the plight of those less fortunate and push the issue to the back of our minds. We even tell ourselves that it can never happen to us. But the reality is that it can happen to anyone. It does not take much to go from having a roof over your head to begging for change.

In a story for the Minnesota Star Tribune, Sue Bulger, a resident of Minneapolis, Minn., wrote a response to an incident in her local grocery store in which customers shamed her for using food stamps.

In her mock apology, Bulger wrote, “I know we looked like people you might think need [Electronic Benefits Transfer]: a bit unkempt in sweatpants and T-shirts.”

She explained that the food stamps are her 28-year-old disabled son’s way of contributing to the family grocery bill. They were unkempt because she just had emergency surgery and did not have a chance to put on real clothes.

If you are still trying to give a face to poverty in the U.S., it is the face of Fitzgerald, the college graduate trying to make ends meet; it is the face of Bulger, dedicated mother of a disabled son who is putting her daughter through college. Perhaps the most important thing to remember, though, is that the face of poverty in America could be your face.

By cutting the SNAP program, Congress would do a grave disservice to the American people. Keeping American citizens from going hungry should be a nonpartisan issue, and I urge the House and Senate Agriculture committees to reconsider these devastating cuts.

NSA continues to chip away at civil liberties

In 2008, an explicit ban prohibited the National Security Agency from searching its databases for the email and phone records of Americans without a warrant. The idea was that the ban would help protect the privacy and constitutional rights of American citizens. It has recently been revealed that in 2011, the White House secretly sought and won permission to reverse these restrictions, thereby giving the NSA broad approval to collect and search through Americans’ communications without a warrant.

The United States government has clearly lost sight of what protecting the people means. American citizens do value safety and security but not at the expense of our constitutional rights. The Fourth Amendment was drafted to stop police and government agents from searching a person or their property without probable cause to believe the person has committed a crime.

In terms of what data intelligence agencies are allowed to collect, queries simply must be “reasonably likely to yield foreign intelligence information,” according to U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in 2011. This is a vague definition in typical government fashion, but I imagine the threshold for “reasonably likely” is pretty low.

The reversal of the ban essentially gives the NSA free reign over our communications. They can collect data on our phone calls and emails without a court deciding whether or not there is probable cause. Any time there is a lack of government oversight on this large a scale, it makes me a bit uneasy.

The irony of the situation is that, of course, the government says it is not targeting Americans. But still, the reasoning for searching our phone and email records without a warrant, according to Robert S. Litt, general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, is “we wanted to be able to do it.”

It appears that, in this day and age, wanting to be able to do it is enough reason for the government to spy on its citizens without any kind of overseeing. I am disappointed that President Barack Obama would not only deceive the people by reversing the ban secretly but also egregiously violate the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. intelligence community is obviously trying to cast a wide net in its pursuit of terrorists, foreign powers and anything else that might threaten the U.S. Yet the Orwellian collection of citizens’ data still does not sit right with me, even if the NSA’s intentions are benevolent. The whole idea has a distinct “guilty until proven innocent” air about it.

There are obvious reasons that intelligence agencies need the authority to collect and analyze foreign communications, and it is in our best interest. Still, the reason that the Constitution requires a warrant to do so for American citizens is to protect us from government overreaching that we are seeing on display now.

U.S. Sen. Mark Udall said “Our founders laid out a roadmap where Americans’ privacy rights are protected before their communications are seized or searched – not after the fact.”

It is a shame that our government does not share Udall’s point of view. Unfortunately, our government has decided that collecting data on our daily communications is a top priority, while protecting our privacy rights is secondary.

Diplomacy necessary for U.S.-Iran relations

On Feb. 23, Iran announced that it had discovered new uranium deposits and went public with plans to build 16 new nuclear power stations. Prior to this announcement, the Western world was under the impression that Iran was near exhausting its existing uranium supply. Iran also has plans to install next generation centrifuges capable of enriching uranium at a faster rate.

While some in Washington are calling this a provocative move on the part of the Islamic republic, I am not convinced that their assessment of the situation is accurate. I feel this could be an important steppingstone for improving East-West relations if handled correctly and maturely.

For one thing, this would not be the first time that United States officials have jumped to conclusions about a Middle Eastern nation. The most famous example of this tendency, of course, is our claim that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Ultimately, such claims turned out to be false, but were nonetheless part of the foundation of what became the Iraq War.

Iranian authorities have formerly stated that bolstering their number of nuclear power stations is intended to increase electricity production. Currently, the country only has one nuclear power station. This, of course, should be an admirable goal in a world where natural gas reserves are dwindling and alternative energy is viewed as the future. Yet the West continues to view it with skepticism.

It is important to note that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons explicitly gives abiding nations, of which Iran is one, the “right to peacefully use nuclear technology.” Up to this point, the evidence seems to indicate that Iran’s goal is to do exactly that.

Chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili has stated, “We are meeting all of our obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and we should be able to benefit from our rights. We don’t accept more responsibilities and less rights.” This is a plausible argument.

Six world powers known as the “P5+1” (the U.S., United Kingdom, China, Russia, France and Germany) are planning to offer Iran protection from international sanctions if the Islamic nation will agree to lessen its production of enriched uranium – but why?

The explanation for this is that the world at large is running on the assumption that Iran will in fact use this enriched uranium to create nuclear weapons, thus expanding its nuclear arsenal. This is no doubt why U.S. officials in Washington have deemed this a “provocative move.”

Iran has demonstrated no ill will regarding the nation’s increased uranium production and I do not believe that the intent is to provoke anyone. Instead of continuing to view the Middle East with the suspicious eye that we have so often in the past, this should be seen as an opportunity for East-West bilateral diplomacy, an opportunity to begin to repair the damage done to our relationship with the Middle East.

Jalili summarized this sentiment, saying, “If the P5+1 group wants to start constructive talks with Tehran it needs to present a valid proposal … It needs to put its past errors to one side … to win the trust of the Iranian nation.”

In the end, this is what it comes down to. Instead of increasing hostility between the Middle East and the West, this could be a huge opportunity for repairing the trust between these two areas of the world.