The United States has always seemed to take an "us" vs. "them" attitude on many foreign political issues. When we are right, "they" are wrong and when we are wrong... well, we are still right and "they" are more wrong. So the story goes with french fries. The French opposed the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003, so we (the U.S.) retaliate by renaming the fried potato?? No longer called a french fry, this staple to our food group was affectionately renamed the freedom fry to publicly portray our displeasure with France for not supporting our actions. Many United States citizens also boycotted French imports and businesses. And this is not the first time in history that the United States has thrown the proverbial temper tantrum. Sauerkraut was called liberty cabbage during WWI, because of the similar anti-"they" sentiment (in this case we were mad a Germany). During WWII, many other euphemisms sprung up, including the liberty steak, formerly known as the hamburger. Evidently, the word hamburger was derived from the German city of Hamburg, and therefore, was in desperate need of a new name.
The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was signed into law by GW Bush with the stated purpose of fighting terrorism and strengthening National Security. Our phone communications, mail, bank accounts and luggage were now able to be monitored by the government.
The Espionage Act of 1917 was somewhat similar in that it also promoted National Security. This Act, which was signed into law shortly after entering WWI, made it a criminal offense for any person to convey any information with the intent to interfere with the success of the United States Armed Forces, or promote the success of it's enemies.
The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were, again, passed in wartime and supposedly designed to protect the U.S. from enemy powers and stop seditious attacks from weakening the government. Opponents of the Acts hailed them as being unconstitutional, however one (The Alien Enemies Act) is still in use today.
Freedom Fries and Liberty cabbage are both perfect examples of freedom of speech working. As silly as it may be to rename food, it is a political statement and our rights to voice our discontent with those who do not support us are protected by our constitutional right to free speech.
The Patriot Act, Espionage Act and Alien and Sedition Acts may be very important aspects to Homeland Security, but they all, in one way or another, violate our freedom of speech. the same holds true for freedom of press.
So are we always right and "they" always wrong? Is it worth it to have such an "us" vs. "them" attitude about everything? After all, this is America...a nation of immigrants...the melting pot of the world...the land of the free, home of the...liberty cabbage?????
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Brittany and 5150
Brittany Spears is protected by 5150 because the statute was enacted to help protect those who can't (or aren't willing to) protect themselves. Because people with mental health issues are so often unable to recognize the severity of their problems, the 5150 grants family and friends the ability to commit a loved one to a mental health hospital (without their consent) for up to 72 hours. The idea behind this is to help keep the patient and those around them safe and give them the opportunity to be more closely evaluated.
So often, manic/depressives are given medicine and once they notice that they are "better" they quit taking the prescribed meds and quickly become detrimental to themselves and others once again. They do not always have the capacity to understand that they need the medicine to continue to function normally and healthily in society. 5150 allows those closest to the individual to make an informed decision on the individual's behalf, if they are not rational to do so on their own. In Brittany's case, she was not only a risk to herself but also to her small children. I believe her safety was the number one goal of her family and the mental health faculty, but due to her celebrity, she is being publicly ridiculed and analysed in a way you or I never would. The anonymity that we believe is supposed to come with mental health aid does not exist for someone with that amount of star power. I feel that this lack of celebrity privacy is not only a disservice to the mental health system (which then perpetuates the negative stigma of mental health treatment), but to the overall treatment benefit and future health of someone with Brittany's amount of celebrity. The media's need to cover every aspect of these sort of personal issues goes against, in my opinion, journalist/source as well as the fairness ethical standards set up by the SPJ National Ethics Committee.
So often, manic/depressives are given medicine and once they notice that they are "better" they quit taking the prescribed meds and quickly become detrimental to themselves and others once again. They do not always have the capacity to understand that they need the medicine to continue to function normally and healthily in society. 5150 allows those closest to the individual to make an informed decision on the individual's behalf, if they are not rational to do so on their own. In Brittany's case, she was not only a risk to herself but also to her small children. I believe her safety was the number one goal of her family and the mental health faculty, but due to her celebrity, she is being publicly ridiculed and analysed in a way you or I never would. The anonymity that we believe is supposed to come with mental health aid does not exist for someone with that amount of star power. I feel that this lack of celebrity privacy is not only a disservice to the mental health system (which then perpetuates the negative stigma of mental health treatment), but to the overall treatment benefit and future health of someone with Brittany's amount of celebrity. The media's need to cover every aspect of these sort of personal issues goes against, in my opinion, journalist/source as well as the fairness ethical standards set up by the SPJ National Ethics Committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
