I subscribe to Rolling Stone magazine for a couple of reasons. Originally, I dug the music news, movie reviews (oh Peter Travers, how I love you), and the reverence to greats like the Beatles, Dylan, the Stones, and in the current issue, Bob Marley. But when I started caring about politics, I found out they don’t just have pictures of P. Diddy sipping Cristal or Phil Spector’s mug shot. They run interesting, intelligent, though decidedly liberal, pieces on everything from how much Bush sucks, to how we should vote for Kerry even though he sucks, to what’s happening to our environment, to some horribly gruesome and painful accounts of the war in Iraq. And that’s why I was shocked when I read an article about how MoveOn.org was going to ruin the Democratic Party.

MoveOn, of course, got quite a lot of media attention during election season. It almost single-handedly made John McCain and Russ Feingold sigh, “here we go again…” It energized a liberal base, raised millions of dollars, and ran tons of ads (still working on that whole victory thing though). The important thing is that it’s the sort of mobilization organization that the left lacks. And Rolling Stone, of all people, portrays MoveOn as “electoral suicide.”

This is the Democratic Leadership Council’s fault. They decided that they wanted to shift the Democrats to the center (read: shift to the right). Then they got this guy named Clinton to run saying how the “New Democrats” were the wave of the future, and then they declared that he won because of their policy views and not his natural good looks, youth, and general likeability. And now we’re told Democrats can’t win by being liberal, but conservatives can win by being conservative. Baloney.

People like Dean can’t win the presidency because they don’t buy that fact, and they’re being attacked by Republicans and Democrats. Instead we get guys like Gore and Kerry. What’s wrong with saying that terrorism is far less of a threat to most people than the gross amount of control a few companies have over our media and all of our purchases? You can only play by the other side’s rules and definitions for so long until you’re officially irrelevant, and MoveOn is trying to make sure that doesn’t happen any more. Because of the DLC, there’s no chance of running as a Lovable Liberal; you can only be a Compassionate Conservative. I’m sick of hearing that liberals are out of whack with “middle-American values.” They aren’t; it’s just that no one takes liberals seriously. If a supposed bastion of liberalism like Rolling Stone won’t give MoveOn a fair shake, what are the odds any one else will?

Patrick Gibbons can be contacted at p.gibbons@umiami.edu.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the execution of minors aged 16 and 17 was unconstitutional; I couldn’t be more disappointed with the court’s ruling. One of the strengths of the Supreme Court is that it has generally allowed for a lot of flexibility in its rulings and left a lot open for later interpretation. The ruling in this case, Roper v. Simmons, however, is about as clear cut as you can get-and that is where the problem lies.

While I agree that ordering the death penalty is unjust in a vast majority of cases involving juvenile criminals, putting a clearly defined, bright-line rule on the issue will countermand justice in too many cases. A criminal’s date of birth is now the deciding factor between life and death in some cases. Are they going to start hanging signs a la the tobacco industry in courthouses? “To receive death penalty: born on or before March 4, 1987.”

The fact is that all criminals are not made of the same mold. There are some convicted murderers that are 23 years old and probably lack the capacity necessary to be put to death. Just the same, I’m quite confident there are convicted murderers a few months shy of their 18th birthday that committed such heinous crimes, the only place they belong is on death row.

If the court wanted to stop unconstitutional applications of the death penalty, they should have established generalized guidelines to be applied on a case by case basis. This general rule of age will undoubtedly circumvent justice, and too many horrific criminals will get away without their deserved sentence.

***

So did anyone notice in the Feb. 16 Senate minutes that at approximately 4:37 p.m. Ramiro Munoz brought brownies? While I’m sure Senator Munoz’s brownies are warm and chewy, I think maybe this is the sort of thing I was speaking of in my last column.

***

On a related note, the Student Government Executive Board elections lost any hint of legitimacy with the failure to hold a debate for any of the candidates. Students are now supposed to do what to decide? Read a newspaper editorial? See who has the most friends in their facebook group? Pick the prettiest color shirt? It’s really a shame that this election will probably be decided by some combination of the answers to those three questions. I know the debates aren’t usually much of an event, commissioners, but at least make the good faith effort to pass yourselves off as running a credible election.

***

The heat is turning up on Kofi Annan and the U.N.; the Oil for Food scandal is reaching as high as Annan’s second in command now. Maybe Billy C won’t be able to save Kofi after all? I do know this though; If Annan were an American, the world would have been calling for his head months ago.

Don Donelson can be contacted at d.donelson@umiami.edu.

When I was a child, there was one person that I looked up to as my hero. He was someone who did not know the meaning of the word “quit.” He would also never let himself get pushed into a corner. However, despite the great qualities mentioned, these were not the reasons why this man was my hero. The reason that he was my hero was that no matter how bad the situation was, he never gave up hope.

Who is this hero that I talk about? Why, it’s Superman, of course. And even though I am a college student, he is still one of my heroes.

Why? Why would I name Superman as one of the individuals that I look now?

The world is a cruel place. In a perfect world, there would be no pain or suffering. In this world, however, one finds diseases that cause people to live in torture-diseases that have no cure. In a perfect world, there would be food and shelter for all. In this world, though, one doesn’t have to travel far before one sees a person on the street starving and without a home. In a perfect world, there would be peace and harmony. In this world, we fight wars against people who aren’t afraid to commit suicide in order to kill us. If I didn’t have hope, the world’s cruelty would make me miserable.

But because of a Superman, I look at the world through eyes of hope.

Some may say to me, “But Gary, he’s a comic book character.”

This is true. But he was also a man named Christopher Reeve. He was a man who got paralyzed throughout most of his body. He was a man who fought to be able to walk again. He was a man whose perseverance got him to make some progress when everyone thought that he would never be able to move anything in his body. He left this world early but continued to fight to the end. He was just a man, but to me, he was Superman.

He had hope until the end, and that is why I have hope and why Superman is my hero.

Heroes make us aspire to be better than who we are. Let us always keep them in our hearts and memories.

Dedicated to Christopher Reeve

1952-2004

Gary Robillard can be contacted at g.robillard@umiami.edu.

Re: “Tips on how to overhaul SG Senate”, 2/25

We in Student Government appreciate feedback from the student body on how to become better. However, not all feedback is perfect, and I am more than happy to clarify misconceptions in Don Donelson’s column.

1. Saying that Senate is inefficient and ineffective would neglect all the projects, constructive bills and resolutions, funding allocations, and such work that senators do for the students. You might ask, “SG actually does stuff?” Look at senator profiles and the senate projects list on the SG website (www.miami.edu/sg), and see for yourself. You will be more informed when writing your next opinion column.

2. There is a reason why organizations have Senate seats. I, as Hecht Senator, can not represent FEC members in regards to their student activity issues or the organizations they interact with, despite Cubans living in Hecht. Rather, I address residential issues. Academic senators do not represent student activities either but more so academic needs. So, how can all student activity issues be represented by class, academic or residential senators?

3. Many seats usually do not go uncontested because one person could run for so many seats. Think about the time commitment required by senators, including weekly Senate and committee meetings, talks with administrators about projects, and listening to students’ needs. Many do not have the time or the desire to put in the time. And with the meeting absence policy in Senate, lax senators will be removed if their minimal obligations are not met.

Could Senate become more efficient and less bureaucratic? I believe so, but it cannot be done overnight. Removing various organizational seats was thought of years ago and still to this day. But we can not order what goes and what doesn’t without the students’ voice. That would defeat the purpose of SG.

So, if Donald Trump was CEO of UM SG Senate Inc.,…oh wait, he can’t buy his way into Senate. He would have to get elected, as do the senators of SG.

John Constantinide

Hecht Residential College Senator

Student Government

It’s like d