The following are a selection of articles appearing in various publications over the past years.
Genocide Day
10/9/2006
This past Monday, America took a day off to observe Genocide Day. What happened on this date in some distant past? Well, “in fourteen hundred ninety-two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue”…and with greedy and bloodthirsty crew, he did a whole society subdue. The last truth of that little rhyme was something I never learned in 1st grade when I colored in pictures of a beaming Columbus and his smiley white buddies trading furs with a bunch of “Indians” straight out of Pocahontas. Columbus was always the good guy, the discoverer of the New World, the true father of America. No, it wasn’t until 6th grade that we started to get the big picture: Chris thought he had gone all the way to the East Indies.
The rhyme goes on, “The Arakawa natives were very nice, they gave the sailors food and spice.” Columbus did not care about the tasty edibles, he was just seeing the dollar signs. In 1493, Columbus again sailed the ocean blue, this time at the head of an armada of seventeen Spanish galleons full of too much greed, to many guns, and not enough gold. In three short years, Columbus hopped into the gallery of slaughterer’s with Pizarro, Cortez, Hitler, and Stalin; he and his men annihilated the native population, hacked from eight million down to three million.
A good friend of mine was curious why people complain incessantly about holidays like Martin Luther King Day, while allowing Columbus his bloody notch in history. I mean, the guy wasn’t even the first to discover America! That honor belongs to Viking explorer Leif Erikson in approximately 1000 AD, courageously crossing the ocean without sexton or compass. If this is a day to commemorate the discovery of America, then change it to Leif Erikson Day. President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 proclaimed that October 9 was Leif Eirkson Day, but that seems to be lost upon most every calendar in America. Paying homage to voyage and discovery is one thing. Honoring genocide is something else.
So why should we even care about the name of one little day of three hundred and sixty-five? America is trying to blaze the pathway to freedom in the. One of many problems is that we keep brushing aside reminders and remainders of our past atrocities into the ash heap of history. It is morally abhorrent to celebrate a day that saw the obliteration of so many, no matter what the supposed justification. There simply is no argument for even observing this date. “But Columbus didn’t kill every native!” Well, Hitler did not kill every Jew, and no one throws a party on the day he became chancellor. “But there was a lot of good that came out of Columbus’s discovery of the new world!” Stalin shot Russia from the bottom of the industrial ladder to the top in a mere decade. I mean, does it really matter that he murdered, tortured, or worked to death upwards of 25 million in the process? Don’t answer that; I don’t see Russians taking a day off for “Stalin Day.”
Our little mother goose-esque rhyme ends, “The first American? No, not quite.
But Columbus was brave, and he was bright.” Only in America do we take a holiday to celebrate a guy brave enough to gun down defenseless tribesmen, and bright enough to think that up until his dying day, he had exterminated natives of India. America, throw Columbus back into the “ocean blue” of history where he belongs, and stop honoring a butcher.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Call for Radicalism
6/5/2006
People said the Darfur Vigil did nothing. Exonians were tired of seeing little signs on bathroom doors, sick of hearing about stuff that did not concern them. There was another plan that should have been used. We wanted instead to stick 400 stakes, similar to the ones that rope off the grass on campus, into one of the quads and make crosses; each would be a grave for 100 dead in the Sudan. We were going to take the pictures that child refugees drew of the Janjaweed, bloody massacres rendered in crayon, and paste those on doors instead. Maybe that would have shaken Exonians from their tree of indifference.
Radical actions achieve radical results. We Exonians are intelligent, we are proactive, we are motivated, and we take initiative. We do not shiver under the withering gaze of criticism and rejection. We are always striving forwards towards our goals. However, despite our drive, Exonians favor words over actions. Admittedly, this is not always a bad thing, for ultimately words lead to actions. But now we need fewer words and more action.
No Tie Week is a perfect example. This well-conceived movement was a tremendous, well organized, idea, and bravo to those who thought it up. However, there was a fundamental flaw that my math teacher, with the help of a dean that happened to be stopping by, told our class. “If you want to gain something, you have to first lose something.” Gentlemen, if we want to fight the tie, we cannot just put them back on at your teacher’s request. If we really want to protest, we must take the dickey and lose the tie.
Ultimately, ties are a small issue, but if we cannot take resolute action on a small thing, how can we hope to come through on a large one? What we do and learn at Exeter, we will continue to do later in life. The century ahead of us promises to be a turbulent one. What will happen when it is time to fight for what we believe later in our lives? “Put on the tie, or accept the dickey,” is the choice now. “Stop your marching now, or be arrested,” may be the ultimatum later. It was the people that decided to take the proverbial dickey that acquired Civil Rights, that stopped Vietnam, that brought down the Iron Curtain.
It may just be “a tie” now, but tyranny extends far, and tomorrow it may be something much more. If we cannot stand firm over something so inconsequential as a tie, how can we be trusted with something as powerful as a war? The year is over, but every year brings new causes that need champions. Let us promise that next year we will break free of the net of inaction. We Exonians who are fated to guide the world in the future must light the candle now.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The SAT: Bad Indicator
6/3/2006
Here is an excerpt from the College Board’s ‘About the SAT’ section. “The SAT Reasoning Test is a measure of the critical thinking skills you’ll need for academic success in college. The SAT assesses how well you apply what you’ve learned in school to analyze and solve problems, the way you’ll need in college.” Now for anyone that took the SAT’s last week, or anyone that has taken them in the past, they will find some slight flaws in this preamble. There are too many problems with the SAT’s to be addressed in one short column, but one gives me particular grief.
The essay portion of the SAT’s was initially lauded by Exonians as a blessing; how could we Exeter students, so acclimated to papers, be hurt by this addition? It outwardly plays directly to our strengths. But when you look at the intricacies of the essay section, it is clear that memorizing the infamous Elements of Style is not going to help. The disclaimer heading the first section says “The essay gives you an opportunity to show how effectively you can develop and express ideas.” If you just read this sentence, you might go on to write an A+ English paper, concise in length and language, but complex in thought and examples. The despots at CollegeBoard want a different sort of paper. If you want to succeed at the essay, adhere to the following tips. Number one: use big words and use them often. Don’t settle for little, concise words like ‘many’, ‘idea’, or ‘change’ when monsters like ‘myriad,’ ‘conviction’ or ‘transfiguration’ will do. The synonym doesn’t even have to be right, as long as the word has more syllables than letters. Oh…Any essay that uses the word ‘ubiquitous’ is guaranteed a 6 of 6. Apart from a Dickensonian vocabulary, examples are key. Literature is always a good one; Shakespeare can be used to prove any thesis on any topic. History is also great; just remember to make up the dates if you forget them. As to personal examples, make sure to fill them with ample tragedy. Sarcasm aside, this is actually an accurate list of how to achieve a good grade on the essay. Thousands of students take the SAT every time, and all of them write an essay. These are then graded by two individual people. However, these SAT graders are given a stack of hundreds of these essays to grade in a short amount of time. They have no time to search your paper for literary intricacies, unique metaphors, and creative theses. They only have time to briefly skim. Consequently, their grading is based on a rather two dimensional scan of your work. Besides, how can any students be expected to accurately convey their writing skills in a short 25 minute window? CollegeBoard should scrap the 25 minute essay and the two grammar portions. Instead, they should have a single 50 minute essay. Granted that this would be harder to grade, but college admission should not hinge, even in part, on such a superficial essay. The CollegeBoard has an obligation to spend the time necessary to accurately test writing skills, real writing skills, not the ersatz ones presently required.
Ultimately the SAT requires a tremendous amount of revision. There is a problem that so much emphasis is placed on a single test, especially when that test is constructed around tricks and traps. Between diagrams not drawn to scale on the math section and poorly phrased ‘it can be inferred’ questions on the reading section, the SAT leaves much to be desired as an accurate intellectual gauge. However, changing the essay should be CollegeBoard’s primary objective. Some may argue that this would give an advantage to students who have gone to better schools, such as the supposedly elitist prep school aristocracy. The fact is that yes, Exeter is better than the vast majority of schools, but colleges do not need an SAT essay to see that. Besides, in a 50 minute period a variety of writing talents can emerge from all different backgrounds. CollegeBoard is correct in adding some form of writing examination to the regular SAT to supplement grammar, but it should be done in a more comprehensive manner. By no stretch of the imagination could CollegeBoard alter their essay to accommodate a wide range of writers from diffuse backgrounds. Yes, that would be more work for this testing syndicate, but this should not be an issue with the omnipotent Board. Regardless of whether the CollegeBoard changes the essay in terms of length, or changes its grading criteria, the section needs to be changed. As stated in a reputable SAT prep book, “Strunk and White would have failed the essay.” Should writers stifle their talents solely to get a better grade on an essay? Should students change their writing to satisfy a pressed-for-time grader? Or should the SAT change for the prospective applicants?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Exonian Insensitivity in the Wake of the Flood
5/16/2006
When Principal Tingley announced to us that the Freemont Dam had been breached, and classes would be cancelled, the only thing that matched the strength of the rain was the strength of the applause. This clapping was louder than normally given to most speakers. Principal Tingley looked slightly ashamed on stage as he told us that people were likely to lose their homes in the ensuing flooding. That quieted us, but only until we all stood up to return to our dorms in a screaming, enthusiastic mob.
Of course it is almost impossible not to be happy for a day of no classes. However, this second Principal’s Day is almost at the expense of other people, the Exeter townsfolk that were hurt by this disaster. Homes are flooded, and a massive amount of damage caused by the storm surge. What about the day students? Our friends and classmates present in the assembly hall that have water in their basement and friends and family in danger were probably not applauding with such joy. When I asked about the locals problems from the water, people’s laughter and happiness did not often abate in the slightest. Some did acknowledge the misery of others, but many were apathetic or outright dismissive. “I mean, I would care, but missing classes is just so much more important!”
This is just another link in an upsettingly long chain of Exonian insensitivity that I have noticed. One example of this was in a conversation I had with some other Exonians about the Darfur Vigil. One student said that the vigil was useless, citing the disturbing lack of people who showed up. People ask why they should care about horrors in other parts of the world that supposedly do not affect them. They dismiss issues of poverty and race without a second thought. Sometimes it is out of ignorance and a lack of knowledge on the issue; that is understandable. But other times Exonians do this solely to get a rise out of their peers, or maybe sound funny.
This ties in to a larger issue that Exeter faces. When we try so hard to get ‘youth from every quarter,’ inevitably will there be initial conflict. When Exonians grow up in vastly different circumstances, having completely different experiences and lives, their views will not always agree. This does not have to lead to argument and anger, but it often does.
I confess. I too applauded at the news of cancelled classes. However, I did not cheer or shout, and when Principal Tingley reminded us of the flood’s repercussions, I wished I had not clapped. This makes me somewhat hypocritical; in the Book of Matthew, Jesus says “How dare you say to your brother, ‘Please, let me take that speck out of your eye,’ when you have a log in your own eye?” We might just need a little reminder to take that log out of our own eye. Why castigate others when we can much more easily judge and fix ourselves? Many will definitely say there is no problem at all. The fact is that when everyone stood up to applaud, we all momentarily lapsed and forgot that while we celebrated our day of freedom, many more in our community looked sadly ahead to weeks, if not months, of problems. Whether it is for the Darfur Vigil, issues that affect other Exonians and not ourselves, or terrible floods, we need to be more sensitive and more aware.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Devils Two Venezuelan
President Hugo Chavez spoke at the United Nations General Assembly on
September 20. He boomed in Spanish to the Assembly, “Yesterday, the
devil came here, right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still
today, this table that I am now standing in front of.” As the UN
listened to the translation, he continued, “Yesterday, ladies and
gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the
gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he
owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.” These
vehement remarks are justifiably disturbing. Yet the official response
of the American Government was simply that it was “insulting.” Mr.
Chavez’s damnation would have generated a very different response in
the America of yester-year. Venezuela would either find itself
mysteriously cut from all international funding and support, or Mr.
Chavez would meet a rather explosive end. America’s relationship with
the volatile South American governments over the last half a century
has mostly been less than amiable. Nowadays, America has become
significantly softer in its foreign policy, and not just with our
southern neighbors. No more freezing of funding, resistance fostering,
and assassination for the PC USA. Some
think that this passive stance is the way to go about things. Pat
Robertson for one was all for covert operations back in 2005. In a
broadcast of his show, the “700 Club”, Mr. Robertson called for the
assassination of Mr. Chavez. He stated “"We have the ability to take
him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability…we
don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one strong-arm
dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives
do the job and then get it over with.” While he later apologized for
his call for subterfuge, the idea was out in the air. Mr.
Chavez and his counterparts in Iran and North Korea all belong to the
not-so-exclusive “Hate America” club, a group whose membership is
probably going to grow. America’s government must ask what to do to
protect our nation. Admittedly, as flamboyantly anti-American as they
are, these nations and their leaders have done nothing but blow steam.
They have yet to breathe fire. However, back when covert ops existed
somewhere other than in the newest Tom Clancy game, the whole point was
to prevent the fire from starting at all. Mr.
Chavez is hardly the most dangerous leader on earth. His oil
enterprises do literally fuel parties that dislike us, but Venezuela
poses no direct threat to America. Even Iran and North Korea, as
belligerent as they are, only represent a danger to their neighbors.
However, in a world of globalization, what threatens our allies
threatens us. American foreign policy needs to be brewed Kissinger
style with a dash of Machiavelli. When a government’s purpose is to
protect a nation, the means to that end should not matter. If it would
truly help America to remove a leader, then it should be done. I
do not agree with Mr. Robertson that Mr. Chavez should be assassinated.
Neither he or his country pose a dire threat to our nation. However,
the fact that there are people out there that would do anything to see
America toppled means that sooner or later, we will have to adopt the
hard liner position. If Mr. Chavez is screaming these comments to the
UN, I can only imagine what the leaders that have the means to harm
America are saying behind closed doors. In the future, we need to
strongly consider the threats against us, and decide which method best
deals with them. Whether through unilateral disarmament talks or
assassination, the American government has the responsibility to
protect this nation.
9/20/2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Immigrant Problem
5/1/2006
“We are here and we aren’t leaving!” shouted the crowd of immigrants, both illegal and legal, from in tens of thousands of cities across the country. This past Monday the 1st of May, hundreds of thousands across the nation banded together on this “Day Without Immigrants”. The purpose of these rallies was to show America that immigrants are an integral part of our society, and that even for one day, their absence is quite noticeable. This movement comes in the wake of Congress’s commendable push for stricter immigration laws and greater funding for the Border Patrol and Coast Guard. Some criticize Congress for this.
When America was a young nation, it needed an infusion of foreign manpower to operate its many necessary positions. Times have changed. Every new immigrant that enters America is a new person to fill a job, which our economy must support, that our cities must house. Some say it is America’s responsibility to provide. However, when we realize that there are already millions of born Americans that need that job, that need that economic support, and that need that housing for their family, the immigrant issue becomes graver. Every new immigrant is one more person that spreads our thin resources even thinner.
There is a universal consensus that there is unemployment in our nation. When a new immigrant crosses into our borders, they are either absorbed into low wage jobs, or they are tacked on to an already enormous unemployment statistic. Alternately, they are expelled. Except in the last case, those currently unemployed and impoverished in America are not being helped. This is immoral and unjust. This is directly opposed to the will of the Founding Fathers. How can all men be created equal in our country if a born and raised American is unemployed, and a newly arrived immigrant finds a job?
Now there is nothing that can be done about the immigrants that are already in America. Completely ignoring the moral reasons, these men and women fill jobs in our society on many levels. To remove them now would be economically foolish.
However, new incoming immigrants must be stopped. According to the Department of Homeland Security, from 2000 to 2004 inclusive, 4,629,826 documented immigrants entered the United States. If every single one of these immigrants found employment, that meant they were filling slots that our domestic poor need. If none of them found jobs, then they would be added to our current unemployment. Either way, their presence is a burden to American society. To stop this influx of legal, we can make our immigrant laws far stricter, setting lower quotas on the number of allowed immigrants.
If this previously mentioned number were to include illegal immigrants, it would be far higher. The Border Patrol and Coast Guard are not sufficient for policing all our borders. We could supplement federal forces with volunteer ones. Admittedly the current attempt at this, the Texas Minutemen to name one group, has been condemned as a group of vigilante cowboys. To an extent they are, but they are a necessary evil at this point. We also need to redistribute jobs currently given to immigrants. The current unemployed in America would happily take the jobs traditionally given to foreigners, especially if it provided a reliable source of income, however low. As more domestics became employed, the economy would begin to bear fruit, and eventually the bottom would raise itself. When this happens, and only when this happens, can we readdress the immigrant question.
Is turning new immigrants away immoral? Certainly not. America does not have a moral obligation to assist immigrants when its own residents are impoverished and unemployed. Ultimately, the issue of immigration boils down to a simple question; are we, as a nation, willing to help foreigners at the cost of our own?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Omaha and Segregation
4/17/2006
There are an alarming amount of Exonians, not to mention Americans in general, that do not see racism. They think it is some ‘Black’ magic, some smoke and mirrors trick intended to distract the rest of America while minorities sneak into colleges, jobs and positions in general. And who can blame these skeptics? After all, the Emancipation Proclamation was issued all the way back in the Civil War, and the Civil Rights Act has been in effect for almost half a century. These naysayers still do not see the crumbling, projects in the cities, the impoverished communities in the suburbs, and the vast striations in our social system. If they need proof, I suggest they take a good hard look at Omaha Nebraska. As of April 13, 2006, the Legislature has approved the segregation of the Omaha schools into three districts: one Hispanic, one White, one black.
Every Exonian I have discussed this with has reacted with shock and revulsion. “Who would let that pass?” Well, two men have supported this legislation all the way. The first is, you guessed it, the Republican Governor Dave Heineman. Mr. Heineman is renowned for his strong stance on education. To quote the Governor, “I am very proud of the quality of public education in Nebraska, but I believe we have an obligation to continually assess whether our system is meeting 21st Century education needs.” He also has said, “Our children are our hope for the future, so we have an obligation to provide them with the tools to succeed.” With statements like these, Mr. Heineman almost sounds like a Democrat. Thankfully, his legislation prevents us from making that misclassification.
His partner in crime is Senator Ernie Chambers. Born in 1937, he has seen some of the most profound changes in American history. He has served for an unprecedented thirty plus years on the Nebraska Legislature. He calls himself, “the defender of the downtrodden,” which I find hard to grasp given his fervent support of this segregating act. What I find hardest to believe though is his race. Mr. Chambers is black. How could a black man who has lived through the rockiest time in American history for black Civil liberties, except of course slavery, support school segregation?
So what was the rationale for Mr. Heineman and ‘Uncle’ Ernie for supporting this ridiculousness? Mr. Chambers says “There is no intent to create segregation.” Unfortunately for him, the intent does not always determine the result. Both these politicians believe that the Omaha school system is currently so striated that trying to repair it is a futile effort. Omaha as a city is divided into general racial communities. When this is combined with the cities failure to bus students to schools, and the states encouragement for students to attend their neighborhood schools, it is understandable that segregation already exists. However, that does not mean segregation is the solution to the problem. Both politicians contest that dividing the schools into districts on racial lines would allow the school boards to better make decisions regarding a single race. This is utterly nonsensical. Tens of thousands of school districts in America face similar problems to those in Omaha. Virtually every major urban center has a school system divided along racial lines.
However, legalizing this segregation just serves to affirm it. It is like saying “Segregation is OK. Look at the bright side…” Giving the thumbs up to Nebraskan segregation will set a precedent for other states. It is such a simple, pain free way of dealing with racial inequalities. Instead of trying to fix the problem from the top down, the state will soon allow the school districts to try and clamber their way out of a hole 400 years in the making. We cannot acknowledge segregation. If we affirm that, we begin to rationalize, to justify racism. Once we begin to do that, we will devolve into a perfect image of the 1950’s South. I am not advocating an entirely governmental approach to mending the racial tears, but the impetus for change needs to start at the top. It will work its way down if conducted properly. Some say we do not have sufficient funding to do this.. The money was there pre-Bush era to repair a plethora of problems. To an extent it still is, but it is being allocated poorly. Here is an idea: less money for bombs, more money for books
With our ‘Youth from every quarter’ philosophy, Exonians easily forget that others are not as privileged as we. However, the reality of it for America is far different. The philosophy of the America education system is more ‘Divide youth into its own quarters.’ Our generation is one of the last lines of defense between the former motto and the latter. Governor Heineman said “I believe education is the great equalizer.” He might fail his own dogma, but we certainly cannot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Dubai Port Deal
2/28/2006
Earlier this week, Bush woke up and turned on the television. In between scoops of his cereal, he saw the headlines: US Ports Sold to Arab Corporation. While Bush is as bright as the Academy Building during the Green Cup, he probably realized something was up. When tag team of Rumsfeld and Rove was asked by Bush about this minor transaction, it seemed for the second time in this month they had forgotten a minor detail. First Dick “Dirty Harry” Cheney goes Rambo in the woods, now Arabs are taking over critical American ports? “Yeah, about that Mr. Bush…”
It is arguable that Cheney with a shotgun is a greater threat to national security than the potential for terrorist port control. As long as we can keep the big bad VP in the woods, we should be safe. The port problem is far graver for two reasons. Depending on the version of events you choose to follow, the Bush cabinet minus Bush himself signed a deal with Dubai Ports World. This transaction allows Dubai to control and operate a number of major American ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. Dubai Ports World is part of the United Arab Emirate, and we have sold them operation rights to these ports for a cool 6.8 billion dollars.
Should America be concerned that Arabs are controlling our ports? Treasure Secretary John Snow believes “The implications of failing to approve this would be to tell the world that investments in the United States from certain parts of the world aren't welcome. That sends a terrible message." Mr. Snow’s implication is obvious; if we do not accept this Arab control, we will appear to be hateful bigots. In the case of this deal, I do not care what message it will send. The company buying our ports has a record shadier than the deal itself. Under no circumstances should the Dubai Company run our ports! This seemingly bold statement is grounded in two solid reasons.
In the first place, while Bush has pontificated numerous times that the UAE is an ally in the war against terrorism, there are grave problems with Dubai itself. I disagree with the condemnation of the UAE due to its fostering of two of the 9/11 hijackers. Two people cannot represent such an enormous group. This is the argument that most proponents of the deal give, citing its racism and bigotry. That’s great guys, but there are a few other tiny problems with the UAE and Dubai. The UAE was one of three governments to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government. The other two were Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. At least the UAE severed relations back in 2001. Alright that could be worse; even the US has supported despotic governments in the past. But what about Dubai? Dubai Ports World decided to look the other way from the smuggling operations of Abdul Khan, the Pakistani doctor Doom. This man has supplied Libya, Iran and North Korea with the means to create nuclear weaponry. Thanks, but no thanks…I think most Americans are happy with a lack of nuclear weaponry in our ports. If they would turn a blind eye to this atomic trafficker, what would prevent them from doing the same thing in America? If Bush wants to find some WMD’s, why not let Dubai run the ports? I bet they start turning up all over America.
Secondly, the operator of the ports matters more than most people believe. Some critics say that the Coast Guard is in charge of security, regulations and checking the contents of crates. However, ultimately it is the operators of these ports who have a stronger hand in controlling the ports. Dubai will hire guards, see to the security of the crates, and unload them. These are the same guards who let Abdul Khan unload his nuclear weaponry for transportation to the modern day Axis of Evil. How many times have you seen a CBS or NBC special on some reporter sneaking materials to create nuclear weapons through our ports? These hypothetical, albeit frightening, scenarios occurred directly under the nose of our ever-vigilant coastguard. Should both the Coast Guard and Dubai have a hand in security, terrorists won’t need to hijack a plane, they could smuggle in their own. This is somewhat extreme, but the fact remains. No matter how bigoted we look, it is not worth sacrificing the safety of our ports to any potential danger, especially one as glaring as this.
In another statement, Mr. Snow announced "They vetted it. They concluded this does not present a risk. Our failing, if there was a failing here was in explaining the process." The only failure Snow would acknowledge was the small oversight in telling the President. Let us ignore this eyebrow raising fact which screams an investigation, and focus on the real failure. Terrorism is rather overplayed by Bush everyday, and the first time it would be justified he is not even concerned. I am not worried about imaginary terrorists attacking us. I am worried about this dubious foreign company controlling our most crucial ports. This presidential ineptitude is staggering. If Bush is worried about causing a xenophobic hysteria, he is a bit too late; protests sweep the ports, and public opinion is rallied against this deal. If Bush wants to be remembered as the President who opened the door to destruction in this new era of terrorism, he is on a fine course. I say keep the enemy at the gates, and the gates locked tight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Cartoon Crisis
2/7/2006
Satires often walk a fine line between politically correct and unacceptable. The Danish cartoons featuring the Muslim Prophet Muhammad, shown in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper, have completely leapt over that line. Jyllands-Posten did not jump into the lions den alone, it managed to drag the rest of the world in after it. The majority of the Middle East and Europe has been engulfed in a tide of rage and hate. It seems that the real WMD is not a device, but a drawing.
It initially seems like the most ridiculous event that has occurred thus far in the century. Looking at the cartoons reveals the truth. A few are relatively sedate, one depicting Muhammad and a donkey crossing the desert, another, a nervous cartoonist drawing Muhammad with a shaky hand, and a picture of Muhammad with the Islamic star and crescent, the star forming his eye. Then there are the totally and irredeemably outrageous ones. Most people have heard of the picture of Muhammad with a bomb as his turban, but few have heard of the worst of a bad lot. In this cartoon, Muhammad stands in the clouds of heaven. Approaching him is a column of deceased suicide bombers. Muhammad tells the bombers “Stop, stop! We have run out of virgins!” This horrible phrase alludes to the promise of virgins to dead martyrs of Islam.
The question, which is surprisingly challenging to overcome, is why these cartoons are so inciting. They mock religion, but then again so do many other drawings. They portray a religious figure prominently and in a negative light, but such people have always been the focus of satires. They were published in a relatively conservative newspaper, but that is not an isolated occurrence. So what is the problem with these drawings? A quote from the General Secretariat of the Organization of Islamic Conference reveals the problem, “It is evident that the intention of Jylland-Posten was motivated to incite hatred and violence against Muslims.” This is definitely strong justification for the reaction against these cartoons. If the intent of the paper truly was to cause such hatred towards Muslims, then that truly vile intent must be punished. Was it the intent? After the fact, Jylland-Posten denounced this view, stating on January 30 that “They were not intended to be offensive.”
Not intended to be offensive? I can see no other way to interpret the cartoons, at least not after considering all the facts. The American news has more or less made martyrs of the chastised Denmark, portraying Muslims across the world as dangerous, riotous firebrands, quick to attack any instance of ‘free speech.’ What our media fails to show Americans is the initial context in which the articles were featured. To quote the paper, “The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech...that is why Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him.” The paper then proceeded to show the cartoons, as if instigating Muslims to retaliate and prove their point. The cartoons themselves are all strongly anti-Islam, and if Muslims did not challenge them, they would be silently accepting these atrocities. Now that many Muslim nations have justifiably attacked the cartoons, they are being vindicated by the world.
While I certainly agree with the overall anger, the way in which it is being expressed is not entirely acceptable. Organized protest against Denmark is certainly warranted. Razing Danish embassies is not. Peaceful demonstration in Copenhagen is a perfect response. The same cannot be said of Iran. Recently, Iran has exhibited a lot of antagonism towards Western powers. In the newest installment of Iranian ire, one of the nation’s prominent newspapers has called for cartoonists to submit caricatures of something inflammatory to the West: the Holocaust. Iran is the same nation with a president who firmly denies this catastrophes existence. Admittedly, the purpose of this contest is to gauge whether Western freedom of expression will apply to these satires of Nazi genocide as it did to those of the Prophet Muhammad. This justification is irrelevant, as it merely contributes to the growing Western enmity of the Arab world.
While inciting gestures and arson is not warranted, justice needs to be served. Some Muslims have recommended that the cartoonists and editors of the Jyllands-Posten be taken and tried in the Middle East, receiving the same punishment a Muslim would had he committed a similar crime of idolatry. Executing these men may not be the best solution, but they should undoubtedly be punished severely. An example needs to be made of the Jyllands-Posten to deter further acts of this sort, and it needs to be done by the West. On some levels, it enforces the stereotypes portrayed in these cartoons if such vigilante justice is spreading throughout the Middle East. However, if Denmark were to punish its own for this travesty, that would send a powerful message. The West needs to cease their demeaning and degrading portrayal of Muslims in society; it is beginning to near the level of satire used by Nazi Germany towards the Jews. This incident will set a precedent for the future, however it is handled. We now have two options. We can punish the men that perpetrated this deed, thereby decreeing to all we will no longer tolerate such incitation of hatred. Or we can allow the strain of Western indifference to thrive further, holding on to the futile hope that the riotous behavior sweeping the world will fix itself. If the West wants to play policeman to the world, it needs to start with itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Iran: The Next Front
1/31/2006
On June 7, 1981, took off from Etzion air base and flew to Iraq. Their mission objective was the total destruction of the Osiraq nuclear reactor outside of Baghdad. This reactor, designed by the French and purchased by Iraq, was a potential creator of plutonium and nuclear weaponry for the Saddam regime. At approximately 5:30 PM, the IAF task force reached their target, annihilating the reactor and killing only one French technician. This attack ended any such potential for Iraqi nuclear capabilities.
Whether or not this operation averted tremendous catastrophe in the Middle East will never be known, but it certainly caused no harm. There is now a leader with a worse record then Iraq’s former President Hussein, and Iraq is no longer the primary threat. Iran has joined the gang of world nemeses with North Korea, the Sudan and Libya. Iran had always been a hotspot, but with President Mahmoud at the reigns, things will get far worse. Mr. Ahmadinejad’s comments over the past months are quite revealing of the course he could set for the nation. In October, he said “…God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism.” In early December, he suggested “If European countries claim that they have killed Jews in World War II... why don't they provide the Zionist regime with a piece of Europe?... Germany and Austria can provide the... regime with two or three provinces for this regime to establish itself, and the issue will be resolved.”He declared later in the month “They (Israel) have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets.” How can a man like this safely control a nation?
This situation is like an old Bugs Bunny flick. In this cartoon, Bugs was trying to bust a group of gangsters. Their hideout was covered with neon yellow lights and dancing marquees, flashing “Bad Guys Here!” “Gangsters Inside!” and “THE HIDEOUT.” When Bugs phones the police and they knock on the door, one of the mugs opened it, telling the officer the real villains are next door. The police proceeded to arrest the innocent neighbors, leaving Bugs to sort out the gangsters alone. In our world, comparable events are unfolding The Iraqi’s are the hapless next door neighbors. The Western World is the duped police officer. The part of the gangsters is played by Iran. The hero Bugs Bunny is ambiguous; it could doubtfully be the UN, or more likely America or Israel.
While the rest of the Western World deliberates on what to do with Iran, Israel is alert and ready. Iran has been proceeding forwards with its nuclear programs, undeterred by the nice suggestions from other nations: ‘It would be really cool if you stopped trying to make nukes, you know?’ Granted this portrayal satirizes the Western Worlds attempts to Iranian nuclear armament, but there is much truth to it. Iran ignored cordial diplomacy, and now they have acquired documents to build atomic weaponry. Finally, the UN security council has decided to make a referral to the rest of the UN. What good will this do? Probably not too much. I recall a Chappelle Show skit where Bush, played by Chappelle, tells the UN to sanction America for their behavior in Iraq. “Oh wait!” The UN’s got no army! How they gonna sanction us with no army?! Again, satire aside, the UN wields considerable power in the world, but its record as of late has been less than spotless. One things is clear: diplomacy is out the window at this point. More direct means are called for.
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz stated that Israel “…must have the capability to defend itself, and this we are preparing…” in response to President Ahmadinejad’s declaration that Iran would continue with its program. I have doubts that Iran has amiable intentions with their new atomic bomb. Diplomacy is out of the question, so armed force in one way or another is the only option. The country will retaliate if attacked; Iran promised to launch ballistic missiles should Israel intervene. Regardless, five non-nuclear missiles are better than a one highly destructive atomic weapon. President Ahmadinejad has thought in his mind: Israel should be wiped from the face of the world. American and Israeli special forces are the most adept and elite of their kind in the world, as are their armies. If the UN cannot stop them, these nations must. There are a number of ways Iran can be stopped militarily. Any tactical strike on their nuclear reactors would prevent the creation of weapons of mass destruction. The threat of a tangible and powerful army, such as America’s, might frighten Iran where diplomacy could not. In the worst case scenario, direct invasion may be advisable, although not with the intent of controlling Iran like we have Iraq; removal of their president would be enough.
Israel is currently the only nation to fully recognize the threat, and America is the only nation with the authority and power to openly oppose Iran. It is not saber rattling to urge such extreme measures against this impending problem. The moment Iran’s weaponry is available, Israel will be in grave danger. If we act quickly and decisively, we can minimize the damage on all sides. Whether a repeat of the Osiraq attack is in order, or good old fashioned Delta-Force Diplomacy, Iran must be stopped.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sudan: The Forgotten Genocide
1/15/2006
There is something nauseating about the worldly indifference towards events which have been unfolding for over a year in Eastern Africa. For three years now, there has been an unjustified slaughter in the Sudan. Non-Arabs have been targeted for ‘ethnic cleansing’ by the radical Arab militia, the Janjaweed. Over 300,000 have died so far, some killed by bullets and blades, but most killed by government induced famine. Almost 2 million have been displaced from their native homes, justifiably terrified for their lives. This movement is tremendously evil, but my purpose is not to attack the clearly and utterly wrong perpetrators of this massacre. What is most stunning is not the genocide itself, but the indifference the world feels to this horror.
Sudan has a unique set of social circumstances which likely caused this current travesty. The region of genocide is known as the Darfur region, a territory which is part of Western Sudan. This area was tacked onto the Sudan when the British abandoned their colony in the early 20th Century. This put into conflict two distinct ethnicities. According to the CIA world fact book, 52% of the nation is black, 38% is Arab. When the country gained its independence in 1956, the Darfur region was added to the Sudan; the government of the nation became exclusively Arab, controlled by an authoritarian despot with unquestionable political power. In 2003, two overwhelmingly black groups, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM), condemned the government of enacting policies which favored Arabs. After little change was implemented by the increasingly dictatorial government, the JEM and SLM launched a series of raids against governmental facilities.
The Sudanese government cited these raids as undue and unjustified aggression. This is outrageous. For 50 years they had oppressed the blacks of the Western Sudan, and for 50 years these men had tolerated their racism. The Sudanese government seized upon the opportunity of Darfur aggression. They armed and organized a largely Arab militia, the Janjaweed, and turned them loose in the Darfur region. From their conception in early 2004 until today, the Janjaweed’s governmental connections have been denied by the Sudanese “President” al-Bashir. The death toll attributed to this group rivals the number of American deaths in World War Two. The Janjaweed have burned mosques associated with a black congregation, razed hundreds of Darfur villages, shot thousands of innocents merely for the color of their skin, and depopulated hundreds of miles of once inhabited land. The Sudanese government has aided the Janjaweed by halting food shipments to regions targeted by genocide. Indeed the majority of deaths have been from the subsequent disease and famine from the governmental sponsored famine. This is a genocide which arguably is reaching or has reached the level of Rwanda.
These facts are shocking, but what is worse is the UN response. Many nations immediately recognized this catastrophe for what it was: genocide. Even America, chronically slow to recognize such international tragedies, classified the terror in the Sudan as genocide. Everyone has recognized this except for the body which most needs to: the United Nations. How can this group, supposedly representative of the world, ignore such a disaster? One year after this disaster began, Kofi Annan decided that the insanely small force of 2,000 African Peacekeepers in the Sudan should be bolstered by an additional 10,000 men. As recently as this past Saturday the 14th of January, the UN again decided that would not be enough, and advised that 20,000 men be sent in to combat the Janjaweed. Not once have they classified this movement as genocide. Not once has this phantom army prevented the Darfur slaughter. This is not only wrong, but incomprehensible. The Janjaweed are not a strong force, they are a ragtag group of murderers and barbarians, who could easily be stopped by the supposed arbitrators of the world, the UN. But if they are so deadlocked over what to do in this clear cut issue, perhaps another route is needed.
I do not believe America should police the world. I do not believe we are the right when we play inquisitor in the Middle East. Saddam was certainly an evil man, but going after him leapt over greater evils. The Sudan is one of them. If the US truly wants to fight terror, oppression and despotism in the world, they need to start with the Sudan. This is a region plagued by everything we flung on Iraq. The Iraqis may not have had those feared WMD’s, but the Sudan is employing a weapon far worse. The atomic weaponry used in the mid part of the century killed almost 200,000 total. Bombs nowadays are infinitely more powerful, but the Weapon of Mass Destruction the Sudan has employed is more real and easier to find than its phantom counterparts in Iraq: genocide. While our MLK day speakers may have advocated accepting other points of view, how can I, how can we, reconcile with something as horrible, tainted and foul as ethnic cleansing?
If the UN fails to act soon, the death toll will increase exponentially. It is only a matter of time before the weapon of starvation reaches those 1.8 million displaced Sudanese, and they are ravaged by further disease and hunger. I am not saying it is the United States’ primary purpose to judge the world. However, if the true police force will not act, then someone else must. We must cast off this virulent indifference at worst, pained neglect at best. Whether you write the UN, write your own congressmen or start localized movements, you will be throwing off the indifference plaguing the UN. We have no political agenda in Sudan. We have a moral agenda, an ethical agenda. If the United States wants to be a force upholding righteousness, they will save the Sudan. What upholds justice more? Saving millions in black gold? Or saving millions of a black race?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airline Deregulation
1/8/2006
Many Exonians flying back home this spring break will encounter a wide range of difficulties. Independence Air, a courier used by Exonians flying through Manchester International Airport, filed for bankruptcy and ceased flights on January 7, 2006. Independence Air is the newest casualty on a long dossier of disasters for the flight industry. This list started five years ago, and has now reached 17 major courier services. US Airways was forced to merge with America West in late 2004. Southeast Arilines shut down in November of 2004. Even before that, the Pan American Airlines ceased its operations in 1991. Pan Am had been the major courier of all US citizens from the early 1930s into the late 1940s, when competition became fierce. Even airline giants like United are partially struggling to stay afloat in a turbulent sea. The only airline which has avoided the majority of the difficulties United and Independence Air faced has been Southwest, but even their seeming inviolability is by no means permanent.
So why have airlines like United gone from Rhapsody in Blue to what the Chicago Tribune calls a Rhapsody of Blues? Why has the airline industry been suffering so much? On the plane ride to and from winter break, I sought expert opinions, asking airline workers and passengers what they thought about the problem. Many of them blamed the economy, and by extension President Bush. Some looked to rising fuel prices, thus the war in Iraq, thus President Bush. Some put the blame on scared passengers, thus the terror attacks, thus President Bush. It seemed everyone was blaming President Bush, until I overheard, purely by chance, a conversation between a 50 some year old man and his daughter in Manchester airport, at the baggage claim. He was blaming not Bush, but Jimmy Carter. Now I am relatively certain the average American is incapable of naming two, even one major legislation or policy change made under Carter’s presidency. I investigated, and found one piece of legislation which not only pertained to the airline industry crisis, but explained it.
On October 28, 1978, Jimmy Carter signed the Airline Deregulation Act, a document which would release the airline industry from government control and let good old capitalism guide it. This was a revolutionary change for the airline barons; the Civil Aeronautics Board had regulated fares, schedules and routes since 1938. The CAB became notoriously bureaucratic; any attempt to change something resulted in the CAB shutting down or severely slowing the industry for weeks. In the 70s, new innovations in aviation, as well as mounting economic problems, created an environment perfect for the wealthy airline owners, but poor for the passengers who faced higher wages. The government ended up letting the airlines out from their control to prevent further displeasure.
The airline industry had always been in danger of fire, but governmental control had managed to stomp out these minor burns before they became blazes. The Airline Deregulation Act doused the entire industry in oil. Every problem they once faced, rising fuel prices, economic recessions, terrorism etc. became magnified tenfold. Since 2000, the airlines have had to deal with rising fuel prices. Without governmental intervention, their only solution is to raise fares. However, when wealthier airlines encounter the same difficulties, they have to raise fares significantly less. The result is a monopolistic nightmare. Small airlines can no longer enter the industry, a statement corroborated by the fall of Independence Air. Fuel will always be expensive, but some airlines can afford to keep fares lower than others. Another problem is the pension system. This has been a problem crippling United for a decade now. They have stopped granting pensions, but those they still have to pay are substantial. They essentially are putting in vast amounts of money and getting absolutely nothing out. Once those people with pensions pass away, United will find a new influx of money. Right now, United is concentrating on staying afloat until that time.
United found a seemingly clever way to compensate for these high fueling prices and expensive pension practices. Instead of raising passenger fare, they could lower salaries for their own workers, cut benefits and otherwise keep customer satisfaction high at the expense of their own workers. This plan failed miserably, when labor unions went up in arms. United faced a series of strikes which further crippled the industry. United’s recent bid for more money has been the Economy Plus section. By removing two rows of seats, United has created inches more leg room for passengers at a slightly increased price. It is a clever plan which both creates profit and maintains comfort. They have launched a new advertisement campaign, drawn by brilliant cartoonists and animated with Gershwin’s reassuringly familiar Rhapsody in Blue. But still United is falling behind. So then what can solve the problem?
Southwest may have found the solution. Their planes are comfortable, but not nearly as much as United’s. Their advertisements are effective, but do not even touch the humor, intelligence, and quality of United’s. Southwest is flourishing because of low prices. In an era where low prices and subpar quality are in the vogue (think of the Wal Mart scenario), Southwest’s cheap seats with minimal comforts are triumphing over United’s more expensive fares but greater amenities. It is easy to say that other airlines should emulate Southwest, but few have the financial means to do so. The only thing that could save the airline industry as a whole now is government intervention. My apologies to Adam Smith and the free market, but without government manipulation, eventually one airline will be able to dominate the industry, creating an empire similar to that of Rockefeller and Standard Oil, to Carnegie and United States Steel, to Gates and Microsoft.
Regardless of how this issue plays out, the effects for the Exeter community, let alone the rest of America, will be profound. More than half of the school travels to Exeter from abroad, and, although some of them drive or take the bus, many more use airlines. Exeter prides itself on youth from every quarter. What will happen when the situation deteroriates further, which it will certainly do before it improves? How will students, especially those on financial aid, come to and from Exeter? Perhaps Exeter will have to contribute some of their own funding to travel costs of financial aid students. This possibility is understandably unfounded as of now, but the crisis only worsens with every month. If nothing else, travel will become more difficult for much of Exeter. It is an unattractive solution, but re-regulating the industry would assuredly solve, or at least contain, the problem. Would this infringe on capitalist rights? Yes, but it is the lesser of two evils.