The Rice Thresher, Vol. 89, No. 8, Ed. 1 Friday, October 5, 2001 Page: 3 of 24
twenty four pages : ill. ; page 19 x 15 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
THE RICE THRESHER OPINION FRIDAY, OCTOBER 5. 2001
Its
|e-
Icit
lie
I
|y.
What's wrong with this picture?
American foreign policy shoots itself in the foot
, '
Last week, Attorney General John
Ashcroft announced that more ter-
rorist attacks are likely as a response
to the U.S. military presence in the
Middle East. This only
makes sense, of course,
given that we have every
reason to believe that our
presence was the impetus
for the Sept. 11 attacks in
the first place.
In light of the events of
the last few weeks, I can't
help but wonder which
side is more self-destruc-
tively myopic. On the one
hand, there are the terror-
ists, whose ostensible goal was to
reduce U.S. presence in Islamic na-
tions (a plan that is backfiring more
than a '72 Pinto). On the other, there's
the U.S. government, which willfully
acknowledges that its actions will
amplify rather than diminish terror-
ist attacks on our soil.
But this level of political duplicity
is par for the course. The Janus-
faced nature of American politics is
really at its finest during wartime.
The sort of demagogical cant that
pervades politics at times like these
espouses a very simple philosophy:
God bless America ... or else!
President George W. Bush has
made it his policy to declare war on
anyone who facilitates or harbors
terrorists. I'm curious, if Bush is so
committed to this policy, when he
intends to launch an assault on Fort
Benning, Ga., home of the School of
the Americas. For more than 50
years, the SOA has been training
Latin American soldiers in assassi-
nation, demolition and counter-
insurgency. If we're so opposed to
terror, how come we've been spend-
ing roughly $43 million a year to
instruct people in the art of terror-
ism?
Coincidentally, $43 million is ap-
Garret
Merriam
proximately the same amount the
United States gave to the Taliban in
May to persuade them to declare
opium production against the will of
Allah. Apparently, it takes
an attack of the magni-
tude we saw on Sept. 11
to point out the follies of
our drug policy. I can't
help but wonder how
much of that money is
going to pay for arms that
will be used against our
own soldiers. Talk about
shooting ourselves in the
foot.
But of course, this isn't
the first time that our past actions in
Afghanistan have come home to
roost. After all, it was the CIA that
trained Osama bin Laden in guer-
rilla tactics to fight the Soviet incur-
sion of Afghanistan in 1979. We
taught him the very skills he em-
ployed to attack us, yet we abdicate
all responsibility for the events of
Sept. 11. And this is far from an
isolated incident; similar stories are
true of both Manuel Noriega and
Saddam Hussein.
It makes you wonder why we
show no trepidation about support-
ing and arming the anti-Taliban
forces of the rebel Northern Alli-
ance. Yet again, we condemn ter-
rorism but support terrorists. When
will we learn that hypocritical for-
eign policy will invariably bite us in
the ass?
Everyone has been quick to par-
allel the attacks on New York and
Washington with the attack on Pearl
Harbor. The pre-World War II anal-
ogy that springs most quickly to my
mind is more subtle — namely, the
Treaty of Versailles. The economic
sanctions placed on Germany pre-
cipitated Hitler's rise to power, and
thereby were a di rect cau se of World
War II.
These economic sanctions are
frighteningly similar to the sanc-
tions imposed by the United Na-
tions on Iraq after the Gulf War, as
well as to sanctions on other coun-
tries throughout the Middle East.
In Iraq alone, these sanctions have
caused the deaths of over a million
people, most of them children, in
less than 10 years, frhat's roughly
200 times the number of people
who died in the World Trade Cen-
ter attacks.) All the while, these
sanctions have completely failed at
their stated objective of destabiliz-
ing Saddam Hussein's military dic-
tatorship. And we wonder why
people in the Middle East hate
Americans so much.
How many dead bodies do we
need? How many people have to die
before we even entertain the idea
that our foreign policy should focus
on benevolence, not belligerence?
With that in mind, here's a radi-
cal thought. Rather than taking that
$20 billion "down payment" that
Congress authorized lo wage a fruit-
less and jingoistic war on a county
made up primarily of sheep and
goat farmers, how about we take
that money and use it to feed, clothe
and educate the people of Afghani-
stan, excluding no one. Think about
that for a second. That's more than
the entire GDP of Afghanistan, and
almost twice as much as was spent
on the Marshall Plan. How much
bread, how many text books, how
many shelters do you suppose $20
billion could buy?
Maybe it's just me, but using
money to save lives seems better
than using it to end them. And more-
over, I'm willing to bet that it would
be much more effective at staving
off terrorism.
Garret Merriam is a graduate stu-
dent in philosophy.
Screaming from a soapbox
How to track civil liberties in an electronic age
I never thought my innocence
would be taken from me during my
college years. Yet, on Sept. 11, the
luxurious myth of national security
was stolen from me and
my cohorts.
Understandably, when
I first heard our leaders'
call for the government to
expand its role in prevent-
ing terrorism following the
attacks, I was relieved. Ra-
cial profiling, electronic
surveillance and detention
of suspicious characters
from abroad were all OK
by me; anything to ensure
the next morning I
wouldn't wake up to the loss of more
lives through the acts of madmen.
For the first time in his tenure as
attorney general, John Ashcroft
shared my sentiments. The bill he
recently presented to lawmakers in
Washington, D.C., contained the
strongest of provisions to control ter-
rorist activity in the United States.
However, once I came to my
senses (something Ashcroft often has
a hard time doing), I realized the
measures being considered would
restrict the freedoms that are most
fundamental to being American.
It's no secret our defenses against
terrorism are non-existent, weak or
ridiculously archaic. Correspond-
ingly, the thinking behind Ashcroft's
proposals was to address this.
Perhaps the most necessary is-
sue the plan confronted was the up-
dating of surveillance laws to aid in-
vestigators in tracking down terror-
ists electronically. Yet, if the bill had
been passed as Ashcroft proposed it,
investigators would have been given
wider authority in intercepting elec-
tronic communications with fewer
checks on abuse of that power. For
instance, the reading of unopened e-
mail would only require a search war-
rant, not a court order.
Clearly, those charged with coun-
tering terrorist activities should be
Catherine
Adcock
given the powers of electronic sur-
veillance. However, these powers
should be coupled with judicial over-
sight by requiring court orders, simi-
lar to those necessary for
phone tapping, to inter-
cept e-mail.
More suspect was the
proposed right of officials
to indefinitely detain im-
migrants on grounds of
suspicion of terrorism
without bringing charges
against them, something
familiar to human rights
reports of far-away na-
tions.
Perhaps most relevant
to Rice students was the additional
requirement for universities and
colleges to conduct in-depth investi-
gations of international students.
The intention was to prevent poten-
tial terrorists from utilizing educa-
tional visas as a means to enter the
country.
International education bridges
the same cultural divides that foster
terrorism, yet Ashcroft's proposals
would have inadvertently raised new
barriers to those who seek an inter-
national experience.
Fortunately, U.S. representatives
on both sides of the aisle stood up
against these attacks on our civil
liberties. The bill now being consid -
ered by the House reflects many of
the concerns raised above. However,
this particular bill isn't the end of the
battle to protect our homeland. Con-
gress will continue to consider many
pieces of anti-terrorism legislation
in the upcoming months, and there
is no assurance the dangerous mea-
sures removed from this bill won't
become part of the next.
To those who think such acts are
beyond our elected officials, I only
need remind of you of the World
War II internment camps, which cast
a shadow on the beauty of America's
political landscape.
When President George W. Bush
said the terrorist attacks on America
were an attack on the freedom for
which this country stands, he likely
didn't realize how prophetic his
words would prove. President Bush
may not even know what prophetic
means.
Regardless, war brings threats to
American freedom from both abroad
and from home. We must be sure to
balance the need for protection from
our enemies with the preservation of
the liberties that have shone on
Americans for two centuries and
counting.
Catherine Adcock is a Martel College
junior and opinion editor.
Not choosing is a choice
Laundering our culture in
the wake of national crisis
Carly
Kocurek
If the Clear Channel radio net-
work suddenly woke up and real-
ized it was using its network of
over 1,200 radio stations to pan-
der homogenized pop
to the unwitting masses
through nationalized
playlists, I would ap-
plaud.
But when Clear
Channel instead de-
cided in the wake of
national tragedy to
"protect" the public by
compiling a list of songs
that might offend the
delicate sensibilities of
post-Sept. 11 America,
I realized just how stupidly corpo-
rations will behave in order to
protect capital interests.
More than 150 songs were
deemed "lyrically questionable"
on an informal list compiled and
sent to Clear Channel radio sta-
tions across the country. In
theory, the list does not ban songs,
but merely provides information
to radio programmers and others
unfamiliar with some of the songs
who want to be sensitive to the
current national atmosphere.
Among the theoretically inap-
propriate tracks are such anthems
of hope as Louis Armstrong's
"What a Wonderful World" and
John Lennon's "Imagine." At a
Sept. 21 celebrity benefit concert,
Neil Young performed "Imagine,"
and Paul Simon crooned through
"Bridge over Troubled Water,"
which also made the list.While
it's true some songs, taken out of
context, could really upset listen-
ers (Frank Sinatra's "New York,
New York" and AC/DC's "Safe in
New York City," both on the list,
come to mind) the decision to air
or not to air should rest in the
hands of individual programmers
and DJs.
Perhaps most offensive is the
implication that those directly in-
volved with music programming
are insensitive morons incapable
of making informed rational deci-
sions on a local level.
Clear Channel's hypersensi-
tive reaction brings its motiva-
tions into question. How many
listeners would really be terribly
offended by Don McLean's
"American Pie"? The real justifi-
cation seems much more likely to
be fear of losing advertisers in a
shaky economy.
Clear Channel has also estab-
lished the Clear Channel Relief
Fund to assist with the recovery
effort. While I'm glad corporate
America wants to help out, the
number of times Clear Channel
stations plug the relief
fund in canned blurbs
complete with sappy
music makes me suspi-
cious. They may have
good intentions, but
this is too easy an op-
portunity to make a
sleazy move for feel-
good publicity by ma-
nipulating the public.
Furthermore, the
fund benefits existing
organizations, like the
Salvation Army and Red Cross.
Rather than add a bureaucratic-
step to the donation process, why
doesn't Clear Channel just encour-
age public service announce-
ments so people know how to
donate to the organizations they
support? For example, while ra-
dio stations were willing to en-
courage listeners to donate blood,
they now seem reluctant to en-
courage listeners to donate
money directly to the Red Cross.
In the face of a crisis, there is
an opportunity to create the im-
age of a corporate hero. How-
ever, as seen above, such eco-
nomic practicality has highlighted
how shallow our institutional soul-
searching is. While we engage in
a nationwide orgy of patriotism
and brotherhood, we also start
selling out our cultural past to
make it more palatable in a mo-
ment of fear and uncertainty.
After the music industry has
invested years claiming the prod-
ucts it promotes do not subcon-
sciously affect the people who
consume them, it is now exercis-
ing self-censorship. So, exactly
how much do such actions affect
listeners? A lot. In the Houston
market alone, Clear Channel owns
eight radio stations.
Of course. Clear Channel isn't
the only guilty party — it is just
the easiest example. The entire
entertainment industry has
jumped on a bandwagon, and
things are guaranteed to get
worse before they get better. As
the nation remains in a state of
panic, we must be careful not to let
ourselves be led into cultural para-
noia by our corporate babysitters.
Carly Kocurek is a Will Rice Col-
lege sophomore and assistant opin-
ion editor.
the Rice Thresher
Leslie Liu, Robert Reichle
Editors in Chief
NEWS
Olivia Allison, Editor
Rachel Rustin, Editor
Mark Berenson, Asst. Editor
Liora Danan, Ass/. Editor
OPINION
Catherine Adcock, Editor
Carly Kocurek, Asst. Editor
SPORTS
Chris Larson, Editor
Jason Gershman, Asst. Editor
ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT
Dalton Tomlin, Editor
Angelo Zanola, Ass/. Editor
LIFESTYLES
Corey E. Devine, Editor
BACKPAGE
Joe Garland, Editor
Scott Selinger, Editor
CALENDAR
Ashley Friggel, Editor
PHOTO
Renata Escovar, Editor
Katie Streit, Editor
Rob Gaddi, Interim Asst. Editor
COPY
Sarah Ainsworth, Editor
Melissa Bailey, Asst. Editor
David Chien, Illustrator
Adam Lazowska. Online Editor
BUSINESS
Shannon Scott, Business Manager
Robert Lee, Ads Manager
Evan Varela, /tss/. Ads Manager
1 jndsay Roemmich, Asst. Business Manager
Polly I)'Avignon, Classified Ads Manager
Margaret Xu, Office Manager
Lindsay Sutton, Distribution Manager
The Rice Thresher, the official student
newspaper at Rice University since 1916, is
published each Friday during the school year,
except during examination periods and
holidays, by the students of Rice University.
Editorial and business offices are located
on the second floor of the Ley Student Center,
6100 Main St., MS-524, Houston, TX 77005-
1892. Phone (713) 348-4801. Fax (713) 348-
5238. E-mail: thresher@rice.edu. Web page:
http://www.ricethresher.org. Annual
subscription rate: $50 domestic, $105
international. Nonsubscription rate: first copy
free, second copy $5.
The Thresher reserves the right to refuse
any advertising for any reason. Additionally,
the Thresher does not take responsibility for
the factual content of any ad. Printing an
advertisement does not constitute an
endorsement by the Thresher.
Unsigned editorials represent the majority
opinion of the reditorial staff. All other
opinion pieces represent solely the opinion of
the author.
The Thresherisa member of the Associated
Collegiate Press and the Society of
Professional Journalists. The Thresher is an
ACP All-American newspaper. 1 bet you
thought this sentence would be funny.
(c COPYRIGHT 2001.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Liu, Leslie & Reichle, Robert. The Rice Thresher, Vol. 89, No. 8, Ed. 1 Friday, October 5, 2001, newspaper, October 5, 2001; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth443147/m1/3/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.