OPINION
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9.2005
WWW.KANSAN.COM
GUEST COMMENTARY
PAGE 5A
EVERETT GRIFFITHS
opinton@kansan.com
Bush's reasons for Iraq war all excuses
There are noble reasons that are given for the United States being in Iraq, but a ridiculous amount of imagination is required to actually believe them. The Bush Administration has knowingly based the war on three false pillars: one, that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; two, that they are linked with terrorists groups such as Al Qaeda; and three, that we are bringing its people freedom and democracy.
Where are the weapons of mass destruction? United Nations weapon inspectors found no credible evidence of them. Defectors testified that the remaining arsenal was effectively destroyed in the 1990s. The chemical weapons that Iraq produced before the first Gulf War had a shelf life of less than three years. Documents proving that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium were nothing but forgeries. Mobile chemical labs were the most credible threat of weapons of mass destruction Colin Powell could present — a threat so intangible that no one has actually seen one, forcing Powell to use computer simulations instead of photographic evidence. Perhaps the most telling indication that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction is that after a year of occupation, we have found nothing.
How about the terrorists? Saddam Hussein was a megalomaniacal dictator, and by his very nature, he grubbed for any and all power. He did not tolerate grass roots movements of any kind, religious or secular, because any such movement constituted a threat to him. He expressed his contempt for Osama Bin Laden, and although Hussein was pleased by the Sept. 11 attacks, not a single hijacker was from Iraq. No, instead of combating terrorism, the Iraqi invasion has acted as a magnet for terrorists: It is the latest poster child for martyrdom.
And how does one instill democracy, where historically, none has ever existed? It can't come from the end of a gun. The United States does not want a democracy in Iraq. Any democracy in that country would certainly not be pro-American or pro-Iraeli. What if the good people of Iraq democratically decide that the United States may not purchase its oil? No, a democracy in Iraq simply wouldn't do.
The best explanation for the war in Iraq is that we want to install a free market economy; there are fortunes to be made, both in rebuilding and in the oil industry. Now, the flow of oil and currency can be virtually assured by the establishment of a permanent military base there.
History supports this explanation. In 1953, the CIA orchestrated a coup that overthrew the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh. He had no weapons of mass destruction. He detested autocracy and loved freedom. He tolerated no ties with terrorist groups. But Mossadegh would not let the oil flow, so we overthrew him, installing in his place the dictator Reza Shah, a man who brutalized his own people and allowed radical Islam to flourish. Our intense meddling with Iran's politics polarized whole sections of the population, so those radical Islamic groups became more and more anti-American. Who could blame them? We put their George Washington under house arrest, toppled their democracy and ended their civil liberties, so we could exploit their natural resources. Why wouldn't they hate us? It is not unreasonable to draw connections linking the CIA's exploits of the 1950s to the terrorist retaliations of 2001. This begs the question: What punishment awaits our country in another 50 years for our current aggression in Iraq?
I can't pretend anymore, for behind all of Mr. Bush's impossible reasons for going to war, he is nothing more than a terrorist in his own right. Iraqi civilians and our own military personnel are being killed en masse because of his empty fabrications. Shameful, Mr. Bush. Shameful.
Griffiths is a Johnstown, Colo., graduate in music composition.
▼ SACK'S PERSPECTIVE
Steve Sack/STAR TRIBUNE
Bias plagues news media, but public dictates ratings
EDITORIAL BOARD
Who needs the truth when you can just have a sexed up story? KCTV 5 in Kansas City metro area wasn't about to let its broadcast be watered down by accuracy and instead chose to mislead viewers. Promotional ads for its 10 p.m. newscast on March 1 played up the arrest of a University of Kansas athlete that it chose to only describe as a "ball player." If anyone was thinking it might be a basketball player, it's worth mentioning that KCTV 5 forgot, or decided not to mention, that it was a Kansas baseball player — Scott Sharpe. Sharpe was arrested for a fight at a party.
The actual newscast was worse. It described Sharpe as Kansas' best player "statistically." Sharpe's ___
earned run average is a perfect zero, but he has only pitched 10 innings of garbage time, so it's far from accurate to describe Sharpe as Kansas' best player.
But why does the public accept news that may not be completely true? Maybe because of the manner in which our society entertains itself. All of the things people find entertaining are reflected in the news. We enjoy watching news about scandal, death and crooked politics. People take comfort in the fact that other people are worse off than they are.
The "news" segment
The public, as well as the news media, needs to be held accountable for bias in news.
The news segment went on to say that Kansas lost that afternoon's game to Southwest Missouri State a team that was in the College World Series just two years ago and a perennial baseball powerhouse without Sharpe. It failed to consider that Sharpe doesn't log meaningful time for the Jayhawks, so he was hardly missed in a game where they were heavy underdogs. But again, why let the truth get in front of a good story?
Perhaps the fault of slanted news rests on the public, not with the news networks. We are the ones that give them the ratings that allow their advertising to produce a profit. This is not information we are buying; it is infotainment. The networks advertise in a manner similar to movie
In recent years, it has become obvious that the media has been reporting news with an apparent agenda. Many say that Fox news has a conservative slant, others argue that CNN has a liberal bias that puts more of a slant on the news they report. It seems that people must consider this bias when they watch or read the news. Bernard Goldberg writes in his book, "Bias," about how the sensationalist media began as soon as the news magazines made a profit. As soon as the network executives realized the potential of news for profit, the bias began to seep in.
trailers — painting pictures of violent crimes, sex and scandals — just before breaks to keep viewers watching. These networks don't pick what goes into the news, the public does. If the public decides that an issue is not newsworthy, they stop getting their news from that source. Therefore, we as a public need to change what we want to see from news sources. This is the only way to rid the news of the biased slants.
A second solution is simpler: Americans should inform themselves. Resources to get information about the world are readily available. We, as citizens, need to take the responsibility upon ourselves to stay informed. This may mean getting our news from a source that slants in a direction that we are not used to. This helps viewers and readers look at stories from as many sides as possible. It is unfortunate that the public must subject itself to conflicting biases to understand a story. But it must be done for Americans to get the information necessary to form an opinion on the many issues. After all, viewers are the ones that need to remain objective, not the news sources.
A SHADENFREUDEN WORLD
David Archer writing for the editorial board.
MINDY OSBORNE
mosborne@kansan.com
Failure will happen in life; be realistic
Have you ever lied to anyone about doing poorly on a test? Or decided not to tell someone you never got the job you applied for? Was it because you did not want them to know you failed?
Second only to death, fear of failure is one of the most common phobias people in America have. It is not uncommon for people to take drastic measures such as suicide or create elaborate lies just to avoid the stigma of being labeled a failure.
American culture is one of hyper-competitiveness that has no tolerance for failure. The belief is that the pursuit of the American dream, the idea that through hard work and determination, one can achieve prosperity, is the way to live life, and it will give meaning and dignity to your existence.
However, when people work hard and still fail, should they loathe themselves for not living up to the goal or for buying into our society's standards?
I believe that as fallible and unique creatures, people should accept that failure is imminent and have the courage to continue living a life defined by what they feel is important and not based on society's standards.
A book entitled "Born Loser: A History of Failure in America," by Scott Sandage discusses how the concept of failure has taken on a greater personal significance since the mid-19th century.
In pre-Civil War times, failure was defined as "breaking in business" and was a term solely used in a business sense. During the Golden Age when capitalism came of age, "entrepreneurship became the primary model of American identity," Sandage writes.
At the same time Sandage also writes, "failure has become the most damning incarnation of the connection between achievement and personal identity." Therefore, people more readily associate achievements in life to a life well lived, as opposed to successful development of moral character. So when "honest working" people fail, and they do all the time, what does that say for a system that contradicts itself? As Sandage writes, "The American who fails is a prophet without honor in his own country."
Failing in a culture that worships success takes a toll on anyone. For college students, this applies even more. While education may open the door to a better career, it also fosters higher expectations that college graduates may not reach. Compounded with the added stress of starting serious endeavors without their parent's support for the first time, such as getting a job, finding a significant other or a place to live, can be crippling.
However, it does not have to be that way. According to an article in the current issue of Psychology Today entitled "Happy Hour," the gap between ambition and achievement, a major source of stress and unhappiness for young people, narrows with age. As people get older, they either achieve their goals or replace them with more reachable aims. For right now, students need to be realistic with themselves by asking what they are afraid of and what would be the worst thing that could happen.
Human beings are bound to fail and there is nothing wrong or horrible about this. It's normal. People should not buy into the shallow system of capitalistic endeavors, but instead, be honest with themselves and pursue the life they wish to live, filled with errors and all. For if there is one thing we cannot fail at, it is having the courage to be content with who we are.
❖ Osborne is a Dunlap, Ill., junior in journalism and international studies.
Free All for
Call 864-0500
free for All callers have 20 seconds to speak about any topic they wish. Kansan editors reserve the right to omit comments. Slainderous and obscene statements will not be printed. Phone numbers of all incoming calls are recorded. For more comments, go to www.kansan.com.
I'm in Columbia and I'm tapping my heels together, saying "There's no place like home," but it's not getting me back to Lawrence. I hate this place and I want to go home!
I just watched Quin Snyder drop it like it's hot.
hasn't happened in a while.
Giddens, you just made a room full of girls scream. That
Giddens, welcome back to Earth.
I hate Missouri. Real classy, rushing the court.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
My roommate just said, "It feels so good to be back in the Birks," referring to his Birkenstocks. How lame.
We are going to Target to buy coats for Acapulco.
Does the Free For All have caller ID? Because that would be bad.
I used to be able to say that I've never truly hated anything, but now I've gotta say that I absolutely hate Missouri. I hate them. With a passion.
TALK TO US
Andrew Vaupel, editor
864-4810 or avaupel@kansan.com
Donovan Atkinson, Misty Huber, Amanda Kim Stairteen and Marissa Stephenson managing editors
864-4810 e editor@kanasan.com
Steve Vrockott
and Laura Francovigiglia
opinion editors
864-4924 or opinion@kansan.com
Ashleigh Dyck, business manager 864-4358 or advertising@kansan.com
Danielle Bose, retail sales manager
864-4358 or advertising@kansn.com
Malcolm Gibson, general manager and news adviser
864-7867 or mgibson@kansan.com
Jennifer Weever, sales and marketing adviser
864-7586 or weever@kansan.com
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
David Archer, Viva Bolova,
John Byerley, Chase Edgerton,
Wheaton Elkins, Ryan Good,
Paeige Higgins, Matt Hoge, John Jordan,
Kyle Koch, DouLang, Kevin McKernan,
Mike Mostaffa, Erice Prather,
Erick Schmidt, Devin Sikes, Gaby Souza,
Saracat Sathy and Anne Weltmer.
▶ SUBMISSIONS
The Kansan welcomes letters to the editors and guest columns submitted by students, faculty and alumni.
The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length, or reject all submissions.
For any questions, call Steve Vockrodt or Laura Francoviglia at 864-4924 or e-mail opinion@kansan.com.
General questions should be directed to the editor at editor@kansan.com.
LETTER GUIDELINES
LETTER GUIDELINES
**Maximum Length:** 200 word limit
Include: Author's name and telephone number; class, hometown (student); position (faculty member); phone number (will not be published)
GUEST COLUMN GUIDELINES
**Maximum Length:** 550 word limit
Include: Author's name; class, hometown (student); position (faculty member); phone number (will not be published)
Also: The Kansas will not print guest
author that attack another columnist
Also: The Kansan will not print guest columns that attack another columnist.
SUBMIT TO
Kansan newsroom
111 Stauffer-Flint Hall
1435 Jaeyehawk Blvd.
Lawrence, KS 60545
(785) 664-4810
opinion@kansan.com
4