Bush-whacked

This is a continuation of my reposting of my work at the Kennesaw State Sentinel. Many thanks to Ed Bonza, the director of KSU Student Media for his enthusiasm about this project.

Bush-whacked
Originally published 2/2/2005
Reprinted courtesy of The Kennesaw State Sentinel

Mr. President, I have a few questions.  In your inaugural address you mentioned a few things that I am having a little difficulty understanding.  You spoke about the “policy of the United States to seek and support the growth democratic movements ... with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world”.  I am curious about how that can be policy given our long standing political alliances with the governments of known human rights abusers such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Israel.  Are they on your list of nations for whom you plan to “persistently clarify the moral choice” between oppression and freedom?  When was the last time you made it clear to these countries that “success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people”?
You told us that “America’s belief in human dignity will guide our policies,” and yet it remains our policy not to allow the Iraqi people to count their own dead, and for the prisoners in Guantanamo to have no legal redress after having been held in prison for up to four years without judicial review, access to lawyers, or any kind of independent monitoring.  Should one of those persistent clarification memos be left on your desk as well?  You told us that we “will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling” and yet that appears to be exactly what we are doing, the only difference being that you, having failed to convince us that this is a war of self-interest, now seem determined to convince us that it is a war of liberation.  All of this makes your use of Lincoln’s “those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves” bitterly ironic.
Finally, you told those living under tyranny’s thumb that “we will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors.”  But apparently we won’t do anything about the horrors going on in Rwanda, the Ivory Coast, or Nigeria, despite the profound evidence that terrorist operatives are moving about freely in states such as Nigeria and Somalia.  Perhaps even more disturbing is that, while there was never any credible evidence of a connection between Al Qaeda and the government of Iraq, there IS a credible link between Al-Qaeda and the former president of Liberia(*).  So, why are we spending billions in Iraq, while the Liberians languish in abject poverty?
America may be “speaking anew to the peoples of the world,” but unfortunately what the world is hearing sounds like the same half-truths and empty promises we have been handing out since the start of the Cold War, only now greed for oil seems to be our only motivator.  You are right, sir, no human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.  But who is using their strength to impose their singular will upon the world?  Who are the bullies here?

* Africa and Threats of Terrorism - Olayinka Oyegbile
Daily Independent (liberal)
Lagos, Nigeria
December 6, 2004
As presented in WorldPress.org: http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/1989.cfm

Stump Removal

Defining political integrity

A project I am working on had me digging through the archive of Op-Ed pieces I wrote for the Kennesaw State University Sentinel. None of the stuff I've written is available on their website now (although you can find it using the wayback machine if you're really interested and turn javascript off after you get to the snapshots screen). Anyway, it struck me that some of this material is still relevant, so I thought I'd share it somewhere I know it will stick around for a while.

I'm hazy on the rights to this material, but I'll assume for the moment that it is ©Kennesaw State University Sentinel until I have word back from the director of student media.
This material reprinted courtesy of The Kennesaw State Sentinel.

I'll also add this caveat: these articles were mostly written while I still believed I was a libertarian. Don't judge me too harshly for my idealistic naivete. ;-)

Stump Removal
Published: Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Jonathan Edman
I will be honest. I can be a difficult person to please. I am very picky, almost to the point of snobbery. I'll be the first to tell you that I am a coffee snob, a beer snob, a ... perhaps I should just cut to the chase and tell you that I am, in fact, a snob. Of course, I don't really look at it that way, I think of myself as having very discerning tastes. I also understand that the world will not always conform to my standards. Nevertheless, that doesn't keep the occasional nit from really sticking in my craw. During the Student Government campaign debates last week, just such a nit arose amongst the issues discussed.
No, it wasn't parking. You all need to get over yourselves and understand that getting to school a little early and walking across campus is part of the deal. We really don't have a parking problem. It wasn't football either. Personally, I don't care about football at KSU. If I wanted to go to a football school, I would go to a football school. No, this is more systemic.
It started with someone talking down the current administration. I'm not sure who said it, or what exactly they said, but it amounted to, "instead of taking care of the students, Student Government has been consumed with fighting amongst themselves."
Now, I'm not going to tell you that this statement isn't true. The problems with this statement, within the context of a campaign debate, are that it's misleading and isn't helpful. The implication is that the person complaining is going to behave differently from those in office. Are they?
While it is valid to point to the failure of SG to coalesce effectively, in this context it is done only by aggravating the problem. It's like me saying, "the biggest traffic problem we have is excessive speeding," while I'm driving 90 miles hour down I-75. Is it true? Maybe. Am I helping? No. By bringing this topic into the debate I am left with the impression that there are those who aren't ready to pick up the reigns and start us moving forward again. Instead they are itching to roll up their sleeves and get into the fight. We'll call them the "Bloody Nose" party.
After this issue was touched on, another candidate said something along the lines of "the people currently in office have done a good job given what was going on." This is where my snobbery begins to show, because I don't think this is a valid argument either. The fact is that there has been a problem, and patting the SG officers on the head and saying "There, there" isn't going to help. [Not that I think they need to be punished or beaten up for what has happened.]. We'll call this side the "Mother Love" party.
The problem on this side of the fence is that by handing the current office holders a ready-made apology we overlook the importance of their failures. Several key things happened this last year, and, to be blunt, SG wasn't able to respond to them proactively or effectively because of the bickering and infighting. By failing to really look at the problem and address it honestly, we run the risk of never learning from the mistakes that were made and being doomed to repeat them.
Somewhere in between the extremes of the Bloody Noses and the Mother Loves there is something else. It isn't something easy, but nothing good ever is. Now that the campaign is over, I'd like to describe it in the hopes that our newly elected representatives might see something here that they can relate to, or maybe even strive for.
"It" is honest enough to admit that there were mistakes. "It" is strong enough to dig where it hurts to find those mistakes, even the ones that are deeply buried. "It" is brave enough to let everyone else see them, and to make meaningful apologies for them. "It" is disciplined enough to let those wounds heal once and for all. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, "it" is resolute enough to keep looking forward and upward, resisting the temptation to look back.
In a nutshell, that's what this political snob would love to see.