101 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(01/16/07 1:15am)
AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France -- President Jacques Chirac earned the nickname "Le Bulldozer" for his boundless work ethic and implacable commitment to get things done. \nNow increasingly a lame duck, it appears Chirac will be the one bulldozed by history. His former protege, Nicholas Sarkozy, and Socialist candidate Segolene Royal are fighting to see who can brush his legacy aside fastest. Chirac suffered a stroke in 2005. He is also 74 years old. For many reasons, 81 percent of the French public doesn't want him to run again. By all accounts, this is a man finished in politics.\nNevertheless, this cantankerous old sorcerer just won't quit. In his New Year's address he proposed corporate tax cuts and eliminating homelessness. Again, he tossed an "I told you so" to the world about the war in Iraq, and he's trying to stimulate a peace deal between Israel and Palestine. These are the words of a man who isn't done fighting, and despite an ensuing election focused on his two energetic younger candidates, the big question in France is: "Will Chirac run again?"\nWith the election less than five months away, Chirac has watched Sarkozy's coronation at the convention of the party he founded, the Union for a Popular Movement. He has presided over two recent rounds of civil unrest and one disastrous referendum on the EU, as well as numerous scandals. This guy doesn't stand a chance, and if he runs, it's entirely possible that he will cripple his own party. Nevertheless, speculation continues to grow that Le Bulldozer will go for it. \nThe reason most cited by French folks to whom I've talked center around Chirac's bitterness toward his former trainee, Sarkozy. They suggest that Chirac would doom his party and country if it meant hurting Sarkozy. Others mentioned Chirac's immense ego and a hope that presidential immunity will save him from prosecution in various scandals.\nMaybe those are contributing factors, but I don't think he's running again simply to satisfy his ego or deflate someone else's. I see an old bulldog doing the only thing he knows how: fighting to say the things that need to be said. He can't retire; he can't even comprehend the possibility of leaving his beloved country in the hands of anyone else. After the life he has led, as interior minister, prime minister, mayor of Paris, and president of the republic having been a landmark of French politics for more than 30 years how can he just slink off into obscurity? \nIt's hard for me not to draw comparisons to another unpopular lame-duck president who wants to keep spending his empty political capital. Furthermore, Chirac should probably recognize that his times and opportunities have come and gone. Like Ali in his "Last Hurrah," Chirac would probably leave an election pitifully, not knowing when to quit. By running again, he could sabotage not only his legacy but also the national unity he tried so desperately to foster. For all these reasons, I don't think he should run. \nBut if he runs, I hope he wins.
(12/07/06 3:20am)
AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France -- As a commercial culture, France closes on Sunday. Supermarkets, pharmacies, convenience stores, department stores -- on Sunday, all their doors are closed. What's even more disconcerting for an American coming from the land of 24-hour stores, sometimes these closings extend to Monday, too. And good luck shopping on national public holidays.\nOne wonders how the country can continue to function. Stereotypes of lazy beret-wearing Frenchmen dozing in cafes dance in the mind's eye. Just how lazy are these French layabouts? \nYet change is coming to this land that has so militantly opposed it. Last year, the bastion of socialist labor law, the 35-hour week, was rolled back by the National Assembly, allowing employers to keep workers past 35 hours as long as they are paid for their overtime work. \nIn a recent survey, 57 percent of French workers said they would rather work and receive more money than have more leisure time.\nGaullist presidential candidate Nicholas Sarkozy is even campaigning on a slogan that seems ridiculously obvious from the American capitalist perspective: "Work more to earn more." \nNowhere but in France would that be a radical statement.\nTo be fair, the French have never actually been that unproductive. They work fewer total hours, but their production per person per hour has consistently ranked among the highest in the world. This means that while we American chumps toil endless hours, the French are more efficient. Then they spend the rest of their time eating cheese and drinking wine while we're still working nights. The term "workaholic" has no place in France.\nAll the same, such cliches as "Americans live to work; Europeans work to live" seem unfitting in light of reality. No country has built a leisure culture quite like America and, clearly, the French wouldn't mind working a little more for some extra dough. \nWhat has changed the French government's mind so quickly? Surely, the problems mentioned above have existed for awhile, so why now?\nIn a country whose bureaucracy is legendary, globalization is forcing the government's hand. Attracting foreign investment with the proper, productive image drives this new commitment to work. And they want to get no one's attention more than the dear old US of A. The forces of change in France see the American model as something to emulate for keeping its capitalist engine chugging along with no end in sight. \nIn truth, our system of grinding the worker-slave into the dust for every last penny has problems. In America, many minimum-wage workers struggle to make ends meet, and children suffer from a lack of parenting in families in which both parents work. We're so committed to work that we yearn for a little more vacation time and a day off. As a result, it's strange to see a country slowly dismantle the pieces of legislation, like restrictive work contracts and the 35-hour week, that almost forced laziness upon the nation.\nFor better or worse, it might not be long before the French hear that glorious American chant: "Sunday! Sunday! Sunday"
(11/16/06 3:58am)
AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France -- In America, my relatively liberal views ensure that I am called "un-American" a decent amount. It does not help that I don't "look American," a fact that French folks have mentioned to me numerous times. With my English major, political views and slanty eyes, I might as well be from Canada.\nBut truth be told, I am an American through and through. And nowhere has my patriotism been challenged and reinforced like it has in France. As you might know, the French have a teeny bit of anti-Americanism in their blood. (I'm pretty sure it's in the constitution of the Fifth Republic somewhere.) While America-bashers here assure me they only hate George W. Bush and not all Americans, it's not long before they crack out good ol' "American empire" chestnuts or use "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" as an example of American foolishness. \nI find myself on unusually defensive turf in discussions, standing up for everything from Condoleezza Rice to the merits of the Southern barbecue. I actually had to convince a few anarcho-Marxists that it was, in fact, wrong to suggest the assassination of President Bush. (I, for one, would rather have a big national dunk tank with Bush on the perch to raise money for Iraqi reconstruction.)\nIt's a little bit like being a metaphorical big brother who picks on his little brother all the time but defends him against the onslaughts of others. \nYet it's deeper than that simplistic analogy because there are few countries on earth whose citizens hold their national identity as highly as Americans. For example, in France, there are no flags. There's one hanging out in front of city hall, but that's it. In America, we stamp the flag on T-shirts, coffee mugs and tattoos because, above all else, we are Americans first. For me, at least, being American is central to being who I am, and when someone starts flinging around "America this" and "Americans that," it's hard not to take it personally.\nFor years now, the media and foreign policy experts have worked to combat the "ugly American" mentality. Yet I would like to remind people that in the 1958 book "The Ugly American," it is the physically "ugly" American abroad, engineer Homer Atkins, who listens to the locals, responds with open-mindedness and eventually defends America by example. The last thing we need is more "pretty Americans," all smiles and handshakes, who traipse the world through photo ops and promos. \nPerhaps that's what makes the overwrought anti-American sentiment most distressing is: the knowledge that at its center is a grain of truth. American foreign policy nightmares have eroded our image abroad, but it is possible to get it back. We have to dare to be "ugly" Americans who listen and try to understand foreign cultures instead of trumpeting our own and gently assure the world that we are not monsters. We are Americans.
(11/02/06 4:38am)
AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France -- Whenever I ask people in the posh city of Aix about last year's riots, they'd usually rather change the subject. Those who do talk tell me all about how the riots don't really represent France as a whole, how the media blew things out of proportion. Despite all the images of flaming Peugeots, the mostly upper-class French folks with whom I've spoken don't see it as a big deal. Saving the slums seems like the last thing on everyone's agenda.\nDespite some special coverage of the one-year anniversary, most people seem more concerned with preventing repeat incidents than stopping the root problems of economic stagnancy and political impotence. The two leading candidates for the upcoming presidential election, Socialist Segolene Royal and Gaullist Nicholas Sarkozy, have demonstrated no real plans for the banlieues (suburban ghettos), except vague crackdowns on criminals. People just don't care.\nI can't say I'm entirely surprised. Certainly, my scope of the situation is limited by my placement in one of France's richest cities. I mean, if you asked people in an upper-class Chicago suburb, like my hometown of Naperville, what they thought a year after the 1992 Rodney King riots, they'd probably shrug their shoulders, too. After all, how much can a person so removed from poverty and desperation discern about life in a welfare-state slum?\nWhat strikes me is the total lack of urgency that locals feel toward this problem. It seems that the approach to the banlieues' problems involves crossing one's fingers and hoping that another spark doesn't go off. Each new bus burning sends a shiver down the white, upper-class spine of France's ruling class, yet no one is willing to do anything about the underlying causes in France's stagnant political climate. \nWhen mostly white, privileged French students and unions march in the streets, they get exactly what they want. When the mostly African immigrant, unemployed French poor lash out against the government, they get nothing, except thousands more police descending into their neighborhoods. Incidentally, a police station is the only commitment the epicenter of the riots, Clichy-sous-Bois, got from the central government. \nChanging minds in such a conservative culture is difficult, though. Instead of opening up a dialogue after all the promises in the wake of November's riots, the French response has been one of further isolation. While the suburb powder keg remains explosive as ever, leading French newspapers such as Le Monde to print stories about the semantic use of the word "riot" in describing November's car torching.\nSo what should France do? I'm not sure. Opening up public transit to the slums and unlocking the strict labor laws (that result in 50 percent unemployment in some areas) would be a start, but the real problem is psychological. The French need to see these kids as their countrymen, not dirt to be swept under a rug. Otherwise, the calm of this anniversary will be a mere reprieve in a tempest of discontent.
(10/19/06 1:31am)
AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France -- OK, so the French don't actually smoke that much. I mean, really. According to World Health Organization figures, 34.5 percent of the population smokes. Compare that to Indiana, where 27 percent of adults and 39 percent of high school seniors smoke, and the stereotypical Frenchman with baguette in hand and cigarette in mouth seems more archaic. \nUnlike America, where smoking is often regarded as shameful, the French smoke publicly, happily and unabashedly. They gleefully puff under no smoking signs and extract their Marlboros, like true rebels, from packs that declare in giant bold letters, "Smoking Kills." (The American Surgeon General's got nothing on these anti-smoking warnings.) French smokers smoke everywhere, anywhere, any time. From photos of French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre with his omnipresent cigarette to the clouds of smoke in French New Wave movies, smoking is ingrained in French culture as intellectual, admirable and chic. \nAll these attributes make France's impending public smoking ban more astonishing. In 2007, France will ban smoking in most public places, followed in 2008 by a ban in bars, restaurants and cafes. Needless to say, this ban has riled up some French smokers to a true lather, yet they are confronted by overwhelmingly supportive public opinion. It would appear that the nonsmoking French public wouldn't mind never seeing -- or more accurately, smelling -- their smoking countrymen ever again.\nAlas, the French have arrived at a conflict between two great French loves: smoking and telling their citizens what to do. While smoking bans in Ireland, Italy and even good ol' Bloomington have worked despite strong local smoking cultures, France is the smoker's romantic, symbolic home. David Sedaris commented in his Bloomington show that he lived in Paris so he could smoke wherever he wanted. The French smoker is so entrenched that no amount of dissuasion can kick the habit. \nDespite concerted efforts toward achieving a smoke-free university, the stairwells and hallways here at the Université de Provence still marinate in ubiquitous clouds of smoke. People try to be courteous about smoking in general. Nevertheless, as the comical nonsmoking partitions in your local Applebee's demonstrate, smoke gets around no matter how courteous you are. \nAs far as I can tell, smoking is happily tolerated here. In the survey mentioned above, the one question they failed to ask is how much respondents care about it. Sure, people generally support banning it, but nonsmokers have been sucking secondhand ash for so long I doubt they'll notice much difference when the ban takes effect in January.\nIn France or in Indiana, the troubling effect of smoking bans is the conversion of smokers into criminals. Smokers are about two steps above lepers and lawyers in American culture these days. It'd be a shame if France, a proud bastion of liberty, further marginalized and criminalized nearly 35 percent of its population. \nSitting in an Aix-en-Provence cafe surrounded by happy smokers and nonsmokers alike, I'm not too worried.
(10/05/06 2:50am)
AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France -- \nWhen the times challenge our values and perspectives as much as they have the last five years, it's hard to believe anything. We are too close to the events at hand, deprived of an ability to stand back and observe from a distance, to build educated opinions in full.\nSo where do we turn for help? We have only our myths, and all nations have them. Look at the first Thanksgiving, or consider how often we invoke our "Founding Fathers" as holy figures in political debate.\nBy far the most powerful myth in our culture, especially in this time of war, is "The Good War": World War II. President Bush imagines himself Churchillian in nature, standing alone against the growing tide of tyranny. Conversely, opponents of the war demand "justification" for it, hearkening to a day when wars were fought for some deeper values; hence, the "Good War" fought by the "Greatest Generation." \nYet, myths must constantly be reinterpreted to fit the current mode, and World War II is no different. \nHere in France, the issue of the day is immigration and integration, and a superb new film, "Indigènes," tells the story of North African colonial French troops who fought for a country that had killed their ancestors, only to get the cold shoulder from the French government. These days, suggesting that the French government abuses and neglects its immigrant citizens may get you in a fight over here. By reframing the problem within World War II, however, the movie makes its case against institutional prejudice forcefully and decisively. Who can argue against the bravery of soldiers maltreated by their own government?\nBack in America, Clint Eastwood is making a pair of films about the battle of Iwo Jima, one from each side's perspective. The first, "Flags of Our Fathers," concerns the American soldiers who raised the flag on Mt. Surabachi. When American GIs sit at the forefront of our psyche -- as warriors, assailants, or diplomats -- we need to understand their situation in the mythical vocabulary of beach landings and flag-raisings with which we're familiar.\nThe story of our manipulation and exploitation of these soldiers and their photo to further propagandize sends shivers down the modern spine. Just take a look at Bush's "Mission Accomplished" dress-up or the Democratic campaign to rustle up Iraq war veterans to run for Congress. \nThese films demand we ask: "How good was 'The Good War' anyway?" How righteous can we really be about anything? Our illusions, of the French patriot against the Nazi racist, of the good Americans against the evil Japanese, will find themselves increasingly in question. Our reconsideration of this most powerful myth, though, signals the seriousness of our current position. We're without direction, so insecure that we are now being forced to reassess our greatest myths.\nWe shouldn't forget that myths are unifying forces, even when they reveal our failings. At the end of the screening of "Indigènes" that I attended, the crowd erupted in applause. Maybe by acknowledging our sins in myth, we can finally find redemption in reality.
(09/21/06 2:21am)
AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France -- \nNick Sarkozy, meet America. America, meet the new face of French centrist politics. \nBefore introductions, though, note that Sarkozy is not what you generally imagine when you picture a French politician. For one thing, he can't seem to stop talking about how much he admires America. You may remember him calling the fire-starting gangs of last November "scum," and he recently spoke out adamantly against Turkey's admission to the European Union. (As a result, Sarkozy's right-of-center ways have earned him the nickname "Sarkozy the American," which isn't exactly a boon in a country where the Bush administration is only slightly more popular than salmonella.) \nThus, when Sarkozy visited America last week, it was hardly a surprise that he spoke warmly of our fair nation. What was surprising was the reception for a guy who currently runs the French Interior Ministry. (Can anyone even name our Secretary of the Interior?) Yet Sarkozy, the current favorite to win the ruling party's nomination and the presidency of France, got to speak to Bush and Condi. Presenting medals to New York City firefighters and smiling in a photo-op with King George , Sarkozy clearly demonstrated his desire to be close to America.\nDespite this, Sarkozy is immensely popular here in France. His latest book, "Testimony," a rather straightforward account of his political life and beliefs (remember Bush's book, "A Charge to Keep?"), has been a runaway bestseller, selling more than 275,000 copies. And even many of his most controversial comments are viewed positively, despite his purported aversion to "populist" politics. \nIn many ways, he runs against the grain of traditional French politics. In a country that refuses the hyphenated multitudes of America, Sarkozy boasts of his Hungarian and Jewish heritage. He has begun a not-so-stealthy campaign to discredit his current party leadership, a party whose nomination he still has yet to receive. He's a doer when compromise and endless debate are the norm. Whether or not this is a good thing, I can't really say, but his popularity among many French voters makes clear that they are ready for change in a country notoriously resistant to it.\nAfter years of bumbling by the Chirac government, with mounting immigration troubles and the crushing weight of its social programs, France has grown worried about its future, only further accentuated by the social unrest of November 2005 and March 2006. Unfortunately, as with most centrists, Sarkozy must pander to the extreme of his side of the aisle, in this case kowtowing to the disgusting, racist Front National with anti-immigrant stunts and the placement of Turkey's EU membership at the forefront of his campaign. \nYears of political stagnation have left France with a remarkably conservative political environment. Recall that the demonstrations of March 2006 were to keep the old laws in place. Sarkozy will undoubtedly be marked a "conservative," but think about what that means. A conservative is, at its core, someone who represents traditional and conventional values. In France, Sarko the American is anything but.\n(By the way, our interior secretary is Dick Kempthorne.)
(09/08/06 2:37am)
IX-EN-PROVENCE, France -- "Time is money." "I'm out of time." "I wish there were more hours in the day." \nSuch statements indicate the kind of attitude Americans have toward time. Time is a commodity -- to be bought and sold at the cost of dollars and cents. When we go to McDonald's, we're not buying a Filet O'Fish. We're buying time by way of the convenience of not shopping for groceries, or cooking.\nThus, coming to France has been a bit disconcerting. Twenty-four-hour pharmacies -- 24-hour anything -- are nonexistent. The snail's pace of life here strikes me as strange, especially in a country that invented the Concorde, the TGV train (loosely translated as the PDQ) and the strongest coffee imaginable. Lunch brings everything to a standstill for a couple of hours in the middle of the day, while more are whiled away in the cafe, most of these spent waiting for the check. \nTo boot, everyone is late for everything ever -- although this is not entirely different from life in Bloomington.\nComing from fast-paced, convenience-based America, it's easy to chalk up these experiences to mere laziness or Gallic discourtesy, but in truth, we simply have two markedly different attitudes regarding time. While we are selling much of the world on the time-money archetype, France has militantly rejected it. \nThe alternate French perspective generates a surprising upshot. You might not get your consumer goods as quickly, but French folks don't seem to have the same impatient irritability that sits in the gut of every stressed-out American. Perhaps the most intriguing outcome is the consequent enshrinement of good ol' family values. Family vacation time is extended, maternity and paternity leave is mandatory and large nuclear families sit down to dinner together daily. Rev. Jerry Falwell would be proud.\nThis is not to say that the French model of time is without fault. To be sure, perennial tardiness and long midday meals dull the competitive edget. No one has ever accused the French of having a relentless work ethic. What we see here is a fundamental restructuring of priorities. The American capitalist mind might value an hour as a dollar, but the French mind values an hour as an hour, to be spent with friends and family rather than slaving away for a marginal benefit.\nSocialism might have saddled France with an impenetrable bureaucracy and impossible-to-maintain budget, but it has given the average Frenchman all the time in the world with the 35-hour work week. Besides, America hasn't exactly been doing too well in the bureaucracy and budget department either. \nI'm not saying the French way of seeing time is the best way; it's just a different way. America's insistent productivity has given us fantastic wealth in goods but desperate poverty in time. \nYet, despite my love for sitting in a cafe for hours and lying about on a Sunday afternoon, little is more deflating than wandering around at 3 in the morning trying to find somewhere to buy a Butterfinger. Oh well, I guess I'll have time when I get back.
(04/25/06 3:49am)
The next time you go to fill up your car, you will probably gulp at the price. "Three bucks a gallon?! It wasn't that long ago that gas was less than a dollar! This is outrageous!"\nSome are already crying foul. Blame has been thrust variously upon a host of scapegoats, such as: President Bush's War on Terror, environmental additives and oil companies, our new favorite villain.\nIn truth, gas prices today aren't insanely high when compared to inflation-adjusted historic figures. We've been spoiled all our lives with a truly blessed period of relative stability in the Middle East and a slew of new oil discoveries. Consider that we make significantly more money than we did a half century ago, so an increase in gas prices doesn't hurt us as much per gallon as it once did. Spreading alarmism about gas prices, at this point, is downright misleading. \nPainting oil companies as the villain du jour only serves as a cheap tool to clear us of any blame. How are their tactics different from other major corporations? They are in the business of making money, and when your business is a resource that has rapidly increasing demand and rapidly decreasing supply, you become extremely profitable. I am not advocating blind acceptance of gas prices. What I suggest is that rather than blind outrage, we ask ourselves just what it is we are paying for.\nNo matter where you sit on the political spectrum, oil runs your life. Trucks bring every commercial product to Target, and you drive there with gas to get it. And because gas matters to you, gas matters to our government. Cries of "No Blood for Oil" might be foolhardy, but no one can deny that the availability of oil has affected American foreign policy significantly. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Indonesia and Nigeria are huge oil producers and, unsurprisingly, hot spots of diplomatic activity. As Bush so belatedly put it, our "addiction to oil," and more importantly, our addiction to cheap oil, drives our economic growth.\nAll of which brings me to the title of this column: Raise gas prices. For too long, we have lived without understanding what things truly cost. We entered a war thinking that we would never have to sacrifice anything. We've entered a truly obscene state of deficit spending, both in our government and in our personal accounts. We have scoured our earth to suck it dry of its natural resources as quickly as possible.\nWe in America have never tasted the cost of our recklessness. Let this be our penance. How will we ever break ourselves free of our oil addiction if we keep expecting cheap gas? No major advances in technology will come along until we really need them, so let's speed up the process.\nRaise gas prices, raise them significantly, enough that financial strain follows up the ladder of corporations until even the most insulated corporate boardroom feels the pinch. We'll use the revenues to pay down our debt for the war and for research into alternative energy. Until gas prices get so high that we can't stand them, we'll never change our ways.
(04/18/06 4:57am)
Every week, it feels like there's a new "hot" issue to pursue, whether it's immigration or biotechnology or the war in Iraq. \nNevertheless, in the face of all these exciting, flashy topics, the things that most directly affect us are the dull, boring things that we'd rather have someone else handle. We want to talk about "important" issues, but it's dreary, dry subjects that actually run our lives. After all, what has more effect on your life: immigration reform or potholes? \nCase in point: the United States tax code. \nNo one wants to talk about tax code, until this time of year when we rush to H&R Block to chaotically get our returns in on time. It's the single most boring piece of government code. It's 66,498 (!) pages long. It's hideously labyrinthine and full of loopholes for those of us rich enough to hire people to find them. And now that our tax code has begun regressing under the Bush administration, the middle class has to pick up the slack of the richest 1 percent of Americans. \nLook, I know you're already bored, but our government has taken our apathy as a sign that it can manipulate the tax code as much as it wants. Anyone can make statements about tax cuts and extra deductions, but these grand policies must be made real through the nitty-gritty inanity of the tax code. While I think Ronald Reagan was one of the worst presidents ever, at least he managed to reform the tax code to some extent. With the complexity of the code reaching obscene levels, it seems that everyone agrees that the tax code needs reform. Alas, no one is actually willing to do it. \nSimilarly, IU students, though we complain about cops busting parties and sweatshop labor, don't seem to care much about the tuition increases that will affect us most directly. \nFrankly, budgets and accounting are quite boring, and we've resigned ourselves to letting someone else take care of it. Unfortunately, "someone else" doesn't really care what we think. We're so lazy we couldn't even get off our asses to go to an open forum on the subject at the Union last week. \nNow, our apathy can either be read as slothful or satisfaction with the tuition increases. Budget politics might not be sexy, but they determine how much we pay for school, which determines how much money we have left over, which could be the difference between Sam Adams and Keystone Light. \nThe "important issues" aren't necessarily grandiose or widespread. Oftentimes, they are dull, tedious problems toward which we turn a blind eye. As has been observed many times, talk is cheap. I'm surely guilty in all of this, too. I can fill this column every week with international politics and cultural criticism, but the real changes we can make are oftentimes the least interesting. Immigration reform might dominate the headlines, but properly organizing our tax code to pay for social services affects far more people. \nWe're so caught up with big ideas that we can't appreciate the enormous importance of the enormously dull. For just a moment, consider the vastly uninteresting forces that run your life, and dare to be bored.
(04/12/06 5:14am)
Regionalism happens. As long as there are people, there will be regional factions. We always need to have an adversary. Every green lawn needs the other side of the fence. Every Cub needs a Cardinal. Every IU needs a Purdue. Unfortunately, when these differences become the grounds for any conflict more than a playful jest, we have a serious problem. \nYou can't make hard and fast judgment calls unless you put things in perspective. If you're a Midwesterner accusing a New Yorker of being stuck-up and privileged, consider this: You both live in the United States, the most powerful, privileged nation on earth. If you're an East Coaster accusing a Hoosier of being a slack-jawed yokel, don't forget that you both got accepted by and chose to go to the same university -- this one. \nRed state, blue state? East Coast, Midwest? Cubs, Cards? It doesn't matter. We should consider character first. \nP.S. Go Cubs!
(04/11/06 5:51am)
Is it still a leak if the president does the leaking? This seems to be the question many are asking in light of recent testimony from I. Lewis Libby, in which he indicated that President Bush declassified information to give to a New York Times reporter. Libby, in case you don't recall, used to be the vice president's chief of staff before the FBI arrested him on charges of perjury. Libby states that Bush declassified part of a classified report in July 2003 that described Saddam Hussein's alleged connections to al-Qaida in order to bolster his case for war.\nAs a result, many have cried foul, labeling Bush's leak in contradiction with his normally tough stance against leakers. On Oct. 9, 2001, Bush declared that "(w)e can't have leaks of classified information." About the motivations of those dirty, self-serving leakers, Bush guessed that leakers did what they did "either to make you feel good, and/or to make themselves feel good." And of course, Bush has used the same number as many presidents before him: "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information."\nDespite his tough talk against leakers, Bush has remained unsurprisingly silent about the latest revelations. His administration has \nsuggested that it wasn't really a leak, since the president declassified it before giving it out. And despite all the rumbling from the rabble, most have correctly avoided describing Bush's actions as illegal. \nHis leak was fully legal, and he believed it to be in the best interest of this country. After all, the president can decide what's classified and what isn't, so it makes sense that he can leak whatever he feels like. There have been leaks as long as there have been secrets, and leaks are a tool that administrations need to release sensitive information without formally holding a press conference. \nThink about it: Let's say a friend of yours has confided in you a terrible secret that he feels suicidal. Fearing for his safety, but not wishing to break his trust, you anonymously inform someone who can directly help him. Most people would probably support that leak. \nMy concern with Bush's action, however, has nothing to do with whether the leak was positive or legal. It has everything to do with his style of governing. When someone else leaks information, in the name of national security or anything else, they are self-promoters, incompetents or traitors. When the president does it, the administration doesn't even call it a leak. Rather than acknowledging any sort of benefit from leaks, the Bush approach is simply to deny that it was a leak at all.\nBush has made this disturbing mentality a common problem in his administration's activity. To make sure that we don't torture, let's redefine what torture means. To make sure that Iraq's not having a civil war, let's not call it a civil war. To make sure that we never leak, let's just say it wasn't a leak. \nSplitting hairs with the language demonstrates a lazy dishonesty about the facts at hand. Weren't Republicans crying foul when Slick Willy Clinton tried to redefine the word "is"? If it was a leak, call it a leak. A leak might be justifiable, but sacrificing honesty for the sake of saving face is not. The president's tough talk has come back to bite him, and it should cost him dearly.
(04/04/06 5:09am)
After weeks at No. 1, "High School Musical" has finally relinquished its title as top-selling album in the nation.\nTo which everyone older than age 12 asks, "What the hell is 'High School Musical?'" Well, "High School Musical" is the most popular Disney Channel original movie ever. It's the first full-length film ever to be sold on iTunes. Its soundtrack has unleashed six top 100 singles and a platinum album. \nAlso, it's pretty terrible. For one thing, the songs are cookie-cutter pop drivel, and the characters in the movie are as up-tempo, clean-cut and bland as the wannabe show tunes. The movie is so loaded with clichés -- the big game, warring cliques, jock-guy-brainy-girl-romance -- that it wanders into self-parody. I mean, the big production number is called "Stick to the Status Quo." How much more conformist could you ask a \nmusical to be?\nNevertheless, there's something altogether likable about this movie, and its democratic, Web-based rise from iTunes and Amazon makes it a Digital Age model. Because of its bright color palette and cheery songs, I feel like I should despise "High School Musical," but it comforts me somehow.\nWhy does America, myself included, find it so irresistible? Even before the allegedly catastrophic events of Feb. 1, 2004 (a.k.a. "Nipplegate"), America wanted good, clean fun, even if it didn't resemble reality at all. With the news pumping in nonstop images of evil and deceit at every turn, the conservative return to "values" has prompted a similar turn in popular culture. We want our battles fought bloodlessly in fantasy worlds, our pop stars born without nipples and now, our teenage musicals drained of sex and hurling colorless pop tunes. \nMainstream pop culture has suffered some serious whiplash since the oversexed '90s, and "High School Musical" represents part of a movement back to benign themes. Generation-defining musicals used to be sexed ("Grease") or at least violent ("West Side Story"). The raciest thing happening in "High School Musical" is a peck on the cheek.\nWhere Frank Rich sees a veil of "truthiness" laid across America, I see a veil of "cleanliness," an attempt to cover up the unseemly truth of the world around us. One might think that pop music's darker rap and rock alternatives were obscenity-riddled, but thanks to a crackdown on obscenity laws in popular music, all radio play has been bleeped into incomprehensibility. Truly subversive songs have been replaced with censored copies of "Laffy Taffy."\nThe return to the cultural security blanket of bland pop like Barry Manilow and "High School Musical" extends to other realms as well. We're sweeping everything unpleasant under the carpet to keep it out of sight, out of mind. Guantanamo detainees? Corruption in Congress? Deteriorating social programs? We're shocked -- shocked! -- to find such malfeasance. Instead of real outrage, we have resigned to feeling a mild discontent before switching back on a simpler, plainer, nicer world. \nIs all hope lost? I'm not too worried. The blandness of 1910s pop music gave way to the glory of jazz, and the pasty boredom of the 1950s was broken by the hip-swiveling insurrection of Elvis. The grit and dirt of discontent will overflow soon enough, and the moment of "High School Musical" will come to pass. \nEnjoy the peppy, cheerful addiction while it lasts.
(03/28/06 5:29am)
I know we're not supposed to stereotype. Here at the most super-duper diverse campus ever, we should never pigeonhole someone based on his or her beliefs. \nBut what am I supposed to do when French students protest and French unions strike? Seriously, folks, this is more than a little ridiculous. As soon as young Muslim français took to the streets last year, everyone said France needed to increase youth employment. As a result, France tries to pass a reform law helping jobless youths, at which point, young non-Muslim français promptly protest. \nOstensibly, the students and unions are marching against the new labor law that would loosen restrictions on hiring under-26-year-old employees. What kind of restrictions? Well, if you're a French company and you want to hire anyone, you can't fire this employee without a good case and a substantial severance package. And if you're hiring some kid right out of college, oftentimes the risk is greater than the reward. So, invariably, French employers pass over young employees. \nThe new law would give the employer a two-year trial period during which they could fire under-26 employees without significant restrictions. You know, just like we do here. Every student here at IU will inevitably have to find work and keep it through performance. Yet, the majority of the French people have come to expect lifelong employment and, so, they protest. \nHow ironic that the French protesters, who pride themselves on their radical liberalism, are decrying reform laws and asking for a return to the good ol' days. They want the government to provide more jobs, but socialism already shows its cracks. Everywhere, governments have found themselves needing to reform programs and cut spending. "Job creation" costs money and productivity, and more bureaucracy stymies growth, something with which France has enough problems. \nThough commentators have noted France's addiction to socialism, I find France's addiction to revolution more distressing. Every time a problem arises, a host of protests, strikes and riots appears as the solution. Last year's riots immediately come to mind, but massive general strikes and protests are regular occurrences in France. And here, at the intersection of these two addictions, the situation has grown quite ludicrous. French students have gone from protesting for human rights to protesting for a pension and the promise of a free job. On top of that, most of these protesters go to universities and will remain largely unaffected by the law. \nThe cries of "To the barricades!" might ring on the Champs-Elysées, but this is hardly "Les Miz." It's a nation at a critical point, frustrated with its inability to sustain its socialist system. The misguided protesters who call for revolution don't understand that the revolution has already been won by the revolutionaries. With a 35-hour work week, extensive benefits and a massive bureaucracy, the revolutionaries have gotten exactly what they asked for. Yet, this system has proven itself untenable, and it needs change. \nToday, the well-educated elite who protest the new laws don't realize that they are France's next generation of leaders, rather than extreme revolutionaries. Protesters are standing up for the status quo, while the government desperately cries for change, without any options. France threatens to become an anachronistic joke unless its youth exchanges Romantic "revolution" for realistic change.
(03/22/06 5:04am)
Let me be blunt: The war in Iraq was despicable three years ago, and it remains despicable today. We justified the war with faulty intelligence and dogmatic propaganda, planned the post-war period with revolting irresponsibility, and severely damaged our credibility and integrity as a moral nation-state with our invasion and occupation. As Iraq boils with civil war and the American public gets increasingly disillusioned, we must ask, "What have we learned?"\nFirst of all, let's ignore weapons of mass destruction. There were none. Rumsfeld says so, I say so, let's move on. Second, Saddam was not actively helping al-Qaida. The 9/11 Commission has well-established this fact. To say otherwise at this point is simply dishonest. \nThese days, the administration line is that we invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, build a new nation, and make the world a safer place. But in light of the current civil war and terrorist activity, that "Mission Accomplished" banner was probably a little early.\nYes, hindsight is 20/20, but at least it gives us the ability to learn from our mistakes. The military operation was a stunning success, but we bungled the post-war occupation. The sectarian differences in Iraq were played down to sell the war. As a result, we were unprepared for the backlash of Sunni-Shiite clashes and failed to fully assert our authority early. When you topple a country that has only known dictatorial rule, you can't just disband the army, police and government agencies. Now, we're paying for it dearly, trying to hold together a fractious state without a functioning civil society.\nFurthermore, the disintegration of our moral authority has been alarming. The Abu Ghraib torture chamber, however isolated the incident, along with the Defense Department's contemptible refusal to record civilian casualties in the conflict, eroded any high ground we might have held. Yet, the administration has noted that Iraq today is better than it was under Saddam Hussein, and that declining American casualties demonstrate an improving situation. \nBut instead of American troops dying, innocent Iraqis get killed. The same day that President Bush trumpeted three years of American progress, nine Iraqi men were found shot in the head outside an Iraqi police station, bringing the Baghdad body count to 186 in the previous eight days. At its lowest estimate, www.IraqBodyCount.org estimates that 33,710 Iraqi civilians have died since the beginning of the invasion. I'm sure all of their families are happy to hear American casualty counts are down. So what now? Don't listen to the hysterical cries of "Bring'em home!" Bringing our troops back now dooms Iraq to a terrible fate. I am no war apologist by any means, but we must pay our penance for our irresponsible actions. We have devastated a country and its infrastructure, and we have a responsibility to hold the country together. \nHere, the administration's own dogma has undermined its position. How can you sell the necessity of American troops when the war's already won? We've won the war so many times: when Saddam's statue fell, when we unfurled the banner "Mission Accomplished," when the Iraqis held elections and signed their constitution. Now, civil war embroils Iraq, and we need to ensure that we contain the situation, but it's hard to justify after these endless victories. It seemed so easy to win that we expected no sacrifice on our part. \nOur war conduct needs to change drastically if we are to succeed in the end. We need to ensure Iraqis that we will not build a permanent military base. We need to quickly rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq. We need to set up real, concrete goals to be reached, followed by American withdrawal. \nWe all caused this horrific disaster. We owe it to the Iraqis to clean it up, even at the cost of American blood.
(03/21/06 5:21am)
Before the toxic dust settled Sept. 11, 2001, we had already named the spot where the towers fell. We called it Ground Zero, because the ground had been erased, and from the nothing, we would rise. Ground Zero was where the world had changed, and Ground Zero was where we would build anew. \nMore than four years later, the scar of dirt and concrete still mars Lower Manhattan. The statement "United We Stand" has devolved into farce now, as developers, politicians and bean-counters wrestle over the plans for the former World Trade Center site. \nThe current battle is a free-for-all between the Port Authority, which owns the property, Larry Silverstein, who owns the lease, New York Gov. George Pataki and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who control the money, and the 9/11 families, who believe they hold some sort of monopoly on emotional capital. Other players have come in and out, and the current gridlock might yet be resolved, but the bottom line is this: Ground Zero is still empty. \nPataki placed a cornerstone for the new Freedom Tower on Sept. 11, 2004, but no significant construction on the site has been completed, save for Silverstein's new World Trade Center 7, whose 2.6 million square feet of office space have yet to find a tenant. \nNo one can agree on exactly what they should look like, though a number of trite and uninspired designs have been proposed. The final design for the ironically named "Freedom" Tower has a base like a bomb shelter and looks like it climbed out of "1984." \nAdditionally, the separate 9/11 memorial causes its own problems, as the victims' families find it unsuitable. The idea of looking down at two gaping holes in the ground seems unpalatable to many, yet work has commenced on the memorial anyway. Consequently, instead of building up, we're digging \ndown again. \nMeanwhile, the current hold-up concerns the funding for the project, especially the total lack of prospective tenants for 10 million square feet of real estate. Also, Silverstein stubbornly demands control of the project, despite not having the funds. He's got a right to be a little peeved. As soon as he picked up a 99-year lease for a piece of property, it was all destroyed, and he had to pay rent on a smoking pile of rubble for four years. But now, his desire to make it a good investment has stalled the project indefinitely.\nAlas, the slow pace of progress is expected in a committee-based governance of consensus. But for many of us, who wanted to believe that 9/11 stopped the squabbling somehow, the hole in the sky grows deeper every day. We wanted to fill that hollow absence with something, anything that would replace what was lost, but the bickering and the hole remain. \nI want so much to be angry at them, to scold and scream for agreement, but maybe all this petty bickering demonstrates just how difficult it will be to rebuild, and how woefully incapable any building is of replacing what was lost. Surely something will be built on the site eventually, and when it's finished, there will be much bickering then, too. \nYet no matter what is built, the gaping hole will remain, in the sky and in our hearts.
(03/07/06 6:05am)
There seems to be some fear that IU's proposed increased admissions standards will prevent it from fully representing the state of Indiana for an exclusive goal. Civil rights attorney and visiting IU professor Alvin Chambliss has noted that increased SAT standards will work against efforts to diversify the university. Tom Mortenson, head of the Postsecondary Education Opportunity research group, complains that the poor's access will be limited by these changes and "(the push for higher standards) denies the talent and the ambition of kids who are born into less-fortunate circumstances." \nWhile these complaints are valid, they ignore the essential conceit of a university. Every university is an inherently elitist institution. IU hands out exams and grades, and if you get enough credits and fulfill certain requirements, you get a little piece of paper that says, "I am more valuable than you, nondegree holder!" \nIt's a selective process, and it makes sense that IU should choose students likely to succeed at the University, especially because IU does not have unlimited resources. Whenever IU chooses between applicants to attend the University, a choice is made about the makeup of the \nUniversity that will produce the best degree-holders. \nTo those who complain that higher standards will prevent IU from accurately and diversely representing Indiana, I would point out that the process of selecting freshmen classes already distorts the makeup of the state. Whether we select students to ensure diversity throughout the campus or whether we select them based on SAT scores, we are artificially creating the environment that best fosters learning. As a result, there is a higher percentage of Asians on campus than in the state or country. But do we start kicking Asians out to best represent the state? Obviously not. Admissions departments should pick the students who they feel will succeed at IU, so the proposal stresses college prep rather than simply test scores.\nTo be fair, I'm lukewarm about using SAT scores as the final word on admissions, but it's well-noted in the proposal that the SAT guideline would be a suggestion, and the proposal takes care to emphasize performance in the classroom in terms of credits and grades rather than simply standardized test scores. Furthermore, the changes are not as drastic as some claim. The top 40 percent of your high school class instead of the top 50 percent? Six semesters of high school science instead of two? These proposed guidelines aren't exactly revolutionary, not to mention the fact that they wouldn't be enacted until 2011, and even then, the change would be gradual. \nResponding to Mortenson, I would say kids born into less-fortunate households do get a raw deal in much of capitalist American society, but having low standards at the state's flagship university doesn't help them succeed. A college degree means something because it is exclusive, and assuming poor kids can't perform well in school and need the bar lowered for them is far more condescending than demanding higher standards. \nWhy not try to raise the test scores and grades of poor children instead? Why not raise the bar instead of \nlowering it?
(02/28/06 5:42am)
A university president clashes with an entrenched, frustrated faculty. The faculty scream for his head. The president decides to step down after five years. Quick, which college am I talking about? IU or Harvard?\nAfter Harvard President Larry Summers' resignation, the role of the embattled university president took another fateful step, and his fall seemed to mirror the fall of IU's own Adam Herbert. To be fair, differences abound between the two examples. Harvard is an inordinately well-endowed private university that many consider the flagship of American universities, while IU is a huge state school that rarely gets national limelight and that has various budget problems Harvard has rarely faced. \nYet, the fight among ideologies, between a university helmed by the faculty and a university helmed by an iconoclastic president, represents a fundamental crisis in the life of American universities. At Harvard, some say that Summers was the wrong man for the job, unable to manage the faculty. But this criticism forces the question, "Who is the right man for the job?" \nShould the president defer to the faculty at all times? How much "respect" does the president deserve? Conversely, how much does the \nfaculty deserve? How does policy divide among the trustees, the president and the faculty? To claim simply that backward, reactionary professors forced Summers out at Harvard or that Summers was incompetent and deserved his fate ignores the complexities of these questions. \nFor years, professors have felt the squeeze, with the freewheeling intellectual heyday long past and university boards demanding control of their research and curriculum. Herbert and Summers both found themselves called in to universities in transition and became agents of change, as well as lightning rods for criticism. Rarely are professors ever called "conservative," but here, they wanted to resist the changes that years of inexorable evolution have wrought. \nIt stands to reason that professors should have control over the fate of the university. After all, when you look at attending a university, Ivy League or Big Ten, you care more about having great faculty than having a great president. Yet, the organizations that choose the presidents, that decide the direction of the university, like the Harvard Corporation or the IU board of trustees, have largely marginalized the faculty input.\nIt's important not to view these two conflicts as simply coincidental, arguments about a chancellor job search and sexism. Such clashes between faculty and presidents are manifestations of a larger problem, an uncertainty with the direction of higher education. The club atmosphere that once flourished in universities has given way to the university as efficient corporation, and the professor has become just another employee. \nI don't mean to be an apologist for the rash, irresponsible behavior of faculty here, but the erasure of faculty from decision-making is dangerous. If the entire goal of a university is the pursuit of knowledge, how can we succeed when the pursuers are pissed off? The faculties at IU and Harvard chose the wrong target in their presidents, but their concerns are real. Herbert and Summers are not the first casualties of the brewing conflict, and odds are, they probably won't be the last.
(02/21/06 5:45am)
Big Bird needs our help. That's right; Jim Lehrer, "The American Experience" and that big yellow bird have all become targeted by President Bush's new, severe budget cuts.\nWhenever budgets need cutting and belts need tightening, public broadcasting is always an easy target. When there are 300 channels providing a wide range of programming, it's quite easy for free-market adherents to say that PBS should simply vanish. So, to no one's surprise, when Bush proposed his budget, 13 percent of the public broadcasting budget was gone. \nThirteen percent doesn't sound like much, but that's $53.5 million. That's a whole lot of pledge drives -- although it's no more than a drop in the bucket for the federal budget -- and since all TV stations have to reconfigure for high-definition by 2009, we're cutting at the wrong time.\nWhy fund PBS? When we're fighting a War on Terror, paying retiring boomers' Social Security and trying to salvage public schools, it's easy to question public broadcasting's purpose.\nYet PBS provides essential programming that no one else on TV is willing to put on. "Frontline" provides the best documentary filmmaking on television today, while Tavis Smiley and Charlie Rose each broadcast extensive interviews with newsmakers. All of this simply adds to the excellent educational programming that PBS has for children and adults, from "Sesame Street" to "Nova." \nOK, say the free-market advocates; but if these shows are so good, they should succeed on network TV or cable just the same, right? "Sesame Street," for example, makes money on Tickle-Me Elmo dolls, but when the program was just starting out, think about the unbelievable risk PBS took by running a kid's show that centered on foam puppets who sang about counting and the alphabet. If such a show were pitched today to Nickelodeon, it would never run. \nIt's hard to think about PBS as risk-taking, but the promise of federal funding allows PBS to provide a unique experimental service to television. There would be no multi-part miniseries without the revolutionary "Masterpiece Theater." There would be no cooking shows without Julia Child. There would be no educational children's programming without "Sesame Street." And while each of these shows was supported by local viewers, each individual station needed funding from the federal government to keep afloat . \nWatching PBS helped make me who I am today. I grew up with Mister Rogers and Elmo, watched Ken Burns documentaries and classic movies with my parents and laughed with "Monty Python" reruns on late nights. \nNow, when commercial stations like CNN and Fox News broadcast "truthiness" as news, when every show is just another spin-off or imitation, when carbonated, sugared drivel passes as educational children's programming, we need PBS more than ever.\nLet me end with a little anecdote. In the early 1970s, some PBS affiliates needed a movie to play royalty-free. So they picked up a forgotten Frank Capra Christmas film called "It's A Wonderful Life." In doing so, PBS saved an American classic for a country that needed it badly. Now it's our turn to return the favor. Donate to your local affiliate and write your congressman today. Help save public broadcasting.
(02/21/06 12:50am)
A newly declassified 2003 document from the Pentagon, still moderately blacked out, has revealed the grand scheme of future Information Operations. Authored by various analysts at the Pentagon and signed off by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, it represents a striking shift in the priorities of Information Operations in our military. One of the main conclusions of this "roadmap" document, that "We Must Fight The Net," represents a shift in our approach to warfare. \nMost of the document outlines a grand plan for the future of Information Ops. Information has long been a piece of military strategy and tactics, from specific intelligence to general deception. Info Ops was also recently exposed to be guilty of planting pro-American news stories in Iraqi papers, and the negative publicity might be at least part of the reason for this document's declassification. \nWhile this "roadmap" document has lots of information on the future of Psychological Operations and public affairs officers, the most ambitious -- and perhaps most frightening -- piece of the document concerns Electronic Warfare. The authors declare that the United States must "dominate the electromagnetic spectrum with attack capabilities." \n"Dominate the electromagnetic spectrum?" "Fight The Net?" When did the Pentagon start sounding like a bad James Bond villain? We've developed plenty of defensive and preventative electronic measures, but now it appears that we are taking the offensive. \nAccording to the document, we need the electronic attack capability to "deny, degrade, disrupt and destroy" enemy networks and sensors and to protect ourselves. Are we now, as the document purports, in an age of weaponizing the Internet and other public networks? Certainly the authors describe the Net as something worth fighting, and this presents plenty of problems.\nSuch an explicit intention to escalate the still-young art of electronic warfare represents nothing less than the commencement of a new arms race. It might sound silly, but consider that fairly amateur electronic attacks can shut down Web sites, causing economic damage, or severing communication lines between troops, causing traditional military damage. With so much at stake, it's understandable to try to look to the future and stay ahead of the curve. Living in the Information Age, it would be foolish to avoid information warfare.\nThere exists a danger, however, in focusing on information-based warfare, which befalls us each time we move into a new area of technology. Just as an over-reliance on air warfare brought us the folly of winning war from the air, an over-reliance on information warfare could leave us woefully behind in the basic tactics of troops on the ground. War is dirty, bloody and chaotic, and you can't win it from behind a desk.\nAlso, with the increasingly fuzzy lines that separate national from international, domestic from foreign, friend from foe, who's to say information warfare couldn't be waged internally? From Bush's domestic wiretap order we see that a determined administration can easily engage in information warfare within our borders. \nVisionary though this document might be, it might prove to be dangerous if we bull-headedly plow in the wrong direction. We must tread carefully or risk the weakening of an already strained military at the expense of an unproven pipe dream.
