63 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(03/05/01 4:01am)
Last week, without much fanfare, "Temptation Island" finished its season. Thank God.\nI never watched the show, but I read enough about it to know that it's a warning sign. Like when your car starts making a noise that sounds like squirrels are caught in the fan belt. \nUnfortunately, there's no cultural mechanic.\nOf course, my Constitutional sensibilities wrinkle their noses at the thought of fixing our culture. Talk like that should only come from neo-conservatives who want to post the Ten Commandments above everyone's bed, and who listen to Howard Stern just to make sure he really is that bad. People like Lynne Cheney, our second lady, who is uncomfortable with the revisionist history that brought us the truth about the rich white men who stole this country from its original inhabitants.\nMy sensibilities tell me that I'm a champion of freedom of expression, and that the First Amendment is the greatest guarantor that the arts will survive any attacks from the left or right.\nMy sensibilities tell me that man is such a piece of work that soul-stripping entertainment won't be tolerated for too long. And then my sensibilities get a whiff of shows like "Temptation Island" and "Survivor."\nOh, heavens.\nIt looks like we\'re headed toward the dark ages, friends. History Lesson Time!\nSome consider classical Greece to have been the height of Western Civilization. Democracy, in a limited form, slipped through the birth canal in Athens. Socrates pioneered one of the greatest intellectual revolutions ever. And can I just tell you about their urns? The best part was that the lines between fine art and popular art blurred. Those Grecian urns, like the ones on the second floor of the IU art museum, were used for carrying water and wine. And everyone (well, white men, anyway … but that was a pretty good deal back then) got to take the Socratic method for a spin.\nThen the Romans came.\n(Several history and classics professors are tearing their hair out as they read this simple-minded version of classical history … oh well.)\nFor a while, the Romans were able to pull together a pretty poor copy of Greek democracy. But then along came Caesar, and the rest is history. His adopted heir, Augustus, was named emperor of Rome.\nSoon after this, in 80 A.D., the Colosseum was dedicated as a facility to house gladiator contests. Once part of the Roman funeral ritual, these games captured the empire's imagination.\nTwo guys fight until one of them dies. And with the addition of more men, lots of water or lions, it could get even more exciting.\nThis was entertainment.\nIn the 20th century, we've just elected the heir of a former leader, and are all captivated by the squabbling of silly suburbanites duking it out in the Outback.\nDid you know "Survivor" grabbed some pretty good ratings when one of the contestants fell into a fire and ravaged his hands? I hear the camera lingered on shots of his third-degree burns.\nSo these sensibilities of mine are worried. We seem to be headed back to a pretty horrifying repeat of the fall of civilization. Our leaders in this bleak parade are the president of the United States and the executives at CBS.\nI'm more worried about the latter. There's not an election in which I can cast my vote for PBS. \nAnyway, the Constitution guarantees "Survivor" the right to survive.\nWhat bothers me is, in the words of playwright Anna Deavere Smith, we've lost the use of metaphor. Reality television has trumped storytelling. It's not enough to watch a fine fictive film or hear a story about something that happened a long time ago. It's all got to be real right now. The blood has to be fresh.\nJust like a good gladiator fight.\nUh oh. Well, like in the middle ages, those of us with our brains turned on can hide out in the monasteries and convents.
(02/26/01 3:58am)
Julie Harris, the acclaimed actress who played Emily Dickinson, dragged a director friend to the theater. This particular friend, despite his career, hated sitting through plays.\nBut on this occasion, the play was a stunning adaptation of a Dickens novel. When it was over, Harris's friend turned to her and said, "Can we see it again, Julie?"\nShe responded by telling him they could come back night after night.\nThat's how I felt when I left the Bloomington Playwrights Project's production of "Outrage." The play, which won the company's prestigious Reva Shiner award, was just what I needed.\nI have loved the theater all my life, but lately I've felt like Harris' friend. Not because the plays are bad, or because the stage has lost its appeal. Rather, I started looking at my watch when I went to the theater. I can't explain why, but I needed to be challenged.\nMeanwhile, we were running the longest, most boring race for president ever. A race devoid of ideas, full of silly non-issues that resulted in an electorate's mandate for new candidates has left me similarly unchallenged.\nAnd along comes "Outrage."\nAlthough it was too complicated to explain here, I'll just say this: the play took place on a university campus, in Renaissance Italy, in Ancient Greece, all through the eyes of Bertolt Brecht. It featured Socrates, Aristotle and Galileo. Most importantly, it dealt boldly with big ideas and important questions of morality. On top of that, it was a scary, funny, wonderful play.\nAnd no, they're not paying me to say any of that.\nOf course, the play broke lots of rules. It was intelligent, fast-paced and "heavy." All of the things that successful plays aren't supposed to be.\nIf only Al Gore's advisors had seen it.\nIf only we could have flown George W. Bush down for a matinee. \nMeanwhile, the president is trying to sell his ridiculous tax cut, and Bill Clinton is being investigated again and again and again. It seems that our leaders (and I use that word freely) have decided that we are very stupid.\n"Outrage" assumed its audience could at least muster some interest in challenging thoughts, they could follow a good story and in the end we could put it all together and ask some intelligent questions.\nMeanwhile, Al Gore tried to win the presidency by repeatedly saying the word "lockbox."\nCome on, guys. Give Americans some credit. We're the same people who have to balance our checkbooks, fill out income tax forms and keep up with the latest in digital technology so we can watch "The Matrix" on our DVD players. It's not as if our brains turn off when you start talking.\nOr maybe they do.\nAfter all, it is hard to listen to Dubya drone on about a tax cut for real people when we know his program will distribute more than 45 percent of the benefits to the wealthiest one percent of the country. At least when the brain is on.\nAnd can we really afford to think about another sensationalized Clinton investigation? Only if we enjoy listening to minute by minute spin from Indiana's own Rep. Dan Burton.\nPoliticians have performed a pretty clever lobotomy. It's the same dynamic at work in the relationship between television and the theater. TV has fried our brains to the point that we've stopped demanding great theater. \nWashington's salacious scandal-mongering and epidemic underestimation of America has fried our brains to the point that we've stopped demanding intelligent discourse on issues that matter -- issues such as education, health care and Social Security.\nThe problem is that it's a lot harder to turn off Dan Burton, or change his channel.\nMeanwhile, "Outrage" closed its doors last night. Too bad. George and Al will have to wait for the tour.
(02/19/01 3:46am)
The Golden Girls were famous for clip shows.\nYou remember: Blanche, Dorothy, Rose and Sophia would sit around a cheesecake, sifting through memories. Their editors would splice in scenes from old episodes, and their writers would revel in the luxury of not having to come up with any new ideas.\nI feel like I'm watching a White House clip show. It's called "The Worst Political Moments of the Last 20 Years."\nRemember that tax cut Ronnie passed in the early 1980s? (Cue canned laughter, fade to sky-rocketing budget deficits.)\nAnd then there was the time we got into a war with Iraq! (Cue sighs of nostalgia and Patriot missiles.)\nWhat about that time Bill was investigated by a congressional committee?\nWhich time? (Cue groans and laughter, accompanied by the gavel of Indiana's own Dan Burton.)\nYep. Almost everything that's happened in the last few weeks has happened before. For instance, we're about to have an ill-advised tax cut shoved down our throats. A tax cut that sends around 46 percent of its savings to the richest one percent of the country. Funny, I thought there were poor people to whom we were going to show some of that conservative compassion.\nAnd now we're bombing Iraq. From what I understand, that may not have been the best idea the first time around. Sure, it made for pretty good "reality TV," and we all learned a lot about oil production. But I guess it's not enough to bomb a country into submission once, and then starve its babies. Put another block of Baghdad on the barbie!\nAnd this farcical pardon investigation. President Clinton pardoned a wealthy businessman whose ex-wife gave lots of cash to Clinton's library, and the two facts may or may not be related. Republicans had so much fun for eight years, calling him names and subpoenaing his extended family. Now that they have the power of the presidency back on their side, they want the pleasure of poking at Bill without the pain of his authority. Sorry, fellas. It just looks tacky trying to tar and feather an ex-president.\nWe seem to be stuck in a very morbid clip show. At least the producers of "The Golden Girls" knew enough to pick out the highlights of last season, not the depressing and awkward moments. Likewise, we never had to live through a Bay of Pigs repeat. But now with Dubya, we're back in Iraq. We're cutting too many taxes all at once. And Dan Burton is investigating Bill Clinton. Stop the world, Sophia. I want some cheesecake with my clip show.\nThis just in! President George W. Bush has reinstated ketchup's status as a vegetable. Reagan's team of school lunch experts, once ridiculed for their decision to count the condiment as one of the components of a school's healthy lunch, beamed with pride. One said, "When one of America's most bourgeois food innovations can re-occupy a place in the pantheon of the four food groups, you know happy days are here again."\nAlso in the news, Dick Cheney announced today that the United States will open a White House Office on Illegal Covert Operations. In the proud tradition of Iran Contra and Grenada, Cheney said that the Bush administration intends to honor Ronald Reagan's penchant for secretive arms deals and invasions. Of course, the vice president said, the Republicans will have Bill Clinton to blame for any and all improprieties. \nSpeaking of the ex-president, Mr. Clinton told reporters that he is having trouble explaining why Abraham Lincoln's bed turned up in the Clintons' Chappaqua mansion. Anonymous sources report that campaign contributions to Senator Clinton's political action committee have skyrocketed since her husband started inviting a parade of overnight guests to the Chappaqua residence. The first guest, Denise Rich, arrived the day after the Lincoln bed disappeared.\nAnd in preparing for the mid-term elections, Wyoming unveiled a new system of punch card balloting. The people of Wyoming are happily embracing the new technology, which means that all 16 of them won't have to convene in Casper to cast their votes. No more laying their heads down on desks while the 15 Republicans in the room raise their hands for the only candidate running.\nWyoming Secretary of State, Kathleen Paris, said that the voting method was very simple. "Oh, sure it's easy," Ms. Paris said. "You'd have to be pretty feeble not to punch out the whole chad"
(02/12/01 6:44am)
My eighth grade teacher insisted that she was our second mother. In fact, that's what we called her. Mamma Keefe.\nMrs. Keefe declared when we won the first of our various Pulitzers, Oscars and MVP awards, we should thank our birth mothers. When we won our second, we were honor bound to thank Mamma Keefe.\nShe ruled her history class like a tyrant. We had an hour of homework every night and had to write an outline of our entire textbook.\nWhen someone talked out of turn or forgot their homework, Mamma Keefe made them stand in the trash can.\nThat's right, she had people standing in trash cans. One day, when she barked at Pasha Vaziri to stand in one, we all laughed so hard and thought it was so terrific that we asked if we could all stand in the trash can. There we were, taking notes on Thomas Jefferson, standing around in garbage cans and brown paper bags. Even though I'm sure they don't teach Mamma Keefe's methods over at the Ed school, they worked.\nI could tell more stories about revolutionary teachers who tested the limits, but there isn't room for them here.\nNor does there seem to be much room for them in President George W. Bush's education policy. Oh, I'm sure that's not what he would say. Republicans love to champion the individuality that inspires American innovation.\nBut don't you believe it.\nWe're so bottled up in the lousy language of politics that we believe George Dubya when he tells us he's a compassionate conservative. It doesn't matter that when it comes to education policy, he embraces one of liberalism's great failures.\nToday's Democrats, who carry the legacy of liberalism, are quick to explain that they long ago dropped that nasty liberal penchant for hyper-regulation.\nYou know, the kind of programs that come with 10 pounds of paperwork. The ones that were the hallmark of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs and don't usually work. Johnson wanted to eliminate poverty, but his political heirs have discovered there are just some things that can't be done from Washington. That's why Al Gore's education program focused on sending more teachers to the states and decreasing class sizes; these were programs that could benefit all schools without threatening them with federal programs that didn't take local interest into account. \nThat sounds like Republican rhetoric! But the Democrats have caught on as well. The ones getting elected are the ones who embrace traditionally liberal compassion for minorities, children and the poor; but they also know that not all problems can be solved with a new federal program.\nTell that to George W. Bush. His education program would be one of the most significant intrusions ever imposed on local school districts. Witness its components.\nBush would offer the notorious voucher options to all families, in an effort to induce competition and free-market evolution into the public education system. Families in failing school districts would be able to use tax dollars to send their children to private and parochial schools. The public schools in those districts would lose their federal funding until they improved.\nVouchers have proved successful in some urban communities, but they aren't the answer for all of this country's school systems.\nWhat about rural communities, where there might not be enough private schools to accommodate children from the failing schools? I come from Kentucky, and I'll be the first to tell you that, out in the country, there are too many kids up in the holler and not enough room in the small Baptist school in town.\nOr what about communities where the only private schools are religious schools? Are we going to force little Benjamin, whose parents are Jewish, to sit through catechism?\nAnd the nastiest secret of all is that there will be some families who, no matter how large the voucher is, still won't be able to afford private school. Oh well. The poorest of the poor in the worst schools? That's nothing new, I suppose.\nTalk about a federal program that just isn't the answer to the problems of a diverse nation.\nOr what about Dubya's controversial reading plan for the Head Start Program? The President has decided that one phonics-based approach used in a Houston pre-kindergarten school should be a model for the entire United Sates. His education team has developed a script to be used in all Head Starts, emphasizing drill work and early reading.\nNever mind that developmental experts think Bush's program is too relentless for most pre-schoolers, who just need to be read to and told not to eat the paste. \nNever mind that a script would stifle the best teachers.\nNever mind that Mamma Keefe could never have been scripted.\nGeorge, go stand in the trash.
(02/05/01 3:52am)
Greed is good once again.\nBefore you could spit in the new Oval Office spittoon, President George W. Bush started pushing his $1.3 trillion tax cut. Dubya has been using his famous charm assault. This apparently involves a clever nickname for starry-eyed representatives who still get gushy when they're invited to the White House. The alias that gets kicked around in the media is "Freddo."\nAnd this is supposed to work with grown men and women?\nLast weekend, Dubya showed up at a couple of Democratic retreats to push his "Devil-May-Care" tax plan. This is unprecedented, as President Bill "I-don't-wanna-play-with-you-guys" Clinton would never have showed up at a Republican retreat. Speaker Newt "You-Mr.-President-are-the-Anti-Christ" Gingrich would have set the dogs on an approaching Clinton.\nBut Dubya is trying to be a uniter, not a divider. Well, at least he is when it comes to his tax plan. I'm not so sure he did the job when he selected John Ashcroft to head the Justice Department.\nAs far as the tax cut plan is concerned, the president wants to bring everyone on Capitol Hill together for a big group hug. The catch is that they can't get out of that hug until they agree to vote for this big ol' cut.\n"Big ol'" is now official White House terminology. Right along with "hunka," as in, "Thanks for that hunka cash you donated to my campaign."\nGeorge W. has promised this big ol' tax cut will not only hand citizens a hunka money that rightfully belongs to them, it will also jump-start the economy which, despite signs of a downturn, must go faster if we are all to continue owning our four wheel drive vehicles.\nWhether that will work is the object of some dispute. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he isn't sure and thinks it will be too long before the tax cut takes effect to do any good for the economy. \nHe supports the cut because, if we don't have it, we might have too much money in 10 years. Is that what they said during the roaring '20s? Because if that's the case, they must have made real sure it wouldn't happen.\nSecretary of the Treasury Paul H. O'Neill is fairly certain a cut won't boost the economy, having said as much during his confirmation hearing. He supports the plan because, well, because his boss does.\nWith all of these ringing endorsements, why not cut taxes?\nMaybe because it makes more sense to continue the Clinton policy of paying down the national debt, which in the end will make our economy that much stronger. Where do you think the Good Times came from in the first place? Clinton's economic advisers knew that paying down the debt was smart policy. Like Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times said, "Politicians are always telling you that the government's surplus belongs to the people; then who does the national debt belong to?"\nOr perhaps because the projected $5.6 trillion surplus includes social security and medicare funds that so many of our lawmakers promised not to raid. Remember the lockbox?\nOr because the combined cost of all the social programs promised to us by the Bush campaign -- education plans, a prescription drug benefit that already looks like it won't happen and all that money for faith-based initiatives -- is just too much to shoulder along with a tax cut.\nBut to make these arguments is to ignore the essential facts of G.W.'s economic policy. It has nothing to do with clean air, better schools or even a better funded military (a campaign promise that the president has already broken -- his generals are fuming). The aim of the Bush economic policy is to make sure that the wealthy can continue to ride around in their four wheelers.\nGas prices are too high for even the rich to refuel their luxury SUVs? Let's drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge! Are you worried you won't be able to afford your new Lexus RX 300? You'll get a big ol' luxury tax cut to help you pay the bills.\n"But this isn't me!" you say. I want clean air, good schools and social security. I can do without a big tax cut as long as the economy grows and supports my new job. I want them to pay down the debt, because that's the kind of policy that produced the prosperity in the first place.\nA huge tax cut might be nice for the wealthy, but it sure will lose its novelty once we head into hard times. Why isn't the president concerned about my interests? The interests of most Americans?\nDid you give him a big ol' hunka campaign cash?
(01/29/01 3:52am)
I have been struggling with the IU Student Association campaign. Whether to write about it, that is.\nFor about 15 months, I've tracked the big election. You know, the one for president. Along the way, I've looked at senatorial races and the odd house race. It's been a good run, especially the two month bonus period. People were mad at each other. Protesters hit the streets. And for the first time in 100 years, our sitting president won fewer votes than his opponent. What a thrill.\nBut all of that is done. President George W. Bush is trying to pull everybody together in Washington, all the while nominating a right wing zealot for attorney general. And it looks like, for the time being, the Democrats are giving him the benefit of the doubt. Campaign finance reform won't be debated for another month, so I'll just have to wait for what is supposed to be the hottest of political hot potatoes. \nAnd I'm not even sure that I have the heart to tell you how much our country resembles pre-depression America. A booming economy and a foolhardy faith in the free -market? Look what deregulation did to California's power industry, for heaven's sake. Markets need thoughtful government regulation.\nBut for now, there's a lull. My editors keep begging the opinion staff to be timely. It's hard to do that right after America's longest campaign. The politicians are taking a break. So are the journalists. Even The New York Time's Maureen Dowd can't find anything to write about. Her new pet subject, which has occupied at least three columns, is the first lady turned senator's wash of house-warming gifts, all of which arrived before she took her senate oath. That's legal, Maureen. Not ethical. But legal.\nAnyway, I'm supposed to be timely. And the IUSA campaign season did kick off just last week ...\nKeep in mind that I have a major beef with this organization. They are, after all, the same people who forced a $60 bus token on us all. One that I have yet to use. One that doesn't even work on our campus buses, for heaven's sake.\nThey're also the same people that have promised me bike lanes. And a fall break. And textbook tax relief, which I don't even want. Now that the Indiana General Assembly wants to freeze state support for our beloved old University, I don't think it's time for a tax break.\nFor two years, I have dutifully voted in the IUSA elections. I thought the name "What the Students Want" was engaging. Now I want to know "What the Students Got?"\nI really don't want to make the obvious comparison. It just wouldn't be nice to compare IUSA to a high school student council. And the secret is, it's not an apt comparison. You want to know why?\nEven though IUSA never reflects the campaign promises of yesteryear, they wield a significant amount of influence. You'll understand if you'll only follow the money.\nA small part of what we all pay to attend this University goes to our student government. Of course, all those small parts combine to create one large sum. A dollar and a quarter for every student goes a long way.\nAnd it is IUSA that spends it.\nFunny, that amid all the campaign promises of bike trails and online class registration (I wonder if the Miracle ticket has taken time to speak with the registrar?), I never hear word one about money management. And it's the one issue that matters.\nWill the student fees be easily accessible? What are you going to do to ensure that students know how to access them? Do you promise you'll play fair with the big dough?\nThe real purpose of IUSA is to give money away. But as I've learned in the past 15 months, people will do anything to get elected. Promises, promises. Let's put a stop to all the empty promises.\nThat's why I am going to propose campaign reform for IUSA. From now on, no IUSA representative should be allowed to put their service on their resume. An independent counselor will inspect all outgoing graduate school and job applications. My college answer to the McCain-Feingold-Cochran Campaign Finance Reform Bill.\nMaybe then, it won't be worth it for candidates to lead unknowing voters to the polls with promises of boosting our ranking in U.S. News and World Report (since when did IUSA solicit alumni giving, one of the major factors for our status on that list?). Maybe then, we'll get down to the boring brass tacks.\nThis is why I write about real presidential politics.
(01/22/01 3:50am)
Don't worry. Despite all the inauguration schmaltz, I'm on the real story. All the glitz and glamour can't hide the scandal that will rock this seemingly smooth transition of power.\nFormer President Bill Clinton is leaving Socks the Cat in Washington.\nThis is distressing, since this little kitten has been with the former first family since day one of the 42nd president's White House years. \nFortunately for Socks, he will be staying with Bettie Currie, the president's secretary. You remember Currie? She's the enabler who returned Monica's gifts and generally tried to lend the affair an air of discretion. She's the same one who looked so desperate as she clutched at her purse and tried to wedge herself through the paparazzi after testifying in front of the Starr grand jury.\nWell, it looks like Currie is once again cleaning up after Clinton. Socks, without a primary caretaker since Clinton's daughter Chelsea left for Stanford, will be left behind in Washington at the Currie residence. The president's former staff is insistent that nothing is amiss, saying of Currie, "She loves the cat. She wants the cat."\nA parting gift for a trusted secretary?\nRight.\nTell that to Socks, who had to watch Clinton fly away to New York with his chocolate lab, Buddy. Brought into the family during the impeachment scandal, Buddy is thought to have improved the president's image and briefly deflected the attention of reporters.\nAnd what does Socks get for his eight years of loyalty? Sticking with the Clintons through Whitewater, Travelgate and the impeachment? A scratch on the neck? A couple of treats before being scuttled off to his new home? I ask you, is the security of living with the former president and his Secret Service retinue too much to ask?\nIt gets worse. The Socks the Cat Fan Club Newsletter reports "insiders say Socks has been an emotional wreck ever since the Clintons adopted Buddy the dog." In an interview with Socks, published in the same journal, the poor kitty seemed to think he would be moving to New York with the Clintons. "I should expect to move on Wednesday, Jan. 17, just before the Jan. 20 Inauguration."\nWill the lies never end?\nConcerned Reader: "What are you talking about?"\nIntrepid Columnist: "Excuse me?"\nReader: "You have been following this election for more than 15 months! The 43rd president was just elected, and all you can write about is the Clinton's abandoned cat. Aren't there policy issues you should be following, cabinet nominations to dissect and inaugural speeches to tear apart?"\nColumnist: "Um ... I saw Lynne Cheney roll her eyes during the swearing-in ceremony. Several times, in fact. I thought it was very tacky." \nReader: "No, I mean important things."\nColumnist: "Then, when the pastor who gave the benediction asked God to bless the departing president with 'Civil Success,' I saw Bill Clinton silently mouth an 'amen.'"\nReader: "Is this all you've got? Rolling eyes, an 'amen' and a cat?"\nColumnist: "Look! This was not a very exciting inauguration. It rained on President George W. Bush while he watched the parade. Elizabeth Dole looked like an astronaut in her poncho. Lynne Cheney wore a fur-collared coat, which I thought was crass."\nReader: "What about the protesters?"\nColumnist: "Well ... Anna Galland, a student from Illinois, was in Washington to protest the inauguration. According to The New York Times, she was 'carrying several different placards this morning and had not decided which one to raise during the inauguration parade.' She told a reporter that, 'It's sort of an inchoate feeling.'"\nReader: "What? 'Inchoate?' Where's the passion? The excitement?"\nColumnist: "I told you. It was raining." \nReader: "But we just inaugurated a president! This is supposed to be one of those big deals that pulls us all together. There should be buzz. About politics. Ideas. This transition of leadership should have inspired us to get involved, get interested. We should be excited about democracy, whether we're celebrating the inauguration or protesting it. Our ceremonies should be filled with meaning. That's what makes a country! Its shared ideals and its passionately debated disagreements, all embodied in national pageantry. This should mean something!"\nColumnist: "But what about Socks?"\nReader: "Argh"
(01/08/01 4:33am)
Welcome back! I bet you thought Christmas was over, that Hanukkah was kaput and Kwanzaa finally finished. Oh no, my friends. I said I wanted a president for Christmas, and George W. Bush is the gift that keeps on giving. And giving.\nVoluntary compliance\nThis is just one of the many Christmas gifts Dubya and his compadres have quietly left under the American tree.\n It's a policy adored by Christine Todd Whitman and Gale Norton, who have been designated to head the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department respectively. It's also adored by large corporations because it refers to the philosophy of corporate self-policing in environmental matters.\n That means big business should comply with clean air and water standards without having to worry about pesky fines, regulations and inspectors. After all, isn't it in the best interest of businesses to be good stewards of the environment?\n One would think. \n That is, unless one comes from Inez, Ky., home to one of last year's worst environmental disasters.\n A coal company there was, by all accounts, controlled by reasonable human beings. Its parent company was also not run by devil-may-care lunatics. At least, that's what everybody thought.\n But in 1997, federal investigators warned the company that it had an impending disaster on its hands. Apparently, that warning wasn't worth listening to.\n Last fall, a roof on a containment well collapsed, water rushed into the slurry holding and millions of gallons of the poisonous material burst forth into the Tug Fork and Big Sandy rivers.\n Not even a smaller scale version of this disaster at the same facility in 1994 convinced A.T. Massey to fix its containment wells. But don't worry, they'll be policing themselves soon enough.\n Merry Christmas, West Virginia and Kentucky.\nJohn D. Ashcroft\n Another stocking stuffer is Bush's attorney general pick, former Missouri Sen. John Ashcroft. This is the man who was defeated by his deceased opponent.\n Anyway, Ashcroft is alive and kicking and has an incendiary record to prove it. Although Democrats have fumed most about Ashcroft's stark pro-life beliefs (although he'll be in charge of enforcing many abortion laws, the man doesn't even believe in abortion for victims of rape and incest), he provides something for everyone to hate.\n On the civil rights front, Ashcroft was quoted in The Southern Partisan as defending Confederate heroes such as Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. Only a year and a half ago, Ashcroft accepted an honorary degree from Bob Jones University, the same college that wouldn't allow interracial dating.\n Then there's Ashcroft's resistance to rehabilitation for drug criminals. Although several states recently passed initiatives funneling money away from criminalizing drug offenders, and toward drug treatment, Ashcroft hasn't changed his mind on the issue. He argues that spending money on drug treatment amounts to coddling the "the lowest and the least" of society.\n And how does Ashcroft feel about working with people who don't agree with him (and there are many)? Frank Rich of The New York Times quotes a speech in which Ashcroft reviles Republicans "who preach pragmatism, who champion conciliation, who counsel compromise."\n Happy Kwanzaa, everybody.\nAn oxymoronic pick\n This is the best one of all. Bush's nominee for Secretary of Labor, Linda Chavez, is wildly opposed to affirmative action, doesn't believe in the minimum wage and called women who report sexual harassment "cry-babies." Chavez also doesn't believe in the glass ceiling that "supposedly" keeps women out of top-level executive jobs.\n The problem is Chavez is in charge of enforcing equal employment laws, the minimum wage and laws that make sexual harassment a crime.\n A Hispanic woman, she is opposed by women's groups, Hispanic groups and organized labor. Yes, labor opposes Bush's nomination for Secretary of Labor. You could argue that they're getting what they deserve for supporting Bush's opponent, but I thought that President Dubya was going to bring a new era of bipartisanship to Washington.\n Feliz Navidad, my friends.
(12/11/00 6:12am)
I am beginning to wonder if I'll get what I want for Christmas: a legitimately elected president. If not, I'll be happy enough if Santa remembers that I asked for peace in the Middle East.\nNo matter what's on your Christmas list, the last few days have been either a treat, a disappointment or a major confusion. Here's what has happened since Friday:\nFriday, the Florida Supreme Court, in a decision that was one of Al Gore's few victories in this on-going battle of the bands (bands of wily politicians, that is), ruled that all undercounted votes in Florida be hand-sorted. This means all ballots the machines couldn't read will be examined by election workers, something that could at last confer legitimacy on the contest.\nFriday and all Saturday morning, startled canvassing board members in previously unheard-of places such as Gulf County, Fla., began wildly counting votes in response to the state court's demand of an "immediate" recount.\nSaturday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Texas Gov. George W. Bush's request for a stay of the recount. This means the counting will not continue until the nation's high court hears arguments in the federal appeal against the Florida court's ruling. This might threaten Florida's ability to finish a recount by the Dec. 12 deadline for choosing electors. It was also a real bummer for Cora Sue Robinson, the Gulf County elections supervisor. \n"We've wasted a whole day," she said, after counting a mere 43 undervotes. Sorry for the imposition, Cora Sue.\nWhew! \nThe complex web of our government, our election laws and the appellate process is really throwing everyone for a loop.\nSo what sage-like wisdom can I offer at this time of confusion?\nSorry, but it's a busy holiday season, and I'm behind on my Christmas cards.\nDear Gov. Bush: Just remember the old Christmas song: "He knows when you've been naughty, he knows when you've been nice; he knows when you've lost the popular vote, so wipe that smirk off your face."\nDear Vice President Gore: I know leaving milk and cookies for Santa Claus is the best way to get what I want for Christmas. Maybe you could drop off some Chocolate Chippers in Justice Rehnquist's chambers, and then he'll leave a few hundred votes under your tree.\nDear Justice Stevens: Good job writing the dissent in Gore v. Bush. It takes a lot of guts to say of your five conservative colleagues, "The majority has acted unwisely." Them's fightin' words. But it's worth fighting to see that all Florida votes get counted.\nDear Justice Thomas: How much do you owe former President Bush for standing by you during your ill-fated confirmation hearings? Enough to ignore your preference for state sovereignty and vote to reverse the Florida Supreme Court?\nDear Justice Ginsberg: Happy Hanukkah! Of the nine justices, you are best positioned to work for a fair ruling in this case. While still a part of the more liberal wing of the court, you have often agreed with the conservative justices that in matters of state law, state courts should be given deference and the benefit of the doubt. Keep reminding them their conservative preference for state-sovereignty means they ought to side with the vice president. Stick to your guns, and make your fellow justices stick to their principles.\nDear Florida Supremes: Don't fret, even though it seems like the U.S. Supreme Court is the Grinch, and you are the Whos. It certainly looks like they're trying to spoil your holiday with two potential reversals in as many weeks. Perhaps they'll wake up Scrooge-like, filled with the giving spirit, and give a voice to all Florida voters.\nDear Ralph Nader: You must not have been in the giving mood back in November, because you had a chance to tell your voters in swing states to support the vice president. How does it feel knowing that if only a few hundred of your Florida supporters had punched their chads for Gore, we wouldn't be in this mess? But I guess you'll get your lump of coal if Bush picks the next head of the Environmental Protection Agency.\nDear Readers: Thank you for faithfully following this election all the way to the bitter, bitter end. It hasn't been much fun, but your grandchildren will appreciate your help when they study turn-of-the-century history. Maybe next semester, we'll get to have some fun with a president-elect.
(12/04/00 4:35am)
Republicans are furious at Vice President Al Gore's attempts to steal the election.\nDemocrats are either flabbergasted by or consigned to George W. Bush's tin victory.\nAnd all of us are worn out by both men's endless rounds of legal boxing -- not so worn out that we want our guy to concede, but worn out enough to eliminate CNN from our television schedules.\nIt's too bad this election saga has distracted us, because there were some wonderful victories Nov. 7.\nFor instance, the American voters sent a clear message. With a high turnout (anything beyond 50 percent is fairly remarkable these days), voters had every opportunity to elect someone by a landslide, or even a little bit of a dirt slide. Instead, Gore and Bush are almost tied. Neither can claim to have earned a majority. Gore will walk away with a plurality of votes, a popular lead of just more than 350,000. If Bush does win, it will be with an electoral count of 271. He'd have only one vote to spare. \nApparently, we were deeply dissatisfied with our choices. It didn't help that tantalizingly different candidates, such as Bill Bradley, Elizabeth Dole and John McCain, rocketed to media attention and were vanquished by the primary process. (A process, I hardly need to mention, controlled by big money and behind-the-scenes party operatives.) Then, the operatives and the money moguls chose two princes: sons of powerful men who could be counted on to deliver "on message" campaigns scripted by the best advisers millions of dollars can buy.\nBut look what happened! Despite the best-laid plans of the rich and powerful, Americans bit back. They created a practical tie that sends the message: "OK, we're paying attention. Next time, we want better choices."\nAnd while denying the princes of power their victories, Americans continue to offer hope of a larger idea of "We the people."\nEarlier this year, I wrote about the women who sit in the United States Senate. There are only nine, and they have all fought hard to serve their states. When this election began, it looked like their ranks might increase by one or two.\nSo it will be a wonderful upset Jan. 3, when four new women swear to faithfully discharge the duties of a U.S. senator. One is the wife of our president. One is the wife of a deceased Missouri governor, appointed to serve the term he just won. One is a Washington state millionaire who just days ago learned she won in a recount. And one is Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.\nStabenow is unique among the crowd, in that she did not have the advantages of being a first lady, a governor's widow or a dot-com millionaire. Instead, she became a senator-elect the old fashioned way: She earned it.\nStabenow has served as a county commissioner, state representative, state senator and U.S. congresswoman. Her route to power, although not as titillating as Hillary Clinton's, is important. Although not as tear-jerking as Jean Carnahan's, it is inspiring. Although not as expensive as Maria Cantwell's (who spent $20 million of her personal fortune to defeat Slade Gorton), it is groundbreaking.\nWhy groundbreaking? Because Stabenow worked her way up the ranks of government without having been born into a wealthy, influential family. She's done it without relying on the good-ol'-boys network. And she won her place in the Senate despite having far less money than her opponent. \nThe people who are tired of this election yearn for a better story -- one that doesn't end with the election of an entitled party front man. A story that reaffirms our faith in this country.\nThat is Debbie Stabenow's story. It doesn't matter that she is a Democrat. It doesn't matter that you might or might not agree with her politics. What matters is that she isn't rich, isn't a man and didn't buy her office. Despite these "handicaps," she was elected to the most exclusive club in the world.\nMaybe it's because she's spent 26 years working hard as a representative of her people. Maybe it's because she's a working mom, not a son of privilege. Maybe it's because she's a real person.\nThat's the promise of our Constitution. All it takes to participate in this democracy is citizenship and hard work. That's easy to forget when 94 percent of the people who win House seats have more money than their opponents.\nIf the story of Bush and Gore isn't working for you, remember the best story of this election. Remember Debbie's story.
(11/27/00 6:29am)
No matter what, this election is going to be a joke. \nWhoever wins can choose the four-year plan when he's renting a television for the Oval Office.\nAnd for at least the first two of those four years, no one is going to let George W. Bush or Al Gore forget that his presidency is the result of our country's closest, most contentious election ever.\nDubya's storm could be the worst to weather. If he is "victorious," he will have won by two electoral votes, one of the smallest possible margins of victory. Worse, he will have lost the popular vote. And, if you add Ralph Nader's tally to Gore's percentage of the popular vote, that means 52 percent of the country is decidedly opposed to a Bush presidency.\nOh, good. That's neat-o. \nTo make matters worse, neither campaign has inspired the country with confidence in the legal process now untangling the Florida vote. But no one has done more to cast doubt and uncertainty than Katherine Harris. The Florida Secretary of State also happens to be one of Bush's campaign co-chairs in the great state of Florida, and has a habit of trying to hand the election to her favored candidate. Even if Harris is trying to be impartial, nobody wants the history books to report that one of the governor's chief cheerleaders decided the election. \nOf course, if you're a Republican or just voted for Bush, you're far more suspicious of the chad-eating officials conducting the recount … but we won't get into that.\nThere's no end to the list of people and institutions to which we could apply our suspicions, including the Florida legislature, which could decide to send its own set of electors to the college. Then it would be up to Congress to decide which set to accept. Of course, that depends on whether the U.S. Supreme Court decides to allow the Florida hand counts to stand. \nI could go on. \nThere is a way out of this, I'm happy to say. If you are not an intrepid political columnist, there's hope! It's not too late to start ignoring this election. \nJust follow the example set by my family during the Thanksgiving holiday. Despite my attempts to interject a political point or two (being an intrepid anything is not a nine-to-five job), most of my relatives held firm to their resolve. \n"Hey, did you hear what Al Gore said to George W. Bush when he called to withdraw his concession?"\n"Dad, could you pass the dressing?"\n"It was great. George W. Bush got really angry, and then Al Gore said, 'There's no need to be snippy.'"\n(Cue polite laughter.)\n"Does anyone want more cranberry chutney?"\nYes, we did eat cranberry chutney.\nYes, Al Gore did tell George W. Bush there was no need to be snippy.\nEven my mom and I, really the only political junkies in the family, have stopped checking CNN for a new president. She has Christmas lists to write and I have to study for finals.\nBut, you say, how can I possibly distract myself from the nail-biting tension of this election? \nWell, if eating a big meal isn't enough, here are my suggestions for ignoring one of the most historically interesting elections ever:\n• Raise funds for a good cause: Let's buy Florida a new voting system -- preferably one that doesn't involve punch cards, chads or anything edible. \n• Medical shock: A good way to avoid anything, but how to induce it? My suggestion is to contemplate the following fact. If it comes to having an interim president to run the country while we sort out the mess, our choices are Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Senate President Pro-Tempore Strom Thurmond. Strom Thurmond! He had his chance when he ran for president against Harry Truman in 1948.\n• Get a new job: I recommend being appointed to your county's Board of Elections. Being an election supervisor was, until now, the lowest spot on the county totem poll, often held by older eccentrics who nobly aspired to do their part. Only with recent developments has the job description expanded to include deciding presidential elections. \nDon't worry. No matter how you distract yourself, I'll let you know when we have a new president.
(11/20/00 5:03am)
How about a re-vote? But not just in Palm Beach County, I'm talking about the entire country.\nAnd here's the kicker: We dump these sorry, petulant excuses for candidates and get some new blood in the race. How about John McCain and Elizabeth Dole running against Bob Kerry and Dianne Feinstein? They would get two weeks and $10 million to make their case to America. Then we would all vote, and not with the arcane punch ballots that have been the bane of Florida recounts. \nOr not. \nHolding a national re-election would be unconventional, not to mention unconstitutional. But barring a constitutional contortion, there's not much hope any good will come of this election. \nMy best case scenario involves some kind of miracle -- something a la A Christmas Carol.\nOnce upon a time, George W. Bush was returning to his Texas ranch. He had just been a sour-puss in refusing Al Gore's offer to meet. As he stepped inside, the ghost of his father's campaign adviser, Lee Atwater, appeared to him.\n"Geooooooorge! Geooorge! Don't be such a spoilsport. Let them count the votes. Take the high road! I didn't. I ran the most negative ad campaign ever against that poor sop, Michael Dukakis. I regretted it all my life. Some of my dying words were an apology to Mike. As you once said, you can't claim the high horse and then take the low road … or something strange like that."\n"Lee! Aren't you proud of me? I'm gonna be the president."\n"You will be visited by three spirits!"\nIn the blink of an eye, Atwater disappeared. \nGeorge, startled, stumbled into bed. \nWhen the clock chimed one, a bright light introduced the first spirit into Dubya's bedroom -- Nancy Reagan!\n"I am the ghost of elections past! Look into my large hair! You can see a vision of the 1876 election! Because he won the electoral vote but not the popular vote, Rutherford B. Hayes was ridiculed and called 'His Fraudulency.' Be careful."\nShaken, Dubya fell back into his bed. \nAt two o'clock, George woke to the sound of chomping. In the corner of the room was Dick Cheney. He was dressed in one of his navy blue suits, and devouring a large bag of pork-rinds.\n"I am the ghost of elections present. Look into my bag of pork rinds. The old Jewish women of Florida are angry. Jesse Jackson is angry. Democrats all over America are angry! Unless you tell Katherine Harris to let them count every vote in Palm Beach, you'll be in a lose-lose situation. Even if you win, these angry people will make your administration look like a bad parody of a Charles Dickens novel."\nBush fell back into a troubled sleep. \nJust an hour later, he awoke to the strains of the New York state song. A figure, draped in a black Armani pants suit, was standing in the corner of the room.\n"There isn't another like it, no matter where you go!"\n"Hillary!?"\n"That's right, George. I'm the ghost of elections yet to come. Look into my shiny apple, which happens to be the official state fruit of New York. Do you see? It's me, accepting the Democratic nomination for president. And there I am, at my inauguration. Look, that's my presidential portrait, right next to your father's. Remember what happens when you take the low road. Remember what happens when you let Katherine Harris, your campaign co-chair in Florida, strong-arm the election. Remember how good my husband and I are at bouncing back!" \nAs Dubya was crawling out of his bed the next morning, he grabbed the phone and whispered into the receiver.\n"Get Al Gore on the phone. Let's do this recount the right way"
(11/13/00 4:18am)
Who knew Florida would become the epicenter of this country's biggest election nightmare? Things like this are only supposed to happen in corruption-filled dens of iniquity such as Chicago, where dead people have been known to vote.\nBut instead, it's the sandy shores of the Sunshine State that are in the throes of electoral uncertainty, the likes of which haven't been seen in this country for more than 100 years. In fact, 124 years ago, Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden were locked in a similar struggle for presidential power. The fact that most Americans probably can't remember who won gives us an idea of how far we've come since the two centrist candidates were locked in a post-election battle that lasted four months.\nFour months!\nOne would think the advent of computers, telephones, the automobile and, for heaven's sake, even the light bulb would have eliminated such problems from the electoral landscape. But no.\nQuick elections are a mirage produced by well-groomed television anchors and their puppeteers. Even though they tell us one candidate or another is the projected winner, that usually has nothing to do with real vote counts. Instead, they rely on surveys conducted as voters leave the polls.\nMost real vote counting doesn't happen until the days after the election, and can extend into the weeks after when absentee ballots are taken into account. Most of the time, this doesn't make much difference to the television announcers, because one candidate wins overwhelmingly enough that exit poles can accurately predict the result of the election -- such as when Ronald Reagan creamed Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. And when President Bill Clinton obliterated Bob Dole.\nHa ha! Not this time.\nAs I said last week, America hates its choices. That's why there's a razor-thin margin of victory, causing confusion that could linger for months. Consider this possibility: What if legal battles play out during the next four months, just as in 1876? We could inaugurate one candidate and then replace him with another. \nThis, my friends, is history in the making. When our grandchildren study Election 2000 in school, they will ask us what it was like.\nSo you can keep up with things, and know what to tell your grandchildren, here's a brief chronology of what's happened since last Tuesday:\nTuesday, Nov. 7:\nA weary America trudges to the polls, evenly divided between Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore.\nTuesday, Nov. 7, late night:\nCNN gives Florida to Gore. Then it takes it away. Then it gives it to Bush. Then, early Wednesday morning, it takes it away. It's kind of like if I tried to give my mom South Carolina for her birthday. Not really mine to give away, is it, CNN?\nWednesday, Nov. 8:\nHundreds of elderly Jewish women crawl out of the woodwork as they claim a faulty ballot duped them into voting for Reform party candidate Pat Buchanan instead of Gore. Imagine their emotional state: After living through global persecution, they had the chance to vote for Joey Lieberman. Now they think they've voted for a man who, in a New York Post column in 1990, said the reality of the Holocaust is at best debatable. These women, more than any cadre of campaign consultants, are Gore's greatest assets.\nThursday, Nov. 9:\nAfter months of watching the nation's most polished political figures smooth-talk their way through the campaign, we are treated to something else. With fear gripping my heart, I realize Bob Crawford, Florida commissioner of agriculture, has been appointed to the committee overseeing the election. The commissioner of agriculture?\nFriday, Nov. 10:\nAmerica wakes up to the fact the election hinges on a mere 327 … no, 288 … no, 368 votes. Well, it's some disgraceful number. Less than the cast and crew of "Happy Days."\nSaturday, Nov. 11:\nThe Bush campaign, which has been denouncing Gore's team for even thinking of taking the Palm Beach ballot to court, becomes the first campaign to file suit in federal court. It wants a judge to stop the hand counts Gore requested in four Florida counties. This move comes just in time for the Bush team, because the hand counting gives Gore a few dozen extra votes. Clinton and Reagan would have laughed at a few dozen votes. Bush is going to court.\nSunday, Nov. 12:\nPolitical columnists everywhere begin to weep, slowly realizing they will be writing about this race for the rest of their lives.
(11/07/00 4:01am)
Extremism is really sexy.\nIf you don't believe me, ask somebody who has been to one of those mega-rallies for Ralph Nader. Just imagine standing and cheering along with 12,000 other dreamers in a packed stadium. After a while, you wouldn't even be bothered by Nader's rambling speaking style or his obnoxious tendency to say, "Well, obviously ..."\nUnder the intoxication of extremism and its accompanying hyper-enthusiasm, you could blithely ignore Nader's claims that it doesn't matter who sits on the Supreme Court, that a poor woman's right to choose isn't in jeopardy under a Republican president and that the parties and their candidates are exactly alike.\nAnd conservative fanaticism is just as sexy.\nJust go to Pat Buchanan's Web site. He's the Reform Party's ultra-right presidential candidate. If you can get past the bigoted, arch-conservative stands and the abortion drum beating, you reach a certain Zen state of xenophobia. \n"Yes! Why don't we make English the official language? Why not abolish huge chunks of the government and let people fend for themselves? And yes, Pat, you're right, bring our boys home from overseas. Nothing bad will happen if there's no American presence in the Middle East, the former Soviet block and all of Asia."\nBoth of these guys are bad boys. By winning the New Hampshire primary in 1992, Buchanan helped defeat then-president and fellow conservative George Bush. Nader's Green cause threatens to do the same for Al Gore, whom the New York Times called "the best-informed and most committed environmentalist to run for president since Theodore Roosevelt." \nWe're all turned on by politicians who make bold pronouncements that fly in the face of reality. It's always just a bit titillating when someone such as Ezola Foster, Buchanan's African-American running mate, says the Democratic party is the greatest enemy of inner city blacks. It's hard not to be impressed when cavalier Nader suggests a George W. Bush presidency, no matter how damaging to the environment, would finally galvanize the left. \nAmerica is addicted to individuality, independence and the charisma that bubbles from people who aren't afraid to be bold. \nThat's why we don't like Gore and Bush. \nThe dead heat in which the candidates find themselves is indicative of an electorate that doesn't much care for its choices. Bill Ballenger, publisher of "Inside Michigan Politics," assures us, "Certainly there's no great passion for either of them."\nCertainly.\nBut what can you expect? The passionate people ... the people willing to speak up and out ... inspire passion. In this race, the folks screaming from the sidelines are the interesting ones.\nMeanwhile, Al and George find themselves hogtied in the middle of the field. Hogtied by polls telling them Americans want a president who will be all things to all people. Hogtied by the media, by party machines and by the need for campaign cash.\nOur major party candidates for every office are afraid if they talk about anything but poll-approved policy positions, they will lose those few crucial votes. Passion, although Americans crave it, is too risky and divisive.\nBut there's one passionate viewpoint everyone missed this time around -- that crazy idea that America can work. That, in the words of playwright Anna Deavere Smith, America's consciousness has room for "a larger idea of 'We the People.'" That poor people, rich people, white people, black people, gay people, immigrants and Native Americans can all live in the same America. That with a balance of collective effort, individual liberty and good government, a democratic republic really can be a place to pursue happiness. \nThat's the sexiest extremism of all. It's the same American extremism that inspired the Revolutionary War. The same extremism that fueled Lincoln's bid to re-unite the nation. The same stuff that pulled us through the Great Depression and World War II. The extremism that fueled the fight for civil rights in the '50s. After all, who was sexier than Martin Luther King, Jr.? Who else dared go further in articulating an America that could be?\nToday, I will vote for Al Gore, because I believe that he will continue the sound economic policies of the Clinton administration, that he will be a conscientious steward for the environment and that he is competent enough to safeguard our international interests. \nBut I will cast my first presidential vote with uneasiness. After one of the longest campaign seasons in American history (almost two years), we have failed to produce a qualified candidate who inspires and speaks with that distinctly American kind of passion.
(10/30/00 4:54am)
And now I present to you: A Riff on the Bloody Eighth.\nBecause really, not much is happening on the national scene, except that Al Gore is desperately trying to hire some mafia types to "put the freeze" on Ralph Nader; George W. Bush is basking in the sun lamp he takes with him to Northern Michigan; and the polls continue to tell us nothing of substance about the race.\nThe congressional district in which we live is called the Bloody Eighth. That's because of all the human sacrifice. Figuratively, anyway. Our races for the House are always close, always mean and often unseat incumbents. Since we live in a largely conservative district, running from Bloomington to Evansville, the candidates are usually alike in ideology. Not even this year's Democrat, Dr. Paul Perry, believes in gun control or a woman's right to choose.\n(Do you ever wonder where all the real Democrats are? California, maybe?)\nJohn Hostettler, not to be outdone, takes the hardline position on everything from abortion to flag burning.\n Ahhh! There's nothing that makes me more upset than someone who wants to pass a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. Do you know which countries ban flag burning? Communist China! Cuba! The former Soviet Union! Those are the kinds of places where the governments are so afraid of free speech that they ban the defilement of patriotic symbols.\nThe New York Times calls us a "quirky, populist district" because we constantly vote our representatives out of office. I suppose house guests, fish and congressmen all begin to stink after a while.\nThe New York Times is trying to call us quirky? Well, at least we have John and Paul running, and not the first lady.\nIn the same article, the Times quoted Jason Pratt as saying the voters of the Bloody Eighth "want the working person to get a fair shake, and don't want politicians coming around taking our guns away." Luckily, it looks as though both of the Bloody Eighth's choices believe in an America armed to the teeth.\nBut if anyone is going to take our guns away, it'll be the same Fascists who want to stop us from burning the flag. \nThere is a stark difference between rural and urban America. I know all about this, since I've lived in both environs. On the farm, in the dark, without any neighbors, it was always nice to know that mom had a few shotguns, and that my dad always kept the pistol around. When I spent the summer in Boston and my good friend was robbed while someone held a cheap handgun in his face, I wouldn't have minded if Gore had come around taking everyone's guns away. Even Harvard Yard was kinda spooky in the dark.\nDr. Paul, whose slogan is "Let's Put a Doctor in the House," looks a bit nervous in his campaign photos. Perhaps it's because he must convince the liberals in Bloomington he's a real Democrat, and at the same time get Jason Pratt to vote for him. Hostettler, on the other hand, always looks very much at ease. I'm sure it's because he's given up on anyone at IU who isn't a member of the College Republicans, and on the other hand has the Fascist vote all sewn up. \nWell, those are your choices. Choices? Bloody pitiful, isn't it? If you're a moderate Republican or a liberal Democrat, your dream candidates are otherwise occupied. Elizabeth Dole and Jesse Jackson? Christine Todd Whitman and Ted Kennedy? Not in the Bloody Eighth, where it's tradition to choose between the pot and the kettle.
(10/23/00 5:20am)
Ralph Nader is contending that Al Gore and George W. Bush are cut from the same cloth, and that means Nadar has quite a credibility gap to deal with too.\nIn the New York Times, Nader insists the two major party candidates, though trumpeting their differences, are just Washington insiders, victims of "the increasing homogenization of both parties into one party indentured to business interests." As far as the Green Party candidate is concerned, Gore and Bush are both gray.\nThis is certainly a convenient political trick for Nader. By resorting to simplified sound bites, Nader quickly lays the ground for conversion to Green.\nThe argument is as follows:\n1) Most people don't like politics in general.\n2) The major party candidates are generally politicians (you know, the mean kind who do whatever big business tells them to).\n3) The major party candidates are, in fact, the same person!\n4) If you don't like that person, then the only real alternative is the Green Party.\nBesides, Greens say, their goal is not really to win the presidency. That's for another day. This time around, a Green victory would be 5 percent of the national vote, a number that would mean federal support for their next presidential bid. That money could mean the creation and maintenance of a viable third party (a questionable assumption at best).\nSounds good, doesn't it? Not excited about voting for Tweedledum or Tweedledumber? Vote for Nader, the vote of good conscience!\nThe only problem is that all of Nader's arguments defy fact, reality and common sense. \nBush and Gore are about as similar as cream puffs and titanium. One is a conservative Republican who believes in a big tax cut, school vouchers, pro-life Supreme Court appointments and an isolationist foreign policy. The other is a liberal Democrat who supports limited target-tax cuts, populist government entitlements, public school support, pro-choice Supreme Court nominees and an internationalist foreign policy.\nNow, here's a quiz on the above paragraph I'd like to give Nader.\nAfter reading Duncan Teater's short but incisive description of Bush and Gore, I can see the two major party figures:\nA) Are exactly the same. (Note to Ralph: this is the wrong answer.)\nB) Disagree on just about every major issue. (Note to Ralph: this is the right answer.)\nI have a feeling that, despite the elementary level of this exam, Nader would have a hard time passing. So here's a little bonus quiz for Ralph.\nRalph is:\nA) a zealot.\nB) trying to manipulate people with a ridiculous argument.\nC) a Green insurgent with blinders on.\nHappily, this quiz is designed for student success. All the answers are correct!\nI like Ralph Nader. I'm glad he's out there spicing things up, trying to bring a truly leftist perspective to the national dialogue. \nBut I resent his attempt to convince Americans that the differences between Bush and Gore are meaningless. They're not meaningless if you feel one way or the other about a huge tax cut or a bigger government. The differences are important if you have any opinion at all about whether Roe v. Wade (the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion) should be reversed.\nAnd the black and white differences in foreign policy are the most startling of all. In a recent release, Bush's foreign policy team declared he would quickly pull U.S. peace-keeping forces out of the Balkans. This move would mark a major shift in the United States' attitude toward NATO, toward Europe and toward international engagement. It also marks a difference between Gore and Bush -- the difference between an engagement-oriented policy and an isolationist policy.\nIt would be nice to have a vibrant third party. I would be happy to see some Green members of Congress. But voting for Nader is not going to accomplish this goal. Remember the last party to argue that federal matching funds made it worth voting for a third party, Ross Perot's Reform party? And what happened to them? A quick, painful and embarrassing demise.\nSo give your Green vote to Nader! But only if you're willing to submit to the manipulation of a man seemingly intent on helping to elect Bush.
(10/16/00 5:26am)
Millions of Americans are asking the same question: When will this campaign be over?\nAs much as I'm supposed to enjoy all of this politicing, I sympathize. How much more can we read into Al Gore's sighs? How many more times do we want to talk about George W. Bush's boyish charm? Is it doing us any good to hear repeatedly from one candidate that the other candidate's prescription drug plan requires seniors to crawl naked under barbed wire on their way to the pharmacy?\nI blame television. I'm sure there were problems with politics before "the little glowing box," but it would be a challenge for the Bush campaign to exploit Gore's eye-rolling in a pamphlet or broadside. But now, with the help of television, we can worry about every arm-crossing, tear to pieces the tone of a candidate's voice and generally put every nod, wink and blink under the microscope of erratic public opinion.\nAnd it's just exhausting. "Gore slips two points!" "Bush gains among white men, falls behind with African-American women!" "Al Gore rallies among Angolan night-club owners!" \nWho cares! At this point, after two years of election coverage, of people screaming at us, of candidates sounding like card-board egg cartons have been stuffed into their brains, how can any of us be expected to care? \nBut now it's really hit the fan. We might just have a war brewing in the Middle East. After a decade of coasting on Easy Street, we might need a good leader in the Oval Office, in case the Israelis and Palestinians don't make nice.\nSo what are we going to do? As insufferable as the race is by now, we have no choice but to carefully listen to the two candidates. It's been a while since international conflict reminded us the world can be a scary place, so everybody hold hands during the last debate, and I promise the election will be over soon.\nAnd remember, it could be worse. Here are some alternatives to the current election process:\nPlan A: Saved by the Bell\nDuring the last month of the campaign, the candidates would be sent to a randomly selected high school. It could be in the inner city, middle America or Maui. Al and George would attend classes, eat lunch and party hearty with all-American kids, who would then hold a school assembly during which they would elect the next president of the United States. \nPros: Congress would pass legislation to improve public schools. We'd see if a candidate like W. could pass pre-calculus. The rest of America would get to ignore politics for a few weeks.\nCons: If you're at all familiar with the words "swirly" and "wedgie," you know why this is a bad idea. Do you remember what your senior class president did? Peace in the Balkans? I think not.\nPlan B: Pencils Ready!\nEach candidate would have to take a series of essay tests. They might have to respond to the question, "Why I want to be president," in 1,000 words or less. Then, various civic organizations, such as the Rotary Club and the Daughters of the American Revolution, would judge the samples. The person with the higher score would win.\nPros: We would at least know if the candidates could read and write. The Rotary Club and DAR would see a membership surge.\nCons: Remember the last essay test you took? I'd have a rough time being presidential in a blue book. \nPlan C: million Dollar Man\nSince all we care about is the economy (work with me for a moment), why not test the candidates through the market? Al and George would get a million each. For three quarters, they could invest it however they wanted. By the end, whoever could show the best portfolio would keep their profits and the honor of looking after the national checkbook.\nPros: Day trading would take on a whole new significance. \nCons: While the candidates were losing their shirts, we'd be losing our souls.\nSee? What we've got going isn't half as bad as some of the alternatives. Stay tuned! It could be worse. \n(Is that the best rallying call we have?)
(10/09/00 8:28pm)
It could only have been more perfect if Al Gore had worn a shirt that said, "I'm with Stupid." \nInstead, Tweedle-dumb and Tweedle-disdainful were dressed in identical outfits, dark blue suits with white shirts and red ties. (Gore's tie was more of a maroon, in case anyone was having trouble telling the two apart).\nIt seemed the point of the first debate of election season was to convince America that George W. Bush is a Republican and Gore is a Democrat. This was accomplished by repeated sound-offs of party themes. For example, Gore reminded us (10 times!) that the Republican tax plan would enable rich people to buy more stuff, while making it necessary for poor people to sell their organs to purchase prescription drugs. While not disputing these claims, Bush insisted Gore wanted to introduce big government programs that would make Scandinavian socialism look namby-pamby.\nFortunately for the careful listener, subtextual highlights did exist that made the evening at least bearable.\nFuzzy Math! \nEvery time Gore mentioned a number, no matter the reason, Bush would respond by telling intrepid moderator Jim Lehrer, "It's fuzzy math!" In the home audience, we were left wondering if perhaps all math is fuzzy for the governor. In coverage of Bush's travels after the debates, it was reported that at rallies across the country, Bush was met by riled (and perhaps rehearsed) crowds chanting, "Fu-zy Math! Fu-zy Math!" \nFor clarification, I contacted a fake, non-existent mathematician to find out just what this means. He said, "Well, people don't like math. In fact, they hate it. Governor Bush is trying to capitalize on this and gain the vote of the math-hating constituency."\nThis strategy could be a problem for Bush's education platform\nThe Sigh, the Glance, the Man\nUnaware that his microphone was on and a split screen showed his reactions during Bush's comments, Gore let loose a veritable tirade of exasperated sighs, glares and disgusted grimaces. Many commentators believe this played into Gore's reputation as a pedantic wonk. \nAnd it didn't make his make-up job look any better. Ugly is as ugly does, after all.\nFun Facts From the Governor\nAs he did in the primary debates, Bush enthralled and entertained us all with a series of astounding fun facts:\n
(10/02/00 3:36am)
Sometimes people ask me how they should vote. They know about my obsession with politics, and they think I might have the inside scoop. Far be it from me to interfere with anybody's elective enjoyment, but here's a word that can help decide how you cast your vote in November:\n Abortion. There, I said it!\n You don't hear the word often these days, especially from people running for president. \n It used to be we couldn't go a week without someone saying something silly or controversial about our favorite moral divide. It seemed the federal government was invented for taxes, troops and a gathering place for representatives who got elected because their constituents were pro-life, pro-choice or just didn't care.\nBelieve it or not, abortion used to decide a lot of votes. Heck, don't take my word for it. I'm sure anyone old enough to read this column remembers when politicians such as Pat Buchanan made abortion their battle call, pledging they would do whatever it took to keep those fetal hearts beating. Even moderates such as Bob Dole, George Bush the Elder and Al Gore (yes, Al Gore!) cast pro-life votes with a quiet zeal, showing their socially conservative supporters they did believe in the sanctity of life. \nThe other side showed compensatory enthusiasm. Liberals such as Pat Schroeder couldn't start a speech about women's rights without a nod to the most sacred right of all: the right to choose. \nThese days, it's out of place to hear the "A" word from any pre-presidential mouth. Even Pat Buchanan has toned down his attack on what conservatives once called our "culture of murder." The liberals in the race give only the occasional limp confirmation of their pro-choice support.\nTo understand this trend, you have to understand how the majority of Americans feel. Most people would blanch if their views on abortion were compared to either of the Pats (Buchanan or Schroeder). While stopping short of defining women's rights through abortion, Susie Soccer Mom isn't going to interfere with anyone's decision about whether to have a baby. Nobody likes the idea of abortion, but they don't like the idea of an abortion ban, either. \nWhat they do like is the status quo. As long as a safe operation is available and nobody has to think about the word "clotheshanger," we're all safe to mind our own business.\nPoliticians aren't stupid. They don't pay advisers, pollsters and hairdressers millions of dollars for nothing. Al Gore and George W. Bush know Americans are ambivalent about abortion. That's why from the beginning of the race, the candidates made it clear nobody really wanted to talk about it. If a particularly intrepid reporter brings it up, Bush says something about working to protect human life, and offers a vague support for a constitutional ban that will never happen. Gore lets loose his distant stare and makes a remark about how important it is to protect a woman's right to choose. (After eight years with Bill Clinton, he does support that … It's amazing what happens when you no longer represent conservative Tennessee in Congress.)\nBut there are forces at work the public knows little about.\nBush has a conservative base. Gore has a liberal base. Both are powerful groups with lots of money. Both have at least as much control over the candidates as their mothers do. And both have particular feelings about abortion. \nDon't scoff. Don't tell me nothing will ever happen, that there will never be enough support in Congress to pass an outright constitutional ban on abortion. I know that. I also know the opponents of abortion have their eyes on a far quicker path to victory.\nIt runs to the Supreme Court.\nThe next president will appoint two or three justices, replacing some of the more conservative faces. Right now, with those two lovable goons still in service, the court is carefully balanced on a reluctant but fairly certain support of Roe v. Wade. \nIf Gore's liberal base gets the chance, it will have him appoint justices who will vote to maintain that decision, resulting in a solidly pro-choice Supreme Court. The status quo will be secured. \nBush promises he won't use a judge's view on abortion as a litmus test for appointment to the Supreme Court. But if the conservative power base gets its way, Bush will appoint judges slobbering at the mouth to overturn the ruling. \nHow should you decide on a candidate? It seems this issue is a good place to start.
(09/25/00 6:54am)
I find myself suddenly out of the Olympic loop. Every few years, I manage to rally some kind of enthusiasm for figure skating, the luge, track and field or cold-war style national pride. I even have affectionate memories of watching the last few minutes of the marathon. I have a secret morbid fascination with the sight of a clinically exhausted foreigner stumbling around the victory lap after 36 miles of misery, then collapsing into the arms of waiting paramedics.\nBut a number of things are distracting me from the 2000 summer games. The foremost among them is that it is September. For me, the Olympics have always been the perfect respite from August heat. There's nothing like watching super-human athletes push their bodies to the limits as I loll listlessly on the couch. I feel as if I'm doing my part to balance the Universe's karma. If there's someone out there working so hard at the 400 meter breast stroke, then there ought to be someone on the other side of the world doing absolutely nothing. \nThat used to be me.\nBut this time around, I'm busy with school, and seeing our American swimmers breaking speed boating records just makes me nervous.\nThe other challenge to this year's Olympics is the TV time. I know the spirit of the games demands we share with out-of-the-way Australia, but it's not terribly convenient. Now, if the Aussies would just agree to hold all of the events between three and six in the morning by their watch, the Olympics might just fit nicely into American prime time. \nBut alas, this Olympics seems to be passing me by. With each passing day, records are broken, gold and silver medals are passed around, and I don't have anything to do with it. \nI could almost be talking about politics. \nIn the same way I feel distanced from our American athletes and their struggle for patriotic and personal glory, I often worry the rest of the country feels distanced from the titanic struggles between Bush and Gore, Clinton and Lazio, Left and Right. \nI don't think this is the public's fault. Not exclusively, anyway.\nThe mushroom cloud of expanding media outlets has lead to the "Sheesh" effect. When confronted with 17 different TV opportunities to learn about George W. Bush's "Father Complex," the only appropriate response is "Sheesh."\nOr if you prefer the Internet, Time.com will allow you to access no less than six billion stories about the Lincoln Bedroom, Hillary's hair and Tommy Lee Jones' late night conversation with his college roommate, Al Gore. \nSheesh.\nIt's hard to be passionate this time around -- about the Olympics, or about the road to the White House. \nUnknown athletes are competing at three in the morning, halfway around the globe, against countries with whom we're not mired in cold war. I don't even think the Iraqis are allowed to send competitors. Too bad. We just can't seem to muster rivalry with the communists anymore.\nCandidates who are much too well-known (Hillary's favorite card game as a child was pinochle) are competing on TV and the Internet, reaching the point at which no one knows what anyone stands for now that the Cold War is over. \nI don't think people with real ideas and passions are allowed to compete anymore. Too bad. We just can't seem to muster enthusiasm for people whose only qualification is that they can raise enough money to buy time during Olympic commercial breaks. The Long Jump, brought to you by Citizens for Al Gore.