ROBERT IAFOLLA
Daily Trojan (USC)

(U-WIRE) LOS ANGELES -- Technology has a persistent, powerful and pervasive effect on the world of man. If you build it, things will change. This is particularly true in modern America, where technology evolves at an exponential rate.

These innovations push and rework American society at any scale, from the nation's place in the world to the individual lives of its citizens.

Think about how inventions such as nuclear weapons, automobiles, televisions and cell phones have altered America in both profound and pedestrian ways.

The Internet is a particularly potent agent of change. It has modified commerce with Web sites such as Amazon and eBay; revolutionized communication and the way people socialize with e-mail and online communities such as Friendster, MySpace and Facebook; and democratized information, with billions of Web pages available to anybody with access to the Net.

Perhaps more than any other industry, the information superhighway has had a deep impact on journalism. News comes faster, as reports can be published on the Web almost instantaneously. News also spreads farther, as a reader in Los Angeles can read an article from a French newspaper with a few simple keystrokes. Indeed, it is changing the very structure of the news business.

"The Roman Empire that was mass media is breaking up, and we are entering an almost feudal period where there will be many more centers of power and influence," said Orville Schell, the dean of UC-Berkeley's journalism school, to Business Week.

Journalism versus blogging is the loudest debate in this evolving news landscape.

"Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one, and blogging means practically anyone can own one," wrote journalism professor at several New York universities and press critic Jay Rosen. "That is the No. 1 reason why Weblogs matter ... a blog, you see, is a little First Amendment machine."

With this press freedom, bloggers have turned in vivid dispatches from disaster zones before conventional media could get on the scene.

The tsunami in Asia, the July 7 bombings in London and the past two hurricanes in the Gulf Coast all provided opportunities for this new style of citizen journalism.

This reporting, however, is the exception to blogging, not the rule. Blogs are not about collecting the news, but rather the conversation about the news.

Bob Cauthorn, blogger and former vice president of digital media at the San Francisco Chronicle, explained that bloggers are similar to the revolutionary pamphleteers of the 1700s.

"Like those pamphleteers, at this point, blogging tends to be more about opinions than facts," Cauthorn wrote. "Also like those pamphleteers, bloggers are in the process of laying the groundwork for very important journalism going forth from here."

Journalist Tim Porter described blogs as part of a "thought stream" that brings "people together in a swirling current of ideas, debate and interaction."

Some voices from the halls of the mainstream media have tried to dismiss the impact of blogs. This attitude is illustrated by the view that a blogger is some "guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas," as CNN/U.S. President Jonathan Klein once put it.

The primary criticism of blogs has to do with credibility, which was on full display at a roundtable discussion between about 25 bloggers and big media types last week in Manhattan.

"The emotional energy that filled the room when the print guys started decrying the 'potentially deadly' inaccuracy of bloggers was remarkable," wrote blogger Susan Crawford. "We are the truth, they seemed to think -- we have standards."

This view ignores some basic realities. First off, it mistakes the role bloggers play as modern pamphleteers.

When the Los Angeles Times says that an unnamed administration official criticized policy A or politician B, the reader must have a high level of trust in the newspaper's accuracy and integrity to believe the report. On the other hand, the opinion expressed by a blogger doesn't require the same faith.

This is not to say that credibility plays no factor in opinions. When a Maureen Dowd or a Thomas Friedman comments on national affairs, not only to they bring their own authority as journalists, but also the reputation of the hallowed New York Times.

Individual bloggers at their home printing presses don't benefit from a reader's trust in an institution, but credibility is still a major factor.

"A blogger is not a message board poster, largely anonymous and indistinguishable from the rest of the chatter on the board," wrote the publisher of MGoBlog, a blog about the University of Michigan Wolverines.

"I have a reputation -- a brand, even -- that goes under that banner at the top and whatever trust I have I had to earn."

In fact, there are efforts to use blogs to increase the mainstream media's credibility. CBS recently unveiled the Public Eye, a blog that connects audience and institution to act as a public ombudsman.

Technology, once again, has created a new environment.

Fresh ideas such as the Public Eye point to journalism adapting to the new terrain, but really there is no choice. The rule of nature, as always, is to evolve or die.

STAFF EDITORIAL
Daily Trojan (USC)


(U-WIRE) LOS ANGELES -- When planes flew into the World Trade Center, the world stopped and watched. And when bombs ripped the London Underground to pieces, life and transportation came to a standstill throughout the globe. So why didn't anyone stop and listen when bombings rocked Bali on Saturday?

The number of fatalities paled in comparison to prior terrorist attacks, but at least 25 people still died Saturday as they went about their normal business, dining at crowded restaurants on the Indonesian resort island.

Authorities quickly branded the events an act of terror, suspecting that the explosions were the product of a suicide bomber, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism specialist for the Rand Corp.'s Washington office, told the Times that the attacks shouldn't surprise anyone after London.

Many argue that we shouldn't give in to terrorists by broadcasting their messages and acts through the media. And we most definitely shouldn't let their actions change our daily lives.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge what happened and mourn for the lives that were lost.

Authorities said at least three Americans were injured in Bali. Would U.S. media outlets have given more coverage if more Americans were injured or killed? Would more Americans actually care? It is most likely that the answer to these questions is yes.

In this era of globalization, we cannot fail to remember that the war on terror is global. Terrorism in Indonesia is just as important and just as much of a problem as terrorism in the United States or the United Kingdom. The lives of Indonesians are no less important than the lives of Americans.

This Western-centric view of the world and concern for terrorism must end now. If the Bush administration and the American people are serious about the fight to end terrorism, it must be approached at a global level. Bali deserves the same response as New York, Madrid and London.

STAFF EDITORIAL
The Heights (Boston College)


U-WIRE) CHESTNUT HILL, Mass. -- The signs were there.

Days before Katrina ever hit shore in New Orleans, officials warned that the storm would cause immense damage. And even years before, experts informed the city that the effects of a poor levee system combined with the ever-increasing danger of global warming -- or its newly coined, less emphatic moniker, climate change -- would eventually lead to disaster.

But for years these environmental warnings have gone unheeded. Opponents claim that there is no overwhelming evidence to turn climate change from a theory into a law.

Global warming refers to the phenomenon of the warming of the average temperature of the atmosphere and oceans, caused primarily by a strengthening greenhouse effect -- the process by which the earth's atmosphere is heated. This increase is attributed by scientists primarily to man-made increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases which have decreased the amount of protection the ozone layer can provide.

Admittedly, scientists themselves are reluctant to totally link global warming to disasters such as Katrina and the tsunami in Southeast Asia -- these events often simply run in cycles.

But the facts themselves are indisputable. Water and air temperatures have increased considerably in the past century. Hurricanes get their strength from warm ocean waters. Scientists have found little to no increase in the number of hurricanes, but The New York Times reports that their intensity has spiked by 70 percent.

It seems difficult, not only for those in government, but also everyday Americans, to connect these dots. Many want irrefutable proof that global warming exists as a serious problem.

The unfortunate problem with this logic is that the irrefutable proof will have to come from a terrible disaster -- on the scale of Katrina, or possibly larger. And at that point, it may be too late.

The question then that needs to be asked is what we as citizens must do to prevent another tragedy from unfolding.

Despite numerous opportunities to do so, President Bush has continuously dismissed environmental reforms that could make a real difference for the future, claiming more research needs to be done. The biggest help anyone can give to the cause of solving global warming is to tell lawmakers that this is something the people -- not only scientists -- care about.

In Congress, a divisive battle is raging over the environmental policies for America's future. While many Democrats are pushing for Bush to decrease industrial emissions and give auto manufacturers incentives to make cars more fuel efficient, conservatives are pushing for the opposite. An energy bill currently being put together by the GOP in the House would relax restrictions on toxic emissions from oil refineries along with other pro-business, anti-environment policies -- an attempt to use the Katrina-caused oil scare to push a political agenda.

As a student at BC, there is still plenty to be done on an individual level. Though most BC students don't have cars on campus, motor vehicles do account for a large portion of consumer pollution. For those that do drive, consider using public transportation if possible. Especially in a
metropolis like Boston, there are numerous ways to get practically anywhere in the city via the T or buses.

But those without cars can help, too. One idea would be to turn your computer off at night, or at least put it on standby mode. Yes, you could no longer let your friends know that you're "sleeping" or other such unnecessary away messages. But that's a small sacrifice when it comes to saving energy.

You can also save energy -- and money -- by dropping the thermostat down a couple of degrees in the winter.

In every residence hall there are bins for paper, plastic, and aluminum recycling. Do your part on a Friday night and throw your cans and bottles in there instead of the trash cans. And on that note, when you empty your trays from McElroy, take the extra second to toss your plastic into the recycling rather than the trash.

Just as Bush's policies have been nothing more than suggestions rather than laws, no one is going force these lifestyle changes on you.

But Mother Nature is a much stronger enforcer and someday soon she might not be so forgiving.

JEFF PURCELL
Cornell Daily Sun (Cornell U.)


(U-WIRE) ITHACA, N.Y. -- Before Katrina offered the world a new pictorial of poverty, the most prominent slideshows on the web were of "right-wing settlers" in Gaza. These "extremists" vowed to lock themselves into synagogues, homes and schools in defiance of Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon's decision to evacuate Gaza after 38-years of occupation. The Strip was seized by Israel in June 1967, and settlers have been offered incentives and subsidies to build lives there for decades. They did, mostly after the government of Israel -- using force, intimidation and law -- evacuated several hundred thousand indigenous persons since 1948.

The "liberal" media in America went into conniption fits in its portrayal of the plight of those in Gaza, but was careful to place final blame with the Palestinians. In order to "end violence" and "pursue disengagement," Sharon had to cede Gaza -- we were told. The well-meaning but unsophisticated people in Gaza were too sentimental, and did not understand geopolitics, we read. Their efforts to pour cooking oil on the floors to slow Israeli Defense forces were in vain. Readers and watchers were barraged with images of forlorn IDF, "Jews forced to expel Jews." Sun columnist Jamie Weinstein wrote that images like these "brought tears to his eyes." This paper ran a front-page article entitled "Goodbye Gaza," as if the Gaza Strip had been given away.

Soon thereafter, Sun columnist Joshua Dugan wrote on the "Anti-Zionist Myth." Opposition to Zionism, Dugan suggested, was disingenuous: a farce for anti-Semitism used by bigoted groups like the Presbyterian Church to divest from companies (like Caterpillar and United Technologies) that sell arms to Israel.

We must observe how well the "liberal media" played into Sharon's. In early August, a hint of truth appeared in The New York Times. One settler told a reporter that Sharon was a "right-wing genocidal dictator." Ah, how the truth manages to reveal itself if we are willing to seek it.

Only a few moments after the last "right-wing" settler was removed from Gaza, Sharon's Cabinet announced its decision to seize more of the West Bank. The settlement of Maale Adumim, home to over 30,000, will be "protected" by the wall Israel is building around its borders. And more land that was once the home of a people called Palestinians will become Israeli property. 3,500 new homes will be built; settlements will expand. The Israeli government will offer incentives, subsidies and infrastructure for the settlements. Eretz Israel grows in the most contentious city -- Jerusalem -- while in a massive barrage of publicity, it contracts in a desert. This action occurred, despite an advisory ruling of the International Court of Justice at The Hague last year that condemned the building of an Apartheid Wall to annex Palestinian land. You've been punk'd.

Gaza is not owned by the Palestinian Authority -- it remains owned by Israel. Israel just completed an invasion of Gaza -- after all the conflagration regarding its "withdrawal" from the occupied lands. Sharon used the settlers in Gaza as cover for his larger project in Jerusalem. He had no concern for their lives, safety, situation, or homes. The Israeli government is run, that settler is correct, by right-wing dictators whose concern for people is much like our own President Bush's concern for Americans -- token, insulting, and shallow.

Gaza was a press event, and it was carried out at the expense of Israelis. All the attention to Gaza has been used by Sharon to distract. While municipal elections were held in the West Bank, his IDF arrested 441 suspected "militants" and killed five others. Sheik Hassan Youssef, a Hamas leader in the West Bank, was arrested so that he could not campaign. Brig. Gen. Yair Golan, likened Israel's position to "keeping the grass cropped all the time." The grass, we are to assume, are Palestinian human beings, and the IDF is a lawn mower, perhaps a bulldozer. One wonders how any could mock "anti-Zionism" when those who liken themselves to cutters of people call themselves "Zionists."

Israeli air strikes killed at least five others in Gaza this week. Since August, massive troop movements, air strikes and gun ships have patrolled the area. That the situation in Gaza is not so changed should be remembered when we examine how the "plight" of the settlers was portrayed. On Friday afternoon in Palestine, Udai Tantawi, 13, in the Askar refugee camp, was shot and killed by IDF, after 10 Palestinians threw rocks and bottles at an Israeli patrol. This is what occupation looks like.

On Oct. 2, even The Times admitted "Israel has failed to meet its own road map commitment to freeze settlement building in the West Bank, fuelling Palestinian fears that the Gaza withdrawal plan was an Israeli ruse to strengthen its hold on the West Bank."

Amidst much talk of "supporting Israel," "anti-Zionism," "anti-Semitism," and "terrorism," the only news coming out of Israel and Palestine is more death, more destruction, more of the same. Only the growing numbers of victims of the State of Israel is news.

AILEE SLATER
Oregon Daily Emerald (U. Oregon)


(U-WIRE) EUGENE, Ore. -- The war in Iraq has been removed from its prestigious position as love child sprung from the media and military. Now, "Iraq" pops up on front pages and news briefs simply as a warning bell that death toll numbers will appear momentarily.

America, at least the sect of America without personal ties to the war, now leaves Iraq on the back burner of any political discussion and usually avoids the topic for fear of hearing "old news."

Well, here's something brand spanking new that is not new at all. A historical road map inextricably tied to 9/11, terrorism and the attack on Iraq has led us to exactly this place: On Saturday, three suicide bombers attacked restaurants in Bali, killing at least 19 and injuring more than 100. The restaurants were located in an area heavily populated by international tourists, so it's no surprise that America has condemned the bombings for their role in the issue of terrorism.

Ergo, it is also no surprise that suicide bombers would wipe out eateries on a fabulous beach resort in the first place.

Most terrorists remain unaffiliated with any nation, giving them neither a country to fight for nor a specific cause to win. Instead, since 9/11 especially, sites of Americanized or Westernized culture have become the battlefield for rogue terrorists.

Ironically, America has turned around and made Islamic culture the battlefield for the U.S. Army. Iraqi citizens were not at the helm of the 9/11 airplanes; however, George Bush and the American media managed to convince 45 percent of this country's citizens that Saddam was "personally involved" in the trade center attacks. America sees no difference between the Islamic extremists who suicide-bombed our buildings and the Islamic citizens now trapped in American-Iraqi crossfire, thanks to our vigilant stand against Saddam Hussein. Anyone, on that side of the world at least, is expendable if a larger purpose is served: Ending Terrorism.

Which is exactly the same mentality employed by those responsible for 9/11. The World Trade Center was not solely occupied by American citizens bent on taking over the world. The towers included kids in daycare and international tourists, but the 9/11 hijackers considered those people expendable. Like America's attitude toward casualties in the War on Terror, the 9/11 suicide pilots also saw themselves as serving a greater purpose: Fighting a culture of capitalism and globalization that is undeniably linked to specific cases of Islamic suffering.

The war in Iraq is certainly a globalization of American ideals. Is it any wonder that terrorism has not yet ended?

The majority of the world has condemned the Bali bombing, just like the majority of the world condemned the U.S. decision to strike Iraq. Iraq was attacked nonetheless. Why should it pressure rogue terrorists to hear such condemnations when empirical evidence only shows that World Condemnation wields no concrete power?

The United States subscribed to a system wherein global opinion does not matter long before terrorists realized that they could blow up a beach and receive no real punishment. The people of Earth are far too torn to work together, and rogue terrorists take shelter in that atmosphere of arrogant individuality, or if you will, "patriotism."

When I began crafting this article, I expected to produce a piece on what a suicide bomber is and why such a person is so dangerous. I expected to explain why suicide bombers in particular are so frightening, so capable of destruction. I expected to explain how the continual creation of suicide bombers across the globe could be tackled; this from my own, Western perspective.

The idea I set out to prove did not end up being the idea that I now believe.

A suicide bomber or pilot is no different from an American soldier: A courageous individual willing to both kill and die for the ideals of a leader, community, or nation. Until the United States extricates its armed forces from Iraq, there is no reason that we Americans should be pious enough to expect suicide bombers to ever go away.

Our nation must take off its blinders and stop deeming everyone, except ourselves, irrational. Only when we can see the rationality behind an Islamic extremist can we see the irrationality behind the American military platform. And vice versa, as America tends to make it. As long as there is an irrational enemy, there will be a rationalized war.

I don't know about you, but I am not a hypocrite. I am, however, tired of talking about the war in Iraq. If I stand in solidarity with the American soldiers, then I stand in solidarity with the suicide bombers in Bali. On the other hand, if I stand in opposition to war, then I stand in opposition to war.

I stand in opposition to war.

WILLIAM SEA
The Battalion (Texas A&M)


(U-WIRE) COLLEGE STATION, Texas -- This past week, Texas faced a major disaster, unprecedented and unexpected: Many of us lost our cell phone service.

Where was the real tragedy in this? The truth is, we have become incredibly attached to our cell phones. Cell phones allowed many people to communicate with their families during this disconcerting time, and they are now, like it or not, vital parts of our life. It's times like these when they become the most useful.

Unfortunately, more and more people, particularly college students, are using their cell phones for more than just calling and receiving. With the rise of features like call screening, text messaging and voicemail, communication has now acquired three dangerous characteristics: It is selective, it is inarticulate and it is impersonal.

The old days of picking up a phone and waiting for a surprise on the other end are long gone. Instead, caller ID allows cell phone users to see exactly who is calling and decide whether or not to answer. Not only does this allow students to shirk responsibility, it poses a dangerous threat to genuine relationships. Rather than face interpersonal dealings head on, we can hide behind our phones until we can talk at our convenience -- or not talk at all.

Cell phones provide us other ways of bypassing communication. The increasing amount of text messages, which actually jumped by more than 2.5 billion sent from 2003 to 2004, signals the fact that we are compacting our communication. The problem with text messaging is that it is so easy. Rather than plan a phone call or write a letter, you can relay as much information as possible in a few simple sentences made up of shortened words. But is there a real problem with replacing "you" with "u?" It isn't as though we are going to forget how to spell the word. We may, however, forget how to communicate in intelligent, thought-out sentences. When we are able to relay information without actually making an effort to articulate our thoughts, we run the risk of losing our ability to articulate information well.

Perhaps the worst effect of our cell phone usage is that it distances us from personal, physical communication. When birthday or congratulatory phone calls can be replaced by voicemails and texts, there is a real problem with how much importance we put on actual conversation. With all
the options being added to mobile phones, traditional oral communication is actually becoming easier to bypass. Before people were able to talk outside the boundaries of a landline, could there have actually been more genuine, useful communication happening? It's quite likely. Perhaps cell phones allow information to be relayed faster and in a more convenient way, but the old-fashioned way of sharing thoughts and expressing feelings seems infinitely better.

Keep in mind that there is nothing particularly wrong with a mobile phone, but the added features seem unnecessary. Extra options like text messaging not only allow us to avoid communicating with others, they encourage it. While more and more college students come to expect conversations to be transmitted through text message rather than a phone call, they come to prefer it and shy away from genuine conversation. During stormy weather and unsettled minds, here's hoping you gave your family a call. Texting "I luv u" doesn't always cut it.

SNEHAL SHINGAVI
Daily Californian (UC-Berkeley)


(U-WIRE) BERKELEY, Calif. -- Last weekend, hundreds of thousands of anti-war activists marched in cities across the United States. We called for an end to the illegal and unjust invasion and occupation of Iraq.

On Monday, Cindy Sheehan and several other prominent activists and military family members were arrested outside the White House while demanding that our troops come home from Iraq now.

However, the next day, columnist Darryl Stein advocated for "reason" and "moderation" in our approach to Iraq. He argued that the United States is fighting a different war in Iraq today than when it first invaded, that the Iraqi constitution is the best hope for the future of Iraq, and that if we leave Iraq, the country will collapse. We address each of these arguments in turn.

To begin, the initial characterization of the anti-war movement at UC Berkeley is grossly inaccurate. Antiwar activism on UC Berkeley's campus did not appear out of thin air in 2003. The Berkeley Stop the War Coalition was started in 2001 and was -- and still is -- actively engaged in anti-war activism.

Moreover, people did not oppose the war in Iraq simply because it wasn't a multilateral invasion. The reasons for opposing the war were and are numerous, the most prominent being that it was an illegal, immoral and unjust occupation of a country that did not take into account the human costs of an occupation -- not to mention the absurdity of the pronouncement that troops in Humvees would be greeted as liberators.

Almost 2,000 U.S. soldiers are dead. So are countless thousands of Iraqis.

The costs of the invasion have not only produced a very convenient cover for the evisceration of social services in the United States but have also seen the whittling away of our rights under the banner of Islamophobia.

While the character of an invasion differs from an occupation, the fact of the matter is that the reasons that the invasion was wrong continue to plague the occupation. The lies used to justify the invasion have made the U.S. occupation hated; the rifles and Apache helicopters used in the invasion are still being utilized in order to bring more fear than democracy during the occupation; the privatization of Iraqi industry that took place in the immediate aftermath of the invasion holds an Iraqi future hostage to corporate America for the duration of the occupation and beyond.

As a consequence, irrespective of whether they are invading or occupying forces, American and British troops are still the single largest factor producing violence in Iraq. American and British troops pit confessional and sectarian groups against one another, while the American media ignores the reality that the lion's share of the resistance attacks target occupation forces and their collaborators, thereby giving cover to the lie that Iraq has descended into a civil war of its own making.

Moreover, to claim that our presence is helping Iraqis ignores the facts on the ground. The infrastructure destroyed during the invasion has not been rebuilt. Two years after entering the country, most Iraqis still lack running water, electricity, jobs, education and the ability to walk around freely on their own streets. An overwhelming majority of Iraqis see the Americans as occupiers, and while the history of occupations is long, the end results are often the same: Both the occupier and the occupied lose. This is certainly the case today.

Finally, the most oft-repeated argument that our withdrawal will result in the collapse of Iraq is blatantly paternalistic. It implies that Iraqis cannot figure out how to run their own country, but must be guided by their new Western allies.

The rushed Iraqi constitution, hastily hammered together in order to save an ailing Republican public image, has left all but a handful of American satraps thoroughly dissatisfied. What's more, it has, despite all fanfare to the contrary, ensured that the most conservative elements of Sunni, Shia and Kurdish societies have legal and constitutional authority.

We do agree that the occupying countries should not leave a mess for others to clean up. We do believe that the occupying countries should pay for the rebuilding of Iraq by Iraqis. But it is narrow-minded to assume that military intervention is the only way we can "clean up our mess."

Declaring that we "stay the course" is advocating the status quo, and therefore it's not saying much. Not only does it lack clear vision and imagination, but as students, we should not be afraid of really discussing how best to help the people of Iraq.

PETER CHEN
Indiana Daily Student (Indiana U.)


(U-WIRE) BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Alot of jokes have been cracked this week at the expense of the FBI's new anti-pornography unit. Many of the jokes came from within the Bureau's field offices, including these gems: "Things I don't want on my resume, volume four," "Honestly, most guys would have to rescue themselves" and "I guess this means we must have won the war on terror. We must not need any more resources for espionage."

Last month, the Bureau began recruiting for this new anti-obscenity squad, prompting some to coin it the "war on pornography." Mind you, the task force would not track child pornographers or other explicitly illegal acts. Rather, it would investigate the actions, finances and movements of legal pornographers in an effort to gather evidence against the "manufacturers and purveyors" of obscene material.

Ridiculous as it might seem, we should take serious notice of this new war on an abstract noun. For better or worse (probably for worse), hard-core pornography has become ubiquitous in American culture. And while Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and Co. probably didn't envision the First Amendment protecting an American's right to see S&M orgies on DirecTV, pornography is speech, however obscene it might be.

Nevertheless, the FBI investigating legally- and constitutionally-protected activities is not my real concern. As long as there is an FBI, there will always be constitutional questions involved, and we'll have plenty of time to yak about First Amendment violations if any of these cases reach open court. My concern is that the FBI should be busy protecting us from terrorists and criminals who pose a direct threat to our safety and well-being, not legal purveyors of morally questionable material.

In the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, the FBI's role as an investigatory body for domestic terrorism and foreign terrorists within the country has become paramount in our national defense. Furthermore, there are whole new frontiers of cyber-crime, while the old Mafia and gang wars have yet to fully pass. I thought the mistakes of Sept. 11 demonstrated that such a period in the nation's history of crime and justice demands an FBI that has its priorities straight.

Would the average American family like to see less porn out there? Probably. But I think it would like to see more terrorists put on trial more often. I think America would like to see more good police work, such as catching career criminals. I think America needs an FBI that rises above the bumbling agency it has been. With the world a dangerous place and national security the No. 1 priority, how important is it that the FBI go hunt down some guy recording dirty movies on his HandiCam?

Will eight agents and two supervisors severely dent the war on terror? No. Will a field office to investigate obscenity be a significant distraction? Probably not. Is it still stupid? No doubt about it. If, by shifting one agent from the war on terror to the war on pornography, one terrorist gets through the cracks, we've failed. The FBI would do better to quit chasing porn-purveyors and take care of security that really matters.

HANG ZHANG
Daily Targum (Rutgers)

(U-WIRE) NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. -- As a Chinese graduate student at the University, I care about this community as much as anyone else; however, recently I found myself very upset by remarks made about Tibet in some news stories and opinions published in The Daily Targum.

Contrary to the statements made by Catherine E. Galioto, in her article "Visit thrusts Tibet into light" (The Daily Targum, Sept. 26), there is no doubt Tibet is part of China. China started to possess complete sovereignty over Tibet in 1793. In 1997, the U.S. Department of State claimed "the United States recognizes the Tibet Autonomous Region ... to be part of the People's Republic of China" in the "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1996." On June 27, 1998, when U.S. President Bill Clinton met with Chinese President Zemin Jiang, Clinton "express[ed] that Tibet is a part of China, an autonomous region of China." Similar statements were also made by other countries such as India and Russia stating Tibet is an autonomous region of China. So therefore, I think it is not appropriate to allow those unfounded statements to appear in the school newspaper, and such incidents showed me the great confusion about people's understanding of Tibet and its relation with China.

Tibet was a serf society before the peaceful peasant liberation and land reform of Tibet in the 1950s. Ever since then, Tibet has witnessed improved living standards and promising economic growth. Gross domestic product for 2004 was 21.15 billion yuan, increased 12.2 percent from the previous year, about 60 times as much as in 1951. To show the respect to Tibet's religious and traditional culture, when child birth-control policy came into being in the other parts of mainland of China, the policy was never implemented in Tibet. Tibetan people are allowed to have as many children as they will.

As a manner of improving the economy and transportation in Tibet, a railway between Qinghai and Tibet is set to be completed in 2006 in addition to the direct buses between cities in Tibet, which will certainly speed up the progress of making Tibet accessible to other nations. The construction of the railway does not mean there is anything wrong with the future and culture of Tibet, as ironically stated otherwise in the opinion article titled "Don't forget Tibet and RUSFT" by Elizabeth Farkas (The Daily Targum, Sept. 7).

Easier and faster transportation is a solution to the isolation and the key to the local economic development and prosperity, which is a stepping stone for other human fundamental needs.

During the past several decades, there is notable progress in the relationship between Tibet and inland China despite of many culture differences. Tibet is part of China, and the Tibetan people are one of our 56 ethnic groups of Chinese including majority of Han-Chinese. We will work together to overcome the difficulties encountered both in culture and many other issues based on the principle of mutual understanding and cooperation.

KARIM BENBOURENANE
The Pitt News (U. Pittsburgh)

(U-WIRE) PITTSBURGH -- The era of the relatively stable climate that Earth and its inhabitants have enjoyed for thousands of years is close to its end. According to Steve Connor of The Independent, rapid warming of Earth is irreversible and "past the point of no return." It is true that the global climate fluctuates vigorously over the span of geological time. Ice ages have come and gone frequently during Earth's history. These stages of warming and cooling occurred before man-made industry had the means to influence climate. Our atmosphere was able to readjust from natural fluctuation on its own.

Ice levels in the Arctic polar region have idled at their lowest recorded levels for the past four years. Normally sea ice will recede in the summer and re-form in the winter. The ice has recently been receding but not returning. Reporters like Connor cite current simulated models
that conservatively estimate the northern ice cap to completely melt by 2070.

A slight increase in Earth's proximity to the sun or in solar thermal activity may be a factor, but not the primary cause, of global warming. Evidence instead points squarely towards the unstoppable industrial machine. It is not coincidental that global warming and industry visibly overlap.

Industrialists, who gave birth to consumer culture, will inevitably reap what they have sown. The fruit of their philosophy -- inefficient production in the name of profit -- has manifested itself as global warming. It will be the worst man-made disaster the Earth will ever see. The planet would have been better off with a nuclear war leading to the complete annihilation of the human race.

Humans instinctively accept short-term gain and disrespect long-term problems. Many logging companies were aware that the success of their business model could bring about the eventual destruction of all forests. Similarly, oil supply is due to run out mid-century, but demand continues to increase rapidly.

This should suggest that ingenuity is the proper mode for finding solutions to long-term problems, but it is deemed an unprofitable waste of time to worry about tomorrow's issues. Industry and business adapt when put under pressure; the future beyond a human's conceivable lifespan is trivial and therefore of little consequence or worry. This behavior is very nearsighted and cause for much of my anger at human ignorance.

As a columnist, I can write about this issue in publications, spend all my money on advertising, gain public support and then lobby polluting industries and the Environmental Protection Agency for their irresponsibility in handling such a problem -- but my net effect would be virtually null. I would need the backing of a group consisting of powerful and influential individuals

Fighting city hall is definitely within reach, but fighting Corporate America is virtually impossible. There is simply too much money at stake and an ingrained attitude of consumerism to destroy. Producing less waste is unprofitable and not worth consideration to these groups because it is of no direct consequence to them. Even the threat of ecological doom is not enough to convince industry to adapt.

The only pressures put on industry are restrictions from government legislation. Many of the regulatory actions of the EPA are commendable, though it seems its efforts have been too little, too late. Had it anticipated the proportions of the global warming problem, the EPA would have taken tougher action in the '70s to avoid this impending fiasco.

Many would claim that global warming might be a good thing. I expect global warming will at some point rejuvenate Siberia into a world agricultural center and will make the Sahara green again, but not without unpleasant consequences.

Looking beyond the beneficial terraforming side effect, it is obvious that we will lose all of our coastal cities worldwide. Greenland supports a massive amount of ice that can significantly raise sea level if melted. Further, massive climate changes are a very slippery slope: As stabilizing polar ice melts away, the warming effect amplifies. Consider also that animals are not quite as adaptive as humans are. Most species would be displaced by an abrupt shift in habitat and many would become extinct.

It is a grim realization that yesterday's actions will have irreversible effects tomorrow. I can now only passively observe the outcome and hope that I am wrong. Perhaps something can yet be done by those in power to avoid this dire situation.

STAFF EDITORIAL
The Post (Ohio U.)

(U-WIRE) ATHENS, Ohio -- During the weekend, finance ministers from around the globe agreed to erase the debts of some of the world's most impoverished nations. Although still awaiting the confirmation of the World Bank, the leaders of the world's pre-eminent industrial powers all have cast their support for the deal. This initiative will offer some of the world's poorest countries genuine opportunities for development. Additionally, the World Bank will incur no costs, as the G-8 group -- which constitutes some of the world's most powerful and influential nations -- will take them on collectively. The G-8 is composed of Great Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States. After the culmination of years of negotiating, this deal is a rare and praiseworthy achievement for the international economic world.

The agreement initially will help 18 countries -- mostly in Africa -- and could wipe out as much as $55 billion in debt. Although that is the nominal amount, a benefit of capitalizing on these debts now is that forgiving them immediately will really only amount to about $18 billion in repayments. The G-8 members have signed on to repay these debts "dollar for dollar" but not without plenty of debate as to which countries would be forgiven. The original list of 18 countries could eventually grow to about 35 nations. One of the best aspects of this plan is that it is selective. Although the criteria for eligible nations were never made completely clear, officials have pushed for a specific formula, which would apply the same standards to all candidates equally. According to the International Monetary Fund's chairman Gordon Brown, as
quoted in The New York Times, eligibility is based primarily on per capita income but also on the existence of sound economic policies. Inclusion in the list also takes into account overall standards of good governance.

This selectivity should continue so that the list of eligible countries is not allowed to grow beyond what the G-8 can handle. This type of selectivity also will serve to weed out countries plagued by corrupt governments, whose problems go beyond mere indebtedness. Although the immediate goal of this plan is to help severely impoverished nations, the broader agenda -- backed by the Bush administration and anti-poverty activists -- is to shift policy on foreign aid away from loans and toward simple grants. In this way, indebtedness could become less of a problem for poor countries and more wealthy lenders alike.

STAFF EDITORIAL
Daily Targum (Rutgers)


(U-WIRE) NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. -- The Irish Republican Army has officially disarmed, according to the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, known as the IICD. It reports that all of the organization's weapons that had been used over the past 30 years in the struggle against British control in Northern Ireland have been given up. The IRA's move is seen as monumental and historic based on the fact that it once regarded arms disposal as equal to surrender.

Considering the group's history of violence and radicalism, it is hard for many skeptics to believe that this is a genuine disarmament. Most of the main pro-British parties in Parliament, in fact, are filled only with deep seeded lack of trust toward the IRA. Regardless of where trust lies in Great Britain, however, Prime Minister Tony Blair and the IICD have acknowledged this move and the IRA has gone so far as to put their disarmament on paper. Therefore, even skeptics should put a degree of faith into the move towards peace.

Another reason to believe the truth of the IRA's disarmament is the fact that the IRA has been conducting itself in a peaceful manner for a number of years now. Official disarmament, along with the current period of peace in Ireland, should be seen as a genuine effort to bring complete and long-term peace to the United Kingdom, although it is impossible to say if the peace will last or if violence will pick up again.

The lack of IRA violence and the recent disarmament also represent an important growing religious trend in Great Britain. It shows that England has taken a step away from fundamental religious Christian values. For too long, there was a struggle between the Church of England and Irish Catholics. Now the Church of England is not as strictly followed as it once was, and persecution of the Irish Catholics has decreased. The lack of religious tension can be seen as a positive sign that peace in the United Kingdom may turn out to be lasting. The IRA's disarmament would probably never have occurred had religious tensions been as high as they had once been.

While the disarmament of the IRA is a significant move, it should only be seen as an initial step in the peace effort. If talks begin between England and Northern Ireland and local government is restored, then the peace efforts can be seen as an official success.

GABE BRADLEY
Oregon Daily Emerald (U. Oregon)


(U-WIRE) EUGENE, Ore. -- Last week, NASA announced a plan to begin sending astronauts back to the moon by 2018. For $104 billion, NASA plans to build and launch a craft that resembles a combination of the Apollo rockets and the current generation space shuttles.

While the engineering behind these proposed flights is ingenious, the public relations for the project has gotten off to a rocky start. NASA decided to announce the plan in between two major humanitarian crises -- Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. From a PR standpoint, that is a major no-no. As a result, some in the media have balked at the price of the project and questioned its value. How, they ask, can we possibly afford to go back to the moon while we are busy fighting a war abroad and trying to rebuild a major city back home?

However, the first thing we need to understand about the new moon project is that NASA is not asking for more money in order to do this -- the money is already there. The new moon voyage is one component of the new space program first announced by President Bush on Jan. 14, 2004.

This plan has been in the works for a while. Despite the unfortunate timing of the announcement, the moon missions are already in the budget.

Furthermore, we need to understand that space exploration has major benefits for our daily lives. While most of us will never leave Earth's orbit, the general advancement of human understanding has immensely practical benefits. There are, of course, the numerous biological and chemical experiments that can only be conducted in space. Moreover, there are numerous unintended consequential byproducts of space travel.

History has shown that whenever you put a group of smart people together to solve a problem, they end up inventing or discovering some pretty useful stuff in order to solve that problem. Research for space travel has already brought technological advances in medicine, communications and transportation. If you have a relatively new car, there are most likely several components in that vehicle that have their origins in space research.

Perhaps the most important thing to understand about the new moon voyage, though, is that it is an investment that will ultimately save billions of dollars on future space voyages.

The idea is to use the moon as a lily pad from which we will leapfrog further into space. By establishing a presence on the moon from which to build, launch and supply ships, we will ultimately save money on voyages to Mars and beyond. Also, the moon is an ideal place to conduct certain phases of training and research for future space voyages.

For all these reasons, I enthusiastically support NASA's plan to return to the moon. This weekend, though, I was reminded of another reason.

I was in Portland on Friday and on my way back, I decided to stop by the IMAX theater at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. It was opening day for a new documentary produced and narrated by actor Tom Hanks, who played astronaut Jim Lovell in the movie "Apollo 13."

Using a combination of NASA archives, re-enactments and computer generated imagery, "Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D" showcased our journeys to the moon in an astounding light.

Dedicated to those who have given their lives in the exploration of space, this documentary shows the viewer what the moon might have looked like for those few explorers who received the chance to take the "ultimate road trip," as astronaut Buzz Aldrin calls the lunar voyages.

As I watched this film, I was struck by the words on the plaque that the Apollo 11 astronauts left on the moon. "We Came In Peace For All Mankind..."

Journeying to the moon was once the province of science fiction. Now it is fact. Establishing a moon base to launch longer voyages is currently the province of science fiction. Soon, that will become fact. Science fiction is becoming science fact. But in science fiction, space is usually a battleground. So far, that has remained science fiction. Space is not a battleground. Space is virtually the only sphere of human influence that has not been scarred by war.

Space is international territory. And efforts like the International Space Station seek to keep space exploration as a joint, peaceful venture with benefits for all humanity.

In order to fulfill and continue that noble vision, we ought to journey not only the moon, but beyond.

TAHEERAH ABDUL-RAHMAAN
Northern Star (Northern Illinois U.)

(U-WIRE) DEKALB, Ill. -- Whether you were a die-hard fan who was ecstatic President Bush sent troops into Iraq in 2003 or the sullen anti-war protestor who picketed government actions on Lincoln Highway, where do you think the war's headed?

If the Unites States' main reason for starting the war in Iraq was to spread democracy and abolish terrorist groups running amok in Iraq, are the plans working?

There are Iraqis who sincerely support the U.S. intervention in their country.

My brother, a U.S. Marine, came back from his tour of duty in Iraq filled with stories of mothers sewing up the holes in his Marine Corps pants and young men challenging him to foot races and card games. He remembered the children who laughed gleefully as he and his fellow Marines passed out candy and toys. He also recalled the merchants who sold him Iraqi relics at a discount because they were so happy to see a positive change happening in their country.

The increased Iraqi participation in the country's elections largely reassures people that U.S. intervention is influencing positive changes in Iraq. According to an August 2003 poll conducted by The American Enterprise magazine, seven out of 10 Iraqis felt optimistic their country and personal lives would be better off in five years. Fifty-seven percent of Iraqis had an unfavorable opinion of Osama Bin Laden. By a three-to-one majority, Iraqis felt the toughest part of their country's reconstruction would be political and 40 percent of Iraqis believed democracy could work in Iraq.

But there also is a lot of Iraqi resistance.

The increased voter turnouts have been accompanied with a rise in assassinations, political and otherwise. Iraqi judge Taha al-Basri was assassinated in February. In one month, one deputy mayor was killed, the police chief of Amara was killed, a pioneering Iraqi journalist was assassinated, at least two Sunni clerics were killed and at least six former high-ranking officials who served under Saddam Hussein were killed. According to The Jordan Times, at least 31 university lecturers have been murdered since the start of the war.

Also, constant suicide bombers have terrorized Iraqis and U.S. troops alike. If the results of our intervention are detrimental, there is a need for rethinking our goals and shifting our course of action.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair declared recently even though Iraqi forces were proving "more ferocious" than anticipated, he resolved to keep British troops in the country until their mission is complete. President Bush is being similarly steadfast.

In Bush's speeches concerning the situation in Iraq, there's a general theme of patience and grit as Americans and their allies fight their way through the tumultuous adversity in the country. Bush habitually reassures Americans the government's policies in Iraq will remain intact and will come to pass (if that sounds vague, blame it on Bush).

At what point do you concede that your mission is failing, and agree to another strategy?

Over the weekend, nine U.S. troops were killed, including five police commandos from the "Wolf Brigade." According to the Washington Times, a suicide bomber drove a car full of explosives into the commandos' convoy in southeast Baghdad. Twelve more people were wounded.

The National Priorities Project said as of June 2005, the average household has spent nearly $2,000 in taxes funding the Iraqi war. That amounts to almost $800 per person.

According to a Gallup Poll released last week, 59 percent of Americans said it was a mistake to invade Iraq. According to the same poll, 63 percent feel the U.S. should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq. In both polls, the resulting percentages were the highest since the start of the war.

The government has spent millions upon millions in Iraq, and in March the House of Representatives approved another $81.4 billion for the war. Nearly 2,000 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives fighting in Iraq, and nearly 15,000 have been wounded.

In my brother's 2nd Battalion of the 24th Marine division, 11 soldiers died in Iraq during his nine-month tour of duty.

Perhaps the Bush-haters and Bush-backers of America will never come together, but there should be a consensus on the impact our role in Iraq is having on the country.

After all, these situations call for a bit more than the vague assurances from our commander in chief that the mission in Iraq will be accomplished.

ADAM KEMP
The Battalion (Texas A&M)

(U-WIRE) COLLEGE STATION, Texas -- When China began allowing private access to the Internet in 1995, many people predicted that it would lead to the fall of communism. Unfortunately, this has not happened. The Chinese government has slowed the spread of information on the Internet by blocking foreign content it dislikes and by censoring Chinese citizens.While American citizens enjoy the freedom of speech and access to information, many American companies are actively supporting The Great Firewall of China.

Several American Internet companies have come under fire recently for helping the Chinese government's censorship efforts. For instance, Google has removed certain controversial stories from its Google News site in China, and Microsoft has agreed to block content from its Chinese blog site about such "dangerous" topics as freedom and democracy.

Meanwhile, other companies have taken a more active role. Cisco Systems has been criticized for selling routers to China. These routers, which are used for the backbone of China's Internet access, have the capability to block connections based on keywords. This technology is usually used to automatically block viruses, worms and other malware, but could be adapted to block normal Web traffic with banned content. Cisco denies helping the Chinese censorship effort, and argues that they sell the same equipment to everyone.

To be fair, it is not clear that this equipment is in fact being used for censorship. The Great Firewall has so far only blocked individual IP addresses and certain search terms.

Yahoo! has also angered human-rights groups recently. Media watchdog Reporters Without Borders called Yahoo! a "police informant" after it became clear that the company had helped China identify a journalist who had e-mailed information to foreigners using a Yahoo! account. Yahoo! defended its actions, claiming that it must obey the laws of each country in which it operates. "Just like any other global company, Yahoo! must ensure that its local country sites must operate within the laws, regulations and customs of the country in which they are based," said Yahoo! spokeswoman Mary Osako.

That may be the case, but I wonder why it is necessary for an Internet company to operate from within China at all. They are not avoiding any censorship, because they agreed to censor themselves. Yahoo!, along with more than 100 other Web companies, voluntarily signed a "Public Pledge on Self-Discipline for the China Internet Industry." In this pledge, they agreed to follow censorship regulations.

It is sad when companies put profits over human rights. Microsoft, Yahoo!, and Google are so big that China would have a hard time blocking them. In fact, China has blocked Google several times, only to unblock them when it became clear that people would find a way around it.

These companies should stand up for freedom of speech and freedom of information. They should refuse to censor the information Chinese citizens are seeking, and they should refuse to help the Chinese government track down citizens for practicing rights that everyone should have.

YASAMAN SADEGHIPOUR
The Pitt News (U. Pittsburgh)

(U-WIRE) PITTSBURGH -- After the events that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, a lot of attention has been focused on increased security and damage prevention. As of late, however, especially after the bombings in London, focus has shifted from reacting after an act of violence to preventing it. It appears as though the media and "terrorism experts"? are focusing their attention more on the causes of terrorism and the motivations of the terrorists. As a result of this new line of thought, people look at Islam as the root of all evil. Different groups have, and are still, calling on Muslim leaders to condemn these acts, and even to issue Fatwas, or decrees, against them.

There are many problems with this way of approaching the issue. First, there is the argument that Islam condones or -- worst yet -- encourages violence. This is hypocritical and unfair. Theological arguments aside, it seems that anytime a Muslim commits an act of terrorism, people immediately point to Islam as the cause. "He did it because he's Muslim"? seems to explain everything nowadays.

On the other hand, faith seems never to be an issue when someone belonging to another religion commits the act. Not many people, for instance, point to Christianity as a violent religion when someone like Timothy McVey commits an atrocity like the Oklahoma City bombings. Not even when anti-abortion activists murder abortion doctors -- in the name of Christianity -- does religion get blamed.

Acts of violence are, of course, not all that are used as evidence for the argument that Islam is a violent faith. For instance, when Ayatollah Khomeini issued a Fatwa against Salman Rushdi, the entire international community reacted. Calling this declaration barbaric, they used the incident
as further proof that Islam does in fact condone violence. After all, Khomeini was a clergy person.

On the other hand, when Reverend Pat Robertson -- also a member of the clergy -- issued a similar declaration against the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, no one blamed Christianity as the root of this violent pronouncement. Perhaps the Reverend only values the Ten Commandments as decorative objects for courthouses and other governmental buildings.

The bigger problem here -- besides the whole hypocrisy issue -- is the fact that focusing so much attention on Islam and debating how to fix Muslims distracts us from the real issue. Of course, no act of terrorism is excusable or acceptable regardless of the reasons. But if one were to consider where these terrorists come from, it becomes abundantly clear that the problem is political and not theological. If the United States did not support Saudi Arabia, which funds schools that teach an extremist ideology, or if we did not provide ammunition to people who preach hate, like Bin Laden, things might be different. We must project a better image in the Middle East.

This is not to say that longstanding U.S. policy is solely to blame for the acts of terrorism committed around the world. But it certainly doesn't help things when people can tune into the evening news and see that, for example, after conquering Baghdad, the U.S. military protected only the oil ministry, leaving all the other ministry buildings -- including health and education -- to be looted.

The point is that anyone with an agenda can find justification for his or her actions in any holy text. Trying to "fix"? Islam or convert Muslims not only doesn't help us prevent the next terrorist attack on the United States, but can also make us more vulnerable by deterring Muslim intellectuals and translators who would otherwise be willing to assist in addressing policy questions. These individuals could be valuable resources to the United States because they offer powerful insight on the political motivations of terrorism.

Finally, to write off an entire religion because of a few extremists is unfair to the other practicing members of that faith. We should afford the same consideration we allow Christians to all the peacefully practicing Muslims in the world.

(U-WIRE) LAS VEGAS -- Operation Iraqi Freedom has been portrayed in the media as America's humanitarian effort to "liberate the Iraqi people." The war has been glorified as an attempt to give the Iraqi citizens rights, freedoms, a constitution and a democracy that they have never known.What they do not tell you on the 5 o'clock news, however, is that human rights have actually regressed since the United States invaded Iraq. Women's rights in particular have been blasted back into the dark ages by the tenets of Islam and the Quran implemented in the newly drafted constitution passed in August. This religious declaration has inflicted horrific limitations on women's rights and, instead of representing the female population, it has enslaved them, and any freedom that they once enjoyed has been stripped away.

With this new constitution, Iraq is evolving into yet another Islamic republic that will be added to the map of the Middle East; another Islamic republic that will join the ranks of nations such as Iran and Saudi Arabia whose governments epitomize what the United States has opposed for years. Sadly, many terrorist groups within Iraq are now using the American occupation as a pretext to further terrorize society. Women are being silenced, oppressed, veiled, tortured, beheaded and murdered as the war for "freedom" wages on. According to a July 2003 Human Rights Watch report, "The failure of Iraqi and U.S. forces to provide a domestic security has led to an increase in abductions and sexual violence against women."

The report discovered that sexual assault was deemed a low priority on the lists of both the Iraqi and American governments, and women who attempted to report cases of sexual violence were "met with indifference by both U.S. officers and Iraqi police." Apparently, women's rights and the welfare of civilians aren't a priority on the agenda after all. Iraqi women, terrified to leave their homes, are continuously forced to choose their safety and their lives over involvement in the reconstruction of their nation.

Under the watch of the U.S.-backed Iraqi Governing Council, Iraqi universities are now implementing strict dress codes and mosques are turning away women who aren't wearing abayas over their clothing. Bans on "honor killings" have also been lifted, allowing women to be stoned to death in public as a tribute to their husbands.

Also, since the commencement of "Operation Iraqi Freedom," women in the parts of Iraq controlled by Sunni insurgents cannot leave their homes without the permission of their husbands. The Shiite-dominated parts of Baghdad and the south, they still face the same violent pressures and live in the same silenced fear that they did before the war began.

Under Sharia law, women have also lost most of their legal rights in regard to family law, making in nearly impossible for them to divorce, obtain custody of their children, marry whom they choose, have a career, vote or leave their home without being covered from head to toe -- should they have the right to leave their home at all. These actions and policy decisions are already inflicting devastating drawbacks on the rights and liberties of Iraqi women.

Such oppression was not always the status quo. In the 1970s, under the secular Baath Party, the constitution declared that all women and men were equal under the law. For 30 years, women were not legally required to wear veils. Many maintained prosperous careers as scientists, technicians, judges, doctors and politicians. They could be married and divorced in civil courts and were able to retain custody of their children.

Also contrary to public conjecture, women in Iraq once enjoyed relative egalitarianism, both contributing to and benefiting from Iraq's largely secular economy. Iraqi women, before the U.S. invasion, held 20 percent of the country's parliamentary seats, which is ironic when you consider that American women only hold 15 percent of our nation's congressional seats. They had a voice and they weren't afraid to use it. Presently, there are only a few women who remain in the parliament. Now, if a woman speaks out in Iraq, she will be shot, as demonstrated by the assassination of Assemblywoman Sheika Lamea abed Khaddouri last April.

In an interview with Women's Human Rights Net in October 2004, Yanar Mohammed, chair of the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq, claimed that nothing had improved for women since the United States invaded. Mohammed declared, "The reality here is that the implementation of these backward, Islamic policies has persecuted women and taken away even more of their rights than when Saddam Hussein was in power."

Women once led fairly independent and productive lives, but now, with a war raging on both outside and inside their homes, their voices have been silenced and their liberties have been depleted. According to Mitchell Prothero's article "Under the Clerics' Thumbs," Azam Kamguian, coordinator of the Committee to Defend Women's Rights in the Middle East, acknowledged that by stating, "Previously, women, although at times politically oppressed, had their minimal rights, could marry whom they wanted, would not be killed for the honor of men, and weren't forced to wear a hijab."

Many male political figures in Iraq now claim that females are only "half-minded" and incapable of thinking, that they are undeserving of equal rights in light of the Quran's teachings. Iraq was never perfect, it is not perfect today and it will not be perfect tomorrow. If it is to ever be democratic, however, it is imperative for the female population to play an active role in the restoration of the nation, it is essential that they enjoy equal rights and it is vital that their voices are heard. Even the U.S. Constitution was not written with women's rights in mind. Let's just pray that the same mistake is not made in Iraq or we really will be taking a giant leap backward.

JUSTIN WILLIAMS
Daily News (Ball State U.)

(U-WIRE) MUNCIE, Ind. -- Why is not knowing what follows life on Earth really that bad? Why can't the majority of humans accept that they will never know what the afterlife entails?

Instead, we go to great lengths to reassure ourselves of our righteousness, of our divinity and our right --- or, as some would claim, our duty -- to destroy this planet that was gifted to us at
birth. We erect great monuments to gods, castles to worship them in, and with a justice only He Himself could counter, we persecute, convert and slay the opposition.

Religious persecution seems at this point in history to be an intrinsic quality that every religion has in common. Even the Puritans who founded our country were not "saints" by any means. They possessed a certain propensity to burn heretics at the stake -- what they called "proving holy devotion through the test of water," which seemed to be an experiment in logic versus obvious physics. Surely those times are behind us, right?

Unfortunately, they seem far from over, as every day new scenes of chaos erupt from the portions of the world where religious borders are more important than the physical borders of nations. Places like Rwanda, Sudan the entire Middle East and the majority of the former Soviet
satellite states.

So where did such a great idea go wrong?

Humans are by their basic nature extremely curious and inquisitive, always seeking answers and methods to analyze, explain and improve their lives. How could such a seemingly intelligent species go so terribly awry?

Well, for starters, it appears that we aren't all that intelligent. Some of us are given to certain habits known as capitulation, coercion and a lack of confidence concerning unexplainable events and phenomena.

The unfortunate side effect of the thirst for knowledge that we all share is the apparent inability to cope with change or other beliefs. They make us a little unsure of our own beliefs -- the solution being to eradicate those other beliefs, or at least that seems to be the common trend.

We can see this type of behavior evidenced in every corner of the world today. A perfect example that is affecting our own lives currently is the war in Iraq, where religious extremism is fueling an insurgency that is acquiring a seemingly endless supply of willing martyrs.

We can also look to the supposedly concluded conflict between Palestine and Israel. Now that Israel has finally withdrawn from the Gaza Strip, does that mean that the fighting will end? Not while two groups of people with drastically different beliefs who share a common interest in the ownership of the "Holy Land" coexist within bombing distance.

Even here in America, the land of the free where everyone has the right to worship as they please, intolerance exists.

So, what are we left to do with all this religious turmoil in the world?

Well, we can all do our parts. We can definitely stop treating our own beliefs as facts and start considering them more as theories.

Facts leave no room for discussion, no room to grow and adapt over time, and if we can't adapt and change with the rest of the world, eventually we will find ourselves fighting tooth and nail to maintain what was once so concrete but now is obviously outdated.

We can also try to think more independently and question what we're told and the motives of those telling us their "facts." We can strive to be more open-minded and accept that other people view situations differently.

YOO MI CHIN
Daily Trojan (USC)

(U-WIRE) LOS ANGELES -- Is it a glimmer of hope or is it really going to happen?

Sept. 19, North Korea pledged that it would waive its nuclear weapons program by signing an agreement with the Bush administration, along with four other nations; Japan, China, Russia and South Korea.

The signing of this treaty meant more than a contract between the nations. For the first time since the Korean War in 1953, there seemed to be a real diplomacy going on between the nations.

The two Koreas -- North and South -- were the living history that reminded us of the Cold War. The world was hoping that North Korea's waiver of nuclear weapons would bring an end to the nuclear threat. And in the south of the peninsula below the 38th parallel line, South Koreans were hoping to see even the slightest possibility of an end to the truce negotiations and finally the reunion.

But it does not seem so easy to celebrate a turning point of the half-century-long history. Not even before the ink of the signed contract could be dried, North Korea reneged by insisting that it would waive its nuclear weapons only if it receives a civilian light-water nuclear reactor in return. No surprise. North Korea has a history of several sessions since the last decade.

Upon the statement of revocation by North Korea, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill said the United States will not yield to the request of North Korea.

What was planned to be a hopeful treaty two days ago is now becoming a nerve war between the nations. Yielding seems to be the last thing that either nation wants to do. North Korea will not surrender because waiving its nuclear weapons means a tremendous giving-up.

In fact, it is still doubtful what made North Korea sign the treaty. During the last decade, the possession of nuclear weapons acted almost like an indestructible wall of defense. The world was too scared to get on the nerves of North Korea because it knew that even the slightest irritation could set the fire of the nuclear bomb. It is so natural that North Korea would not give up its dark horse, and it is amazing how neither the Bush administration nor the allies foresaw the breach of North Korea.

The Bush administration will not yield to the "axis of evil" either, although some skeptics are worried that the Bush administration will feel obliged to compromise with North Korea to avoid diplomatic failure. But this will not happen. It is the Bush administration. It is the United States. Yielding never comes before injustice in this country. If it ever did, then America would not be at war today.

Whether the intended treaty will be accomplished or not is highly unpredictable. It is possible that the treaty could end in another unsuccessful diplomacy. Even if the treaty were to be accomplished successfully, we will not see it coming in these few weeks or months.

And even if the nuclear weapons program was terminated, it seems difficult to see the reunion of the two Koreas. South Korea is making bitter criticisms on North Korea's irresponsible foreign diplomacy, and this will most likely prolong the 52 years of truce treaty. Moreover, while the signings were being exchanged between the nations, another civilian from North Korea crossed the 38th parallel line to enter South Korea after five years of torture, and his capture resulted in the loss of his legs while fleeing from North Korea.

South Korea witnessed the dictatorship trample human rights and enjoy the power of nuclear threat, so whether it will come to a peaceful accord with North Korea is highly doubtful.

Whatever it takes, what I am hoping to see is both nations remembering the intended goal, the primary purpose of the signed treaty.

Both nations (although I highly doubt this will be the case in North Korea) should remember that whatever decision they make should guarantee the safety of their people first on the list, and that this should not be a psychological war.

ZACHERY T. ECKELS
Kansas State Collegian (Kansas State U.)

(U-WIRE) MANHATTAN, Kan. -- Maybe Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was right when he said we shouldn't automatically view Bush's reconstruction plan with a cynical eye as I did previously.

Unfortunately, being such a liberal devil, I tend to agree more with Obama's statement that we also need to verify what Bush is doing. And from what I can see, the President is up to his old tricks again.

The first problem I noticed was the cheap car dealership response he always gives while he to explain the deficit he's acquired: You don't have to pay a cent today because we'll take care of everything! And no worries about tax raises because here at George Dubya's, we're crazy!

But just like getting suckered in by that slick used-car salesmen, just as soon as you realize how much you actually owe, the deceitful idiot who did this to you no longer works there.

Sadly, Bush's only solution to getting rid of this massive debt is to once again promise budget cuts. Even if he's able to cut other government programs enough to cover the billons that will be spent on this disaster, we've already witnessed how watered down agencies like FEMA already are. I pray that Bush has given up all hope of going to Mars by now.

I probably wouldn't complain that he wants to spend the $200 billion, even with his dim-witted tax cuts, if I hadn't found out exactly who this money is going to benefit. With the first major action Bush took, we found out who he really wants to help out during this process. As anyone could have guessed it's not the people who really need it. Instead it is multi-national corporations such as Halliburton.

As if the no-bid contracts he handed them weren't enough for his buddies, Bush also made another decision to make sure the companies could really profit off this tragedy. He actually had the gall to suspend the prevailing wage law in the Katrina area.

This man is like a Robin Hood in reverse. It bewilders me how anyone can justify paying workers in these areas less when many of them have already lost everything and have no other job to return to.

Need more proof the compassionate conservatism Bush preaches is as false as his military record? According to a recent New York Times article "Republicans said Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, was in charge of the reconstruction effort."

With a CIA leak investigation going and more scandals under his belt then an Enron executive, this man should be fired. Instead, he is now relaxing at an exclusive conference in Aspen, Colo. Don't worry though, I'm sure he's doing his still doing his job and thinking constantly of the reconstruction effort.

Maybe our president has finally given up on being viewed as a loving man though. His wife at least tried to look compassionate while talking about Hurricane Katrina, while his mother did not seem to care at all while making comments about how the conditions of Katrina were working out well for the underprivileged.

From beginning to end, President Bush has failed to take care of this situation. The hurricane is now gone and it has taken his caring veneer with it. Now it's time to take off those silly standard-issue blindfolds Bush handed out and see the truth for yourselves.

Then you will see just how much corruption and greed have gone into the policies he enforced.

DANIELLE COULTER
Daily News (Ball State U.)

(U-WIRE) MUNCIE, Ind. -- In the spirit of Icelandic singer Bjork's infamous swan dress, which is to be auctioned off next month for charity, I decided to search for the most bizarre items available for purchase on eBay.

Ah yes, eBay -- that wonderful treasure trove of actual kidneys, toast that boasts the image of Mother Theresa and other priceless knick-knacks.

What I found exceeded my expectations and gave me a newfound respect for the eBay moderators who keep millions of items organized on a constant basis.

If you're bored and have 10 minutes to spare, browse the pages of eBay to find the strange and unusual; you won't be disappointed -- trust me.

Are you in the market for an authentic northeastern Oklahoma cow chip? If so, please don't buy it just anywhere -- eBay's cow chips are hand-collected by "an Okie who knows his chips." For those who hold grudges after a relationship has ended, a husband is selling photos of his cheating ex-wife as a means of payback. I don't recommend seeking revenge on an ex in this way. It just doesn't pay -- literally.

If you've reached the limit your parents placed on your credit card, fret not -- offer your skin as advertisement space so eBay customers can reward you handsomely for the permanent tattoo you will sport for them. Interested in the macabre? Star in your own real-life horror film with a haunted doll that was buried and then resurrected.

Okay, by now you're probably thinking, "Is there anything practical on eBay, maybe for the typical Ball State student?" I'm glad you asked.

It's a well-known fact that every student suffers from stress, but what if you could have a person to vent to 24 hours a day, seven days a week? For the low price of $6.50 or more, the highest bidder can win 30 days of venting to a total stranger who promises to keep every last secret. Or you can be the envy of your fellow geology majors with bottled 100 mph winds from all four hurricanes of 2004. Are you a liberal political science major? Then you need the George W. Bush presidential punching bag. For the more serious student, dress up your term paper with the "very nice pink paper clip" -- I'm sure your professor would appreciate the extra effort of your one-cent purchase.

Every dorm room needs some beautiful decorations, right? Try a cursed clown drawing that I guarantee your friends won't have on their walls. Better yet, are you unpopular on campus and can't make new friends? Purchase a photo deemed "the world's ugliest school picture ever," and realize that things could always be worse.

I didn't forget you hungry students. If you have money to spare and a large appetite, try potato chips that look like smiley faces, Spiderman and Jay Leno (complete with chin), a sweet potato that looks like a duck, a piece of toast that shows the image of an ape or apple snacks that look like Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky (minus the controversy).

For the world travelers on campus, I have an "out-of-this-world" experience for you -- an acre of land on Mars. Not only are "amazing locations" still available, but surely you could earn some credits for studying abroad. Please consult one of the study abroad program advisers before you make the long trip -- and be sure to write.

So, aside from the fact that I need a new hobby, what is the point to this story?

First, no matter how hard you try to discover your unique self in college, someone else will always outdo you in that department.

Second, while the pages of eBay can be quite frightening, there's good news: If your college degree doesn't earn you a salary, there's always eBay.

JORDAN NIEBUR
Daily Nebraskan (U. Nebraska)

(U-WIRE) LINCOLN, Neb. -- I once saw a piece at the Art Institute of Chicago that made me weep openly. I do not remember the name of the artist, but in the end, I do not know if that matters. What I witnessed was this: A picture of a 10-year-old boy, on the verge of puberty, with the following warning: He was going to be hated.

A paragraph wrapped around this innocent-looking boy, explaining how his life would be engulfed in agony, how his soul would be murdered, how he would feel the horrid pain of separation, all because in a couple of years, he would realize he liked boys.

I wept at this work, and saw my own coming-out process played out. But I also thought of others, who have and would suffer so much more than I had. A 16-year-old boy gained attention this summer when, on his blog, he talked about his fear of attending an ex-gay camp his father was forcing him to attend. When the boy left the camp, and released a new blog, you could see the difference between his writings before and after. As if he had hidden a part of himself. I felt dead inside for him.

And then my hatred and my loathing of the religious right boiled again. I use this word for a specific reason: I feel endangered when I feel surrounded by their belief system -- a belief system that in some ways is engineered against me, and those like me.

Being told that I had an actual choice in my sexual orientation has always been the most insulting. I do not have any memory of thinking to myself, "Oh, I surely want to fall in love with men. Women are too bitchy and ..." Instead, my memories of puberty centered more around me trying to overcome, and later accept, what I knew was innate.

Later, after I had accepted my sexuality and started feeling comfortable in imagining a life with another man, I decided to look in on an ex-gay meeting at a church in west Omaha. The only thing I felt while I was there was sorrow.

These men and women, obviously gay in my eyes, discussed how, one day, they thought they would be able to have sex with a member of the opposite sex. One man, who identified himself as a heterosexual male, said that the only time he thought of other men sexually was when he masturbated.

Seeing my frustrations and doubt within this circle, the leader of the group began talking to me about the thousands of men and women who were able to "save" themselves from homosexuality. He almost raved about how the gay agenda wished to hide this truth, and that, through God a gay man could be saved.

He then put his hand on my shoulder, moved closer toward me and said, "Don't you wish you could fit in?"

That set me off inside. No matter where I am, I do not fit in. At the time, I dressed in nothing but black. I'm a pale Indian. I hated sports and, when I was little, preferred to draw in a notebook rather than play with pogs. I had a crush on a guy in my gym class while everyone around me talked about some random girl.

I left before the meeting finished, before those there crucified me. Driving home, I was stunned by the sheer denial everyone at that meeting was in. As analytical as I can become, I contemplated studies from the last 25 years, which over and over again confirmed what I figured out through puberty: that I had no choice in the matter, and that I could not change.

One study that came out in 2001 could have shook that belief, if it had been realistic. Dr. Robert Spitzer, a psychiatrist who in 1973 helped to remove the term "homosexuality" from the American Psychological Association's list of psychological disorders, released a study that discussed how some highly motivated gay men and women were able to change their sexual orientation.

Almost every ex-gay Web site that I have seen has had something linked to this information. What, of course, they do not say is that Dr. Spitzer conducted his research over phone conversations with 200 people supplied by ex-gay ministries. The American Psychiatric and American Psychological associations both condemned this study as horribly flawed.

In an interview with The Advocate, he even said that only 3 percent of gays and lesbians could, if they wanted to, change their sexual orientation, and that the rest of us, no matter how hard we try, were never going to "enter" heterosexuality.

As much I sympathize with the frustrations of being different from everyone else, and the wish to just fit in, I always bring myself to that piece I saw in the Art Institute of Chicago. That 10-year-old boy was something I saw in myself -- I could have been either strapped to a chair receiving electroshock therapy until I killed myself, or be where I am now. Ten years later, I have accepted that all I want is to be able to kiss a man.

MATTHEW MELONE
Independent Florida Alligator (U. Florida)

(U-WIRE) GAINESVILLE, Fla. -- The Israeli pullout from Gaza has much to teach us about the cost of losing Iraq.

In both cases, liberals have long opposed occupation. Concerning Iraq, you may have even seen a couple "Support our troops -- bring them home" bumper stickers around campus.

I imagine those that desire a premature exit from Iraq are led not completely by a genuine sympathy for the men in uniform, but more by a misunderstanding of how much suffering Iraqis would endure in the wake of a pullout.

Take Gaza. If the politics behind the pullout seem confusing, don't be intimidated. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's name almost always has been synonymous with hard-liner and far-right wing, and the pullout is his brainchild.

The West Bank security wall and pullout result from Sharon's frustration with terrorism and occupation. Bush faces similar pressure in Iraq. Exhausted by broken promises and ineffective Palestinian leadership, Sharon conceded to the only option he saw available.

Hamas has turned the pullout into a public relations campaign. Emboldened by the apparent success of their attacks, Palestinian terror organizations are taking aim at the complete destruction of the Jewish state and will rely increasingly on rockets to attack civilians.

But the drama of booting out settlers and dismantling homes has masked the other losers here: The Palestinians.

Israel's one-way concessions are largely responsible for legitimizing failed anti-liberal Palestinian leadership. Palestinians will now inherit a government that exerts little or no influence on the violent regimes that have terrified Israelis for decades.

Now imagine Palestine becoming an anarchic militant state, and then consider what Iraq would look like in the event of an American pullout. Simply calling it a terrorist breeding ground would not do it justice.

The Sunnis and al Qaeda would drag the nation into a civil war.

The Kurds would stop at nothing to take control of oil-rich lands around northern cities Mosul and Kirkuk. Very likely oil fields around the country would be set ablaze, dooming the Iraqis' only chance of economic prosperity.

Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran would all be tempted to war with each other to get a piece of the action, while democratic progress in Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia would either stall or reverse.

Tyrants worldwide would cheer the United States' failure. Sentiment at home would be tipped in favor of isolationists, leaving Russia, North Korea and China all free to intimidate their neighbors without fear of retribution.

Terrorism, not civil disobedience, would be reinforced as the most potent tactic for minority factions to achieve political aims. The insurgents' victory would echo everywhere.

The Israeli pullout from the relatively small area, which was left no provisions to stop terrorists or promote democracy, could destabilize an entire region. A pullout from Iraq would have the same effect on a much larger scale.

More immediately, the consequences of abandoning Iraqi democrats to terrorists and civil war could make an impoverished and violent Palestine look like a vacation spot.

TIM EDSON
The Collegiate Times (Virginia Tech)

(U-WIRE) BLACKSBURG, Va. -- "Thirty five years ago, a president faced a similar dilemma in Vietnam. He gave in and we got 'peace with honor.' To this day, I am still searching for that honor."

These are the words of Ronald Griffin, published in a piece August 18 in the Wall Street Journal entitled, "She Does Not Speak for Me: My son died in Iraq -- and it was not in vain." Griffin is the father of Army Specialist Kyle Andrew Griffin, a Bronze Star recipient killed May 30, 2003 in Iraq.

Griffin's words are deserved of notice because Griffin speaks for the vast majority of families who have tragically lost a son or daughter in Iraq but realize that the mission is a noble one, and that such sacrifices must not have been made for nothing. In the last several weeks, it has been almost impossible to pick up a newspaper without being exposed to the hideous media spectacle swirling around Cindy Sheehan, the mother of Army Specialist Casey Sheehan, another American hero killed in Iraq defending us. While I offer my sympathy as the vast majority of Americans do, I cannot even begin to say I can comprehend the sense of loss and grief the Sheehan family, the Griffin family, or the families of the other 1,872 killed in Iraq have gone through. To claim otherwise would be completely disingenuous.

That being said, this whole episode involving Sheehan rubs me the wrong way as it does most Americans, and not just because Sheehan is utterly wrong. If Sheehan was just a grieving mother voicing her opinion that would be one thing. As things stand now however, Sheehan has become a mouthpiece for the left, and they are exploiting her pain and suffering for all it is worth. Not surprisingly, the media is complicit in the effort, nowhere to be found when Sheehan makes completely outrageous and contradictory statements.

For example, Sheehan now says of her first meeting with President Bush that, "Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject. and he acted like it was a party." Her current story directly contradicts the one she told to her hometown newspaper in Vacaville, California last year. In that interview, Sheehan said, "I know that he [President Bush] is sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." Referring to her family's meeting with Bush, she also added, "That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together." I can only assume that the first story she told was sincere, the words of a grieving mother, and the second, the words of a woman manipulated by a consortium of publicists and left-wing radicals.

Now, here are some of Sheehan's other rants from an April 27 speech at San Francisco State University (assuming the location didn't already tell you everything you needed to know):"We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We're waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush."

"I take responsibility partly for my son's death, too. I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bulls--t to my son and my son enlisted."

"We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now."

Sheehan also recently wrote, much to the delight of anti-Semites everywhere: "Yes, he [Casey Sheehan] was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel."

From these delusional outbursts, it is clear that Sheehan is in a delicate mental state as she tries to process the shock and grief she continues to experience. The people that call themselves her supporters are simply using her to further their anti-Bush, anti-Semitic, anti-war, internationalist and socialist agenda.

Sheehan may think that Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world, but should she succeed in triggering a mass troop withdrawal, she will be the biggest ally the terrorists in Iraq have -- the same terrorists who killed her son and over 1800 other Americans.

Her son was not a child and certainly not a fool. The 24 year-old man was a professional soldier who re-enlisted during a time of war, knowing fully well that he could face combat. Sheehan's supporters would like to see her son's death have been for nothing. Americans cannot let that happen. Think about those 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam ... for what? We should remember Casey Sheehan, Kyle Griffin and every other American that has been killed in Iraq and resolve that these heroes shall not have died in vain.

STAFF EDITORIAL
The Collegiate Times (Virginia Tech)

(U-WIRE) BLACKSBURG, Va. -- A nation watches helplessly as the horrors left behind by Hurricane Katrina are now coming to light. President Bush has vowed that "A lot of help [is] coming," including upwards of 12,000 National Guard troops and a $10 billion federal aid bill to keep Federal Emergency Management Agency operating during the storm's aftermath. Louisiana's Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco has requested 40,000 troops to help restore order and support the reconstruction effort in the battered state. Eight refineries -- four of which produced gasoline -- were knocked out as a result of Katrina's rampage.

You don't have to travel far to find the repercussions of this -- fuel in Blacksburg has rocketed to over $3 per gallon, and gas stations are starting to worry about running out of gas (no pun intended). To remedy this problem, Bush is tapping the national oil reserves to ensure that the remaining refineries don't shut down completely. Dipping into the oil reserves is something that the United States hasn't had to worry about since the energy crisis of the 1970s. This staggering amount of manpower and money being thrown at the problem begs the questions, "Where will all this aid come from, and how much can we possibly have left?" America needs to swallow its collective pride and start nursing our wounds on the home front. We were staring down a domestic crisis before Hurricane Katrina rocked the Gulf Coast, and in its aftermath, we are failing to properly deal with the situation because our resources are spread far too thin. By dumping massive amounts of cash and troops into the war effort, the United States set itself up for a crisis such as the one we are now facing. And now, more than ever, we are teetering on the brink of a hard fall that will make the American government wake up and realize that our country is not invincible.

So, what is the solution to getting our country out of the hole it has dug itself into? A few suggestions: Pull some troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan to assist in the Katrina relief effort. Begin mass-production of alternative fuel sources to immediately end our reliance on foreign oil. Quit thinking about where the terrorists are hiding and start thinking about where our hard-earned tax dollars are really going. To borrow a line from President Clinton, "It's the economy, stupid!"

As soon as the current administration realizes this (they have three years left to do it, after all) then America can finally start cleaning up its mess and getting itself re-oriented. Bush doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would leave all his administration's problems for the next president to deal with, so he needs to act quickly unless he wants to leave office in shame. The worst scenario would be for the country to continue down its current path -- and right now, it looks like the road ends in a military draft. We won't have a choice -- the soldiers we need to police the globe and guard the home front won't just appear out of thin air, you know.

STEVE MARKLEY
The Miami Student (Miami U.)

(U-WIRE) OXFORD, Ohio -- I'm officially offering a one-time deal to everyone who voted for Bush in last year's election: If you let me know -- either by dropping me an e-mail or coming up to me on the street -- that you voted for him because you were either scared out of your mind that John Kerry would let terrorists babysit your children or that the thought of gay people marrying freaked you out so much that you couldn't bring yourself to make love to your own heterosexual partner, I will give you intellectual amnesty.

I will forgive you if you say, "OK, I see now that Bush and his cronies clearly have no idea what they're doing in Iraq, and feel so stupid that I actually tell people that I'm illiterate when explaining my vote."

An apology like that and I will strike your name from my list of "People with Their Heads so Far Up Their Own Asses They Could Swallow Internal Organs and Have Them Back in Place Within the Hour."

The clear reality that we face is that the situation in Iraq has devolved into what I must term a "clusterduck" because I'm already on thin ice for talking about cigar-smoking body parts (see letter on opposite page).

The Bush administration continues to talk about the progress being made, but unless they're simply not telling the press that they are referring to the NHL lockout, I'm going to have to disagree. The insurgency is not dying but growing in strength and sophistication, planning attacks with more precision and using more advanced technology in their bombmaking. The elections and the forthcoming constitution are flat-out jokes -- attempts by the administration to pretty-up an almost completely untenable situation between Shia, Sunni and Kurds. It's the equivalent of trying to dress a gunshot wound with peanut butter. We can jam democracy down Iraq's throat for the next 40 years, but that's not going to change anything about the ideology of
murder and anti-Americanism that we continue to foster with our presence.

What I love the most is how Bush and the grinning pack of sh*t-weasels he's surrounded himself with go on TV and use two tactics when addressing any negative development.

The first is to simply ignore the question and talk about how "democracy is hard" and how "progress is being made." This is roughly the equivalent of clamping your hands over your ears and repeating over and over again, "I know what you are but what am I?" Their favorite tactic, however, is simply to remind people about Sept.11 because when making an argument it's way easier to evoke tragedy and appeal to people's most basic sympathies even if those sympathies are entirely unrelated to your point.

How do we extricate ourselves from this clusterduck of a situation? First thing's first: Make sure the gays don't marry.

(U-WIRE) LINCOLN, Neb. -- Men fall in love with my best friend Devin. They trip over themselves trying to stare and they find excuses to come and talk. They often try to use me to get to him. The worst part is watching their countenances fall, not with mere rejection but insult added for extra measure, when he rejects their advances.

Devin says, in his inflection-filled voice, "I'm flattered but I like girls," all the while turning his truly sympathetic eyes on his well-meaning suitors. Sometimes he puts a hand upon their shoulder, helping to soften the blow while also allowing himself to stare at his own perfectly manicured hands.

They are shocked at first and then inevitably dissolve into giggles. They ask, "You're not gay?" and when he responds with the words they don't want to hear, they say, "You just don't know you don't like men yet."

And the roles reverse; instead of looking hurt, they're now the older and wiser ones who will help the confused boy "find" himself. Devin listens respectfully to their opinions, advice, and coming-out stories. He openly discusses his own feelings and his openness to his sexuality, whatever it may be. He listens, but always ends the conversation affirming that he is still attracted to females.

Devin told me the story and how he didn't mean to hurt the latest man during a Von Maur shopping excursion. His story turned into a discussion of stereotypes, the woman's shoes that didn't match her outfit, and society's starving need for new classifications of behaviors they can't identify with.

And as he calmly but bluntly informed the woman of her fashion faux pas and handed her the perfect shoes for her outfit, I once again reminded myself that my best friend's not gay... he's metro.

The modern metrosexual, if I can be so redundant, understands your feelings because he feels them, too. He's the only guy you managed to talk into seeing "The Notebook" and simultaneously the reason people around the theater "shhh'ed" you the entire time. He dresses immaculately and cracks your friends up with his flippant gestures and enunciated "honeys." He cried the day Martha Stewart got arrested and again the day she was released, all the while clutching her delicately folded hand towel.

We've all seen these adorably different guys who other, more stereotypically "macho" men claim are "confused" or are "still in the closet" or are simply "weird."

These opinions I am accustomed to, but I have been thrown off lately by an emerging idea that "metrosexuality" does not exist at all. And after several ardent and prolonged discussions on the matter, I have found that I agree.

Mark Simpson, a British columnist, coined the phrase "metrosexual" in 1994. Mark Simpson used the term to describe narcissistic males who put spend large amounts of time and money on facial products, cleanliness and appearance.

A metrosexual's actions are not those of a "normal" heterosexual male, as an interest in appearance and products is usually considered a feminine quality, yet his sexual preference is for females. Although this is a relatively new phenomenon in America, Simpson observed behavior of this sort in Europe for an extended time before coining the term.

However, a permanent definition fails to exist. Depending on whose article you read or whose opinion you entertain, the definition ranges from "a narcissistic male who spends too much money on his appearance" to "a male who exhibits less-than-typical male behavior."

I find that both of these, plus the ones in between, fail to explicate the concept in an understandable and comprehensive way. I, therefore, have taken it upon myself to give my own definition.

A "metrosexual" is an individual (neither referring specifically to a male nor a female) who defies behavior that society deems as appropriate for his or her given sex.

In today's world it is becoming increasingly difficult to pinpoint a person's sexuality on the basis of his or her actions alone. I find this intriguing, and it fills me with hope. It inspires me to believe that there is a day possible where actions will not be gendered; where males and females can enjoy themselves and come to an understanding of who they are without having to obey societal expectations.

Metrosexuality is a label. It is another stereotype used to describe individuals who act in ways that deviate from "normal." If a man chooses to watch "The View" instead of engaging in a game of rugby, or a woman chooses to try out for the wrestling team instead of the softball team, it shouldn't be used as an indicator of their sexuality. We are individuals given free thought and free choice. We need to stop classifying and stereotyping one another and start appreciating our differences.

The next time my best friend and I have one of our Von Maur excursions, I'll remember that he's neither gay nor metrosexual; he is himself, and one of the few people I know who is not scared to be just that.

STAFF EDITORIAL
Rocky Mountain Collegian (Colorado State U.)

(U-WIRE) FORT COLLINS, Colo. -- The recent removal of Jewish settlers from Israel's West Bank has been met with both support and resistance from those with a stake to claim. Many Israelis have backed the withdrawal as a way to broker peace with their Palestinian neighbours. A large number have also protested the actions as an unreasonable compromise towards those who have used terror methods to further their cause.

Who is right and who is wrong in the debate is too complicated a question to be answered here. What is undeniable is the pain and suffering both sides involved have experienced. For years now Israelis have lived under the constant threat of terrorism and its violent aftermaths. Conversely, Palestinians have existed as a people without a nation, having to live under the rule of others.

The argument can no longer be over whose claim is legitimate, but what can be done to alleviate the situation. For this reason we are supporting the decision of Israel's withdrawal of its own citizens from lands that many have occupied for decades.

Whether or not this move succeeds in brokering peace will not be known for years. It has shown however, that the Israeli people are willing to take painful steps to ensure the safety of its own people. In an even larger context it seems that the Palestinians may finally get the recognition needed to begin rebuilding themselves into a peaceful, prosperous nation.

RYAN CHAPMAN
Rocky Mountain Collegian (Colorado State U.)

(U-WIRE) FORT COLLINS, Colo., USA: Fall is finally here. Classes are back in session, football season is nearly upon us, and it is a great time to be a student at Colorado State University.

As it turns out, it is also a great time to be a terrorist, especially if you're a Palestinian terrorist. Now some of you may be wondering why exactly it would ever be a great time to be a terrorist, and I will tell you. Thirty-eight years of blowing up buses, cafe's, and every innocent civilian in sight has finally paid off for the Palestinians. Israel is giving back the Gaza Strip.

That's right; they finally got what they wanted. Last week Israel began the forced evacuation of its own citizens from the Gaza Strip in an attempt at peace with the Palestinians. This move, which liberals in America seem to think is gallant and intelligent, I see as utterly insane.

If the only respectable democracy in the Middle East starts conceding to the demands of terrorist murderers who kill women and children, then any hope of peace in that region is even farther away than we thought. Rewarding terrorists for having a twisted perspective on war and human life in general will only encourage them.

When casually discussing this issue with my father the other day a bystander said to me, "They only became terrorists because we took their land!"

Now let me tell you why this is not only wrong, but stupid. First of all, "we" didn't take anything; Israel took the debated territory (along with the Sinai Peninsula, West Bank, and Golan Heights) in the Six Day War of 1967. This war, mind you, was instigated by Israel's Arab neighbours -- Egypt, Syria, and Jordan -- who were then completely humiliated and defeated in, you guessed it ... six days.

Now while these areas are the spoils of war, Israel has no responsibility to return them. Myself and those who understand how the world works have agreed on that for the better part of 40 years. That is until last week when those Israelis who have settled in the West Bank were drug, kicking and screaming, from their homes by teary-eyed soldiers from their own army. I don't think this is the scene Moses had in mind when he called this the "promised land."

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called the move an attempt to "disengage" from the conflict. At the same time the militant group Hamas, which is responsible for many of the attacks on Israeli citizens, saw the pullout as a victory and even hung posters in the city of Gaza in celebration. Now I don't know about you, but purposefully giving barbaric murderers something to cheer about, makes me angry and confused.

How can this make sense? All we are doing is conditioning these animals to kill more people the next time they want something because they have gotten results in the past. I predict that this move will produce very little progress toward peace. Instead it will ultimately just put Israel, and the rest of the world for that matter, at risk from the newly inspired and revitalized wave of suicide bombers from the Middle East.

But hey! That's just me, and that's my opinion for the week. And I hope all my readers have as much success this semester as terrorism has had in the past week.

NOAH STAHL
Iowa State Daily (Iowa State U.)

(U-WIRE) AMES, Iowa, USA: Those who keep up with current events inevitably become bored and disinterested with those issues that receive constant coverage, yet never seem to change much or give any hope of a satisfying resolution. The nuclear negotiations with Iran and North Korea fit squarely in this category. Taken together, the stories over past months chronicling the endless cycle of meetings, demands, incentives, deadlines and rejections amount to not much more than wasted time and newspaper space. For something that's in the news so often, nothing seems to be, well, new.

The obstacle holding things up is the following assumption: all nations have the right to develop nuclear energy, and some should be kept from acquiring nuclear weapons. The dilemma then is how to have both conditions simultaneously, a problem which so far has proven impossible to solve. The experience of the past two decades shows that no matter how many inspectors one sends to Tehran or Pyongyang, pesky secret facilities always manage to elude them or they are kicked out altogether.

Fortunately, this seemingly intractable problem need not exist, because the assumption that all nations have the absolute right to develop nuclear energy is simply not true. The right to have nuclear power, like many other rights, is contingent on good behaviour. To illustrate this, consider the following analogy between nuclear technology and household firearms.

Both have potential good and bad uses. Law-abiding citizens have the right to own firearms for legitimate purposes such as hunting and self-defence. Yet it is illegal for convicted felons to own guns. Simply put, by committing a violent crime, a criminal demonstrates his lack of respect for individual rights and thereby forfeits such rights in order to protect the public. Although the felon may wish to embark upon a relaxing hunting trip, we deny him the opportunity, saying, "Should've thought about that before."

Nuclear technology is similar in that it can be used for great gain but can easily be converted to do great harm. Only those nations demonstrating a basic respect for individual rights should be allowed to possess and develop a technology capable of such starkly contrasting uses.

Let us not forget the character of the two nations in question who claim the need for nuclear technology for allegedly peaceful purposes. There is Iran, home of the most intolerant Islamic theocracy on the planet and one committed to brutally suppressing all internal dissent when it is not busy openly declaring its hostility towards the entire Western world. Then we have North Korea, a nation literally starving to death under a Stalinist regime that has already claimed to have manufactured nuclear arms and which interprets charges of human rights violations as a global conspiracy to topple its communist utopia.

The pitiful record of both of these countries in keeping up their end of countless nuclear treaties and agreements is so indisputable that any talk of some newfound tendency toward honesty in either regime is pure nonsense. The additional fact that both countries boast pervasive state-induced poverty should be even more cause to doubt their supposedly benevolent intentions.

The claim that nations like Iran and North Korea have the right to nuclear energy should be flatly rejected. Even if both countries had perfectly peaceful intentions -- an idea completely contradicted by all available evidence -- they should still be prohibited just as the felon cannot have his gun.

Yet the countries opposed to Iran and North Korea owning nuclear weapons are at the same time firmly committed to recognizing the hostile nations' "right" to peaceful nuclear energy. Instead of demanding complete cessation of all nuclear activities, we send them more reactors at our expense and naively hope that they are used peacefully.

The dismal track record of these negotiations is a tribute to the utter ineffectiveness of diplomacy and "soft power" in dealing with regimes that understand nothing but force. It is time we stop sending these countries economic goodies and angry letters and assert our right to preserve our safety, even if it means depriving two authoritarian regimes of a few megawatts of electricity.

(U-WIRE) PITTSBURGH, USA: Recently, the oral histories of hundreds of firefighters and emergency response team members who responded to the events that occurred on September 11, 2001 were released. Totaling more than 12,000 pages, the reports released hours of recordings of emergency radio calls made on the fateful day.

Family members of firefighters who died in the attacks, in collaboration with The New York Times, sued for the release of these oral histories and radio calls in 2002. While the reports were not released because of their potential impact on the trial of accused conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, families had another explanation for this tragedy. Their intention was to prove that their loved ones died because of faulty radios and communication and not because they heard, but heroically chose to ignore, the calls to evacuate the towers.

Did I miss something? Is it suddenly a bad thing to have a family member die heroically? These people are livid that their relatives chose to sacrifice themselves in order to save the lives of other people trapped in the doomed buildings.

I can't say I really understood the story the first time I heard it. Previous reports I had read said that many people were anxious to find out where their loved ones were when they perished. It was a long shot, to be sure, as not everybody at a fire scene talks on the radio. But it might have given the widowed a glimpse into the final seconds of their loved ones' lives. I can see where these folks are coming from.

But what of the others, those who simply want to say, "My loved one never heard the call"? Why is it so offensive to think of a firefighter violating orders to save another human life? I'm a fireman, and I know my chief would be all over me if I went out of line, if he gave an order and I disobeyed, doing the complete opposite. Believe me, there's nothing worse than an angry fire chief. If he tells me to get out of a building, I get out, no questions asked.

Yet if I did so to try to save a life, doesn't that kind of balance things out? Sure, I didn't follow his order, and I face the wrath of an angry, angry man. But what if you throw a human life in peril into the equation? We're not talking about a guy in a factory who doesn't listen when somebody says, "Don't touch the red button!" and then breaks a machine when he pushes that button.

Human lives were at stake! Doesn't that make it OK at some level? How many people would voluntarily throw their life to the wind if given the chance -- not even the certainty, but the chance -- to save the life of somebody else?

Earlier this summer, three buddies and I were driving down the turnpike toward the beach when a tractor-trailer flipped in the opposite lane. It shattered the median with its cargo, and that debris totaled a car about 100 feet in front of us. We stopped to help, but watched about 45 to 50 other cars cruise slowly around the debris and then speed on their way.

One of the cars even had the nerve to take pictures before driving off. Think about it: Even if every car had just one person -- though that wasn't the case -- that's 50 people who said, "The heck with stopping and helping fellow human beings. I have places to be."

Now apply that to the issue at hand. There's a huge shortage of people in this world who are willing to help others if it means putting themselves at risk. Why is it so painful for these families to think that their loved ones were among this minority? Former mayor Rudy Giuliani and other city officials have suggested that the firefighters ignored orders for the sake of others. Additionally, lots of the firefighters' oral histories indicate that some firemen did exactly that. So what now? Do we still find a way to blame faulty communications?

Nothing can replace the loss of a loved one. The grief and emptiness remain forever. But will blaming radios and communications make the situation better? I suppose you could sue the New York Fire Department if that were the case, but will that money bring back the heroes?

Please, stop looking for someone to blame. They'd made a living risking their necks for other people. Why is it so hard to accept that they did so this final time? It doesn't have to be somebody's fault that these men and women died. It can simply be that they went beyond the call of duty, not because somebody told them to, but because they knew it was the right thing to do, regardless of the consequences.

(U-WIRE) ATHENS, Ohio, USA: On Sept. 24, the cities of Washington, D.C., San Francisco and Los Angeles are going to be jam-packed full of anti-war protestors. In an e-mail from VoteNoWar.org, organizers are encouraging critics of the occupation to assemble in these cities in order to call for the complete withdrawal of United States and allied troops from Iraq.

When I first received notification of this upcoming protest, my political spidey-sense began to tingle. As with many opponents to the war, any chance to feel empowered about the steps the government takes in regard to it is like seeing a drinking fountain in the desert (and often as real). Stand on President Bush's doorstep and let my voice be joined by a thousand others telling him what we truly thought about his war.

But as time has passed, I've become less enthused about this once-shining beacon of passive-aggressive glory. With Iraqi drafters of their new constitution able to create a document that seems capable of pleasing only two-thirds of their major ethnicities -- and the Sunnis threatening that ratification of the document could lead to Civil War -- it's difficult to see an independent Iraq becoming a reality in the foreseeable future. Not only that, but anti-American forces seem to be becoming bolder with the attack on U.S. ships anchored off the Jordanian coast.

And this brings us to why I am no longer planning on being a part of the protests in September. As far as I am able to tell, America has entered into a quagmire from which there is no palatable escape. Were we simply to pack up our bags and say "our bad" to Iraq at this point, we would expose an entire country to well-funded extremists -- such as Osama Bin Laden -- without any governmental protection against their influence, thus creating yet another Afghanistan.

I am not saying that the best course of action for America at this juncture is simply to carry on business as usual and to continue suffering increasing military and Iraqi civilian casualties (quick depressing fact: The Baghdad morgue received 1,100 dead civilians in July alone. I suppose death is somewhat liberating). Instead, I think that the anti-war movement needs a new stance in light of the development that has taken place since the conflict's beginnings.

Demand that this administration finally admit its failure to create successfully an international coalition of the world's most powerful nations -- which successfully would have created an atmosphere conducive to Sunni cooperation and hostile to terrorist agitators -- and admit that the alleged facts they used to convince Congress and the public of the necessity of the war were false. Send a mandate from the people that those who stuck us into this war underestimated the mammoth task of rebuilding a national government and have placed an almost unbearable burden upon our armed forces.

In the end, it is my belief that we need the precise opposite from what my fellow opponents to this war are calling for. Instead of abandoning Iraq, let America swallow its pride and request the help of our longtime allies who have become estranged by this shady endeavor. Never is pigheadedness seen as a positive trait in a person. It is difficult to understand why our nation is incapable of being the bigger man and admitting our mistake when we know we were wrong.