Note: This article was originally printed in my high school newspaper, so some of the examples used are specific to that environment.
It is difficult to really figure out what’s going on with the Bush Administration lately. There’s been the habeas corpus issue: under new United States law any foreigner can be held prisoner indefinitely. No reason need ever be given, and no one held under the new provision has any right of access to the judicial system. In theory, any foreign exchange student could be held in this manner. There’s also the Bush administration’s stonewalling and lack of action on the ridiculous “torture” issue. “We do not torture,” Bush said. A ridiculous statement to make in the face of more than 300 photographs depicting graphic scenes of torture. It’s possible to go on at length in a litany of outrage after outrage, and to present good, compelling cases against nearly everything that Bush has done since the day he first mentioned Saddam Hussein.
These good arguments are presented constantly, but they are usually neutralized or buried. There are good reasons for this, too: it’s true that several of the channels which distribute information to the ‘masses’ are controlled by people with an interest in tilting the message conservatively simply because the conservatives are the ones who have expressed willingness to play ball with corporate interests. But the number of media companies which repeat Republican messages is too great to be accounted for by a simple explanation of conscious slanting. Whenever media outlets refer to the War on Terrorism or talk about “the fact that the Democrats have not offered an alternative plan,” (as the Eagle did only a few days ago) they are enforcing Bush’s ideas and paradigms. Mostly we assume that people formulate opinions and then express them with words, but fairly often the process reverses. Words create thoughts, and thoughts create opinions.
Here’s an example: our school’s administration enforces the controversial (among students) policy with regard to holes in jeans and other clothing. Since the administration is not elected by and does not directly represent the students, they are not required to justify their policy at any length, or with anything approaching the vigor of a political campaign. This is all to the good, but let us suppose for a moment that the students at our school do elect the administrators, and that two parties develop, one opposing holes in jeans and the other supporting holes in jeans. Obviously the default position of the students would be support for a loosened policy. How would the hole-free party go about winning?
Article comments
1 - Lee Richards
Interesting and well-written article, Sam. I particularly compliment you on stating sound reasons behind your opinions and thinking for yourself, not just venting a slanted POV. You really are a good young writer! By the way, I was Editor-in-Chief of my H.S. paper too--an experience that changed my life (and not just because my future wife was an associate editor)! I hope you have a great senior year and remember:if you're sometimes controversial or criticized,it just means they're reading you!
2 - Stan
Yeah, I like your article too Sam, but I don't agree with you. Lucky we CAN disagree.
But there IS a war on terror (although, geez, couldn't they have chosen a better name??). And while it might be a clever rhetorical device for George Bush's spin doctors but it is real, nevertheless.
It takes many different forms and isn't just about US foreign policy. It's also about such things as police forces around the world working in concert to prevent atrocities, to track down perpetrators of mass murder, to keep safe the institutions we hold dear in the West.
It is also working, mostly.
Yes, there is a global network of islamic fundamentalists who are committed to our demise by whatever means possible.
The best thing we in the West, and Americans in particular, can do is to recognise this, and to continue to act against them, but to reject such notions as indefinite detention and so-called military tribunals.
The laws that have taken thousands of years to come to fruition in the West are more than adequate to deal with this threat.
3 - Nancy
Well written article, and very good reasoning. The Dem leaders ought to be required to read it; it might teach them a thing or two about deflating false GOP tactics, something they haven't seemed to have yet learned.