Last week highlighted why the United Nations is an organization in need of reform.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denier who has engaged in a rhetorical battle with the United States for more than a year, was given a stage to rant and rave about Israel, the United States and the U.N. Security Council.
But even Ahmadinejad was upstaged by the main attraction at the U.N. General Circus, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The charismatic leader, who portrays himself as the next Che Guevara, uses his country's stranglehold on oil revenues to meddle in the affairs of other South American countries, even when many of his own citizens live in severe poverty.
Chavez called President Bush "the devil" and said that the podium still smelled like sulfur from the last time Bush spoke. He went on to criticize the U.N., but still begged to be part of the Security Council.
The actions of Ahmadinejad and Chavez sparked outrage on both sides of the political aisle. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., no fan of President Bush, called Chavez a thug. Liberal New York Congressman Charlie Rangel also defended the president, saying, "You don't come into my country, you don't come into my congressional district, and criticize my president."
The official American response to these insults was laudably diplomatic. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton called Chavez's rant nothing more than a "comic strip approach to international affairs."
Although it's amazing that we allow hostile foreign leaders like Ahmadinejad and Chavez to insult our nation from within it, this is also what makes our country so special. As Bolton said: "In the case of Ahmadinejad and Chavez, they could also go over to Central Park ... and exercise their free speech there. It's too bad they don't let their own people have free speech."
Ironically, Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Bush did all agree on one issue: The United Nations is an organization in shambles. Ahmadinejad and Chavez dislike the disproportionate power of the Security Council, and Bush dislikes that the United States pays 22 percent of the U.N.'s budget, yet has an equal vote with countries that pay almost nothing.
The U.N. needs to be fixed, and hopefully Ahmadinejad and Chavez's recent antic will provide an impetus for reform.
Benjamin van der Horst is a College sophomore from Cincinnati. He is executive director of the non-partisan political organization CSAmerica and managing editor of the Emory Political Review.
This column ran in the Emory Wheel on 9/29/06.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Wheel Column: Vetoing Electronic Voting
You would think that after 230 years of voting, Americans would be pretty good at it by now.
Unfortunately, that's not the case.
Not only do a majority of Americans fail to fulfill their duty to cast ballots, but our government has a poor track record of administering elections. And with the midterm elections coming up, making sure all the votes are really counted is more important than ever.
After the debacle in the presidential election of 2000, when the American public learned about hanging and pregnant chads, the U.S. Congress responded by passing the Help America Vote Act of 2002. This act encourages states to switch from punchcard to electronic voting machines, providing funding for these new machines.
Not all states and counties have made this switch, however. For example, Hamilton County, the third largest county in Ohio with a population of 850,000 people, has switched from punchcard to paper ballots, where you fill in a bubble to vote, much like standardized testing.
But Hamilton is moving against the tide. More and more counties around the country are switching to these machines. In the 2004 presidential election, nearly 30 percent of the American electorate voted on electronic machines and this number is increasing each election.
The market for electronic voting machines is dominated by four companies: Election Systems and Software, Diebold Election Systems, Sequoia and Hart Intercivic. Their machines are a substantial investment for counties, costing about $3,000 each. These companies claim the cost is worth the efficiency and ease these machines provide.
Despite this claim, there have been many problems with these machines and there is a potential for even more serious problems as they are used more widely. These machines have malfunctioned on numerous occasions. The litany of errors includes: not turning on, freezing up, displaying the wrong ballot and recording the wrong numbers of votes. Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Texas have all reported problems with voting machines.
The integrity of elections held using electronic voting machines is another important issue. The vast majority of these electronic machines do not produce a voter-verified paper receipt, meaning you have no confirmation that your vote actually counts. Twenty-six states have a requirement of a paper trail so the votes can be independently verified, but many first-generation electronic voting machines lack this capability.
These voting machines are also vulnerable because the results are held on memory cards. A security analysis of the most popular electronic voting machine, the Diebold AccuVote-TS - used statewide in both Maryland and Georgia - by Princeton University researchers found that "anyone who has physical access to a voting machine, or to a memory card that will later be inserted into a machine, can install malicious software using a simple method that takes as little as one minute." They claim this software is not only easy to install, but can also steal votes with little risk of detection. "The malicious software can modify all the records, audit logs, and counters kept by the voting machines," the report states.
If the lack of a paper trail and serious questions about the security and reliability of the voting machines were not enough to question the qualifications of these machines, one of the major manufacturers of these machines, Sequoia, is now owned and operated by Venezuelans. The company was involved in the 2004 recall election of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, a controversial election that was questioned by many observers.
Having non-Americans so intimately involved in our election process just doesn't make sense. Furthermore, Sequoia refuses to reveal the source codes for their voting machines, making it impossible to independently audit these machines.
Americans deserve to know when they cast their vote that it will count and that the election they vote in will be secure. And this is something that electronic voting machines currently don't guarantee.
Benjamin van der Horst is a College sophomore from Cincinnati.
This column was published in the Emory Wheel on 9/22/06. For more go to www.emorywheel.com
Unfortunately, that's not the case.
Not only do a majority of Americans fail to fulfill their duty to cast ballots, but our government has a poor track record of administering elections. And with the midterm elections coming up, making sure all the votes are really counted is more important than ever.
After the debacle in the presidential election of 2000, when the American public learned about hanging and pregnant chads, the U.S. Congress responded by passing the Help America Vote Act of 2002. This act encourages states to switch from punchcard to electronic voting machines, providing funding for these new machines.
Not all states and counties have made this switch, however. For example, Hamilton County, the third largest county in Ohio with a population of 850,000 people, has switched from punchcard to paper ballots, where you fill in a bubble to vote, much like standardized testing.
But Hamilton is moving against the tide. More and more counties around the country are switching to these machines. In the 2004 presidential election, nearly 30 percent of the American electorate voted on electronic machines and this number is increasing each election.
The market for electronic voting machines is dominated by four companies: Election Systems and Software, Diebold Election Systems, Sequoia and Hart Intercivic. Their machines are a substantial investment for counties, costing about $3,000 each. These companies claim the cost is worth the efficiency and ease these machines provide.
Despite this claim, there have been many problems with these machines and there is a potential for even more serious problems as they are used more widely. These machines have malfunctioned on numerous occasions. The litany of errors includes: not turning on, freezing up, displaying the wrong ballot and recording the wrong numbers of votes. Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Texas have all reported problems with voting machines.
The integrity of elections held using electronic voting machines is another important issue. The vast majority of these electronic machines do not produce a voter-verified paper receipt, meaning you have no confirmation that your vote actually counts. Twenty-six states have a requirement of a paper trail so the votes can be independently verified, but many first-generation electronic voting machines lack this capability.
These voting machines are also vulnerable because the results are held on memory cards. A security analysis of the most popular electronic voting machine, the Diebold AccuVote-TS - used statewide in both Maryland and Georgia - by Princeton University researchers found that "anyone who has physical access to a voting machine, or to a memory card that will later be inserted into a machine, can install malicious software using a simple method that takes as little as one minute." They claim this software is not only easy to install, but can also steal votes with little risk of detection. "The malicious software can modify all the records, audit logs, and counters kept by the voting machines," the report states.
If the lack of a paper trail and serious questions about the security and reliability of the voting machines were not enough to question the qualifications of these machines, one of the major manufacturers of these machines, Sequoia, is now owned and operated by Venezuelans. The company was involved in the 2004 recall election of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, a controversial election that was questioned by many observers.
Having non-Americans so intimately involved in our election process just doesn't make sense. Furthermore, Sequoia refuses to reveal the source codes for their voting machines, making it impossible to independently audit these machines.
Americans deserve to know when they cast their vote that it will count and that the election they vote in will be secure. And this is something that electronic voting machines currently don't guarantee.
Benjamin van der Horst is a College sophomore from Cincinnati.
This column was published in the Emory Wheel on 9/22/06. For more go to www.emorywheel.com
Friday, September 15, 2006
September 11- Remembering
This past Monday was the fifth year since the September 11 attacks. CNN Pipeline was streaming the CNN coverage from that dreadful day last Monday. I wasn't watching CNN on Sept. 11, 2001, rather I was in at school.
We were in trailers at Seven Hills during my freshman year and I remember that day all too well. I first heard about a plane hitting a building right at the beginning of Fruit Break, which would put it about an hour after it happened. I went into a science lab to watch the coverage and then during a double bell of biology, we continued to watch the coverage. At one point, I remember them saying on TV that it was a DC-3 that it the building. That obviously did not end up being true. We spoke about it in Richardson's English class and then again in Thompson's history class sixth bell. Mr. Bland, then Assistant Head of School (Mrs. Marrs was still principle) announced during fifth bell that all after-school activities were cancelled.
On that day, I know we were all asking what did this mean? How will this change the world? In insight, we were too close to the event to have an idea on the tremendous impact this would have on our lives.
Back to watching the original CNN coverage this past week, I was struck by how innocent our country was before the attacks. The first building was hit at 8:47am. CNN broke in from commercial to report what they were treating as an accident. Even after the second plane hit, the anchors were trying to figure if some navigation device malfunctioned. That it could have been foul play wasn't mentioned on the air until 9:20am. Terrorism wasn't mentioned until 9:25am. Now, anytime anything if remotely bad happens terrorism is always the first thing that comes to mind. This shows the dramatic shift in the American mind over the past five years. We lost our innocence that terrible day.
Aaron Brown was on the air reporting from a rooftop in sight of the World Trade Center by 9:35am. His coverage over the next few hours was nothing short of amazing. He was calm, reflective, and did a great job dealing with all the various reports coming in, most of them turning out to be false, reporting them but cautioning viewers that they were only reports. There were reports of fires and/or explosions on the Mall in DC, the State Department, the Treasury Department, and so many more places. At times many more than four planes were reported hijacked. He took control of all the information and did a great job putting all together for viewers.
Watching the original coverage was extremely interesting for a student of history like me. The journalism on that day turned into history, as Phillip Graham said "journalism is the first rough draft of history" and I think that's one of the things that attracts me to journalism. That day was journalism at its finest.
We were in trailers at Seven Hills during my freshman year and I remember that day all too well. I first heard about a plane hitting a building right at the beginning of Fruit Break, which would put it about an hour after it happened. I went into a science lab to watch the coverage and then during a double bell of biology, we continued to watch the coverage. At one point, I remember them saying on TV that it was a DC-3 that it the building. That obviously did not end up being true. We spoke about it in Richardson's English class and then again in Thompson's history class sixth bell. Mr. Bland, then Assistant Head of School (Mrs. Marrs was still principle) announced during fifth bell that all after-school activities were cancelled.
On that day, I know we were all asking what did this mean? How will this change the world? In insight, we were too close to the event to have an idea on the tremendous impact this would have on our lives.
Back to watching the original CNN coverage this past week, I was struck by how innocent our country was before the attacks. The first building was hit at 8:47am. CNN broke in from commercial to report what they were treating as an accident. Even after the second plane hit, the anchors were trying to figure if some navigation device malfunctioned. That it could have been foul play wasn't mentioned on the air until 9:20am. Terrorism wasn't mentioned until 9:25am. Now, anytime anything if remotely bad happens terrorism is always the first thing that comes to mind. This shows the dramatic shift in the American mind over the past five years. We lost our innocence that terrible day.
Aaron Brown was on the air reporting from a rooftop in sight of the World Trade Center by 9:35am. His coverage over the next few hours was nothing short of amazing. He was calm, reflective, and did a great job dealing with all the various reports coming in, most of them turning out to be false, reporting them but cautioning viewers that they were only reports. There were reports of fires and/or explosions on the Mall in DC, the State Department, the Treasury Department, and so many more places. At times many more than four planes were reported hijacked. He took control of all the information and did a great job putting all together for viewers.
Watching the original coverage was extremely interesting for a student of history like me. The journalism on that day turned into history, as Phillip Graham said "journalism is the first rough draft of history" and I think that's one of the things that attracts me to journalism. That day was journalism at its finest.
Wheel Column: Why the U.S. News Rankings Still Matter
Emory's success in the U.S News & World Report college ranking raises an interesting question: Can you tout a jump in your ranking if you're stated position is that they don't matter?
Despite the administrative party line - that Emory's ranking doesn't matter, but the Strategic Plan will still improve it - the University had cause to celebrate this summer. In late August, Emory moved up two spots to 18 in U.S. News, breaking its tie with Vanderbilt and placing ahead of Notre Dame. This ranking came out just days after Newsweek named Emory one its 25 "new ivies."
Although it's clear a high ranking is important for a college's prestige, how exactly are U.S. News' rankings compiled?
U.S. News uses about 10 different metrics to judge schools, the most important part of which is the peer assessment score. The peer assessment score is a measurement of how highly other college presidents hold your university in esteem. Administrators rank schools on a scale from one to five.
Critics of U.S. News argue that peer assessment is a relatively worthless statistic since it can be influenced more by reputation than the actual educational merits of a university. How is the president of a school like the University of Dayton going to know how good of a university Emory is?
This is the question Emory administrators might be asking, since Emory has a peer score of 4.0 - lower than many similar institutions, including Washington University in St. Louis (4.1), Vanderbilt (4.1), Duke (4.5) and Johns Hopkins (4.6). Furthermore, several schools ranked below Emory have higher peer assessment scores, including the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (4.2), Michigan (4.5), Texas (4.1) and Wisconsin (4.2).
Clearly, Emory's image in the field of higher education is in need of reform. This is the one metric that really holds the University back. Furthermore, since several other elements of our ranking are higher than schools ranked above us, even a small rise in our peer ranking would have a dramatic effect on our overall ranking.
Our faculty resources, selectivity, financial resources and alumni giving rates are among the best in the country. But along with our low peer assessment score, Emory has lower student retention rates than other top schools and the second-highest acceptance rate of students among schools in the top 20. An 89-percent graduation rate, a number all of the schools ranked above us, makes it clear that too many students transfer from Emory.
Emory also needs to raise its faculty resource and financial resource levels, because they also hurt our place in the ranking. Wash. U., with a nearly equal endowment, ranks many spots above Emory in each of those categories, and as a result, is ranked 12th.
Although U.S. News' rankings are the standard by which colleges are judged, it's important to note that they're also an important part of the magazine's income. U.S. News sells more copies of its rankings issue than any other during the year. The magazine publishes a special book accompanying the rankings and also sells access to the rankings on its Web site for $14.95.
U.S. News has long ranked third among major weekly newsmagazines, behind Time and Newsweek. The magazine's circulation is smaller than Southern Living, Playboy, Redbook and Smithsonian. The college rankings are its only claim to fame.
When ratings of colleges are created to sell magazines, you must question the quality of the ratings. Are U.S. News and Newsweek more interested in giving objective rankings, or selling magazines?
Despite this lingering question, rankings do have merit. They compare Emory to other schools, which motivates the University to improve.
College rankings are necessary and important because despite their many flaws, they reflect both what the outside world thinks of Emory and what it knows about Emory. It's our report card written by others and it may be the only thing a person knows about Emory if they haven't heard of our University before.
Benjamin van der Horst is a College sophomore from Cincinnati.
This column was published in the Emory Wheel on 9/15/06. For more go to www.emorywheel.com
Despite the administrative party line - that Emory's ranking doesn't matter, but the Strategic Plan will still improve it - the University had cause to celebrate this summer. In late August, Emory moved up two spots to 18 in U.S. News, breaking its tie with Vanderbilt and placing ahead of Notre Dame. This ranking came out just days after Newsweek named Emory one its 25 "new ivies."
Although it's clear a high ranking is important for a college's prestige, how exactly are U.S. News' rankings compiled?
U.S. News uses about 10 different metrics to judge schools, the most important part of which is the peer assessment score. The peer assessment score is a measurement of how highly other college presidents hold your university in esteem. Administrators rank schools on a scale from one to five.
Critics of U.S. News argue that peer assessment is a relatively worthless statistic since it can be influenced more by reputation than the actual educational merits of a university. How is the president of a school like the University of Dayton going to know how good of a university Emory is?
This is the question Emory administrators might be asking, since Emory has a peer score of 4.0 - lower than many similar institutions, including Washington University in St. Louis (4.1), Vanderbilt (4.1), Duke (4.5) and Johns Hopkins (4.6). Furthermore, several schools ranked below Emory have higher peer assessment scores, including the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (4.2), Michigan (4.5), Texas (4.1) and Wisconsin (4.2).
Clearly, Emory's image in the field of higher education is in need of reform. This is the one metric that really holds the University back. Furthermore, since several other elements of our ranking are higher than schools ranked above us, even a small rise in our peer ranking would have a dramatic effect on our overall ranking.
Our faculty resources, selectivity, financial resources and alumni giving rates are among the best in the country. But along with our low peer assessment score, Emory has lower student retention rates than other top schools and the second-highest acceptance rate of students among schools in the top 20. An 89-percent graduation rate, a number all of the schools ranked above us, makes it clear that too many students transfer from Emory.
Emory also needs to raise its faculty resource and financial resource levels, because they also hurt our place in the ranking. Wash. U., with a nearly equal endowment, ranks many spots above Emory in each of those categories, and as a result, is ranked 12th.
Although U.S. News' rankings are the standard by which colleges are judged, it's important to note that they're also an important part of the magazine's income. U.S. News sells more copies of its rankings issue than any other during the year. The magazine publishes a special book accompanying the rankings and also sells access to the rankings on its Web site for $14.95.
U.S. News has long ranked third among major weekly newsmagazines, behind Time and Newsweek. The magazine's circulation is smaller than Southern Living, Playboy, Redbook and Smithsonian. The college rankings are its only claim to fame.
When ratings of colleges are created to sell magazines, you must question the quality of the ratings. Are U.S. News and Newsweek more interested in giving objective rankings, or selling magazines?
Despite this lingering question, rankings do have merit. They compare Emory to other schools, which motivates the University to improve.
College rankings are necessary and important because despite their many flaws, they reflect both what the outside world thinks of Emory and what it knows about Emory. It's our report card written by others and it may be the only thing a person knows about Emory if they haven't heard of our University before.
Benjamin van der Horst is a College sophomore from Cincinnati.
This column was published in the Emory Wheel on 9/15/06. For more go to www.emorywheel.com
CSAmerica and College Rankings
Well it has been a while since I've posted on BVDH the Blog. That's because it's been a really busy week and next week looks even crazier. But things are good. I feel remarkably relaxed and on top of things.
The first CSAmerica meeting at Emory is on Tuesday night and I'm doing everything I possibly can to get people there. I'm hopeful that we will have a huge turnout. Things with CSAmerica are going incredibly well as chapters are being launched all over the country.
That's all for now. My column from today, about why the US News and World Report Rankings actually do matter will be posted soon. It's a position I would have never taken in high school, but after stepping back and looking at it, I really think these ridiculous ratings are quite important.
Cheers!
BVDH
The first CSAmerica meeting at Emory is on Tuesday night and I'm doing everything I possibly can to get people there. I'm hopeful that we will have a huge turnout. Things with CSAmerica are going incredibly well as chapters are being launched all over the country.
That's all for now. My column from today, about why the US News and World Report Rankings actually do matter will be posted soon. It's a position I would have never taken in high school, but after stepping back and looking at it, I really think these ridiculous ratings are quite important.
Cheers!
BVDH
Friday, September 08, 2006
Wheel Column: Going 'Round and 'Round in the Blame Game
In the year since Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans, the blame game for the pathetic government response has been played repeatedly. Kanye West blamed President Bush. Many blamed Mayor Ray Nagin. Gulf Coast residents blamed the Federal Government. And members of Congress blamed local and state officials.
Now more and more people are blaming the media. They blame the media for not reporting about Katrina's continued devastation of New Orleans and the neighboring areas. This criticism is misguided. If anything deserves blame, it's the attention span and interests of the American people.
Baton Rouge Advocate columnist Danny Heitman wrote one of the most critical columns about the media's disregard for the recovery last week in The Christian Science Monitor. Heitman accused the national media of losing interest in covering the rebuilding in the Gulf Coast, writing, "It is perhaps because journalism, by its nature, sees the world as a series of dramatically packaged episodes rather than the dry continuum that a recovery from disaster can be."
Heitman is wrong. The problem isn't with journalism or journalists. Journalism is a competitive business and many decisions in television news are made based on ratings. Simply put, the American people don't want to hear about New Orleans and its recovery on a daily basis.
CNN's Anderson Cooper has visited the Gulf Coast several times in the past year, even broadcasting his nightly show, "Anderson Cooper 360," from New Orleans. His ratings, however, have not been demonstratively higher when he broadcasts from the Gulf Coast. In fact, he still finishes second in the ratings to New York-based Fox News.
Americans would rather hear Nancy Grace or Greta Van Susteren go on about the latest blond teenage girl kidnapped. Both Grace and Van Susteren got some of their best ratings when covering the Natalee Holloway case - ratings that surpassed Cooper's.
Americans are captivated by crime and kidnapping. The wall-to-wall media coverage of the arrest of John Karr in the JonBenét Ramsey case two weeks ago is a perfect example. Ratings were up for most newscasts when they talked about the Ramsey case, and a media circus flocked to Boulder, Colo., to find out that Karr was just a deranged individual, not a murderer.
Critics like Heitman may argue it's the media's responsibility to show the American people images they'd prefer not to see. But it's not the media that's bored with the recovery; it's the American people.
Benjamin van der Horst is a College sophomore from Cincinnati.
This column ran in the Emory Wheel on 9/5/06. For more go to www.emorywheel.com
Now more and more people are blaming the media. They blame the media for not reporting about Katrina's continued devastation of New Orleans and the neighboring areas. This criticism is misguided. If anything deserves blame, it's the attention span and interests of the American people.
Baton Rouge Advocate columnist Danny Heitman wrote one of the most critical columns about the media's disregard for the recovery last week in The Christian Science Monitor. Heitman accused the national media of losing interest in covering the rebuilding in the Gulf Coast, writing, "It is perhaps because journalism, by its nature, sees the world as a series of dramatically packaged episodes rather than the dry continuum that a recovery from disaster can be."
Heitman is wrong. The problem isn't with journalism or journalists. Journalism is a competitive business and many decisions in television news are made based on ratings. Simply put, the American people don't want to hear about New Orleans and its recovery on a daily basis.
CNN's Anderson Cooper has visited the Gulf Coast several times in the past year, even broadcasting his nightly show, "Anderson Cooper 360," from New Orleans. His ratings, however, have not been demonstratively higher when he broadcasts from the Gulf Coast. In fact, he still finishes second in the ratings to New York-based Fox News.
Americans would rather hear Nancy Grace or Greta Van Susteren go on about the latest blond teenage girl kidnapped. Both Grace and Van Susteren got some of their best ratings when covering the Natalee Holloway case - ratings that surpassed Cooper's.
Americans are captivated by crime and kidnapping. The wall-to-wall media coverage of the arrest of John Karr in the JonBenét Ramsey case two weeks ago is a perfect example. Ratings were up for most newscasts when they talked about the Ramsey case, and a media circus flocked to Boulder, Colo., to find out that Karr was just a deranged individual, not a murderer.
Critics like Heitman may argue it's the media's responsibility to show the American people images they'd prefer not to see. But it's not the media that's bored with the recovery; it's the American people.
Benjamin van der Horst is a College sophomore from Cincinnati.
This column ran in the Emory Wheel on 9/5/06. For more go to www.emorywheel.com
Wheel Column: A Day That Won't Life in Infamy
How Bush's Politicization of a National Tragedy Put an End to Post-9/11 Unity
On Oct. 11, 2001 the American people were more united than at any time since World War II. A month after the life-changing Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Americans were nearly undivided in their support for President Bush and Congress, as well as in their response to the attacks.
Bush's approval rating stood at 92 percent, a record high for any president. The Patriot Act would pass with little opposition a few weeks later.
Three weeks before, President Bush, in his address to a joint session of Congress, praised members of both parties. His speech was constantly interrupted only by applause from both sides of the aisle. A month before, on the night of the attacks, congressional members from both parties stood on the steps of the Capitol and sang a stirring rendition of "God Bless America."
Pundits declared that partisan politics would be put aside for an extended period as members of both parties worked together in responding to the attacks and crafting new measures that would keep America safe. Citizens were disappointed that the United States didn't prevent the attacks, but were united in their belief that the government would work together to prevent the next attacks.
In the month since the attacks, sympathy and support for the United States came from every corner of the globe. The North Atlantic Trade Organization invoked the self-defense chapter of its charter for the first time as NATO planes helped to patrol the Atlantic Coast.
South Korean schoolchildren prayed at the American Embassy in Seoul. "The Star Spangled Banner" was played at Buckingham Palace in London. The French newspaper Le Monde ran the headline, "We are all Americans."
Because of this sympathy and goodwill, the limited war initiated to remove the Taliban from Afghanistan received support from the global community. Likewise, American citizens supported the military action in Afghanistan because it took the war on terrorism to the terrorists.
But over the next two years, American unity began to dissolve and the international community's blank check of support ended. Partisan bickering returned to Washington, even increasing in breadth and fury.
It's easy to blame the Iraq War for this cessation of goodwill and unity. But really, the war is only part of a larger explanation of these changes.
The Sept. 11 attacks have been politically abused, and the Bush administrations is largely at fault, although Democrats haven't been immune to politicizing the tragedy.
Bush and Karl Rove used the politics of fear to lead the Republicans to victory in the 2002 midterm elections, to launch the Iraq War in 2003 and to triumph over John Kerry in the 2004 presidential contest. Because of Sept. 11, a president lacking a mandate gained an overentitled sense of purpose that has led to a flagrant disregard for the law, along with the well-being of the nation.
Five years later, Bush's approval rating is at 35 percent. The global community hates the United States, or at least its government. Congress is mired in political gridlock and accomplishes little. All because Bush and Rove decided to politicize Sept. 11.
Due to the heroism of police officers and firefighters, as well as resounding response of nationwide unity, Sept. 11 isn't a day that will live in infamy. It's Bush's politicization of the tragedy that will.
Benjamin van der Horst is a College sophomore from Cincinnati.
This column ran in the Emory Wheel on 9/8/06. For more check out www.emorywheel.com
On Oct. 11, 2001 the American people were more united than at any time since World War II. A month after the life-changing Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Americans were nearly undivided in their support for President Bush and Congress, as well as in their response to the attacks.
Bush's approval rating stood at 92 percent, a record high for any president. The Patriot Act would pass with little opposition a few weeks later.
Three weeks before, President Bush, in his address to a joint session of Congress, praised members of both parties. His speech was constantly interrupted only by applause from both sides of the aisle. A month before, on the night of the attacks, congressional members from both parties stood on the steps of the Capitol and sang a stirring rendition of "God Bless America."
Pundits declared that partisan politics would be put aside for an extended period as members of both parties worked together in responding to the attacks and crafting new measures that would keep America safe. Citizens were disappointed that the United States didn't prevent the attacks, but were united in their belief that the government would work together to prevent the next attacks.
In the month since the attacks, sympathy and support for the United States came from every corner of the globe. The North Atlantic Trade Organization invoked the self-defense chapter of its charter for the first time as NATO planes helped to patrol the Atlantic Coast.
South Korean schoolchildren prayed at the American Embassy in Seoul. "The Star Spangled Banner" was played at Buckingham Palace in London. The French newspaper Le Monde ran the headline, "We are all Americans."
Because of this sympathy and goodwill, the limited war initiated to remove the Taliban from Afghanistan received support from the global community. Likewise, American citizens supported the military action in Afghanistan because it took the war on terrorism to the terrorists.
But over the next two years, American unity began to dissolve and the international community's blank check of support ended. Partisan bickering returned to Washington, even increasing in breadth and fury.
It's easy to blame the Iraq War for this cessation of goodwill and unity. But really, the war is only part of a larger explanation of these changes.
The Sept. 11 attacks have been politically abused, and the Bush administrations is largely at fault, although Democrats haven't been immune to politicizing the tragedy.
Bush and Karl Rove used the politics of fear to lead the Republicans to victory in the 2002 midterm elections, to launch the Iraq War in 2003 and to triumph over John Kerry in the 2004 presidential contest. Because of Sept. 11, a president lacking a mandate gained an overentitled sense of purpose that has led to a flagrant disregard for the law, along with the well-being of the nation.
Five years later, Bush's approval rating is at 35 percent. The global community hates the United States, or at least its government. Congress is mired in political gridlock and accomplishes little. All because Bush and Rove decided to politicize Sept. 11.
Due to the heroism of police officers and firefighters, as well as resounding response of nationwide unity, Sept. 11 isn't a day that will live in infamy. It's Bush's politicization of the tragedy that will.
Benjamin van der Horst is a College sophomore from Cincinnati.
This column ran in the Emory Wheel on 9/8/06. For more check out www.emorywheel.com
Coming Soon: My Wheel Column
So some of you know that I write a weekly editorial column for The Emory Wheel, the student-run newspaper here at Emory. I will soon be posting my column each Friday on BVDH The Blog. My first two columns, on Katrina and the Media and the politicization of 9/11, will be posted shortly. Columns sometimes are about national issues and sometimes are about Emory issues. I'll be sure to explain the Emory issues I write about so you can understand my column better.
Thanks for stopping by.
BVDH
Thanks for stopping by.
BVDH
Paris Hilton: I almost feel sorry for you
Oh Paris Hilton...I understand you are hurt by all the attention drawn to you last night because you were arrested for DUI because you "just [were] really hungry and wanted to have an In-N-Out burger." You never do anything to draw attention to yourself, do you? You wouldn't dream about having your own TV show. Or going on the radio with Ryan Seacreast to decry how the event (getting a DUI) were "blown out of proportion."
Listen Paris. No one would care about you at all if a) you weren't the heir to a really big fortune and b) sex videos of you didn't make to the internet. Then you have capitalized on your fame left and right. So you are fair game. And if you are stupid enough to drive drunk, it is a big deal because you could have killed someone, so don't going crying to Ryan Seacrest that it's unfair that everyone is reporting your screwed up. You created your own image. Now live with it.
Listen Paris. No one would care about you at all if a) you weren't the heir to a really big fortune and b) sex videos of you didn't make to the internet. Then you have capitalized on your fame left and right. So you are fair game. And if you are stupid enough to drive drunk, it is a big deal because you could have killed someone, so don't going crying to Ryan Seacrest that it's unfair that everyone is reporting your screwed up. You created your own image. Now live with it.
Facebook.
Well the people over at Facebook really screwed up the other day. By introducing the news/mini feeds without any privacy restrictions whatsoever, they managed to infuriate most of their very loyal base of users. Fair enough, everyone makes mistakes. But what Facebook should really be criticized for is their terrible response to this crisis (and trust me, for them it was a crisis).
At first they defended these changes as seen in e-mails and Mark Zuckerberg's September 6 blog entry. Their initial attitude was "trust us, you'll learn to like it." This pissed us users off even more because I don't need a college dropout (a very wealthy one at that) without any apparent critical thinking skills telling me in a patronizing tone that "I'll learn to like it."
They used the logic that well all this information is available to your Facebook friends, why should you care if it is highlighted when people log-in or view your page. That's beyond poor logic. It shows a real lacking in critical thinking skills. Well, yes, people can view your page to see these changes, but we sure don't want some of these changes (relationship status, who wrote on whose wall, who is my new friend, etc) broadcasted because it's creepy. Plus I don't really care to know which one of my friends wrote on someone else's wall. It was just too much.
And there was no way to turn it off other than manually removing the feeds, which was a real pain. About 750,000 Facebook users (out of 8 million or so) joined the biggest protest group against these changes. Major media picked up the story with the first big publication being Time Magazine posting a story on their website, linked from CNN.com (the second most visited news site on the internet). Yesterday it made the front page of the Washington Post and the front of the second section of the Wall Street Journal. This was terrible press for Facebook and as far as we knew they were standing firm, despite millions of enraged users.
Finally, this morning they introduced privacy settings that controls what information of yours goes on the news/mini feeds. I understand it takes time to code these changes, but they should have a) told us that they were in the process of doing this to calm everyone down and b) reverted to the old version of Facebook until they could make these changes.
Instead, they defended their changes until the bitter end destroying the huge reservoir of goodwill they had created. Mark Zuckerberg went from saint to devil overnight. His personal information (phone, e-mail, etc.) as well as other members of the Facebook corporation were posted all over the internet. They managed to create an incredible amount of negative press. Our generation, the generation who doesn't care to protest anything, finally found a cause to rally around. College students, who scoffed when adults warned us about our lack of internet privacy, all of a sudden were crying foul about lack of privacy. All because Facebook mismanaged the entire situation.
Well now we have better privacy options. That's a good thing. Mark Zuckerberg also posted an open letter apologizing for what they did that starts with "We really messed this one up." Yea, Mark, you really did. It's nice that you finally show some humility after two and a half days of being a pompous asshole on the issue.
Who knows how much market value Facebook has lost this week? Who know how much damage they really caused? At least they know their users really care about their site. It's the seventh most visited site on the internet. The average user logs in daily and spends 16-18 minutes on the site. That's amazing. I personally do not like the format of our Facebook pages with the new layout due to the mini-feed. But hopefully, they'll change it so it looks a bit better.
Well Facebook and Mark, I accept your apology. Do me a favor though next time. Don't be so stupid. If you screw up, admit it and say you'll fix it, don't defend it until the last minute and then change your position. You have a good thing worth a ton of money; do not forsake it.
At first they defended these changes as seen in e-mails and Mark Zuckerberg's September 6 blog entry. Their initial attitude was "trust us, you'll learn to like it." This pissed us users off even more because I don't need a college dropout (a very wealthy one at that) without any apparent critical thinking skills telling me in a patronizing tone that "I'll learn to like it."
They used the logic that well all this information is available to your Facebook friends, why should you care if it is highlighted when people log-in or view your page. That's beyond poor logic. It shows a real lacking in critical thinking skills. Well, yes, people can view your page to see these changes, but we sure don't want some of these changes (relationship status, who wrote on whose wall, who is my new friend, etc) broadcasted because it's creepy. Plus I don't really care to know which one of my friends wrote on someone else's wall. It was just too much.
And there was no way to turn it off other than manually removing the feeds, which was a real pain. About 750,000 Facebook users (out of 8 million or so) joined the biggest protest group against these changes. Major media picked up the story with the first big publication being Time Magazine posting a story on their website, linked from CNN.com (the second most visited news site on the internet). Yesterday it made the front page of the Washington Post and the front of the second section of the Wall Street Journal. This was terrible press for Facebook and as far as we knew they were standing firm, despite millions of enraged users.
Finally, this morning they introduced privacy settings that controls what information of yours goes on the news/mini feeds. I understand it takes time to code these changes, but they should have a) told us that they were in the process of doing this to calm everyone down and b) reverted to the old version of Facebook until they could make these changes.
Instead, they defended their changes until the bitter end destroying the huge reservoir of goodwill they had created. Mark Zuckerberg went from saint to devil overnight. His personal information (phone, e-mail, etc.) as well as other members of the Facebook corporation were posted all over the internet. They managed to create an incredible amount of negative press. Our generation, the generation who doesn't care to protest anything, finally found a cause to rally around. College students, who scoffed when adults warned us about our lack of internet privacy, all of a sudden were crying foul about lack of privacy. All because Facebook mismanaged the entire situation.
Well now we have better privacy options. That's a good thing. Mark Zuckerberg also posted an open letter apologizing for what they did that starts with "We really messed this one up." Yea, Mark, you really did. It's nice that you finally show some humility after two and a half days of being a pompous asshole on the issue.
Who knows how much market value Facebook has lost this week? Who know how much damage they really caused? At least they know their users really care about their site. It's the seventh most visited site on the internet. The average user logs in daily and spends 16-18 minutes on the site. That's amazing. I personally do not like the format of our Facebook pages with the new layout due to the mini-feed. But hopefully, they'll change it so it looks a bit better.
Well Facebook and Mark, I accept your apology. Do me a favor though next time. Don't be so stupid. If you screw up, admit it and say you'll fix it, don't defend it until the last minute and then change your position. You have a good thing worth a ton of money; do not forsake it.
Monday, September 04, 2006
A blog? Well, yes, I guess.
Okay...so I have never really been into this whole blogging thing. I find MySpace to be extremely creepy and stay away from it at all costs. But blogging keeps getting more and more popular, and even Facebook (which, unlike Myspace, I enjoy dearly) has more blog-like features.
So I figured I'd start a blog to share my thoughts on the wide-range of topics my mind contemplates on a daily basis. I may start posting my weekly editorial column for Emory Wheel here too, we'll just have to see.
Well that's all for post one. Cheers!
So I figured I'd start a blog to share my thoughts on the wide-range of topics my mind contemplates on a daily basis. I may start posting my weekly editorial column for Emory Wheel here too, we'll just have to see.
Well that's all for post one. Cheers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)