More Than Words

Fighting Fire with Fired

2005-04-26T23:41:00.000-07:00

I just got fired! Can you believe it?

The Vermilion has informed me that my services will no longer be needed. Just my luck, too—I was finally hitting my stride! But apparently there's some rule that only active UL students can write for The Vermilion, and I'm graduating again. Such bad luck!

I suspect our conservative columnist had something to do with that rule. John Hinson has taken some heat after demanding that non-students stop writing to The Vermilion. Not that Hinson objected when math professor Henry Heatherly praised him in the Jan. 21, 2004 issue; but perhaps he was swamped then. Being a columnist is tough. So why get rid of a veteran?

Since June 2002 I have occupied this space, churning out 99 columns--100 if you count the 2003 April Fool's issue, which I will because I'm compensating for something. This hasn't translated into either clout or the pay raises that go to staff writers after 20 stories (yeah, guys, I saw that rule sheet!). Still, writing commentary on the events of 2002-05 has had a cool Forrest Gump vibe to it.

Like Forrest, I didn't emerge fully grown; it took time for me to become this jaded. My first Vermilion piece appeared in the Nov. 6, 1998 issue, a riveting article titled, "Higher Education Act may benefit USL students." That issue also announced the reconstruction of F.G. Mouton Hall (scheduled for completion in December 2000—yeah, four!).

Fifteen semesters later, we've been through three football coaches, two presidential elections, 9/11, two wars, a thousand of my closest friends and—just under the wire—two popes. On a somber note, these past seven years also brought the deaths of six of my relatives, our longtime track coach, a professor of mine and seven friends.

I've had six school IDs (including two USL cards), three driver's licenses, three academic bulletins and five advisers. My transcript is four pages long. I have so many experiences left to exploit on this page! Besides, I have the UL thing down cold; isn't that a good thing for a newspaper columnist? I have a BA in journalism and now a master's degree in English, yet The Vermilion still let me go! They called it "a long-overdue nudge into real life," whatever that meant.

They must not think I know anything about working. Seven years as manager of the track team doesn't qualify? Hardly a day goes by that a teammate or trainer doesn't ask, "So when are you gonna write about me?" I can't let them down! I need more time!

They always tell you that these are the best years of your life. What exactly is my motivation for leaving school, then? No one at the Grad Expo said, "Enjoy your menial entry-level years! They're the best time of your life." I was hoping to make a career out of being a student, but now they lay me off! Must be the economy.

I suppose, then, that those of you carrying on should heed this advice: open your eyes and take control of your life. Who decides what you believe, what you do and with whom you associate? The answer to that should be you, you and you.

Whenever you make a decision in life, don't do it because George W. Bush, Pope Benedict XVI or Carson Daly told you to, or because your parents want you to take that path. Don't even do it because I said you should; do it because it's right. Never wait to seize the moment, because (as you've seen here) it'll be over before you know it.

Talk to you again soon.

Cajun Brass 1, Cajun Music 0

2005-04-20T02:06:00.000-07:00

What exactly does the University of Louisiana have against culture?

Here’s the lowdown on an ugly incident: The Pine Leaf Boys, a local band composed of Drew Simon, Cedric Watson, Wilson Savoy and Jon Bertrand, were performing on campus March 23 when the University Police ordered them to stop. They have since announced that they will no longer play here, a move which should sadden anyone who values a vibrant college scene.

This incident is particularly newsworthy for several reasons: 1) UL authorities gave conflicting and contradicting reasons as to why the band wasn’t allowed there; 2) enforcement of “quiet-zone” rules is apparently seriously selective; and 3) the school has now sent the message that only adults interested in selling stuff are allowed to mingle with students.

Based on the direction of the wind, UL officials have offered the following as reasons for the band’s eviction: noise disturbance, lack of paperwork or the ignorance of prior warnings. Taken together, it would appear that the university really does not want The Pine Leaf Boys on campus and will give any half-baked reason for their dismissal.

If the university truly cared about noise abatement, then they should address such diverse elements as traffic, construction and lawn mowers buzzing during classes. Why not shut down the massive heating and cooling units next to academic buildings while you’re at it? Or post signs on every sidewalk reminding students to zip their lips?

And say goodbye to those periodic block parties at the same intersection as well. Is it too late to cancel the rest of Lagniappe Week? That affects the ENTIRE campus! I have no doubt that the vast throng of students who traverse St. Mary and Rex each day would thank you for keeping their sanctuary quiet.

Somehow, I suspect that the noise disturbance was not the real issue at hand. How do I know? Because I was there. As I walked across campus from Griffin Hall to Martin Hall that day, I saw the Pine Leaf Boys doing their thing. Their volume wasn’t exactly at Festival International levels; in fact, I considered standing right by them to get a better listen. I would have even dropped change into their cup, had I not been bereft of change (a situation often shared by musicians and writers alike). As far as I was concerned, having a Cajun band there was a welcome change from the usual huckstering.

Another excuse given by UL officials was that the band was banned under the same provision that prevents beggars from soliciting money on campus. I suppose there’s a profound difference between bums and the credit card people who prowl campus, seducing unsuspecting freshmen with free t-shirts. To campus officials, it’s apparently more acceptable to ruin students’ credit than to expose them to the sounds that define this area. Not that any of this matters anyway, because the band wasn’t exactly advertising its little paper change cup. Maybe, just maybe, they were in it for the music.

Music is a part of the university experience. What movie about college doesn’t have at least one splash scene of campus with some kind of orchestral score? And what campus does not enjoy the periodic street function? Certainly ours does, and its annual calendar of events only enriches the academic atmosphere.

When I saw the Pine Leaf Boys that day, the first question that popped in my mind was not, “Will they please stop?” Instead I asked, “Why aren’t they and their brethren here more often?” Anything that enriches the student experience at a major university, even if for a few moments between classes, should be accepted with open arms. And open ears.

The Captain’s Blog

2005-04-13T12:19:00.000-07:00

The big buzz on the Internet these days is the blog, a (usually free) personal Web page where a person can post entries about whatever they feel like talking about at the moment. Teenagers and professional journalists alike have blogs, and their ranks are growing fast.

Even politicians are getting into the act, as evidenced by what looks like the top-secret journal of the White House. I'd tell you the page's address, but then I'd have to kill you (also, it's long and confusing and I forgot it).

Posted by geedub46, 8 April 2005
Mood: Popeless
Music: "The Angry American," Toby Keith
Today we went to the funeral for Pope John Paul II. Me, Daddy, Laura, Condi and Bill were all there. More than three million people are here to pay their respects. It's great to see that one man could be revered so unconditionally by so many people all over the world. I wonder what that feels like! I'm all for going it alone if necessary, but still…

I wanted to go in line to see the Pope, but Daddy said that that was probably not a good idea. What a jerk! I mean, I never was a follower of the Pope or anything, but I still wanted to see him! Hey, I'm not really that big a fan of the Saudis either. But us rich and powerful folks have to stick together, you know?

Posted by geedub46, 9 April 2005
Mood: Forgetful
Music: "The Angry American," Toby Keith
Better jot down those codes…12-41-63-88-92-69-56. That reminds me, I should really make this journal 'friends-only.' Maybe Dick'll show me how.

Posted by PressSecScott, 9 April 2005
Mood: Spun
Music: "The Angry American," Toby Keith
I just got hold of today’s talking points…guys, are you sure we can keep exploiting Terri Schiavo like this? To constantly harp on the “culture of life” is going to work against us. There’s so many OTHER ways I want to exploit the case, and so little time left before we drop the issue. Can we please shake it up? This is getting boring for me.

Posted by cheneyburton, 10 April 2005
Mood: Gruff
Music: "The Angry American," Toby Keith
You are fire. The most dangerous kind of element, fire is useful or destructive depending on who is harnessing it. Like fire, you are eager to spread your will all over, whether or not anyone in your path is prepared. (What earthly element are you? Quiz by megroxors1987)

Posted by condoleezyofftheheezy, 11 Apr 2005
Mood: Sick of Toby Keith
Music: "Have You Forgotten?" Darryl Worley
This is just a reminder regarding today's White House activities: 10 a.m., meeting with Christians Against Peace; 11 a.m., lunch and our daily journalist auction; 3-8 p.m., stuff so top secret even we’re unclear; 8 p.m., Bush's bedtime; 8:30-midnight, Cheney brought out of storage.

Posted by cheneyburton, 11 April 2005
Mood: Oil's well
Music: "Let the Eagle Soar," John Ashcroft
Tonight's meeting will touch upon matters of serious world significance: first we must fill the room with smoke, then I’ll do my evil cackle (that always gets the ladies!). Afterwards we will throw darts to determine our next enemy (I got a new map since our other one fell apart). Then we'll select a new pope. Oh and Condi, can you bring back my Stepford Wives DVD?

Posted by attygenGonzales, 11 April 2005
Mood: Tortured
Music: "The Angry American," Toby Keith
I’m sorry, I borrowed the DVD. We’re using it to extract confessions at Gitmo.

Posted by geedub46, 12 April 2005
Mood: Confused
Music: "The Angry American," Toby Keith
Wait a minute…the Vatican is in Italy?

My Will Be Done

2005-04-06T19:13:00.000-07:00

Terri Schiavo, the epicenter of current right-to-die debate, died on March 31. Schiavo had lived life in a persistent vegetative state since a potassium imbalance led to brain death in February 1990. If ever a case defined “lose-lose situation,” then this would be it. Ultimately, there are no winners here.

All of this wrangling could have been prevented with a simple document known as a “living will,” a document that states a person’s desires in the event that they lose the ability to speak for themselves. Ever the paranoid one, I have written one of my own. Here it is:

I, Ian Paul McGibboney, aged 24 years, 10 months and 29 days, and being of sound mind and body as of April 6, 2005, do hereby declare this to be my official living will and testament. Knowing the state of human life to be uncertain, I hereby declare that I want no part of a 15-year battle to determine who has custody of what’s left of my brain.

If, by happenstance, I am in Florida at the onset of incapacitation, I request to be whisked away as soon as possible, preferably to a state without such an insane governor. Someplace like California.

In the case that recovery seems possible, I am all for being kept alive on a respirator and undergoing any therapy conducive to my improvement. However, if three years of constant therapy and CAT scans show that nothing short of divine intervention will restore my brain functions, then let sleeping dogs lie. Please.

However, I do realize that a particularly sensational illness might attract attention by both legislators and the media. In that case, find enclosed an unflattering picture that I took in 2001, just before I had back surgery. I want this to be my official picture. Let people base their emotions on something other than how good I used to look. Additionally, coverage of my case should not take precedence over important news such as the second-deadliest school shooting ever, as happened during the Schiavo saga.

Furthermore, I shall not endorse any videos made of my behavior to justify my continued existence, even if such videos are heavily edited to make me look alert. Only videos made of myself during my life as an active and thinking human being shall receive my support, except when they’re embarrassing.

At no time should any politician or party, be they Republican, Democrat or anything in between, use any part of my illness as a tool for their respective political platforms. Unless such political grandstanding somehow results in effective prevention and support for concurrent and subsequent cases, it need not be even considered.

I vociferously object to any attempt by legislative bodies to write up “Ian’s Law,” designed to make exceptions to long-standing medical and legal practices. Hopefully this will be a moot point by then, because I’ll probably incite an “Ian’s law” or two sometime during the course of my active life.

Also, I wish not to be used as an example of upholding “the culture of life,” particularly by those who continue to support such horrific endeavors as the occupation of Iraq, torture of enemy combatants and the execution of prisoners.

Instead, I hope that all of these “right-to-life” types direct their energies toward repairing the lives of those who still stand a chance. These include, but are not limited to, America’s disabled, working people without health insurance and catastrophic patients. Maybe then, the fight to save one long-swept-away life won’t seem so politically transparent.

Finally, and most importantly, no mayo. I still have taste buds!

Witnesses: Anyone who reads this
Lawyer: the late Johnnie Cochran
Physician: Dr. Jack Kevorkian

Faster Punishment! Kill! Kill!

2005-03-23T01:27:00.000-08:00

If ever anyone wants proof that American justice is impartial, they should be steered far away from the top stories of March 16, 2005.

Within the span of that one day, juries acquitted actor Robert Blake of murdering his wife and sentenced Scott Peterson to die. Of course, we in the media had long ago made up our minds.

A Los Angeles jury found Blake not guilty of two counts of solicitation for murder. Blake, known primarily for his role as the title character in the 1975-78 cop drama “Baretta,” was accused of the May 2001 murder of Bonnie Lee Bakely.

According to MSNBC, “No eyewitnesses, blood or DNA evidence linked Blake to the crime. The murder weapon, found in a trash bin, could not be traced to Blake, and witnesses said the minuscule amounts of gunshot residue found on Blake’s hands could have come from a different gun he said he carried for protection.”

Media coverage of the trial was a small-scale replica of the circus surrounding a certain other murder case that dominated 1994 and 1995. The general consensus in the media and in opinion columns during the trial was that Blake was undeniably guilty. This armchair verdict seemed less inspired by the facts of the case as by the notion that America loves punishing a monster. As Baretta himself always said, “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time!” Ultimately, the court ruled that Blake didn’t and won’t have to.

Justice buffs need not despair over Blake’s acquittal, however. Just hours before, another accused wife-killer from California received the ultimate sentence. Scott Peterson stood trial for the December 2002 murder of wife Laci. But why do the details matter? According to the court of public opinion, Scott was toast from the outset. A trial would be but a formality to distract us while the chair was warmed up.

I’ll admit that I was not high on the Peterson case. The only reason I felt that this case garnered such a huge level of attention was because Laci was a well-to-do, attractive woman. Pretty faces make for tantalizing press, even as equally tragic murder cases happen every week of the year.

Another reason for the nationwide appeal of the Peterson case was that Laci was eight months pregnant. I’d say that Laci’s murder counts as a double homicide; after all, she was very definitely having that baby. Still, the case became a bonanza for pro-death-penalty and pro-life activists alike.

I am not one to judge innocence or guilt, particularly after not having followed the Peterson case closely. But from the first day of coverage, the public seemed to have already thrown Scott into the electric chair. Those with whom I had conversations about the case always had the same reaction: “Scott is guilty. I hope they kill him.”

But whether or not Peterson or Blake deserved convictions, anyone who cares about justice should worry when such decisions are made before examining the evidence. Once an idea is fixed in our collective heads, it’s hard to let go. Ask any of the 119 exonerated Death Row inmates released since 1973 if rushing to judgment is such a great idea.

For these reasons, the death penalty should be abolished. No government should hold sway over the life or death of its constituents, particularly given the injustices of a system rooted so solidly on public passion.

People are still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. As interested citizens, we can volley the ball of presumed guilt around the court of personal opinion as much as we want. Ultimately, however, that court is useless as a tool of true justice.

Putting the ‘Greed’ in ‘Degree’

2005-03-16T11:36:00.000-08:00

With all of the events going on in national politics, the Personal Ian McGibboney Press has unfortunately neglected the political scene here at the University of Louisiana. So here is the latest word on campus politics:

LAFAYETTE (PIMP)--A proposal by the UL Student Government Association passed easily Tuesday, with students overwhelmingly voting to pointlessly jack up tuition.

By a vote of 1121-575, students approved Referendum 2, which asked full-time students to "assess themselves an extra $78 per semester, for no reason other than to make their tuition bills really huge."

SGA officials greeted the referendum's passage with extreme pride, calling it "a victory for the UL community." SGA president Katie Ortego said that the tuition increase will give the students a feeling of attending a more expensive school.

“LSU, UCLA, Duke, Harvard and Yale…what do all of these schools have in common?” she asked. “High academic rankings, national prominence and astronomically high tuition, that’s what. Your SGA simply put two and two together.”

Ortego contributed the success of the tuition hike to the student body's acceptance of previous tuition increases.

"The UL student population has, time and again, shown its enthusiasm for tuition increases. At first, we figured we had a tough sell. In Spring of 1999, for example, tuition for a full-time, in-state commuter student was about $928. But through years of promising such marvelous improvements as a five-story parking garage and a new student union, we were able to win hearts and minds."

One anonymous official added that even SGA began to wonder just how many more times they could get away with increasing tuition before students would begin to object. "But when we realized people would never consider the drawbacks of our proposals, such as the unrealistic idea of a parking tower on a back road or the new union taking several years to refurbish, we knew we could be bolder. So we decided to drop the pretense this time around and just ask for the money."

Despite the significant margin of victory in an election that garnered the highest-ever voter turnout, some students voiced skepticism over the pointless tuition jack-up.

"I can't believe that SGA was able to pull the wool over the school's eyes yet again," said an English graduate student who asked not to be identified. "Are students here really so near-sighted as to approve a useless increase in tuition? Such reckless and unaccounted spending threatens the university’s status as one of the best values in the region.”

Still, the student said, “At least they were honest. Such integrity is rare in any form of government these days.”

SGA officials declined to comment on where the new funds would be diverted, other than to make reference to a campus-beautification project.

"We find that the campus is at its most colorful during campaign week, with all of the candidates wearing their party shirts. We also find that SGA is at its most lucrative during campaign week,” said the unnamed official. “So to kill two birds with one stone, we have decided to hold new SGA elections every month. The newly raised funds will be used, in part, to purchase thousands of colorful campaign shirts, so that their presence may be felt on campus every day of the year."

The Big Three is already planning for its next election in April, in which students will be asked to consider two proposals: a $20 tuition increase to provide free issues of “TV Guide” on campus and a $45 increase for constructing new parking spaces in the Quad.

Note: The preceding column was satire. Don't you know me by now? Everything in it is fake, except for the Spring 1999 tuition figure.

Secret Service with a Smile

2005-03-08T22:49:00.000-08:00

The Secret Service. It’s not secret, and it’s only a service to a handful of people. Despite its ironic name, however, the Secret Service serves as a model of personal safety and security. Its thoroughness is not to be believed. As the following true stories attest, the Secret Service really is looking out for you. And for me.

In 1996, I was a junior staff writer for my high-school paper. We received news that then-Vice Presidential candidate Jack Kemp was coming to visit our school, an event we considered somewhat important. The Secret Service called our newspaper staff about a week before the campaign stop and inquired as to our coverage. They told us that any photographers would have to submit their cameras and all other equipment for extensive scrutiny. Their rationale: certain chemicals within camera film can conceivably be used to make a toxic chemical bomb.

With our staff at the time, they should not have worried about anyone expressing any less than serious love for the man. Still, we were ultimately denied permission to shoot (sorry, photograph) Kemp in our gymnasium. In the end, our paper made no mention whatsoever of the event, mainly because our next issue came about at about the same time as Clinton’s second inauguration.

More recently, the Secret Service swept the Lafayette area in October 2002 when Dick Cheney dropped by to campaign for future Senatorial loser Suzanne Haik Terrell. As part of its apparently comprehensive sweep, agents stopped by The Vermilion office to inquire about a certain liberal writer (as if there was any chance that I would be at a $1000-a-plate Republican photo-op, even out of morbid curiosity). Supposedly, the Secret Service interrogated the then-editorship about my beliefs, my disposition and even my whereabouts. I found out about this after the fact, so I assume the editors said nice things about me.

It’s almost a shame I didn’t get a visit from the agents, because I never got to thank them for possibly saving my life back in 1992. On Oct. 27 of that year, then-Gov. Bill Clinton came to Lafayette. In stark contrast to “Man of the Rich People” Cheney, Clinton held his campaign bash at a wide-open Girard Park, for free, with live music and dancing.

After his speech, Clinton rushed to the section where I stood and greeted us. Because of his rapid approach, the crowd swarmed and enveloped us. Being a skinny 12-year-old boy in a crowd of hardcore adult Democrats, I could barely breathe. As the CNN camera panned straight on me, I imagined how my internal organs were going to look to the world and to Wolf Blitzer. The Secret Service stepped in quickly, however, and I lived to shake Clinton’s massive hand just after he hugged my mother (insert your joke here).

My father worked diligently for the local Clinton campaign and collaborated with the Secret Service for the event. Afterwards, as Dad tells it, he and an agent were talking over beers. Several drinks later, the agent still maintained a straight face and showed no emotion whatsoever. I don’t know where they get such dedicated professionals, though I was once told by a rejected applicant that one prerequisite is having never smoked pot more than 15 times. I can definitely see the danger of getting too mellow on that job.

Even if I don’t always admire the president or other American political leaders, I will always be in awe of the competence of their protectors, the Secret Service. After all, these are the people who are protecting the people who are supposed to protect us. And that’s no small feat in any era.

Red Tape, Redefined

2005-03-02T00:28:00.000-08:00

Move over, Nixon! The latest president to deny his crook status now has secret tapes of his very own. Recently released by George W. Bush pal Doug Wead, these recordings offer startling insights into the man who would soon be called president (by the Supreme Court). Among the startling revelations: Bush basically admitted that he smoked pot, once considered John Ashcroft as vice president and actually questioned courting religious fundamentalists.

Quotations from the tape illustrate a future world leader in the making. More importantly, they help answer the burning question: “What the hell were they thinking?”

Oct. 23, 1998, 3:16 p.m.

“Hey, George! Doug here!”

“Doug Wead! I love that name, Wead! Because, you know, it sounds like weed.”

“Just so you know, I’m secretly taping this conversation for historical purposes.”

“I feel like Monica Lewinsky!”

“Speaking of Monica, Bill Clinton’s been taking some abuse lately, huh? I hope the Republicans pounce on this.”

“Are you kidding? With such a scandal on Democrats, our party’s a lock in the next election. Any clue on who’s running?”

“Well, some of the names in the rumor mill right now are Steve Forbes, Dan Quayle, John McCain and you.”

“But I can’t run for president! It’s 1998!”

“Er…well, now’s a good time to think ahead.”

“You’re right. I would have to unify a loyal base of voters. On what could I run?”

“Well, sir, you’re the governor of Texas. That’s no small feat.”

“Actually, yes it is. What else you got?”

“You also ran the Texas Rangers.”

“Are you kidding? I traded Sammy Sosa! And he just clobbered the home run record.”

“Yeah, but Mark McGwire beat him to it! Gotta think positively.”

“Good point. I’m positive I’ll be president!”

“That’s very optimistic, George.”

Dec. 4, 1999, 2:42 p.m.

“Doug, I’ve got a no-miss idea for my campaign. Bush Y2K! What do you think?”

“You already have the paranoid vote, George. If you really want to attract voters, you should focus on the pertinent issues. First off, we need a catchphrase.”

“I’ve got that one covered. I like the title of Marvin Olasky’s upcoming book, Conceited Conservatism.”

“George, that’s Compassionate Conservatism.”

“Oh. Don’t like that as much, but it’ll do. Now how about foreign policy? And domestic scandal? I certainly don’t want to be caught with my pants down. In any sense.”

“Don’t worry. No one would ever accuse you of making love, not war.”

“And I’m concerned about alienating voters by pushing religious issues. I realize that America comprises a variety of spiritual viewpoints. So should I bash gays or should I just hate the sin of gayism?”

“Do what your heart tells you, George. Remember, your beliefs are right and no one can tell you otherwise.”

“True. Daddy told me that I’ve been wrong only once. And that was when I thought I was wrong. [Both laugh] I’m also up in arms about the marijuana question. I mean, what if I say yes?”

“Then do what every politician does. Issue a non-denial.”

“I could say I never exhaled.”

“Now you’re catching on!”

Aug. 2, 2000, 11:14 p.m.

“I think the Republicans might nominate me to be their candidate tomorrow. Should I say yes?”

"Of course, George! This is what we’ve been working up to all this time!”

“I don’t know. That Al Gore, he’s pretty stiff competition. Literally! [Both laugh] I guess if I just be myself, then I’ll do well.”

“Yes, as long as by ‘being yourself,’ you mean being the folksy Washington outsider that we’ve rehearsed so much. Go for it!”

“Ladies and gentlemen, I expect…I take exception…I—”

“Accept.”

“Accept your nomination! How was that?”

“Well, there’s always Florida.”

Why Do I Do This?

2005-02-23T20:34:00.000-08:00

Lately, a handful of columns and letters in The Vermilion have expressed disgust for me and my writing style. They have called me everything from “tactless” to “extreme,” and have devoted text to why I am a lying and fear-mongering idiot. Whether the criticism comes from The Vermilion or the student body at large, one thing’s for sure: I couldn’t be happier!

Most criticism directed at me usually takes the form of “Ian McGibboney is a moron and a terrorist.” Name-calling is the last resort of a desperate opponent, so very rarely do I take any of it seriously. But even when someone responds to a claim made in my column and backs it up with factual information, they still usually get it wrong. Witness last week’s letter writer, who claimed that Bush’s second inauguration was less expensive than Clinton’s. As it turns out, Clinton’s inauguration cost almost $11 million less than the Bush 2005 gala (http://rawstory.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=141). Oops!

But the criticism hardly ends there. In what must have been a really slow news cycle, Vermilion columnists John Hinson and Beau Bernis devoted space to me in their respective columns. Last week, Bernis called me an “extreme-leftist liberal” and accused me of using “scare tactics” in my writing. The week before, Hinson said that he could not imagine himself writing in the “the cynical, satirical, and often tactless approach” that I supposedly take.

While I respect both columnists, I think they are missing the point of opinionated political commentary in the first place, which is to entertain and to provoke in order to make a valid point. No one is asking a columnist to be unbiased; what kind of opinion can be distilled from someone who avoids personal perspective at all costs? That isn’t commentary; it’s straight news. Both have value, to be sure, but one should not pretend to be the other.

I, for one, have always found columns far more interesting than dry news. As far as research goes, unbiased information is probably the best bet. But when the time comes for a stirring read, one that sparks interest in an issue in a way that the front page cannot, then opinion is the way to go. Reading someone else’s take on a subject is a great way to discover your own stance.

During my time writing this column, I’ve had people tell me “I read your column every week…and I hate it!” One campus bigwig even introduced herself to me by saying, “I don’t like you.” Then there was the colleague of mine who recently e-mailed me his thoughts: “Personally, I'm looking forward to your graduation so that I, and the rest of us that get totally annoyed…will see you heading on for greener pastures - away from here.” On my blog (http://ianmcgibboney.blogspot.com/), one guy called me “a brain-damaged Michael Moore on Quaaludes, minus the brains.” I like it when people put time and thought into their insults. It shows they care.

On the other hand, some faculty members have surprised me by saying, “Thank you for what you do. You’re saying what a lot of us think, but aren’t able to say.” I’ve also heard friends say, “I pick up The Vermilion just to read you.” Once a girl even threw herself on me (nearly knocking me flat) and kissed me. She said it was for having the guts to write the column.

These episodes are what political debate is all about—giving a damn and not being apathetic to what happens in the world. I’m not asking you to agree with what I have to say, but I am asking you to question the world around you. Nothing extreme.

Newsies or Floozies?

2005-02-15T23:05:00.000-08:00

Journalists rely on the five “W”s in order to give the best-possible information: Who? What? When? Where? Why? Given recent events, however, another “W” seems to have arisen: “whore.” By taking bribes from the subjects of their articles, several journalists have recently hurt the already scarred face of the media. Who is to blame for this trend? Yet another “W”: George Bush.

Some writers already prostitute themselves for nothing, by being overly inoffensive and apologetic to the point of being blissfully ignorant of the need for change. Their pieces aim not to inform or to provoke, but to avoid conflict. They can’t read between the lines because they don’t even read the actual lines.

Others require a slight nudge to the wallet to be truly programmed. Several journalists have been busted accepting money from the Republican Party to write pieces favorable to the conservative cause. The Bush administration, worried that the White House press corps was hovering near treason with its mere 98.9-percent loyalty rate, hired a writer named Jeff Gannon and planted him among the press corps. Gannon’s penchant for asking fluff disguised as questions wasn’t what gave him away; rather, it was his association with his supposed employer, Talon News.

Talon News is an organization that, by its own words, is “committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news coverage.” Gannon represented literally half of the organization (that’s right—more people contribute to just this page of The Vermilion than work for Talon). The other employee is Bobby Eberle, head of a group called GOPUSA, whose mission is to “spread the conservative message throughout America.” Talon’s Web site offers numerous sidebar links to Republican sites and a banner ad offering “Any three conservative books for $1 each!” Moreover, articles on the Talon News site link to GOPUSA, the agency’s “number-one client.” If this site was supposedly nonpartisan before the scandal broke, it must really have come out of the closet in recent days.

Gannon is just the latest in what appears to be a chain of journalistic hookers being caught in the act. Armstrong Williams, a conservative multimedia dynamo, recently admitted that throughout 2004 he had been paid by the Bush administration to promote the No Child Left Behind Act in his columns and on his show, The Right Side. His $240,000 gift would have been better spent bribing the teachers and students who have to suffer through No Child Left Behind. Money poorly spent, if you ask me.

Syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher has repeatedly expressed support for the Bush administration’s anti-gay-marriage proposals, to the tune of $21,500 from the Department of Health and Human Services. The HHS also hired columnist Michael McManus to support the same programs. Plus, the Pentagon has allegedly paid journalists to write favorable articles for the Southeast European Times, a U.S. military mouthpiece disguised as a Mediterranean news site.

I’m having a hard time deciding which is more pathetic: that an American presidential administration has to hire columnists to write good things about them or that the columnists are actually willing to do it.

Fortunately, I’m not yet at the point where my integrity takes a backseat. When writing this column, I would never cheapen the independence of my words by mentioning that I watch The Jon Stewart Show every night on Comedy Central at 10 p.m. CST. And you’d never catch me writing here that I get the red out with Visine. You see, I pride myself on my editorial freedom. And on my Arizona jeans.

But for those journalists who have been caught selling out, or have yet to be busted, I simply ask you this: couldn’t you at least have better taste?

Jury Rigged

2005-02-02T00:32:00.000-08:00

Usually when I want $25, I just write another column for The Vermilion. Other days, I decide to earn it by getting randomly called to jury duty. On the pleasant Monday morning of Jan. 24, I spent the day gloriously exercising my Constitutional muscle as a prospective juror. Blind justice, indeed!

After entering the airport-like waiting room, I joined hundreds of other jury hopefuls (and not-so-hopefuls) in filling out the standard form. Hmmm....Age: 24...never been married...no children...have never been convicted of a crime...have never served on a jury...Man, am I perfect for jury duty or what? Crud...

While waiting, I rummaged for a good magazine to read, gravitating toward the Newsweek on the table. While waiting to be sworn in by the justice, I got to bone up on the latest issues of the week, such as the second presidential debate. I'll say this: if John Kerry wants to win the election, he's going to have to relax his personality and continue to hammer Bush on the issues.

When I got bored with that, I did what I always do in a room full of people: scoped out the babes! Now, keep one thing in mind: this is jury duty. Not exactly Venice Beach (or even the Mall formerly known as Acadiana). Still, I managed to find three or four really good-looking young women. But what are you going to say to them? "Come here often?" "Gee! I'm also not a felon!"?

After the 11 a.m. orientation and swear-in, we were allowed to leave for lunch and had to report back by 1:15 p.m. "Not enough time to do anything and too much time to do nothing," I thought to myself. Of course, this was no mass dismissal; we were asked to line up as the letters of our last names were called so that we could receive juror badges on our way out.

"Z-Y-X-W-V..." "U-T-S-R-Q-P..." After 30 very slow minutes of that, I geared up to grab my badge. Then, as if to taunt me, they flip-flopped: "A-B-C-D-E..." Nooo!! Several naps later I finally heard, "All right, last but not least, M-N-O!" “M”s are by far the most screwed alphabetical section. “A”s are usually at the front, except when “Z”s are cut a break and allowed to go first. But no one, and I mean no one, ever starts with “M.” But sometimes they finish with it!

After I got back from my considerably narrowed lunch break (which I spent at the nearby public library), I walked through the metal detector at the courthouse entrance. I languished behind somebody for several seconds before the security woman told me step back behind the detector: "I'm sorry," she said. "I wasn't paying attention." Yes, she actually said that!

After more waiting in the jury-pool room, the justice announced that 35 Chosen Ones would potentially decide justice for one of two cases on the docket this week. Yes, friends, I beat the odds: Juror 285 moved on up!

The next four hours were a presumably top-secret affair. Throughout the questioning process, I found myself hypnotized by the court reporter, trying to figure out how she cranks out an entire sentence with seven keystrokes. Intimidating. Now I know how people feel when I interview them with a tape recorder.

Ultimately, 10 out of the 35 made the cut. Not me. I did myself in by knowing three of the witnesses, admitting that I am more sympathetic to individuals over corporations, and basically by being myself. I think a fellow reject said it best in the elevator on the way down: "That's what you get for having an opinion."

Guilty as charged.

Inaugural Gall

2005-01-25T23:53:00.000-08:00

[Editors’ note: The Vermilion sent an embedded reporter along with top SGA members to witness the 2005 Inaugural Ceremony firsthand. The following is a transcript of a live exchange between on-the-scene reporter Ian McGibboney and Vermilion Editor-In-Chief Dan Murphy on Jan. 20.]

“This is Ian McGibboney reporting live from the 55th Presidential Inauguration. Dan, the pomp and circumstance here are unbelievable. They spared no expense. This is a ceremony fit for a king!”

“What are some of the perks of this year’s inauguration, Ian?”

“The festivities have been raging all week. Notable highlights included the youth concert organized by Jenna and Barbara Bush, featuring Hilary Duff and JoJo. Their sugary and inoffensive sets went over well with this crowd. And today’s swearing-in ceremony was a huge deal, though they renamed it the ‘oathing-in’ ceremony because they don’t like to use the word ‘swear’ around the children. Lots of activities filled the spaces in between, but they were open only to those with specific credentials.”

“Like what?”

“Oil lobbyists, for example, got to participate in the sack race and peasant-shooting competition. There were events of this magnitude all week. At a cost of $40 million, this ceremony is easily the most expensive of its kind in American history.”

“What did Bush speak about in his address, Ian?”

“The importance of making sure we have enough funding for our troops and for Homeland Security.”

“Indeed, his inauguration has been in the headlines for its strict security and its lack of tolerance for protesters.”

“Absolutely, Dan. Event organizers have taken every possible measure to ensure the utmost protection for the president, his staff, members of Congress and visiting dignitaries.”

“What kind of protection does that entail?”

“I can’t really tell. From here, it’s pretty tough to see anything.”

“Where are you right now, Ian?”

“Fairfax, Virginia.”

“Fairfax? Shouldn’t you be somewhere closer to D.C.?”

“This is the designated ‘free-speech zone.’ The people here are those who have been determined by the Secret Service to be a threat of disturbance to the conduction of the festivities. I have one here beside me at this moment, Jennifer Sanders. Jennifer, how do you feel about watching the inauguration from this far away?”

“It’s kind of sad, really. I’m just glad they put a TV out here with a live Fox News feed so that we can watch the whole thing! I really dig that Dubya.”

“Wait a minute…you LIKE him? So how come they herded you way out here?”

“I think it was because I publicly questioned his tax cuts to the rich. I thought he should have given them even more. So they deemed me a threat and placed me out here.”

“They really jump on administration critics, don’t they?”

“Well, it’s all for the best. I feel so much safer after everything that’s happened in the past four years!”

“Ian, if I may cut in, where are the liberals? Surely they would turn out in force today.”

“They’re all in Massachusetts, Dan. On order of the Democratic Party.”

“Massachusetts? Why would the Democrats agree to such a spineless arrangement?”

“Actually, it was a compassionate deal brokered by the Republicans. The Democrats had offered to stand in California, as penance for losing in 2004.”

“So Ian, what is the Democrats’ plan for the next four years?”

“No official word yet, Dan. But I would speculate that the fetal position is heavily involved.”

“That’s all the time we have for today. Thanks, Ian.”

“God bless you, Dan. It’s the law!”

This report has been cleared for release by the Committee for Republican Accuracy and Partisanship, Jan. 26, 2005.

What’s the Counterpoint?

2005-01-19T00:22:00.000-08:00

Throughout three years of writing this column, I’ve been accused of having a liberal bias. So in an attempt to be more Fair and Balanced™, I’ve prepared a handy reference guide for the conservative who needs quick rebuttals to common liberal talking points. These responses, which I’ve culled from years of personal experience, are guaranteed to leave liberals absolutely speechless!

For the most realistic effect, I have arranged this guide in the form of a standard political dialogue in the year 2005, minus the screaming and bloodletting. And now, How to Rebut a Liberal (If You Must):

Liberal: “In order to have peace, America must pursue a less-aggressive foreign policy, embrace its allies and favor diplomacy as a means of negotiation.”

You: “You must really hate America, don’t you?”

Liberal: “No, I love America. But we must honestly appraise ourselves. For example, we should address the glaring lack of adequate resources for our soldiers overseas, who already face pay cuts and unexpected extensions in deployments.”

You: “And just what do you have against our soldiers?”

Liberal: “Nothing, but our nation must reevaluate its new policy of preemptive strikes on sovereign nations. We can’t just attack other countries because we don’t like their policies.”

You: “Sure! Blame America first, traitor!”

Liberal: “Well, we DID attack Iraq, even though they had nothing to do with 9/11.”

You: “But obviously they did. Why else would we have attacked them?”

Ouch. At this point, you’re already on your way to thrashing your opponent’s arguments like shrapnel on a dead terrorist. But there’s still so much damage to be done!

Liberal: “Why did the 9/11 Commission take so long to investigate the largest intelligence failure in history, when the FCC took less than 24 hours to launch a full-throttle investigation into Janet Jackson’s ‘wardrobe malfunction’ at the Super Bowl?”

You: “Won’t anyone think of the children?”

Liberal: “I think of everyone who is alive and whose lives can be made better. Stem-cell research, for example, promises to open up treatments for catastrophic ailments such as Alzheimer’s and paralysis.”

You: “Fixing lives with stem cells? That’s not pro-life!”

Liberal: “I fully believe in the ability of women to make their own decisions on pregnancy, based on their own conditions of life and their personal beliefs.”

You: “Choices are for school vouchers! Life is sacred!”

Liberal: “But I bet you favor the death penalty.”

You: “Kill the bastards! If they broke the law, then they deserve to be punished to its fullest extent!”

Liberal: “That’s not what you said when Rush Limbaugh got busted for drugs.”

You: “The man was sick! Everyone deserves a second chance!”

Liberal: “ESPN didn’t think so after firing him for his racist remark about black quarterbacks.”

You: “The media always dumps on conservative types.”

Liberal: “The media is full of conservatives parroting false news.”

You: “Dan Rather! Dan Rather! Dan Rather!”

Liberal: “Though Rather did get the memos wrong, his question about George W. Bush’s military records still remains.”

You: “You’re just out to get the president at any cost!”

Take particular note of that last statement. It is the “I love you” of conservative discourse. It can elicit sympathy and guilt or can end a difficult conversation on a high note. It is particularly useful when rebutting critics of any aspect of the Bush presidency:

Liberal: “The Crawford ranch could use a paint job.”

You: “You’re just out to get the president at any cost!”

Remember this guide and you will survive any liberal-elite wine party or college class. Arguing a conservative viewpoint really is easier than you might imagine; you could even say that it’s quite…simple.

Overdosing on Heroism

2005-01-11T23:00:00.000-08:00

You know who would make a great hero? The first person to eradicate all traces of what currently defines the word “hero.”

Heroism is a nasty disease at the moment, one that is the excuse for all kinds of bad behavior. This is especially apparent in the current wars around the world. The Times of Acadiana recently awarded its prize for 2004’s Person of the Year to the Acadiana Soldier, proving two things: 1) soldiers are great and 2) we really need to stop worshiping them.

This isn’t to say anything bad about our soldiers; far from it, in fact. They are brave and take deadly risks for the rest of us, which deserves incredible admiration. I just have issues with the current concept of heroism. Though society has always needed heroes, these bleak times have elevated that need to an addiction on the level of, um, heroin.

Nowadays it seems that everyone on the planet has, or is looking for, someone to emulate. We long ago applied hero-level status to professional athletes, actors and everyone in between. The apparent mentality behind this was that people who get their picture taken a lot are not only perfect human beings, but must be charged with babysitting our children.

After 9/11, firefighters, police officers and paramedics also became godlike—not that it translated into pay raises or anything, but it did make us feel caring for a while. Remember the aftermath of Hurricane Lili in 2002, when electricians and the battery of public-works contractors were being praised as heroes? As admirable as these people were, equating them with heroism was kind of a stretch. Even the typically backbone-free local newspapers said so, which should tell us something.

Now we are molding soldiers into heroes, walking concepts of invincible warriors rather than thinking, feeling human beings. It’s hard to tell whether we are doing this out of genuine love and affection for the soldiers or if this is a coping mechanism to ease the pain of loss and the futility of the war. Maybe it’s both.

The need for heroes, however well-intentioned, has caused us to tolerate much more tragedy and political nonsense than we should. Some people call George W. Bush a hero, a ridiculous idea if ever I heard one. Heroism requires a certain degree, however minimal, of risk and sacrifice. Between the Secret Service, faraway First-Amendment Zones and his own skittishness, Bush is the safest man on Earth. And with his self-admitted shielding from much of the significant news reports of the day, he’s also the least likely to see the consequences of his decisions. No wonder we’re always at war.

Equally sickening is the tendency—both here and across the country—to celebrate each individual death as an example of why we must continue this pointless war. Several Lafayette-area soldiers have already died in Iraq, and each one has been accompanied by pleas to realize “what we’re fighting for” or similarly related nonsense. In a way that’s true; those deaths make it clear, at least to me, what we’re fighting for in Iraq: more dead soldiers. Holding up each person as a hero hurts more than it helps; the more we glorify such tragedies, the more willing we become to accept them.

Real heroes do not need to be glorified by the media or by anyone else. Those who personally know and love our soldiers have already made that decision for themselves. Find your own hero, whether it’s a soldier, a teacher, a parent, or someone else you know and admire. Better yet, be your own hero. If you’re not who you want to be, then what’s the point?

Captain Procrastinate

2004-12-02T21:56:00.000-08:00

As I write this (and, most likely, as you read this), I am busy exercising the most useful skill anybody can learn in college, one that exemplifies the spirit of the end of the semester. Faced with two 20-page papers, another eight-pager, a presentation, two response papers and two finals, I am doing what any responsible person would do: put them off!

Like many college students, I have turned procrastination into an art along the lines of the Mona Lisa. My journalistic training allows me to write about government meetings in an hour’s time; is it any wonder, then, that I have such a hard time getting an early start on a 20-page paper? I’m more motivated to attend the Amish Gospel Jubilee. By comparison, my current bout of illness is a welcome release.

What is it that turns a student’s subject interest into a total chore? Who among us cannot think of something we were dying to do until the day we had to do it? Nothing ruins something quite like when an instructor makes it mandatory. The far right could permanently end sex tomorrow just by assigning it for homework. Just imagine the new campaign: “True Love Procrastinates!” I can testify firsthand that procrastination has been a knockout punch to my mental and physical health, as well as to others’ impressions of my work ethic.

But let me tell you, my bedroom and my truck have never been cleaner! It’s amazing how previously unendurable tasks suddenly become fun when compared to final papers; I never thought, for example, that I’d find “The Remains of the Day” to be such a gripping movie. Or that it’s so much fun to count the number of textured bumps on a ceiling (7,589,316, give or take six). I wish I could procrastinate more often, because it really brings out the little things in life.

You could say with a kernel of truth that my procrastination has and will continue to get me into scrapes. Like that time early in my college career when I literally wrote a term paper, from scratch, in the class period in which it was due, while staring at the professor the whole time. Yes, such is the self-imposed aggravation of not starting things when you have time to do so. Incredibly, I made a B on the aforementioned paper, so maybe that wasn’t the best example. I doubt that I can expect the same stroke of luck this time around. Still, I hold out on getting around to my assignments.

Come on! Haven’t I learned anything in 14 semesters here? Certainly not that college is over before you know it. That’s pure crap. I still have one more semester to go! Have I learned how to foster a meaningful relationship? Ask anybody. Have I learned how to become a civic-minded and active citizen, one ready to take on the leadership challenges of the 21st century? For America’s sake, I hope someone better is out there. Have I found a suitable choice of career for my talents? Read this and snicker among yourselves.

No, I think the best gift that the university community gives us goes far beyond grades, career skills or even personal responsibility; instead, it’s the ability in each individual to recognize priorities in life. Meeting assignment deadlines is undeniably critical to success. But at what point should that override one’s personal sanity? I, for one, have bounced through college with the ability to work hard when necessary and, frankly, knowing when to coast. Hopefully you will find that balance in your life just as I have. But you can always put that off until later.

UL Laughingstock?

2004-11-24T20:08:00.000-08:00

As someone who has attended this school long enough to have tenure, I remember when the University of Louisiana at Lafayette was known as the University of Southwestern Louisiana. On Sept. 10, 1999, USL finally saw the end to its regional stigma upon the removal of the archaic “Southwestern” from its name. However, the name change also spelled the end of a reliable moniker for our school. In the ensuing years, the exact nature of our name has remained up for debate.

In an effort to address this problem, The Daily Advertiser recently decided to refer to our school exclusively as the University of Louisiana. The Advertiser, whose editorials usually run along the lines of “School’s in—drive safely” and “Business Expo will be good for area businesses,” has taken a strong stand on an actual issue for once. Way to go! Such a move is a nice reminder of the once-popular concept of civil disobedience.

Needless to say, rival newspapers such as The Advocate have not embraced such a policy. And, as its staff editorial noted last week, neither will The Vermilion. I can understand why a Baton Rouge-based paper would not indulge UL. But why hasn’t The Vermilion? Good question.

Like many Ragin’ Cajuns, I have never been totally comfortable with the name UL Lafayette or its variations. Quite frankly, it is a bulky and awkward name that does little to remove the regional connotations from our school (which was the whole point in the first place). It smacks of the usual pro-LSU bias that increasingly defines the simplemindedness of our state politics.

Dropping that second L would go a long way toward clarifying our name in the national spotlight. ESPN, for example, never gets our name right. Over the course of one basketball season, I saw us represented as “ULL,” “LAF” and even the horrid “LAL”—none of which are officially sanctioned abbreviations. “LOU” would work, as might “LA.” If I have to hear someone speak condescendingly of “ULL, U-La-La or whatever you call it these days” one more time, I’m going to nuke the state capitol, okay?

From the outset, we should have been the University of Louisiana; otherwise, why bother changing the name at all? But we all knew the rule (written with no small influence from LSU backers) that no university could take the name University of Louisiana unless another university took it as well. Thus began our inseparable bond with UL Monroe, a school that mirrors us in every way—except that it’s a completely different and unrelated institution. Does anyone really confuse the two? I seriously doubt it.

Would we ever be able to erase the city tag? At least one well-known Louisiana school already does it! LSU has several locations across Louisiana, among them satellite campuses in Shreveport, Alexandria and Eunice. The proper name for the main campus is Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge. Check out http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/louisiana/uni.htm if you think I’m kidding. If LSU can conveniently forget its regional name, why can’t we?

If The Vermilion wants to continue to live in U-La-La Land, then so be it. But as this paper’s masthead reminds us, opinions expressed in The Verm do not necessarily reflect those of other writers. I know that The Vermilion’s pro-“UL at Lafayette” policy does not reflect my views. And I, for one, refuse to let a particular “flagship” university decide for us that we should be comfortable with carrying the name of a second-tier school. And our own university community certainly should not be the ones embracing such a small-time mentality. The University of Louisiana should never be satisfied with being number two.

In the Name of the Bush

2004-11-17T17:18:00.000-08:00

The more newspaper letters I read in the aftermath of the presidential election, the more I find myself wanting to cry, “Jesus!” Why? Because letters to newspapers are reading more and more like those scary religious tracts that people leave in toilet stalls. If these letters are any indicator, then the future of our country was decided by those who think that the world is about to end. Nice going. Here’s a sample for your reading displeasure:

“I thank God and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that George W. Bush was reelected President of the United States. Throughout the trials of the past four years, Bush has fulfilled his divinely ordained role as a moral and steadfast war president. I want to thank all of those who overwhelmingly voted to keep this messenger of God in the White House. Fully 51 percent of voters know what it means to be American!

“When the popular-vote count went to Al Gore in 2000, I thought that Satan himself had permanently taken over the American electoral process. Fortunately, God Himself stepped in and sent five angels in black robes to anoint Bush president. What a glorious moment that was for American democracy!

“When the evil Muslim terrorists struck the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, the Rev. Pat Robertson blamed America for its decadent ways. Nonsense! If the attacks proved anything, it’s that the merciful Lord loves America more than any other nation on Earth! After all, 9/11 allowed President Bush to fulfill his fate as a wartime commander-in-chief. Before 9/11, Bush was not the best president; in fact, he was downright unpopular and unqualified. We knew that when we voted for him! So on that fateful day, tears welled up in our eyes as we united behind our president. As a nation, we could not have been prouder of Bush than we were on 9/11!

“Through two wars, massive tax cuts and faith-based initiatives, Bush has shown that he will do anything to preserve the sanctity of the conservative people. Every action Bush has undertaken—be it record deficits, sidestepping the Constitution, ignoring domestic issues or supporting the death penalty—bears the unmistakable imprint of the hand of God. Even if some of these decisions seemed destructive at the time, rest assured that nothing happens without a reason. If Bush does something, then, he obviously has a good reason for doing so. Just trust the man. A messenger of Christ can do no wrong!

“I thank God that George W. Bush will be the man at the helm to address the most dangerous and pressing issues of our times: gay marriage and abortion! Before we can ever hope to address such trivial issues as terrorism, education and the economy, we must ensure that this nation returns to the moral roots defined in America’s founding document, the Bible. Though the president has no power to directly affect such laws as gay marriage and abortion, his possible three Supreme Court appointments can help to overturn Roe v. Wade as soon as possible. That is, if they agree to hear a case that has enough potential to reverse the law and eventually rule in favor of change. But with God on our side, all of those astronomical odds are in our favor!

“With Bush in office, America will continue to save the world from those countries that have the nerve to think that their religion and their country rule the world. To that I say, ‘God Bless America!’”

Looks like some people will do anything to justify both their support of George W. Bush and their beliefs. How sad is that?

Why W?

2004-11-10T12:07:00.000-08:00

The 2004 election was a bonanza for the neo-conservative agenda. Last week, 51 percent of American voters gave George W. Bush his first-ever mandate and Republicans galore won other races. The message resounded across the country: Americans are united in promoting the most divisive issues of our time.

How did this happen? The Democrats ran a fantastic campaign. The convention rocked, the candidates were rhetorically strong, past mistakes were avoided and people of all stripes liked John Kerry. Ralph Nader voters this year presumably all pulled up in the same Volkswagen Beetle, so spoiler candidates weren’t a problem. The escalating failures all over the world didn’t help either. People everywhere were mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. But then this. So, Bush voters, my question to you is, “Why W?”

Was it peer pressure? If you’re getting your information from 1) your parents, 2) your preacher or 3) Fox News, then you really need to question that. How many times do I need to hear that Bush “has the terrorists on the run” because of his “courage of conviction?” On the whole, very few Bush supporters give off the impression that they form their opinion from anything beyond GOP talking points.

Is it because you believe in staying the course? Unswerving resolve is not a virtue when careening toward a tree at 90 m.p.h. Not that Bush hasn't changed his mind many, many times anyway. Witness the ever-changing motives for the Iraq War, the conflicting messages Bush and Dick Cheney gave during the campaign and Bush's ever-changing shift on politics when personal interests are involved. But Kerry, now there was a flip-flopper!

The president is a man of prayer, you say. Why is Bush given a free pass just because he claims to be a man of faith, especially when his rabid support for war and the death penalty proves otherwise? How can anyone see Bush be a Christian man of peace instead of what he really is, a televangelist? Don’t forget that, in their 1980s heyday, televangelists were self-righteous people who got busted for being incredibly pompous hypocrites. But now they’re running the place! Eighties retro, while great for music and movies, has been disastrous for politics.

Eleven states held ballots on gay marriage—the same provision that has already been declared unconstitutional in Louisiana. Nothing’s better for bringing out the religious-right voters than a ballot that plays on their fears and prejudices. If your vote is based on abstract moral issues instead of the war, the economy, education and taxes, then your priorities are skewed. Is it safe to assume that you will have no problem with four more years of increased war, a possible draft, more PATRIOT-Act-style oppression, economic disaster, stratospheric gas prices and deaths galore, just as long as gays stay unmarried?

Americans are simply too self-centered. We turn a blind eye to pain, suffering and injustice as long as things are going just fine for ourselves. But even if we’re doing terribly, our leaders convince us that everything’s just dandy. Why else would small business owners, working folks and religious people vote Republican? People will do anything to convince themselves that they are fine, and admitting problems takes that security away from them. This is keeping us from actually solving our problems.

Until that half of America comes to its senses, we will work harder than ever to keep our leaders’ feet to the fire. Nothing will get past us. We will give credit where it’s due, and blame where it belongs. We will not let the far right destroy this country.

I’m Ian McGibboney and I approved this message.

A post-election nonalysis

2004-11-02T23:36:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, we held what was perhaps the most important and critical election of our lives. We stand at a turning point in history, and the repercussions of this election will be felt for decades to come all over the world. I hope we did the right thing.

But because I’m writing this at exactly midnight on Oct. 30, I can’t comment on what a debacle this election surely turned out to be, nor can I write about the rampant election fraud that has voters boiling. So I’ll just revert to that old standby, The List of Irritating People:

1) People who take pride in not taking a stand. Nothing unnerves me more than people who say they have no opinion. I’m not saying that everyone must have an opinion on everything; for instance, I couldn’t care less what dress Ashlee Simpson wears to the Made-Up Music Awards. But if you’re going to address a hot-button issue in an editorial or other forum, say what you really feel. I can’t be the only one who found this paper’s declaration in 2002 that “The Vermilion takes no stand on the Vermilion-Advertiser debate” to be totally absurd. Yeah right! If something inspires, bugs you or threatens your very existence, then say so! Who knows, someone else might love you for speaking out. Save neutrality for the news and family reunions.

2) People who just HAVE to get where they’re going. Does a day go by when some idiot in an SUV doesn’t careen between lanes as if the very balance of humanity rested on their getting to the stockholder’s meeting in time? Listen, Top Gun, studies show that the average hurried driver gets where they’re going only 83 SECONDS faster than those who drive more carefully. If where you’re going is really worth the risk of driving dangerously, than maybe we should all go! Or perhaps you’re worried about getting to your children. Let the little brats wait a few more minutes! It might be the best lesson you’ve ever given them in how the world works. Also, hang up the phone, turn down the radio and use your turn signals. And fix that damn muffler! Some of us like our lungs.

3) People who rush into lifelong commitments. This is a huge problem in Louisiana. Who decided that we must instill a sense of failure into anyone who isn’t married with a kid, home and hunting rifle by the time they’re 23? If any of you reading this are feeling the pressure to drop out of college in order to make money and satisfy your “parrain” by marrying the first guy you ever kissed, don’t, okay? Live life a little bit! Get an education. Travel. Meet people who haven’t lived their entire lives in Peauxdunk Parish. Who knows, you might find that the life your parents wrote for you 20 years ago just doesn’t do it for you anymore.

4) People who don’t respect other people’s opinions. No one ever changed a mind or earned the high ground by ridiculing someone’s core values. Sure, people often hold what can only be called extreme views; but the key to getting along and pondering other views is to debate the stance factually, without personal attacks. Discourse these days is so full of hatred, and that’s sad—especially when satire and comedy are so much more fun. All name-calling does is start pointless conflict. There’re many better ways to start fights!

5) Newspaper editors. The worst kind of Nazis, editors are real fond of taking the polished thoughts of their writers and butchering any content they think makes them look bad. Editors can kiss

Election 2004: Go to the John

2004-10-26T23:34:00.000-07:00

“Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps…” –Not who you think

While compiling columns for my new online archive (forgive the plug: http://columnsonline.blogspot.com/) I noticed that I haven’t talked enough about the Nov. 2 election. After months of fair and balanced consideration, I’ve decided to endorse John Kerry for president.

Before I explain why, though, let’s weigh in on the more localized races. Because U.S. Senator John Breaux is retiring, we must select his successor. Chris John is that man; a moderate Democrat, John has the clout and experience that stands out in a talented field. Plus, he has the added benefit of not being David Vitter.

While the District 7 Representative race is as split as a pro-life liberal, Donald Cravins stands out. While he calls himself a conservative Democrat, his progressive stances on issues such as outsourcing, health care, education and women’s issues betray that description. His biggest opposition, Charles Boustany, has been making speeches about how he isn’t in the pocket of the Republicans, which shows just how much he’s in the pocket of the Republicans.

But back to Kerry. In the past, I’ve been accused of pushing the view that Kerry is the best candidate simply because he’s not Bush. Which is a good reason, really. Nader voters, I hear you; the two-party system has serious flaws that need to be addressed so that we don’t constantly get Britney Spears vs. Hilary Duff. I don’t even really blame Nader for Gore’s loss in 2000; the Supreme Court had much more to do with that robbery. With this election, however, the stakes are far too high to make this brand of statement.

How about this for a statement in 2004? “While Kerry is not our first choice, he is a better choice than the other guy who has a chance to win. Let’s unite for Kerry this time for the immediate good, and then strive toward change when things improve.”

Still, I understand that people want reasons to vote FOR Kerry. That can be satisfied by reading his platform at johnkerry.com. Kerry has qualities with which virtually anyone can identify.

If you are the worker type, know that Kerry intends to crack down on corporations that want to lay you off and send your job to another hemisphere. He has the support of the AFL-CIO, as well as the International Association of Fire Fighters, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, National Education Association, United Farm Workers and more than 100 other organizations representing diverse professions.

If religion’s your bag, then Kerry is your only choice. Yes, that’s what I said! A Kerry vote will preserve your denomination by getting the government out of it. If you are tired of seeing your sincere beliefs exploited to justify terrible acts, then vote for the man secure enough in his beliefs to not have to enforce them.

Finally, don’t forget that thing going on in Iraq. Kerry’s plan gradually reduces our involvement there and includes regaining the trust of the world’s leaders so that we can plan an exit strategy. He understands firsthand the tragedy of war, and sees the need for soldiers and veterans to get the benefits they deserve.

At least one well-known group does not endorse Kerry. They worry about his ability to conduct the war on terror: “Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps…Because of this we desire [Bush] to be elected…who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom.” Considering al-Qaida’s current clout in the world, I’d take those words to heart.

For the best course for this state, this nation and the world, vote straight John (and Don) this Tuesday.

Stem Cells: Nerves of Steel

2004-10-19T23:00:00.000-07:00

Quadriplegic actor Christopher Reeve, paralyzed since a horse-racing accident in May 1995, died Oct. 10 of complications relating to his condition. We have lost one of the finest and most underrated talents of our time, one who showed us that the impossible can become the possible.

The totality of Reeve’s injury hit home for me just days after it happened, when my driver’s education class watched a training video in which he starred. Chris gave us a friendly intro, hopped into a convertible and offered driving tips. Our teacher stopped the tape several times because our paralysis chatter was overriding the lesson. It felt surreal watching the man give us tips on how to drive, knowing that he could no longer grip the wheel.

In the ensuing nine years, Reeve spoke out, wrote two outstanding books and worked tirelessly for his newfound cause. He became a high-profile example for those recovering from catastrophic illnesses. Always an activist, one of Reeve’s most personal political issues later in life involved stem-cell research, a field that offered his greatest hope for walking once again.

Reeve’s death marks the second high-profile death this year (after Ronald Reagan) from maladies related to causes that stem cells promise to treat. What are stem cells? They are the cells that determine the growth and development of human tissue. Once fashioned into a “line” (an infinitely reproducing cluster of cells), stem cells can theoretically be used to regenerate a severed spinal cord or an eroded brain stem. Current studies are underway to determine stem cells’ role in curing such maladies as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases, as well as paralysis.

Depending on whom you ask, stem-cell research is either mankind’s best hope or a one-way express rocket to Hell. The stem-cell extraction process, to most people, goes like this: scientists grow fetuses in a secret lab at UC-Berkeley, assisted by a harem of hippie sluts. Babies are then extracted feet-first from the womb and positioned to allow for maximum wailing while a doctor takes a large kitchen knife and slices the fetus like an orange. After exchanging high fives, the doctors slip the remains into a meat grinder. And voila!

Um, no. It’s true that the most effective stem-cell lines are derived from freshly fertilized human embryos; however, only embryos donated explicitly for this purpose are ever used. No actual babies (or fetuses) are ever in danger. Moreover, some stem cells can also originate from live people and even umbilical cords. Still, the Bush administration is no fan of such research, claiming that it violates godly standards. But if Superman and the Gipper dying so close together isn’t a divine sign, then what is?

Not that the theological aspect of it matters anyway. If U.S. law allowed religions to dictate medical practices, then we wouldn’t have hospitals (or, in some cases, doctors). Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, are against blood transfusions because they believe that blood is part of one’s soul. Yet blood banks continue to pulse unabated, as does the door-knocking of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. When scientific advances that could save lives are on the line, doesn’t it make sense to support life?

In any case, stem-cell researchers have a long trial ahead of them. Any obstacles that lie ahead should involve medical applications, not the religious right. Nothing would have thrilled me more than to see Christopher Reeve and Ronald Reagan chatting on a morning jog. But whether or not stem-cell research could have saved them in time, the fact remains that the potential remains out there for the next generation of the afflicted. You might even say it’s our mission to tap this amazing resource.

I Rather Like Dan

2004-10-12T23:00:00.000-07:00

People in the press write a lot about themselves. Pick up any journalistic trade magazine and you’ll see what I mean. Journalists are seen by the public (often justifiably so) as a cocky and self-important lot. Of course, this is a profession staffed largely with former nerds with huge vocabularies, who have the potential to inflict damage with what they write. I should know, because that’s me! Reporting requires a special type of person, and ambushing people to get their deepest beliefs and rushing to meet deadlines is good work for a Type-A, hard-driven personality (That’s not me).

Journalism, then, often becomes an ego-driven industry. Much like hip-hop. And just like rappers, journalists who screw up get hammered. Not only does the mistake-maker get the facts wrong, but it becomes front-page news! For days! Justified or not, it’s almost sickening how much satisfaction journalists get from exposing one of their own. It gives them a feeling of intellectual superiority, as well as a chance to harp on why they themselves are above suspicion.

It’s one thing to demand a virtuoso performance on the stage of public communication; it’s another to try to bump that person off the stage while they’re still trying to perform. Take last week’s Vermilion staff editorial. Entitled “Hit the road, Dan,” the editorial took Dan Rather and CBS News to task for its recent fudging of facts regarding Bush-related documents. Faced with evidence that memos featured on CBS proving Bush’s skittish military service were phonies, Rather apologized.

Last week’s editorial compared Rather’s case to that of Jayson Blair, the recently disgraced New York Times journalist who made up articles. I find it surprising that a journalism student would make such a silly comparison; if her professor accused her of making up quotes, when in fact she recalled the information correctly but it turned out to be wrong, there’s no question she’d explode. Wouldn’t anyone?

It’s dangerous business for a “junior journalism student” to give hell to Dan Rather over incorrect information. This assumes, of course, that this journalism undergraduate is never herself going to make a mistake in her career. Rather has been employed by CBS News since 1962. In that time, he has been known for only two major gaffes: this one and a confrontation he had with George H.W. Bush in 1988, in which they—get this—both screamed at each other! That’s two mistakes in 42 years. Not bad! I myself passed that two-mistake threshold sometime during my tenure at my middle-school newspaper. Besides, let’s face it: any Vermilion staffer who points fingers for mistakes is calling the kettle black, okay?

Such criticism is valid only when it is not accompanied by blatant partisanship. Why, for example, did the writer not refer to the case of Fox News reporter Carl Cameron, who completely made up the John Kerry manicure quotes after the first Presidential debate? Where is her outrage over that?

And witness Cameron’s network, the “fair and balanced” Fixed News, sorry, Fox News. Any outlet that makes a policy of sending e-mails to its anchors to inject pro-Bush statements in its news deserves criticism. Not the kind of self-serving criticism currently enveloping Rather, but the constructive kind that actually helps the profession and the flow in information in general.

One quote from the editorial is telling: “Most people don’t know this, but journalists have a code of ethics.” Yes, it seems that most people these days aren’t aware that journalism has any ethics. It might help the integrity of this great profession if journalists showed a little restraint and forgiveness when one of their own shows the occasional misjudgment. Now that would be ethical.

Yay! A Column on Porn!

2004-10-06T11:00:00.000-07:00

Before we dive headfirst into this week's empty pool, I want to explain that last week's column was so short because it suffered from what journalists call "115 missing words." To check out the unfiltered version of that column, get online and visit http://ianmcgibboney.blogspot.com/2004/09/what-is-louisiana-smoking.html.

At least the fine folks at the Vermilion didn't publish the conservative column under my name again like they did on Sept. 3, 2003. I spent that week trying to convince people that I never called for anyone "to be castrated with a dull butter knife and then hung in public." But hey, accidents happen, right?

Speaking of accidents, two years ago I was in Stephens Lab visiting a Web site that featured funny photographs. The site also occasionally showed hilariously unsexy nude pictures, and at one point I accidentally clicked on one. I immediately backtracked--yuck!--but it lingered there just long enough for a Stephens Hall administrator to walk by and boom, "Son, this is a public lab and you are not allowed to view material of that nature!" Fortunately for me this didn't happen recently, because the university would have stuck me in therapy.

Last week's Vermilion featured a story on the pornography policy at UL computer labs. Almost everyone quoted in the story claimed that pornography is a sickness. But like anything else, it can be used or abused. The article seized the valid issue of public displays of pornography and twisted it into a call for its restriction simply because some people cannot handle it.

Please understand, I wholeheartedly agree that some sites should be off-limits in a public lab. Nor should child porn or any other coerced nudity be legal viewing anywhere. But UL is really overstepping its bounds by requiring disciplinary action and counseling for this kind of computer solitaire. Here’s a few blunt facts about erotica:

1) Pornography has health benefits. Is there any safer form of sex than masturbation? And is there any safer forum for indulging sexual fetishes? Plus, it’s a cheap date!

2) No one HAS to view pornography. It's just like anything else; if you don't like it, avoid it. Likewise, no one has to pose for it either. The degradation debate ignores the fact that we’ll always objectify those we find attractive. It's how we're wired. And don't forget that, in all legal porn, the models have agreed to pose and are paid generously for doing so. It's all about personal choices on both sides of the lens.

3) The link between porn and violence is, well, flaccid. If you're at home with a magazine, then you are not hurting anyone. Serial killer and rapist Ted Bundy, who blamed his crimes on porn, probably didn’t benefit from growing up thinking his mom was his sister and never forming any real friendships. For every porn-loving rapist, there are a million people who enjoy the same images and live decent lives. You're sitting next to one, if in fact that doesn't also describe you. Show me someone who has never viewed pornography and I'll show you a liar.

The problem is not that the person is viewing porn, but that they lack the self-restraint and intelligence to do so in privacy. If that’s causing a disturbance in the computer lab, then boot them out. But we should be well past the point where we send people to shrinks for the heinous crime of desire.

If campus officials are looking to combat a problem, might I suggest tuition hikes? How about drainage? Or campus safety? No one enrolls in a university to be told that they are sick people. We’re all adults here, so grow up!

What is Louisiana Smoking?

2004-09-28T23:00:00.000-07:00

People in Louisiana, for all of their positive qualities, are really fond of passing profoundly stupid laws. This goes back centuries, of course, and continues unabated into today. And while Lafayette fares better than some of its more uptight cousins above the Mason-Alexandria line, Cajun Country still has its moments of legislative idiocy.

I had to cringe, for example, at the recent ruling that no more bars could open downtown. Apparently, the rationale was that the preponderance of nightclubs was bringing out unsavory crowds. Look, I lived downtown for 19 years, when Jefferson Street looked like an H-bomb had struck it. The area was desolate, decaying and dangerous. Now its night life thrives and brings out the crowds with energy to spare and money to spend. But that offended some churches, so downtown growth has been stifled.

And don’t forget Amendment One, in which Louisianians voted nearly 80-20 against civil unions because we “suthinas” not only can’t repress our fear and prejudice, but actively praise it in our state law. Man, if the state was trying to keep people here to live and work, couldn’t they at least have given us something to brag about? “Louisiana: It’s like a whole other planet.” As much as I love my native state, my threshold of apology for it has finally hit bedrock.

So you can probably understand my shock when a Lafayette advocacy group proposed a law that I liked—or, I should say, didn’t want immediately to smack with a baseball bat. The Coalition for a Healthy Acadiana Regional Grassroots Effort (CHARGE) has requested an ordinance to make Lafayette the first smokeless city in Louisiana.

The ban would prevent smoking in public facilities including campuses, auditoriums, government buildings and busses. At last, a smart Louisiana law! The Lafayette Parish Consolidated Government has yet to consider it, though President Joey Durel has promised that it will. And before you smokers get too pissed, note that bars, hotel rooms, casinos, tobacco shops and alcohol-selling restaurants will not be covered by the ban. That’s not so bad, is it? You can exhale with relief now, just as long as you don’t do it downwind.

Maybe I'm biased because I don't smoke. Whether it was the stifling dead-ashtray odor of my house or simply watching my parents and relatives smoke, something ruined it for me very early on. Is there anything less cool than what your parents do? Thanks, mom and dad! You truly are the anti-drug.

The smoking debate is a peculiar one because of its political complexities. On one hand, you have (or should have) the right to ingest whatever you choose. On the other hand, you have the diabolical tobacco industry and its greed, lies and political clout. On the third hand, people have the right to breathe smoke-free air. So where is the line (or triangle) drawn?

It’s a tricky issue, and one that transcends liberal and conservative politics. Hippies and holy rollers alike smoke in huge numbers; I once even saw a priest, fully decked in Vatican-esque apparel, sneaking one in the cemetery after a funeral service. Nicotine addiction knows no labels.

So I admit I’m not huge on the issue of “smokers’ rights.” Last I checked, one person’s rights end with the infringement of another’s, and that’s what smoking in an enclosed space can do. And unlike in a club, where people step in with the understanding that there might be smoking going on (though New York City has successfully banned that also), people deserve to right to a smoke-free school or other public environment. It’s as fundamental as, well, the right to light up. Outside.

“Uzi, Can You See…”

2004-09-22T11:00:00.000-07:00

If you’ve been to Dupre Library recently, you’ve no doubt seen the wonderful sign that graces a pillar near the checkout desk:

“Under LAS 44:13, the library makes every effort to protect your privacy, but under the Federal USA PATRIOT Act (PL 107-56), records of the books and other materials you borrow from this library and information about sites you visit and activities you conduct on the library’s public access computers may be obtained by federal agents.

"That federal law prohibits library workers from informing you if federal agents have obtained records about you.”

That has to be the most miserable sign I have ever seen! I pity the nation’s good librarians who are forced to deal with this. It’s the kind of thing you might expect to see in a documentary about a long-defunct fascist regime. Yet here it is, in America, in 2004. I’m not at all a violent person—I often flush cockroaches rather than stomp on them—but I had to restrain myself from tearing it down.

Big Buddy Government would be proud of my anger. After all, we’re living in an age of violence, and there’re terrorists to hunt! If I get mad enough, then I just might buy a gun and become a REAL American! And, thanks to our marvelous majority-ignoring representatives, doing so just got much easier.

The 10-year-old ban on assault weapons, a universally applauded measure widely credited with a sharp reduction in violent crime rates since 1994, lapsed on Sept. 13. We have Congress to thank for murdering it. This expiration brings with it the resurrection of such weapons as the Uzi, the TEC-9 and the AK-47. For millions of Americans, duck season is now in full swing—duck-and-cover season.

William Bratton, LAPD Chief of Police, wrote in the L.A. Daily News that “the best defense of our homeland security will depend on the front lines of local law enforcement officers. We need our lawmakers' help by putting obstacles, such as the assault-weapons ban, in the path of terrorists." But what would some cop living in Los Angeles know about guns?

At least one group sees the return of assault weapons as a key to winning the war on terrorism. "In countries like the United States, it's perfectly legal for members of the public to own certain types of firearms. If you live in such a country, obtain an assault rifle legally, preferably an AK-47 or variations." That quote is from a recently unearthed al-Qaida training manual. Yes, al-Qaida certainly seems to hate us for our freedoms.

All you need to know about where the Bush administration stands on this issue lies in the fact that, after 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft allowed for extensive government intrusion into everyone’s personal information. He drew the line, however, at gun records. Weapons possession, Ashcroft said, was too sacred to investigate. Gee, someone’s license plate must read “NRA HOR.”

So remember, citizens: machine guns are good, books are bad! With the PATRIOT Act and the lapse of the weapons ban, it’s less of a hassle to buy a TEC-9 assault pistol than it is to check out “The History of the TEC-9 Assault Pistol.”

To quote that old cliché, the pen is mightier than the sword. And, lately, the pen has been making some pretty good cases for putting down the sword. The guy who sang that “words are weapons” must be turning in his grave right now. And not just because INXS broke up, but because his phrase has been taken way too literally by the anti-intellectual right. Knowledge is the real weapon, one that is feared more by corrupt leaders than any bullet.

Saturday Night Lever

2004-09-14T23:00:00.000-07:00

Three days from today, on Sept. 18, Louisianians all over Louisiana will go to the polls. The Cajuns are playing at Kansas State this weekend, so "I was too drunk" will not be a viable excuse not to vote. Though "the dog ate it" still might be.

So what’s on the ballot that’s worth the trip? Different parishes are voting for everything from mayors to dogcatchers. Here in Lafayette Parish…um, well, news coverage has been so confusing that I couldn’t even tell you. It doesn’t help that certain candidates who are running in the Nov. 2 primary are printing “Vote Sept. 18!” on their campaign handouts. I’ve researched up and down and have even talked to some candidates, and still I’m clueless.

Just know this: the Sept. 18 ballot is the warm-up to the Nov. 2 election, when we vote for…who we're going to vote for later on! Election time in Louisiana means primaries, the "Survivor" of politics. Vote a few candidates off the island and pick from the two that are left on Dec. 4 (hopefully the winner won't go naked). Races include seats for the 7th Congressional District of the U.S. House, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Senate race.

Saturday’s statewide ballot features an amendment to Louisiana’s state constitution. Historically, Constitutional amendments have been famous for protecting such rights as free speech, personal security, citizenship and other nice things that actually benefit people. But in these times of fear, terrorism and fear of terrorism, discrimination is in.

The proposed initiative is called “Amendment One,” apparently intended to evoke the First Amendment, though it actually brings to mind Channel One, that subliminally corporate high school network. Under the amendment, marriage is strictly defined as a union between a man and a woman. It may be the first-ever amendment that doesn't actually amend anything. But wait! Not only does Amendment One uphold the current (wrong) law, it even outlaws CIVIL UNIONS. This ingenious clause was put in to give the impression that Republicans aren't anti-gay...they're anti-everybody! The amendment is set to dismantle the legal benefits of common-law cohabitation. No ring, no visiting.

To review: gay people won't get civil benefits unless they get married, except that they can't get married, and longtime heterosexual roomies face losing their benefits as well, forcing them to get married to keep them. How compassionate! How romantic!

All this to stop two gay people from getting the rings and obtaining the license. If we're looking to decrease access to licensing, then why don't we start on drivers first? A legal gay couple does no harm to my love for women, whereas a bad driver just might kill me.

Despite the best efforts of the Bush misadministration, this nation still has the separation of church and state. Anti-gay marriage sentiment is a religious concept, so government has no right to enforce this restriction. Why would anyone want to deprive two loving adults of the ability to commit? It's not as if anyone is being forced to be married anyway.

Voting against Amendment One is not a gay thing, but a sane thing. Unfortunately for the great American electorate, our voting system does not currently have an option for “Not just no, but HELL NO!” Until then, we’re going to face a lot more freedom-killing proposals thrown at us by the people who should have the least amount of influence over us. This amendment is a serious threat for those who value their job benefits, hospital-visitation rights and inheritance privileges.

On Saturday night, say "I don't" to Amendment One. Trust me, you aren't ready for that kind of commitment.

What I Learned from a Loser

2004-09-07T23:00:00.000-07:00

Let’s climb into fellow columnist Tim Landry’s time machine and take a trip back to a more innocent place: my grandparents’ house, July 1988. I’m lying across the living-room sofa, all four feet of me, eyes still stinging from a visit to the optometrist. So like any eight-year-old boy, I decided to watch the Democratic National Convention pick its nominee.

My older brother, a towering hulk of 10, sat down on the floor next to me. “I hope Jesse Jackson wins.”

"Me too,” I responded, with the political shrewdness that would guide me through adulthood. “I just know he’ll beat Reagan!”

My bro and I sat transfixed for the next few hours as we watched delegates from each state declare its state pride (“There’s a state called Rhode Island? Really?”) and add up its votes.

“The great state of California casts its votes for the next president of the United States, Michael Dukakis!”

“Texas puts in its votes for the next president of the United States, Michael Dukakis!”

“The next president of the United States, Michael Dukakis!”

“Michael Dukakis! Whooooo-hoo!” Wow! Hours of this!

By the time this love-fest was over, I felt totally hyped. We had the impression that this Michael, unlike our man Jackson, was really “Bad.” I went to bed that night thinking that Dukakis was going to change the world. The thunderous crowd and thousands of balloons had me hooked. The little Greek man from Massachusetts was everyone’s favorite candidate. Why even bother to have an election?

Of course, I hadn’t considered a few things. First off, elections are every four years, not eight, and Reagan was not running. Second, Dukakis would turn out to have eyebrows that outsized his charisma and popularity. And third, I was watching the Democratic Convention, forgetting for a moment that it was everyone’s job to be excited about Dukakis. When I learned that the Republicans were going to have a shindig too, I kept calling it “The Republican Democratic Convention.”

I finally began to see reality when my elementary school held a mock election, in which each student dropped a card in one of two boxes marked “Bush” or “Dukakis.” Final tally: a 536-64 tilt toward the pachyderm. The nation did my school proud on Election Day, when the nation voted in favor of four more years of Republican rule. It was a surprising (for me, if for no one else) and stinging defeat, one that would steel me for countless elections and football games to come.

It was at age eight that I learned a hard lesson: just because something is accepted among a small cocoon of people doesn’t mean that it’s popular, or correct. Sometimes it takes a look into the broader outside world to see just how different perspectives can be. No matter where your beliefs lie, it never hurts to see how others think. That’s a good lesson for those who wish to spend their entire lives buried in the haze of a lifetime of unquestioned beliefs. Certain dictators and seriously misguided U.S. leaders come to mind.

This credo isn’t just about politics, however, but about life. Too many people are afraid to question their values, or don’t even realize that they should. Questioning beliefs should only make them stronger. If they turn out to be weak, then accept that and move on. Because if you stay in your shell and pretend that Dukakis is the man, you just might miss your chance to find something better. Like Bill Clinton!

Sometimes it takes a loser to make us realize what it takes to be a winner in life. Thank you, Mike.

Veterans Versus Veterans

2004-08-31T23:00:00.000-07:00

This year’s presidential election brings to mind the 1991 Louisiana governor’s race, in a “this-choice-should-be-a-totally-obvious-slam-dunk” sort of way. Still, people nearly voted in David Duke back then. What is to blame? The answer, of course, lies in lying.

If you watch television, you’ve no doubt seen one of the notorious “Swift Boat Vets for Truth” ads. This advocacy group is out to claim that John Kerry was unfit for command in Vietnam and is thus unfit for the presidency. If you rearrange the letters in “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,” you get “That far-r.w. beef, it rots on U.S. TV.” Makes sense, really.

Three reasons not to trust the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth:

1) They’re not Swift. Do they really think that questioning Kerry’s military service is the smartest campaign strategy for Bush? Arguing about how deep the shrapnel went into Kerry’s forearm seems nitpicky, considering that the only foreign material in Bush’s body might be glass from a smashed beer bottle. Any mention of Vietnam in this campaign is likely to backfire on Bush. And we already know how Bush reacts under fire.

2) They’re not entirely Boat Veterans. SBV for T is funded largely through two donors, Harlan Crow (a trustee of the George Bush Library) and Bob Perry (ties to Bush brain Karl Rove). The group’s spokeswoman, Merrie Spaeth, represented Bush’s wealthiest supporters in 2000. Legal counsel is headed by John O’Neill, hand-picked by Richard Nixon to debate Kerry on TV in 1971. Bush campaign lawyer Ben Ginsberg has also been known to offer legal advice. Then there are the veterans themselves. Though they served in Vietnam with Kerry, many didn’t literally serve WITH Kerry; they merely served at the same time. Though their honorable service dwarfs the military record of any of the hawks in the White House, it still does not let them off the hook.

3) They’re not about the Truth. The people behind SBV for T have a history of discrediting politicians with strong military ties. You might say they’re veterans at it! Just ask John McCain; in the 2000 presidential race, his five-and-a-half years as a POW turned into four years of Bush. In 2002, Sen. Max Cleland, whose memento from Vietnam is his left arm, was compared to terrorists by the same group. He lost.

The hand-picked veterans aren’t any better. One notorious Swift Boat Vets ad features Adm. Roy F. Hoffmann intoning, “John Kerry has not been honest!” However, Hoffmann has also been quoted as calling Kerry “a good man…I am not going to say anything negative about him.” Said Hoffmann of Kerry’s Silver Star: “It took guts, and I admire that.”

Other Shifty Boat Vets include George Elliott, who accuses Kerry of both dishonesty (“John Kerry has not been honest”) and courage (“The fact that he chased an armed enemy down…was an act of courage”). In a 1969 fitness report on Kerry, Elliott reported that “In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action…Kerry was unsurpassed.” Kenneth Cordier is a veteran who not only didn’t serve with Kerry but serves as head advisor for Veterans for Bush/Cheney. Then there’s Adrian L. Lonsdale, who declares that Kerry “lacks the capacity to lead,” yet once considered Kerry “among the finest of those Swift Boat drivers.” Wow!

If the Swift Boat Veterans really are looking for Truth, then they must be using some reverse psychology that I don’t understand. These guys have flip-flopped so much lately that, between the time I write this and the time you read it, they will probably flip some more and flop permanently.

The SBV for T slings its BS at http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php.

Don’t Let Things Happen to You!

2004-08-24T23:00:00.000-07:00

Hello friends! In light of the times we live in, we all have to stay safe. Because let’s face it: something will happen to you this semester. It might be great and it might be terrible. It might happen in the Quad or in Griffin Hall. Or somewhere else. At any time of day or night. You could be in a bar, or perhaps in your car. It might happen at the Keg. Or on your leg. It might happen in a box. It might happen with a fox. It might happen in a chair. It might happen when no one’s there. So damn, Sam! Don’t eat the green eggs and ham!

How can I be so certain that something will happen to you? Because things like these have happened before. What should you do in anticipation of something happening? Well, don’t let it affect your activities in any way. Go on with your life! Just make sure to be fully alert at all times. And watch what you say.

Keeping in line with our government’s guidelines for fighting terrorism, I have prepared a primer for you on how to prevent things from happening:

1) Don’t give out any identifying information. This includes, but is not limited to, any handwritten documents such as schoolwork and personal checks, no matter how much instructors or clerks demand it of you. Even typed work, cash and debit cards will have traces of your DNA on them. Avoid doing any assignment of any kind or buying stuff, and by all means DO NOT TOUCH ANYTHING!

2) Do not venture into uncertain territory. With such a multitude of prominent landmarks, Lafayette is rife with potential happenings. You’re better off in your designated living area, unless that happens to be in one of those prominent landmarks. Nightclubs are massive points for human convergence, as are local churches, Cajun Field, the Cajundome, Dupre Library, the Student Union, Bourgeois Hall, dorms and pedestrian crosswalks. Avoid all of these areas at all costs. And don’t even CONSIDER eating at a restaurant.

3) Don’t say or do anything even remotely controversial. Because of the diversity of this great nation, you are bound to affect someone; so it’s probably best that you stay in bed and never leave your room. But even that might annoy your roommate and anyone relying on you to perform some kind of job or go to class.

4) Avoid any and all personal contact. While college offers an incredible opportunity to meet people, it also provides for trouble. How do you know that the person to whom you’re talking isn’t a recruiter for a clandestine cult? If they’re upfront about it, avoid them. If they’re friendly, seem harmless and appear to belong to no organization of any kind, well, that’s even worse! This suspicion should extend beyond peers to include professors, UL staff, SGA, frat boys and the university police. Never trust or touch anyone.

5) DO NOT HAVE FUN! Fun leads to the kind of things that can distract one from watching for something happening. These distractions include: making friends, socializing, partying, meeting a new lover, “going out” on “the weekends,” games, sports, movies, music, hobbies, the Internet, working out and reading. Such frivolous pursuits only allow for something to happen to you that might change the course of your life.

If you follow all of these tips, I guarantee you that you will have a safe experience during your college career. You will also minimize your risk of ever being the unwitting subject of something happening. Unless you picked up this paper, in which case you’ve already screwed up. Sigh...

The 411 on ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’

2004-07-20T22:00:00.000-07:00

The summer of 2004 has been a dynamite season for cinema. In any year, summer is the time to escape the heat and reality for a dose of escapism. However, one of the biggest movies of late dispenses with escapist cinematic elements in favor of a head-on collision with reality. That movie, of course, is Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11.”

Lots of people, however, would dispute the notion that “Fahrenheit 9/11” is at all based on reality. The main criticism of the anti-war documentary is that it is not balanced. The bulk of this criticism comes from those who watch Fox News, MSNBC and CNN, and who thus know all about bias. Is “Fahrenheit 9/11” biased? Yes. Is it false? No.

My suggestion is that anyone who wishes to weigh in on the issue should see the movie and compare and contrast it with what they already know and believe. “Fahrenheit 9/11” is a delicious part of a balanced breakfast; complain about the cereal only after you’ve had a bite. Disney sought to deny us the opportunity when they refused to release the film, and Ray Bradbury publicly dissed Moore for copping the title “Fahrenheit 451” from his book about suppressing information. Talk about free publicity!

I saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the first time on July 3, an experience that exceeded my high expectations. What made the experience so special to me wasn’t so much the movie—well, that too—but the feeling I got just by being there. Like “The Passion of the Christ,” Moore’s flick is a major tug of the belief strings. But where “Passion” was a literal preaching to the choir, “Fahrenheit 9/11” aims to convert.

Lafayette didn't bother to show the film until a week after its release, when one theater figured out that the number-one film in the nation might have a few fans here. In line in front of me were a well-dressed man and a couple that looked fresh out of high school, both clad in shirts sporting Bible verses. The trio looked ready to pounce on me if I bought the wrong ticket. To my surprise, though, all three were also there for "Fahrenheit 9/11"!

In the lobby were people dressed in Uncle Sam and Statue of Liberty outfits, raising money with crafts and signature stars. This was a July 4 fundraiser for the troops, and I purchased a star from a very sweet girl. I was not the only one, proving that even critics of the war can and do support the soldiers.

I didn't expect to see the diversity of the audience that I saw; perhaps most enlightening was the presence of a number of middle-aged professionals. At first I thought they were there out of morbid curiosity; as the film progressed, however, they were often the most vocal in their approval. Everyone seemed to be there in support of the film, which I found surprising. The closest thing to opposition occurred before the film, when someone mentioned how some people had bought tickets for "Shrek 2" and then snuck into "Fahrenheit 9/11" so that Michael Moore wouldn't get paid. Amazingly, I didn’t hear one instance where anyone jeered what was being said.

Coming out of the theater, I saw people amassing and talking like never before. Whether they agreed or disagreed with certain issues, they at least were talking. Knowing that this is going on several times a day, all over the United States, is perhaps the most rewarding experience to come out of the film. Thank you, Michael. Thank you.

John Kerry vs. Non-Kerry

2004-07-06T22:00:00.000-07:00

An interesting anecdote in a book about the Beatles (named, appropriately enough, “The Beatle Book”) tells about one of Paul McCartney’s childhood quirks. A left-hander, McCartney lived in a culture and age where being left-handed was some kind of stigma (this was before they were discovered to be far-superior people, of course). For the most part, McCartney adapted well enough, except when it came time for him to learn to ride a bicycle. See, young Paul insisted on pedaling backward.

Even in the face of numerous wipeouts and the frustrating lack of locomotion, McCartney was not deterred from his unique method of cycling. In fact, he went so far as to declare that everyone else was doing it wrong. Finally his father asked him why, if everyone else was pedaling wrong, they were staying on their bikes while he kept falling on his head. Paul got the message and changed his ways.

What compels a person to insist that what they are doing is correct even as common sense and physics prove them wrong? Is there never even a thought in the back of their minds that maybe they should question the wisdom of their actions? Fortunately for the Bush-Cheney campaign, the answer to that second question seems to be, “Yes, there is a thought!”

How will the Bush administration’s apparent admission of its errors be visible? Can we expect the beginning of the end of operations in Iraq? Will we see the end of a lopsided tax code? Will all Americans be guaranteed decent health care? Are big corporations finally going to pay a fraction of the taxes they should have been paying all these years?

Just joking! Actually, none of that has or will happen. So why do I think that Team Bush has seen the error of its ways? The answer is in the nature of the Republicans’ new campaign materials. Because Bush’s term has been such a disaster, even they can’t sell themselves anymore.

Instead of focusing on the pertinent issues and on its man, the Bush “re”-election campaign has turned into “anybody but Kerry.” Look at http://www.georgewbush.com/... “The Kerry Gas-Tax Calculator...The Kerry Travel Tracker...Kerry on the Patriot Act...Kerry: the Raw Deal...Kerry: Wacky...” I guess those third-party advocates were right after all; there really isn’t much difference between these two. Both are obsessed with the same candidate!

In debating numerous conservatives and libertarians over the past several months, I notice that one point comes up with regularity: that John Kerry is a man without a concrete message. Bush, they say, stands tall and firm on his principles. But they forget that there’s a line between being adamant in your views and just being damn hardheaded. Kerry showed that he is able to change his mind about Iraq in the face of revelations that the information was misleading in early 2003. For that he is being called a flip-flopper.

But that’s beside the point. The Bush apologists spend their debate energy harping on liberals liking Kerry only because they hate Bush. Because of the ongoing rift between liberals and moderate Democrats, this little anti-Kerry negativity works for conservatives in debates. The Bush campaign has caught onto this tactic and is now hoping that voters will pick Bush simply because, well, he’s not Kerry.

Like with everything else, Bush is steering the never-civil-to-start-with realm of campaigning (and, in turn, the national discourse) in a poisonous direction. Until we, as a nation, can garner the courage to stand up to Bush and say, “You’re doing it all wrong,” then Bush will continue to pedal us—backward—right into the ground.

Jesus for President

2004-06-22T23:00:00.000-07:00

The rise of the religious right has brought with it a disturbing notion: that the President of the United States, in addition to being the political and economic leader of the free world, must also be morally infallible. The roots of this belief are not entirely unmerited; any good president should have some moral compass that prevents them, for example, from acting out fantasies of a warmongering dictatorship. But in the eyes of the fanatics, presidents must also have an impossibly perfect personal record. In other words, they must be Jesus.

The Jesus in question is not the historical one revered by Christians, Muslims and Jews alike as a paragon of love, peace and tolerance. I’d vote for that man in a heartbeat. Instead, they refer to the divine messiah Jesus Christ, the omnipresent son of God, who can create and destroy universes with a wave of his hand. Their version of Jesus reads Jack Chick pamphlets and nods with ecstatic agreement. He is the artist of Armageddon who will wipe out Israel and those filthy pagans at midnight next Friday. Yes, the Jesus they believe in holds no bones about destroying the entire human race in the name of love.

Jesus for president! Wouldn’t he be such a perfect fit for this “Christian” country? Not according to our laws! Isn’t it amazing how, theo-smackers’ arguments to the contrary, Jesus could not be the president under our Constitutional law? For one thing, the Constitution mandates that a President must be at least 35 years old. Legend has it that Jesus was 33 when he got double-crossed. Also, the president must be an American-born citizen and have lived on U.S. soil for a minimum of 14 years. Where was Jesus from, Bethlehem? Galilee? Nazareth? Steppenwolf? The Promised Land was somewhere east of America. It certainly was not in, say, Utah.

But let’s assume we did the Christian thing and gave Jesus a divine break from Constitutional law to allow him to run for president. Would he? Given his advocacy of humility, I doubt it. Assuming he did, however, his platform—peace on earth, good will toward men, love thy neighbor, don’t do bad things—would NEVER fly with the conservative theocrats. They’d just accuse him of being a long-haired, hippie peacenik Jew who bucked the godly ideals of the United States of America. Imagine the top story on The 700 Club: “Jesus: is he the anti-Christ?” Not even Jesus would be perfect enough for his most fervent followers to be President of the United States. No wonder they’ve settled for such guys as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Gary Bauer.

Again, I wouldn’t mind seeing Jesus as president. The religious right wants moral absolutes and Jesus is the perfect person to give it to them. Only, I think, Jesus would be (bad pun alert) a hell of a lot more forgiving than his self-proclaimed lobbying group. His tolerance for religions would be much closer to the ideals espoused by the Bill of Rights than the hellfire and damnation often preached in his name. And, as he notes in Matthew 22:21, he clearly supports the separation of church and state. Jesus is my kind of leader for sure!

On the other hand, I wonder if he could even grasp the idea of democracy, a concept completely absent from the Bible. Religion, in general, tends to favor an autocratic deity who rules with an iron fist over a terrified and appeasing populace. Then again, our current leadership has no grasp of democracy either, so why not give him a try? Jesus for President!

I Saw the Future (And Ran Back!)

2004-06-08T23:00:00.000-07:00

Could anyone have imagined three years ago that we’d be where we are now? Well, just me and about 200 million other Americans. This year’s election cycle looks to be just as predictable. As crusty old Aunt Gertrude used to say to the Hardy Boys, “Mark my words!”

June 2004—Turncoat Democrats Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman form a group called Baffled Americans Concerned Kerry’s Status Takes Away Believability. BACKSTAB is a coalition of Democrats who not only oppose John Kerry, but also actively seek out his death so that the Republicans win for at least the next 16 years. They intend to do this, Lieberman says, “For the health of the Democratic Party.”

July 2004--Amid much infighting, the Democratic National Convention kicks off in Boston. Final toll: 26 dead, 164 injured. Kerry, the last one standing, accepts the nomination.

August 2004—A Kerry advocacy group begins selling t-shirts with the infamous Abu Ghraib prison snapshots with “BUSH 2004—FOUR MORE WARS!” superimposed over them. The shirts, intended for Kerry supporters, nevertheless sell out with Republicans who are even prouder to wear them.

September 2004—The Republican National Convention commences at Ground Zero in New York City. Toby Keith’s rousing opening performance of his new song, “Real Americans Ain’t Liberal or Brown,” brings down the house. John Ashcroft leads in the Pledge of Allegiance, repeating “Under God” 60 times before continuing with the rest of it.

Keynote speaker Karl Rove, standing at a lectern made from beams of the World Trade Center and with several New York firemen standing beside him, decries the Democrats for politicizing 9/11. George W. Bush wins the nomination in a unanimous delegate vote. In his acceptance speech, he speaks of wanting “the world to come together in the ever-lasting crusade against terror,” though the words don’t necessarily come out in that order.

October 2004—The third and final presidential debate pits a knowledgeable and relaxed Kerry against a smirking, hysterical Bush. Though Bush’s comments consist almost entirely of creative combinations of the words “terror,” “nuclear,” “fear,” “tax” and “cut,” he is considered to have won the debate. Analysts say Bush’s down-home folksy demeanor was a refreshing contrast to Kerry’s “superior intelligence and snobbishly correct pronunciations.”

10/28/04—Simultaneous poll results from Gallup, Zogby, the Associated Press, the New York Times and ABC show Kerry ahead of Bush by between 85 and 90 percentage points.

10/29/04—Matt Drudge reports that sources close to the janitors at the Pentagon might have heard something about them saying that Donald Rumsfeld is hinting that rebels supposedly caught Osama bin Laden. But he isn’t sure if that’s what he heard.

Ten minutes later—Fox News crawl: “DRUDGE REPORTS BIN LADEN CAUGHT! PRAISE BUSH!”

10/30/04—October surprise! As it turns out, bin Laden’s been in custody of the Israeli Army since October 2001, but Cheney ordered them to hold him until the election. When this is discovered, Cheney is praised for his tough leadership.

10/31/04—God pays a surprise visit to “The O’Reilly Factor,” telling host Bill O’Reilly that under no circumstances should anyone vote for Bush. Viewers take this as a test of faith, and Bush climbs in popularity.

11/1/04—After months of careful and thoughtful consideration, Fox News endorses Bush for president.

11/2/04—George W. Bush wins the election with 17 percent of the popular vote. Kerry comes in second with 81 percent. The steep spike in Bush’s votes is credited to the capture of bin Laden and God’s non-endorsement.

11/3/04—Bush declares a permanent state of Armageddon, offsetting the need for his second inauguration or any future inaugurations.

Kerry: My Main Man

2004-04-28T20:40:00.000-07:00

Last Wednesday, someone informed me that several people were offended by my mention of the racist KKK experiment that had aired on AOC. I had included that extreme anecdote in order to ridicule the Klan and to show that free speech often means having to deal with insanity. However, some people thought I was making fun of African-Americans instead. So I sincerely apologize if anyone was offended by that.

Incidents like that help me realize that what I intend to write is not always what people pick up. I have learned this lesson, and it’s one that the Republicans need to pick up soon if they want their campaign to be less pathetic in the coming months. While the GOP attacks on John Kerry sound like criticism to them, they sure don’t register with his fans.

Currently, the right-wing flavor of the month is to attack John Kerry by calling him a “liberal.” Ouch. That’s like trying to insult George W. Bush by calling him “a Yale-educated father of two.” Are conservatives really so wrapped up in their own linguistic fantasies that they think “liberal” is a bad word? What kind of insult is that? Can you imagine some of these Kerry attackers “doing the dozens” with each other?

“Yo mama’s so fat, she’s on a diet!”

“Yeah? Well, your momma’s so poor that she…she…she doesn’t have any money!”

Why on Earth would Republicans do something so monumentally witless as to try to pass off “liberal” as a cut-down? Well, for one, because it works. Part of the reason that George H.W. Bush hammered Michael Dukakis in 1988 was by playing the “liberal” card. By October, Bush had successfully demonized what he called “the ‘L’ word.” When Dukakis finally used that word to describe himself, Bush went to town. That town, of course, was Washington D.C.

Faced with endless war, an embattled economy and cronyism not seen since Boss Hogg, Republicans are running low on options. They are betting everything on their campaign to make the Democrats look even worse than themselves. But if we liberals and moderates are willing to stand our ground and take pride in who we are, then no amount of fear and propaganda will stop us in 2004.

Right now, our biggest asset is our candidate for president. And when I say “our,” I don’t just mean the Democrats; I mean Democrats, Greens, independents and everyone else who objects to today’s conditions. Our side has a quality candidate in Kerry. Sure, some of us would have preferred one of the other nominees; now that Kerry has all but clinched the nomination, however, we should rally behind him as he does his best to accommodate all of us. Unlike so many Democrats (Joe Lieberman, anyone?), Kerry is not afraid to criticize the current administration.

Kerry represents hope. Hope that our troops (including the latest 4,000 from Louisiana about to get shipped off) will stop getting shafted and killed in Iraq for no reason. Hope that our leaders will restore some respect for the laws of this nation. Hope that our economy will exist again. Hope that some minor and pointless sex scandal might once again become the biggest problem we face.

A vote for Kerry is not merely a vote against Bush; it is a vote for what this nation needs to revive—the people. While Bush is busy playing “Risk” with the globe as his game board, America is in a period of frustration and fear. The first step toward a better country is in a boot; specifically, in a boot to Bush in November.

AOC: Soon to be DOA?

2004-04-21T13:34:00.000-07:00

It isn’t every day that a small public-access station wins against big government. So when Acadiana Open Channel recently came up short against the Lafayette Parish consolidated government, I wasn’t at all surprised.

Citing improper paper filing, the city-parish council denied one year’s funding to AOC. The legislature has expressed disdain for AOC over the years, in part because of allegations that live coverage makes them look bad (more so than, say, their own words). In any event, our community stands to lose one of its greatest free-speech assets.

I discovered AOC sometime around 1988, when I was a bored 8-year-old in the perilous Atari-Nintendo gap. Back then, Lafayette Cable TV was a little building in north Lafayette that shared office space with Firestone Tires. It was a low-budget and stifling monopoly, whereas Cox Cable now stifles us with a much higher budget.

A full subscription in 1988 netted about 30 stations. Several networks shared channels, which led to the always-exciting prospect of Nickelodeon suddenly being supplanted by riveting church programming. AOC shared channel five with CNN Headline News, which instilled in me distaste for cable news long before it was justified.

With AOC, I was introduced to the astounding concept that the public had rights to the airwaves just like the media conglomerates. That, combined with the realization that the studio was two blocks from my house, brought communication closer than ever to me.

AOC’s hook was the endless message board, a crudely computerized lava lamp of community events and upcoming programs. I memorized the entire sequence of pop-up screens and could call them before they appeared: “Next up is—the fish logo! Boo-yah!!” If the message board had ordered me to hurl myself off of the Atchafalaya bridge, I would have immediately scrambled for the keys to Mom’s Dodge Mirada.

Another startling revelation occurred in about 1993, when I discovered that AOC, in addition to its addictive message board, actually had shows. At first I was mad that they were crassly interrupting my slide show (“Damn that animal-rights program!”), but over time I got to appreciate the diversity of the programming. Who can forget the numerous political call-in shows, Homework Hotline (on which I appeared), This Week in Wrestling and the Rock Breauxz? In late 2002, AOC even put up with me as a political panelist, against the president of the UL College Republicans. That was nice of them.

Of course, along with the positive shows, AOC aired some real turkeys as well. Much to the delight of the Lafayette tourist board, “The Klan in Akadiana” was featured on “Hard Copy.” Only on the Klan show did we learn the real cause of the mid-1990s rash of black church fires: Jehri-curl juice! Host Darrell Flinn even went so far as to demonstrate this on a makeshift church pew in his own backyard. He poured what he claimed was 30 years’ worth of Jehri-curl juice on the wood, and then set it on fire. Case closed. Would the traditional media have given air time to such an experiment? I think not.

And that, precisely, is the beauty of public television. Acadiana Open Channel gave the airwaves to the people, a voice to the voiceless and, in some cases, a rubber room for the crazies. Yes, AOC sometimes aired overt racism and ignorance; but what better way for the public to see and deal with such scum than an honest forum of ideas? And I sure would have loved doing a report on exactly why Flinn had all that Jehri-curl juice. But, alas, free speech is yet another casualty of power.

Passions of the Bush

2004-04-07T21:18:00.000-07:00

Back in the day, the barometer of American cheesiness was the romance novel. A couple of dollars at the local checkout counter would net the prophetic prose of authors such as Danielle Steel and Jackie Collins. These romances continue to fan the flames of middle American passion; they’re also excellent when melted over nachos and hamburgers.

So what can be made of cheesy romance novels in a day when American politics and media make them look like “War and Peace”? The next logical step, obviously, is to tie them together. And like the pulp romances endlessly cranked out by anonymous ghostwriters, the politics-romance fusion is easy to write in today’s world.

(The following excerpt is from “Passions of the Bush.” Copyright 2004 by Ian McGibboney. Distributed by Partisan Press. 1,356 pages.)

Chapter 27—Nine-inch-eleven

George sat alone in the Lincoln Bedroom, anticipating the lovely visitor who was soon to come. As he sat there in the moonlight, alone with his thoughts, he reflected upon the great men before him who had shared such space. Jefferson. Lincoln. Roosevelt. Kennedy. Reagan. Clinton. Oh, how he despised Clinton. Like JFK before him, Clinton had the nerve to turn the White House into his own lair of lust. George cringed his masculine face just at the thought. How dare the man desecrate this room at the expense of the people and—

Tap, tap, tap. George knew the sound immediately. It was the soft signal of the mistress with whom he would share a rendezvous on this night. George had taken great pains to let everyone know of his late work schedule tonight. It was a convenient excuse to get away from the woman that had irrevocably ensnared his heart—the one they called Afghanistan.

George had been betrothed to the fair Afghanistan just over two years earlier, after a steamy encounter in which she penetrated his twin towers. While that day had left behind in him an odd burning sensation, it also breathed in him a renewed purpose. A reason to continue living. She had been so good to him, giving him all that he needed to carry on.

There had been times, of course, when George’s temptation had been tested. Nothing that Afghanistan did could tear George away from his first and foremost lover, the one who had made him a man so many years before. The two salacious syllables of her name blew like a gentle breeze on his heaving tongue.

Iraq.

“Come on in, Iraq, my fair maiden,” George spoke softly, “I shall let nothing get in the way of my conquest of your burning lust.”

“Oh, Mr. Bush,” she cooed, “I know you will stop at nothing to liberate me with desire.”

George smiled as he gently stroked her sandy complexion. “No matter who or what feels the need to take up my time, I will always return to you, fair Iraq,” he said. A rugged Texas oil man, George knew his way around his derrick. The couple shared a soft kiss and a sweet embrace in the D.C. moonlight, ready to embark on a war of a different kind—the war on amour.

George was clearly the aggressor in the relationship; he ripped off his lady’s clothes and was eager to pillage her goods. If it made her feel good, he thought, all the better. But he was really looking out for number one.

Knock, knock.

“Who is that?” George cried, breaking the mood.

“It’s Richard Clarke! Open up! I know you’re in there!”

Busted.

(Read the rest in Chapter 28, “Clarke’s Bar,” or watch the news. Same thing.)

LSU Fever II: Blanco’s Afflicted

2004-03-31T16:08:00.000-08:00

If you’re like me (and who isn’t?), then you think a lot of things just suck. You’ll pay $7.75 for a ticket to a mediocre movie and think, “That really sucks!” Or you could be at a party, talking about things that suck and hear something that makes you want to scream, “Now that just sucks.” It sucks just thinking about it.

Well, just in case you were worried about running out of things that suck, along comes another one. Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, USL class of 1964, has endorsed the policy of establishing LSU as the flagship university of Louisiana.

Disclaimer: I voted for Blanco and I don’t regret it. I think she is the right person for the job by a long shot; she has the experience and the brains to do incredible things for the state of Louisiana. But one of the reasons I chose Blanco over Bobby Jindal was the UL-versus-LSU question. Jindal, who attended Brown and Oxford, basically said that LSU worship would be state policy. But I expected better from Blanco.

Can you imagine if the federal government decided that Budweiser really was “The King of Beers?” And every other beer company had to pay Budweiser because of it? That’s kind of like what’s going on here.

Blanco came out for LSU in Baton Rouge on Feb. 4, 2004. “LSU is currently regarded as the flagship university in Louisiana,” Blanco said, as quoted in the LSU Reveille. “It should be encouraged to compete…but what we want to see is LSU being among the highest-ranking academic universities in the nation.”

Naturally, our camp raised the question about what the flagship status will mean for universities such as UL Lafayette. “All the minor universities are able to compete nationally,” Blanco said. That’s right—UL Lafayette is now officially a “minor” university. The next question should have been, “Governor, can you get us some salve? Because our backs really hurt from the stab wound.”

Don’t worry, though, she assured us. “Every big business was once a small business. There should be opportunities to get small businesses started.” Which is a funny thing for her to say, being that the LSU flagship status ensures that schools like UL Lafayette may never get a chance to be competitive.

Blanco’s stand comes hot off the ironic heels of her featured appearance in the Spring 2004 “Alumni Accents” newsletter. It reports on her address at the UL Lafayette Alumni Association’s Spring Gala, where she is quoted as saying, “To be recognized by my university is one of the finest things that can happen to a person.” We would surely appreciate it if you returned the favor, Governor.

Why is Blanco trying so hard to appease LSU when the Baton Rouge contingent booed her so lustily at the Sugar Bowl? In a game that boiled down to Louisiana versus Oklahoma, LSU fans were more receptive to Oklahoma’s governor than to their own governor-elect. Columnist John Hill offered perhaps the best explanation, citing poll numbers that suggested that six out of 10 voters chose Jindal.

Before my LSU friends and family get angry and decide if I literally bleed UL red, I want to say that I have no problem with LSU. But LSU is already the largest school in the state, and it’s just wrong for them to plead for help when everybody in the United States knows who they are.

LSU officials know this, and they hope to pocket those profits for years to come. And that sucks not just for UL, but for the whole state of Louisiana.

Do Not Read This

2004-03-24T21:19:00.000-08:00

This week I want to share with you a letter that accidentally ended up in my hands a few days ago. I forgot about it until yesterday, when I popped in “Jurassic Park” and watched Laura Dern dig into a pile of dinosaur crap. Suddenly I remembered that I had it.

Secret Memo
From: Ed Gillespie, chairman, Republican National Committee
To: His Presidential Majesty, the Right Honorable George W. Bush
Cc: Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, John Hinson

Dear Mr. President,

How are you? I am fine. How are you doing on your homework? Good, I hope. This memo is to update you on your bang-up reelection bid. I hope that we can continue to work together toward the common goal of handing John Kerry his buns on a platter. We uphold the finest standards to ensure that your campaign represents the party’s philosophy at its best.

We have accused the Democrats of being negative in the most negative tone possible. Just look how Kerry called us “the most crooked…lying group of people I’ve ever seen.” Because Kerry said that, we have no choice but to helplessly follow his example and go negative all the time! We must continue to expose this vile man for what he is: a war-protesting, fear-mongering, utterly negative, name-calling vat of scum who will personally ask Osama bin Laden to come in and nuke us. Let nothing get in the way of this impression, not even the facts!

We have used only the most maudlin footage of Sept.11, 2001. If we couldn’t find footage that met our standards for tastelessness, then we shot our own! I must say, manufactured scenes of firefighters pulling out a flag-draped stretcher are hard to pull off properly. But the actors who played the firefighters gave it their all. Sure, almost all of the victims’ families decried this ad as the worst abuse ever of a national tragedy. But how many victims were there, 3,000? That’s hardly a sizable voting bloc.

Even with our already huge campaign war chest, we continue to raise funds like no one else. Key to this has been picking the right stumping spots. Visiting Eisenhower Park on Long Island to dedicate a 9/11 memorial was a nice enough gesture. But then immediately holding a fundraiser there afterwards and raising $1.6 million? Genius! And because you demanded that your shoes were never to touch dirt, you gave work to the crews who spent considerable time laying asphalt and wood chips at your pristine feet. Best of all, these experiences are preparing us for the Republican Convention at Ground Zero in September. It’ll be a blowout!

Only one issue seems to be a problem at this point: you recently announced that you would revoke the one-hour time limit on your availability to the 9/11 commission. Are you nuts? Look what happened to Bill Clinton when he lent himself to our Monica Lewinsky interrogation. He was there all day receiving devastating questions that nearly derailed his presidency. The same thing could happen to you! And remember, that was about an issue that we could barely force people to care about. I guarantee you that people care about 9/11.

Even that, however, depends on how far we are willing to let the interrogation reach our airwaves—I mean, the public’s airwaves. That reminds me, Rupert at Fox News still owes me that rifle that he borrowed when we went hunting together. And I still have a Valentine’s Day gift I forgot to give him.

Well, George, I have to go now. Keep up the good work!

Your friend, Eddie

Lethal Weapon 3:16

2004-03-17T00:49:00.000-08:00

Insofar as self-restraint goes, I consider myself a moral (if mortal) person. Sometimes, however, something touches so many people and sparks so much debate that I can’t help but give in to temptation. That’s right, I went to see Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.” I guess you could say the devil made me do it.

Beforehand, I was told alternately that this movie would: 1) change my life in joyously irrevocable ways, 2) cause the screen to cry tears of blood or 3) make me sick to my stomach. Steve Martin joked that the movie was so popular that a book version was sure to follow. If you don’t like it, some said, then head on over to the nearest church and Father Mel will give you a crash course in Mass Excommunication.

Gibson, Hollywood’s favorite Catholic superstud, can always be counted on to faithfully follow the tenets of his faith, whether it’s joking about condoms (“Lethal Weapon 2”), having scads of extramarital sex (“What Women Want” and “Maverick,” among countless others) or striking untold numbers of cheeks (“Lethal Weapon,” “Braveheart” and “We Were Soldiers”). All kidding aside, Mel is a fantastic director and actor who remains one of my all-time favorites.

For months, all we heard about “The Passion” was the controversy and the oddities surrounding it. Accusations of anti-Semitism and Mel’s assertion that the Holy Spirit itself guided his hands on the camera made big splashes, as did Mel’s concern that his wife was going straight to hell.

These anecdotes, however, all but paled next to the bizarre story of Jesus impersonator James Caviezel. Throughout filming, J.C. endured accidental whip lashes and scars, a separated shoulder from the falling cross (watch carefully), being struck by lightning during both the Sermon on the Mount and the crucifixion scenes (!!) and hypothermia. Talk about suffering for your art! I’m inspired already.

Whether or not you believe in the divinity of Jesus, his message gets as close to perfection as humanity can ever hope to achieve: love all, forgive all, never back down or sell out. You don’t have to carry a “John 3:16” sign to live by that every day. Of course, this is Mad Max we’re talking about here; the message inevitably gets lost in the violence.

I won’t spoil it for those who have yet to see the flick, but let’s just say that Jesus suffers a nick or two. The cuts open clearly and graphically, much like on Martin Lawrence’s butt in “Bad Boys II,” but with slightly less comic effect. Still, I’ve never heard so many people crying in a theater, forming a community of the tearfully inspired. Meg Ryan, eat your heart out.

By focusing on the brutal torture of the messenger instead of the message itself, “The Passion” personifies the times we live in. The issue I take with a movie such as this is that it focuses so much on death and says almost nothing about the life that makes people special. This does a great disservice to the impact that their lives had on those they touched.

If anything positive comes out of this film, it’s that Pontius Pilate learns the evil in selling out an innocent man to the bloodthirsty masses. Sounds like a message that our current crop of divinely inspired leaders could use about now.

The best aspect of “The Passion” lies underneath the pomp and spectacle. Simply put, we root for the underdog. Anyone, religious or not, can identify with that. It only makes sense; in a way, we’re all underdogs compared to Mel Gibson.

Gay Marriage: Equality at Work

2004-03-09T23:57:00.000-08:00

With all of the violence and economic hardship running amok in the world, it’s good to know that our esteemed leaders are tackling the most lethal issue of all: gay marriage!

Leave it to Team Bush to dream up the first-ever unconstitutional amendment. The proposal would define marriage as a holy union between a man and a woman. Not only would this turn the Constitution into a right-wing dictionary, but it would also reverse the long-standing trend of taking discrimination OUT of the law.

Isn’t it remarkable how conservatives claim to be for less government until it involves either the bedroom or the war room?

I previously wrote on gay marriage in the July 23, 2003 issue of The Vermilion. At the time, the Supreme Court had declared the Texas sodomy law unconstitutional. The ruling seemed to represent a long stride toward equality for gay people. Of course, the religious right immediately stepped up its constant crusade with ideas as flimsy as they are ferocious.

I’m not impressed by any arguments against gay marriage. Why? Because every one of them ties into dogma. Faith varies by individual and thus is not a reliable bedrock for democratic law. Religion and government must remain separate, being that this is the whole point of the United States. We are a nation of laws, not of established religion. If you doubt this, ask yourself why the Founding Fathers drew up secular documents of law rather than enforce the Bible or other holy book.

One reason people give to deny gays the vows is that marriages are fostered for the purpose of begetting children. This would, in effect, annul all childless and infertile heterosexual couples. By logical extension, all future weddings would be shotgun weddings. A bride who ISN’T pregnant would be stigmatized. But I do see their point; if there’s anything wrong this planet, it’s that there aren’t enough humans.

On the secular side, critics accuse homosexuals of wanting special rights. What exactly are these “special” rights? Among them are marriage, civil benefits, hospital-visitation rights and equality under the law. What nerve! Seriously, as far as I can tell, the only thing that makes these rights “special” is that only heterosexuals are allowed to have them.

What is it about gay marriage that defiles the idea of wedlock? It must be bad, if it defiles the institution of marriage as much as conservatives say. I say that if marriage can survive a 50-percent divorce rate, quickie Britney Spears-style hookups, group weddings and “Who Wants to Marry My Big, Fat, Obnoxious Multi-Billionaire Bachelor?,” then it can certainly withstand two same-sex people expressing their love for each other.

The backlash against gay marriage is simply the latest attempt by conservatives to turn America into a cesspool of fanaticism. The religious right cares nothing about equal opportunity under the law. Instead, they attempt to turn their burning obsession with gays into attempts to write hate into the Constitution. Substitute “black” or “Jew” for “homosexual” in any of their rhetoric and see just how much they truly love their fellow man.

Allowing any two loving adults to marry benefits both homosexual and heterosexual couples. I’m not married, nor am I gay. Allowing gay marriage is not going to affect who (or if) I marry one way or another. On the other hand, it just might make marriage less trivial than people treat it now. If people really were really as serious about saving marriage as they claim to be, then they would support this cause. Marriage is one institution that could use some Queer Eye.

Bush’s Selective Service

2004-03-03T21:15:00.000-08:00

To the surprise of absolutely no one, Election 2004 is all about the combat stripes. Considering that George W. Bush already faces stiff challenge from Vietnam veteran John Kerry, the last thing Mr. Mission Accomplished needed was to have his military records scrutinized. The National Guard’s slogan is “You Can!” But if Bush’s service records prove anything, it’s that “You Don’t Have To!”

Whenever badgered about Bush’s service, the White House has consistently pointed out that Bush fulfilled his obligations from 1968 to 1971. They conveniently leave out that he was not discharged until 1973. And while much speculation has surfaced about what exactly he was doing for those two missing years, Bush has been mum on the issue. Call it Operation Deserter Shield.

Facing intense pressure in the wake of full disclosure from Wesley Clark and questions about his own dubious stint, however, Bush finally announced that he would fully release his own records. And just to show how fully he released his records the first time, he released some more a few days later. Kind of like DVD bonus features.

In all, the records totaled more than 400 pages. Among the revelations: Bush had a tonsillectomy at age five, an appendectomy at age 10, a fatty cyst removal at 14 and a hemorrhoid during his tenure with the Guard. Hey, 400 pages is a lot to fill.

So what are the facts of this incredibly strong evidence that, once and for all, will show that Bush was ready when needed? Pay stubs from six days of service in 1972 and a receipt for dental service on Jan. 6, 1973. These documents are undeniable proof that Bush was in Alabama for at least a week.

Records show that, however obsolete his planes might have been, Bush did his job with the Texas National Guard. The disputed two years coincides with Bush transferring from Texas to the Alabama Guard. While the cause for this transfer remains up for debate, a likely explanation is that Bush moved camp in order to work on a political campaign. Such transference, while odd, was in itself not a huge deal; Bush could have reported for duty without incident. His records, however, show that he did no such thing.

Eager to correct (or confirm) this, packs of journalists and military officials are looking for Alabama Guardsmen from the period who would remember Bush in their company. So far, they haven’t found anyone. But understand, this was 31 years ago; who would possibly remember some famous rich son of an influential Congressman and UN ambassador working with them?

Defenders are calling this attack on Bush’s service hypocritical, saying that liberals are always the first to criticize war. What exactly is hypocritical here? It’s one thing to criticize a war and choose not to join the military or fight. It’s another entirely to pimp the war like it was your new pet shark and then use your family connections to make someone else feed themselves to it.

Kerry, critics say, has dishonored the Guard members who defend the country by allegedly comparing them to draft-dodgers and deserters. But it’s highly unlikely that Kerry, who chucked privilege to fight in Nam, would deliberately disparage the Guard the way Bush has with his dishonorable actions.

The problem that needs resolving is not the integrity of the National Guard, but the ethics of a man who thinks nothing of starting wars for unclear reasons. If Bush is going to strut on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit and declare “mission accomplished,” then he should have accomplished his own mission.

Janet’s Breast, Part Two

2004-02-18T17:37:00.000-08:00

Seventeen days after the Super Bowl and still we’re hung up on Janet Jackson! Just to prove what a corruptive influence her split-second flash was to our wholesome and innocent youth, news outlets have shown it over and over and over and over. Just so you know that it corrupted your children and all.

Pundits across the airwaves and press are calling the halftime telecasts, among other things, “vulgar and sleazy.” Who uses words like that anymore? They’re so stilted and archaic, much like the decency squad. A staff editorial in The Daily Advertiser summed up the show, calling it “the climax of an evening of sleaze.” That’s right, the climax. Such filthy language in a family newspaper!

During the show, several viewers called Houston authorities, demanding that Janet be arrested. No such calls were made for Justin Timberlake, because everyone knows this is entirely Janet’s fault. She asked for it! Can we be anymore viciously sexist?

The incident even got Justin’s pal J.C. Chasez banned from the Pro Bowl halftime show. And while I’m not necessarily against banning members of N SYNC from halftime entertainment, it is unfair to make J.C. guilty by association.

The FCC declared a formal investigation into the stunt between Janet and Justin less than 24 hours after the event. Meanwhile, the investigation into 9/11 has yet to begin. Then again, we are living in times when John Ashcroft has covered the statue of justice to prevent him from catching a glimpse of the offending breast. Or maybe it was because he hates to be reminded of the concept of justice.

Speaking of justice, Terri Carlin of Knoxville, Tenn. Somehow filed a $1 billion suit against the artist for causing her to “suffer outrage, anger, embarrassment and serious injury.” Something tells me we’re not about to hear the usual conservative talk about “frivolous lawsuits” for awhile.

Some talk-radio shill (either O’Reilly or Hannity, not that it matters), was ranting about how we need to acknowledge a higher power so that our kids won’t be led to hell through Janet’s breast. Funny how God’s glorious creation is suddenly obscene when exposed to the world.

The religious right has conveniently defined every aspect of this incident for all of us. The Super Bowl, we are assured, is a “family” broadcast, crotch-biting beer commercials and all. Evidently, by “family” they mean a tight-knit and pious group of unbelievably innocent children with married heterosexual parents who bristle at the use of “darn” on TV. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But why can’t they take into account other families? Like, say, Mama’s Family? Or the Addams Family? How about mine? My guess is that most families aren’t what they’d call “family.”

I respect how parents choose to raise their children, even if I disagree with how they do it. Parents should be the ultimate authority on what they feel their children can handle. The government, then, needs to stop trying to child-proof society. The Supreme Court decided decades ago that communication cannot be censored to a child’s level. If I, as an adult, want to watch the Super Bowl halftime show, I will. If you don’t want your children to watch such sport, exert some authority and turn it off. Better yet, crank up a game of Ultra Felony Fighter Spree 24. Now that’s rated “E” for everyone!

Bodies are good. They’re symbolic of life and beauty. No nudity has ever started a war. No breast ever gave tax money to multi-billionaires and nuclear missiles. Breasts are not obscene. Glorified violence, lies, hypocrisy and Puritanism are the real obscenities.

Stupid Bowl Propaganda

2004-02-11T21:52:00.000-08:00

More than any institution, the Super Bowl represents everything all-American wrapped up into one night of spectacle: television, politics, capitalism and football. After watching this one, I see that we’re in for another messed-up year. Yeah!

Super Bowl XXXVIII pitted Teurlings against Carencro—I mean, New England versus Carolina. Call me political, but the night reeked of all things right-wing. The game was in an arena named Reliant Stadium! In Houston! With a pre-game performance by Toby Keith! And a television interview with George W. Bush! Even anthem-goddess Beyonce has Republican skeletons, having sung with Destiny’s Child at Bush’s inauguration.

The media’s playbook also veered sharply to the right. True to form, CBS edited out every aspect that might make the event unpleasant. This sanitized what should always be a gritty experience. Witness the streaker on midfield at the second-half kickoff. Oh wait, you couldn’t; the prudish network showed some Patriot’s face instead. I’m not saying I want to see some ugly guy running in the buff, but they could have at least acknowledged it. But evidently, only the violence of football is appropriate for delicate American eyes. Bodies are bad, unless they’re a planned part of the halftime show (or in ads for erection-enhancing drugs). And still they couldn’t avoid Janet Jackson’s breast. Think of the children!

Speaking of Janet and the halftime show, Tito’s sister managed some swipes against bigotry and ignorance. But don’t fret: good ol’ boy Kid Rock was there to balance things, ripping off the American flag he was wearing and throwing it into the crowd while singing “Cowboy.” If that performance doesn’t embody the state of leadership in 2004, then nothing does.

Perhaps most importantly, the game was packed with advertising and propaganda that would make us all feel wonderful about America and Pepsi. Viewers increasingly watch the Super Bowl for the commercials rather than the game. This seems based more on tradition than, say, the actual presence of good commercials. Last year’s Bowl warned us, in between beer commercials, that marijuana alters judgment and causes pregnancy. Naturally, I couldn’t wait to see what pearls of wisdom we were going to get this year.

My favorite commercial aired courtesy of moveon.org. In it, several children sit onstage in a school auditorium, with each one approaching the lectern and offering a statement on what they are going to do as president. Much to the mortification of their parents in the audience, they say things such as, “I’m going to leave no child behind. Unless they can’t afford it!” and, “I’m going to alienate the whole world. And I won’t care!” The spot closes with the stark question, “What are we teaching our children?” It was a powerful statement.

Except that CBS refused to air it, saying that their policy prevents the airing of “advocacy ads.” So I suppose that blatant anti-file-sharing propaganda is not considered advocacy. Wait, that was a Pepsi commercial. Never mind. Networks will let you do anything with a corporate logo attached.

The best thing come out of this is all of the Muhammad Ali spots. Ali always has, and will continue to be, a voice of hope in tough times. At the height of his career, he risked it all to stand up for his anti-war beliefs. Today he soldiers on with a message of hope despite crippling physical illness. The “get out and vote” halftime message from a grab bag of celebrities was worthy as well. While Conservative Nation continues to fret over file sharing and that evil naked breast, those two messages are worth repeating.

Almost forgot. The Patriots won.

Ian Pockets Another $25

2004-02-03T23:00:00.000-08:00

As the title suggests, I get paid $25 for each of these little masterpieces I write. The column then gets published in thousands of copies that go out to a (hopefully) receptive audience. Anyone anywhere can read it on the Internet at the Vermilion’s Web site. The newspaper and its accompanying cyber-presence are both free to everyone. Regardless of how many people read my work, then, I still make only $25.

That sucks. So now I have a new rule: if I see anyone reading this, I will demand a royalty or I will take your paper away. I’m not joking. I suggest you look up right now, because I might be passing by. And don’t think you can take me down, because I can hold my own. Then I’ll see you in court!

I’m sorry, am I being too much of a jerk? Does that sound a bit greedy and extreme? Of course it does. And no, I’m not really like that, but the entertainment industry is. When a massive and lucrative business is suing 12-year-old girls for Internet file sharing, something’s wrong.

Those who decry file sharing have only one argument: that it hurts someone’s profits. No philosophy is involved whatsoever, at least none that doesn’t come right back to the bottom line.

For a quality copy of the latest Black Eyed Peas song, 99 cents is not asking too much. But the whiny attitude of the suits is irritating. The penalties and their propaganda both reek of desperation. Even the language they use is different: “file sharing” is sweet, like something Barney might sing. “Internet music piracy” is the preferred term by those who try to make it sound much worse than it is.

I would sympathize wholeheartedly if the anti-sharing artists were of the starving persuasion—unless you consider LL Cool J, Metallica and Madonna starving artists. Obscure bands with names like “Beat Meat” and “Energy Pimps” actually live for the free publicity that they’re supposed to hate. Even groups like U2 and the Dave Matthews Band advocate the practice and have used it effectively to bolster sales.

The suits want to ensure that the only time anyone hears a song or sees a movie is by paying full price. To do that, all free works must go. After file sharing is gone, it’s off to the library! Books, albums and movies, all available for the price of a free card. I was ready to buy “Collected Essays on Pride and Prejudice,” but the library had it for nothing! I bet Jane Austen’s really pissed about missing that royalty check.

Then it’s time to torpedo the airwaves. Radio plays songs for free that any fiend with an audio recorder can put to tape. As for television? In 1984, to the delight of viewers and cops, the Supreme Court ruled that taping a TV program with a VCR was not illegal. But what do they know?

In the good old days (2000), I loved my Napster. It made sense, because I could easily find the old and obscure pop music that even amazon.com didn’t carry—stuff that would embarrass me to buy at the record shop, if in fact it even existed there. And let’s face it: the theme songs to “The Transformers” and “The Greatest American Hero” are not going platinum anytime soon.

Until the corporate bigwigs and rich artists come up with a better line than “I make slightly less money,” they need to concentrate on making a product worth buying in the first place. At least with me you’re getting your money’s worth. Freeloader.

Election ’04: The War on Error

2004-01-27T22:00:00.000-08:00

Now is the time of an election year when the presidential race begins to heat up and the Democrats look destined to be absolutely whipped by Bush. Just like January 1992!

It’s a testament to our times that an inarticulate, warmongering and selfish elitist who squeaked into office on a mandate weaker than a Rush Limbaugh argument is seen as presidential material. If this is the case, then maybe the caring people of America should wage a new war, one that is both justifiable and winnable: the War on Error.

His supporters can rationalize all they want, but Bush was not the winner of the 2000 election. His “victory” came about only after the Supreme Court, ruling on a case totally outside its authority, stopped the ongoing Florida ballot recounts. It was one of the most nakedly partisan decisions in U.S. history.

The regular people of America have never let up in showing their disgust. And the ruling class has never let up in hiding that disgust from the man in charge. When Bush recently visited the grave of the Rev. Martin Luther King, a long line of busses greeted him. A Rosa Parks tribute? Actually, the busses were put there to shield Bush from the hundreds of protesters that had congregated that day. Similar tactics have been used throughout Bush’s tenure to shield him from any criticism. So it’s possible that Bush really thinks what he sometimes says at church fundraisers: that he is the greatest human being since Jesus.

Pat Robertson, the televangelist who has God on his speed-dial just ahead of his African sweatshop, has predicted a blowout for Bush in 2004. Why? Because “He can make mistake after mistake and nothing sticks to him. He is a man of prayer.” The religious right sees nothing wrong with a man who repeatedly violates the commandments of not killing, not stealing, coveting others’ goods, bearing false witness and possibly others. But that’s okay, because he is a “man of prayer”—and one who constantly harps on it in public, a practice looked down upon in the Bible. Hopefully, sane religious people will see through this false piety.

Bush also has overwhelming support from the oil industry and the military. Why? Well, he lets oil companies do what they please. Did I really even have to answer that? But the military question is worth pondering. After all, thousands of soldiers have died under Bush’s watch, with several more dying each day. He is spreading our forces frighteningly thin, denying them extra pay and even food while extending their service and slashing benefits for veterans. Why military heroes continue to vote for this war-addicted deserter is a mystery to me.

Swing voters who voted for Bush in 2000 often chose him because he seemed like the candidate most likely to be fun at a barbecue. I have news for them: you are not going to have a cookout with Bush. Not now, not ever. If you’ve got thousands of dollars to burn, you might get Cheney long enough to watch you light the coals. These guys care only about three things: money, oil and power. What’s in it for you? Not a damn thing.

What’s puzzling is not that Bush has so much support from the elite, but that he has any support from anyone else. Since 2001, the Bush administration has shown its total arrogance and disregard for anything other than its own closest interests (at your expense). Can you imagine what a lame-duck Bush presidency would do without having to pander to voters? Does anyone even want to?

Your Guide to an Empty Stomach

2004-01-20T23:00:00.000-08:00

Lately I’ve been thinking about this Mad Cow business. It’s amazing to think that meat could ever be bad for you!

Is the Mad Cow threat being overblown? It’s easy to think so, considering all the fear that’s been pumped into us like heroin over the past couple of years. And I surely do not follow the Official List of Scary Stuff put out hourly by the government. On the other hand, we’re talking about food here. Beef is a lot more common in our daily lives than terrorism.

Mad Cow disease originates from cows being fed the yummy entrails of their diseased siblings. This cannibalism has long been illegal in Europe and has been banned in the United States since 1997. In keeping with our country’s proud tradition of having things permanently going away once they’re made illegal, the practice is still done by some U.S. farmers to this day. Because of this bovine buffet, Mad Cow disease has invaded U.S. soil for the first time. For eight states in the Pacific Northwest, the ad with the cow holding the “eat mor chikin” sign has never held more emotional resonance.

Mad Cow disease works through microbes called “prions.” Prions eat holes in your brain and can survive temperatures of 600 degrees Fahrenheit. Early symptoms of the disease include insomnia, amnesia, depression, anxiety, isolation and paranoia. Just like studying!

MCD goes by all sorts of different names: bovine spongiform encephalopathy, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, etc. Snore. If health officials really wanted to effectively warn people, they’d refer to it by one of its other names: scrapie! The term Mad Cow is unintentionally amusing; that brings to mind a picture of Elsie on crack. But who wouldn’t be afraid of something called scrapie in their body? Just a thought.

It strikes me as strange how so few people seem uptight about the domestic Mad Cow outbreak. The same people who burned their mail during the anthrax scare and who taped plastic sheeting all over their homes think that the idea of bugs in beef is sheer paranoia. But it’s no surprise that people do not want to give up their beef. Meat is one of the eight major legal American addictions, along with caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, Ritalin, money, guns and gasoline.

I have to admit that I enjoy a good slice of beef myself. I am not vegetarian, though I go on that kick from time to time. And I usually eat chicken anyway, so I only have to worry about steroids in my meat. For us omnivores, the USDA and food providers have a plan to make the tasty flesh safer. Or so they say.

The beef and cattle industry is currently reassuring consumers that, for the most part, their beef is safe to eat—which is like saying, “This beef won’t kill you, unless it does.” The USDA is getting slammed from all sides for its outdated testing methods and is struggling to cover its own rump. This whole episode is a perfect example of just how far the conservative mentality has taken over. Even in the face of this horror, some are still against strengthening the meat inspection process; after all, that might mean beef will cost three cents more per pound! Will big government ever be stopped?

This is the mentality that has resulted in the United States losing 90 percent of its international beef clientele overnight. Even worse, it may have irreversibly damaged the reputation of one of the most nutrient-enriched (if fatty) foods in existence. Hopefully, this scare is merely another instance of American jitters. Anybody hungry?

LSU Fever: Are You Afflicted?

2004-01-13T23:00:00.000-08:00

On the Chinese New Year calendar, 2004 is the Year of the Monkey. Judging by last week’s Sugar Bowl, however, it looks like this year is going to be the Year of the Tiger.

LSU pride is going strong all over Louisiana, and why not? Their football team just won the national championship. Just as it has elsewhere, Tiger fever has reached epic proportions in Acadiana. Symptoms include hard partying, loss of voice and sudden and total devotion to a school with which one has never attended or otherwise been affiliated. Some Lafayette cases experience extreme nausea.

Understanding this latest wave of LSU worship is not that difficult. LSU is a winner, and people just love winners—so much so that they are willing to neglect their own institutions just to jump on the bandwagon.

I knew that Lafayette was infected with LSU mania when the Daily Adver-Tiger began its way-too-over-the-top coverage of the Sugar Bowl (“Only 56 days away!”). Seeing so many daily profiles of hardcore LSU fans from Lafayette made me wonder where all of these local big-time fans suddenly came from. I can only hope that none of these fans pull the purse strings at UL Lafayette.

I realize that a lot of LSU alumni live in the Lafayette area; their loyalty is understandable and justified. I also realize that support for LSU doesn’t necessarily negate support for UL Lafayette or any other school. But for a cash-strapped university already being politically suppressed by its larger counterpart, UL supporters should think twice about donning the purple and gold.

Under the current Louisiana budget, LSU receives 50 percent of the money allotted for state universities; every other university (including UL Lafayette) shares the other half. This occurs because the University of Louisiana system, which oversees the operations of all state schools except LSU, is packed with members of the LSU Board.

LSU is big, bad and bringing UL Lafayette into a mini-civil war; witness the recent spate of conflict regarding LSU apparel in the last few issues of the Vermilion. How far should Cajun support of LSU go? Each side of the issue shows some degree of truth and some degree of ugliness.

Much criticism about this has come from athletes, who view these schools (and LSU in particular) as competition. In fact, the athletic training room has a rule against any non-UL athletic logo. I like this idea; just as an American soldier would not wear enemy gear out in the field, UL athletes have little use for putting on a rival uniform. However, policing what the general population can and cannot wear on campus is absurd.

Anyone who chastises others for wearing LSU apparel on campus should visit the Student Union sometime. In the lobby, dozens of flags represent each nation that boasts students here. Americans have long flown flags of other nations; doing so in no way diminishes the American flag. If UL students want to wear LSU colors, then let them. It doesn’t make me like UL any less or LSU any better.

Simply put, it does not bother me in the slightest which school someone pulls for in a football game. What concerns me (and the legions of the well-intentioned, if misguided, LSU haters) is that people in Lafayette will use a national championship to withdraw their money and support from their own programs to feed the Tigers. Of course, the Tigers do appreciate support no matter where it originates. LSU will happily take our money and pride…all the way to Baton Rouge. Let’s not forget that we too have a worthy school.

I’m Not Interested

2003-11-25T22:00:00.000-08:00

First things first: we need a new conservative columnist for 2004. Anyone who holds conservative views and can write 600 words per week on a chosen topic (or 14 chosen topics) should apply. This is a paid position, and you get your picture published every week. Money, glory, notoriety. What’s not to like?

Why am I devoting space to something that’s already being said in space filler all throughout the paper? Because I want to make sure that the Vermilion gets the best possible person for the job. People of all views read this space and several have expressed to me the desire to write against me. And I know at least some of them could do a good job. Sure, I could make jokes and hope the editors select someone profoundly stupid to make me look good, but that’s not what’s best for the paper. Both sides of the opinion page deserve to be of high quality. My self-interest is not the top priority here.

When was the last time you heard that last statement anywhere? Sincerely, I mean. The more you look around, the more everything these days seems to be done entirely out of self-interest. Nowhere is this more apparent than in current conservative thought. The Republican Party has been able to get by on self-interest because they tell the richest groups in America exactly what they want to hear. And both sides deliver on their promises, which should horrify any regular American. These alliances are formed not to better society, but to “better” the pockets and beliefs of the people involved.

This self-interest shows in every letter to the editor that urges the people and Congress to support the policies of the Bush administration. These letters usually call for the support of “the conservative agenda.” Notice that they never say “this is what’s best for the country;” even the writers themselves seem to know that it it’s not. But that doesn’t matter: they have interests to protect.

The difference between conservatives and liberals was never more dramatic than it was during the 2000 presidential election. This was obvious anytime I asked someone why they chose someone for president. People who voted for Gore or Nader would give reasons such as, “We need to save the environment” or, “I like his system of fairer taxation” or, “Everyone needs better access to healthcare.” Bush voters always told me things like, “I want my tax money back” or, “I hate Clinton” or even the hilarious, “Bush will be good for my stocks.” The Supreme Court certainly showed its self-interest when they installed Bush into office.

Of course, liberals have self-interest as well. At some pro-marijuana rallies, for example, a protester will advocate the issue because, well, he has a big stash at home. He wants to be able to smoke up in peace, which makes sense. But that self-interest is not going to make people pay attention. What might are such issues as unfair prison sentences for light drugs and the strain on law enforcement and prisons. If people can look beyond their own best interest and examine multiple aspects of their pet issue, change might come more quickly. The key to any social-policy change is to get people on your side who have no self-interest in the outcome. Combine your passion with someone else’s compassion, and no one can stop you.

I think this is the reason that I prefer liberalism over conservatism in the first place: whereas conservatism concerns itself with its own pockets, liberalism means wanting the best possible situation for everyone.

Pray for Nick Bouterie.

As NOT Seen on TV

2003-11-18T23:00:00.000-08:00

Not content with the crusade against terrorism, conservatives are now fighting for the sanctity of television.

CBS recently pulled the plug on “The Reagans,” a new miniseries that came under fire for portraying Ronald Reagan as a confused, right-wing puppet. Apparently there was enough reality TV already.

Newsmax.com, that balanced bastion of right-wing conspiracy, reported that Les Moonves of CBS yanked the miniseries from its sweeps-week lineup at the request of Marc Christian, gay lover of the late actor Rock Hudson. The miniseries allegedly portrays Reagan as telling Hudson, who died of AIDS in 1985, “Live by sin, die by sin.” Of course, Newsmax did not quote Moonves or otherwise offer any proof that he even got the letter. Shaky reporting.

Less shaky is the angry letter from Republican National Committee chief Ed Gillespie. He reportedly offered CBS a choice: either allow Gillespie and his hand-picked historians and friends dissect the film beforehand, or run a disclaimer every 10 minutes reminding viewers that the show is inaccurate fiction. The network, showing the toughness that the American media is known for worldwide, took a bold stand by immediately wimping out. Instead, “The Reagans” was cast to Showtime, where it will presumably air between “Erotic Confessions” and “Red Shoe Diaries.”

This may not be a bad thing. Two years ago, Showtime aired “The Day Reagan Was Shot,” dramatizing Reagan’s attempted assassination by John Hinckley in 1981. President Reagan was portrayed as a likable dunce who never seemed to realize the severity of any situation, just as he comes off in the new miniseries. The movie garnered very high ratings and is now out on video. It was inaccurate in one respect: when doctors opened Reagan’s chest in the film, we see his heart beating. Based on his policies, I’d say that was dramatic license.

The threat against “The Reagans” comes hot off the heils (get it?) of Fox News Network’s dissing of “The Simpsons.” Matt Groening, the genius behind the show, recently got into trouble with Fox for airing an episode that parodied the conservative Fox News, complete with that goofy little news crawl that scrolls at the bottom of the screen. The network got really upset, claiming that viewers might get confused and assume it really was the Fox News crawl. With ridiculous headlines like, “Do Democrats cause cancer?…Study: 92 percent of Democrats are gay... JFK posthumously joins Republican Party...Oil slicks found to keep seals young, supple...Dan Quayle: Awesome,” I see their point.

Now that conservatives have cleansed television of misleading left-wing propaganda, viewers can relax and enjoy misleading RIGHT-WING propaganda! NBC’s “The Jessica Lynch Story” promises to be a doozy, highlighting the heroic exploits of the pretty West Virginia soldier who went down fighting against the Iraqis. Except that Jessica herself has said the whole story is a lie and she didn’t go down fighting, the Iraqi doctors gave her decent care and many fellow soldiers underwent the same trauma. Details, details.

And let’s not forget that all-time classic “DC 9/11,” aired at the two-year mark of the attacks by Showtime (that repository of political potted meat). Starring Timothy Bottoms of “That’s My Bush!” (no joke), “DC 9/11” portrayed Bush as a swaggering and decisive leader who was practically wetting his pants to go to Ground Zero and ripping Osama bin Laden a new one, if only they’d let him! “DC 9/11” was based on real-life witness accounts from the imagination of the White House, and in no way dramatized anything that happened that day.

I never thought I’d say this, but infomercials are looking better all the time.

Up in Arms Over Guns

2003-11-11T23:00:00.000-08:00

Who can forget the rallying cry of the American patriot? “You can have my gun when you pry my cold, dead finger off the trigger.”

The Second Amendment, we are told, is the greatest thing in the history of freedom since shrapnel. “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed.” I memorized that long ago, just as every American should. Don’t forget the part about “handguns on demand” and “the right to shoot down black helicopters.” Yee-haw!

Yes, the right to self-defense is the most unique and misunderstood amendment in the Bill of Rights. Like any right, it can be abused to the point of criminality. But I think most people are highly capable of reserving this right in a sane manner.

The National Rifle Association could use a few of these sane people for their top brass. Paranoid at the inevitable gun grab that’s going to happen next Thursday, the NRA has assembled a blacklist of people and organizations deemed “anti-gun.” In a fun twist of karma, it’s backfiring.

Actor Dustin Hoffman was so outraged by the list that he called the NRA and demanded that he immediately be put on it. He joins a bizarrely diverse crew that can be seen at nrablacklist.com.

The NRA’s list reads like a who’s who of activism: Maya Angelou, Jimmy Carter, Walter Cronkite, Phil Donahue, Jane Fonda, Coretta Scott King, Rob Reiner, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Bruce Springsteen, Sting and Oprah Winfrey. And of course, there’s all of your favorite pacifist organizations and liberal columnists more famous than I.

The predictability ends there. Star athletes Doug Flutie, Keyshawn Johnson, Vinny Testaverde, Rick Fox, Mike Torrez, Tara Lipinski, Mary Lou Retton and John McEnroe lend their support, as do the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals and the St. Louis Cardinals and Rams.

Musicians include Babyface, Boyz II Men, the Temptations, NSYNC, Tony Bennett, Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Chaka Khan, Lenny Kravitz, Art Garfunkel, Madonna, Whitney Houston, Jon Bon Jovi, Missy Elliott and Ma$e.

Even actors and directors known for gunplay come down hard on the NRA: Richard Donner, director of the “Lethal Weapon” films, is one of the most outspoken anti-NRA voices in Hollywood. Spike Lee needs no introduction. Even James Bond himself, Sean Connery, likes his gun rights shaken, not stirred.

Gun owners also face the frightening prospect of answering the door and finding Drew Barrymore, Christie Brinkley, Jennifer Connelly, Mira Sorvino, Britney Spears, Michelle Pfeiffer, Uma Thurman, Vanessa Williams or former Baywatch girl Krista Allen grabbing their guns. Interesting how they’re on the list; must get lonely during those late nights at the Big Gun club.

A special award goes to legendary screen siren Lauren Bacall, who may be the only person to make both this blacklist and the McCarthy anti-Communist blacklist of the 1950s. That takes talent.

And while neither man is on the list, former President George Bush and Gulf War General Norman Schwarzkopf both resigned in disgust from the NRA in the 1990s. Pretty damning stuff.

Even more damning (pun intended), is the religious presence here. Count in the U.S. Catholic Conference, the American Jewish Committee, B’nai B’rith, the Episcopal Church, Unitarian Universalists, the United Methodists, the Evangelical Lutherans and too many more to count.

Not even oil companies want to cooperate: Crown Central Petroleum and Site Oil both check in. But the best opposing organization has to be the American Firearms Association. Ouch.

Looks like it is possible to unite this great nation after all. United We Stand against the NRA!

Talk About Carry-On Baggage

2003-11-05T12:00:00.000-08:00

Here’s a philosophical question: if someone breaks a law but no one knows about it, has the law been broken?

One kid decided to find out for himself. Feds recently busted a North Carolina college student for helpfully stocking planes with box cutters, small containers of bleach, strike-anywhere matches and clay molded to resemble high-level explosives. He admitted he committed this nefarious act in order to compromise flight security.

Wow! Guess I was wrong about opposing indefinite detentions for suspected terrorists; it looks like those secret interrogation techniques really work after all. Oh, wait. The culprit, a 20-year-old Maryland native, actually confessed it all himself in an e-mail to the Transportation Security Administration. Last month. Whoops!

Nathaniel Heatwole sent an e-mail to the TSA Contact Center on Sept. 15, 2003. In it, he detailed the smuggling of the paraphernalia on planes at both the Raleigh-Durham International Airport and the Baltimore-Washington International Airport. Between Feb. 7 and Sept. 15, 2003, he said, he outfitted a total of six planes with the lethal kits, the contents of which he described in minute detail.

Furthermore, Heatwole revealed the location of the plastic bags (under the rear lavatory sink) and admitted that he had put them there. His intent, as quoted by the affidavit, was to commit “an act of civil disobedience with the aim of improving public safety for the air-traveling public.” He then left his name, e-mail address, telephone number, and the number “3891925.” The latter number, his birth date backwards, matched the inscription on each bag. To ensure that the TSA would notice his e-mail, he entitled it “Information Regarding 6 Recent Security Breaches.” Just to be safe.

Still, no one seemed to notice anything was amiss until Oct. 16, when the pilot of Southwest Airlines Flight 474 reported trouble with the lavatory after landing in New Orleans. Fortunately, a maintenance check brought everything into the open. And not a moment too soon: no one wants to fly in a plane with a broken toilet. Things like that are hazardous.

I don’t know what to think about this whole case. Should authorities really bust this guy? It sure seems tempting, doesn’t it? It’s not as if they’ve nabbed one in a while. And yes, the kid, though bold, is an idiot. Did he really think the feds were going to slap their heads and say, “Gee golly, that young man sure got us on that one! Better luck next time?”

On the other hand, Heatwole’s action is hardly unprecedented. Why, back in the glory days of American journalism (1776-2001), we had news anchors sliding plastic UZIs through airport baggage checks, just to shake things up! Ah, the good old days!

Today most editorial meetings go like this: “Okay, how high are we going to jump today when our corporate masters bark at us? I say three feet. How about you, Johnson?”

“Three feet, Townley? Are you nuts? There’s a five-foot minimum in the south!” But I digress. Maybe if Heatwole had just said he was a freelance investigative reporter, he might not have been in trouble. Hell, he might have gotten his own series! Fox News could use that now.

With his admittedly vile act, Heatwole highlighted (no, hammered home) the failings of the post-9/11 flight routine that has apparently done little aside from inconveniencing travelers. And just think; in spite of everything, security agents captured Heatwole only because he told them to catch him. Last month.

No matter how you look at it, Heatwole has cojones of steel. But steel will give anyone a tough time at the airport checkpoint.

Hate This Column

2003-10-28T23:00:00.000-08:00

Ever notice how some people are just absolutely consumed by what they hate most? Put your hand down; this happens to everyone once in a while. But for some people, an irrational feeling of hatred for someone or something just never goes away. It makes you wonder if the hate gives that person a reason to live. Or as Marilyn Manson used to croon, “Hate love! Love hate!”

Witness Bill O’Reilly, the commentator whose show “The O’Reilly Factor” is a huge ratings draw for Fox News. If you’re lucky enough to have never seen or heard him, think of O’Reilly as Rush Limbaugh without the charm and fake humility. Though Bill touches on a variety of issues, one of his main obsessions is Jesse Jackson. To O’Reilly, Jackson not only personifies everything African-American, but is also the ultimate liberal voice of the millennium. Naturally, the commentator hates Jackson’s guts and harps on him constantly. But O’Reilly’s disgust at Jackson’s existence borders on comic, because it’s so obvious that Bill really loves Jesse. O’Reilly is most in his element when he’s screaming, and Jackson is his favorite scapegoat. If Jesse suddenly woke up one day and decided to be just like Bill, O’Reilly would have to retire.

And by now, everyone knows about Jerry Falwell’s homophobic tirade against the purple Teletubby. Silly, yes, but consider that Falwell has spent much time with Tinky Winky on the brain. At some point his wife probably said, “Jerry, dear! For the 83rd time, will you stop rewinding the tape and go to sleep!”

But true hatred is never, ever funny.

Think about Fred Phelps, the reverend who heads the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan. He also runs the infamous “God Hates Fags” web site, which offers such pleasantries as “Matthew Shepard has been in Hell for 1,845 days.” The adjective “anti-gay” does not begin to describe the level of hatred spewed by this man. Though Phelps’ site targets all homosexuals and their friends, the preacher has a particular affinity for Shepard. An openly gay Wyoming college student, Shepard was brutally beaten and left to die on a fencepost on Oct. 7, 1998, dying five days later. His killers: two couples who had picked him up for a ride, allegedly with the intent to kill him.

Horrendous as the details of this murder are, they pale in comparison to the sheer single-mindedness of Phelps’ mission. The reverend is not content to merely air his views on homosexuality; his intent seems to be to harass Shepard for all eternity. Phelps’ site hosts what he calls the “Perpetual Gospel Memorial to Matthew Shepard,” which holds the exclusive “Matthew Shepard message from Hell.” But for the busy homophobe, Phelps has boiled it down to one phrase that can be heard by pointing the cursor at the image of Matt’s head in a flame: “Aooow! For God’s sake, listen to Phelps!!!” The voice, said to belong to Phelps himself, must be heard to be disbelieved. But little else can be expected from a man who is quoted as saying, “Yes, I suppose I am a minister of hate.”

Protesters for numerous causes also raise the love-hate question. I definitely believe in freedom of speech, but seeing protest signs with hacked fetuses and ripped animal carcasses makes me wonder about the thought process involved in making signs like that. Do they make them over lunch? I have to know.

Overall, I believe in the humanity that exists in everyone. And I say, love the hater but hate the hate and…oops, almost forgot one…

Republicans hating Clinton, 24/7. Enough said!

Dude, Where's My Money?

2003-10-21T23:00:00.000-07:00

Ever get the feeling you're being cheated?

I pull up at Dupre Library one night to write a fair-and-balanced article for my other newspaper. I see that a crossbar valiantly guards the empty expanse of library parking spots, with a sign that reads “all permits honored after 3 p.m.” put there just for laughs. One car actually sits in the lot; as I hike to the library from my spot in Netherland, I reflect on just how much money the driver must have to bribe the crossbar.

The fun continues as on campus the following afternoon. Usually I take the bus to school, but today I just have to pop in Griffin to pick up my latest bad grade. The spiffy sign on the McNaspy pay lot reads, “Parking: $1 for the first hour, $.25 every 15 minutes afterward.” Before I realize I haven't seen that sign before, I'm already past the crossbar of irrevocable extortion.

But this doesn't cross my mind until I'm in Griffin, deciding which snack will best suit my hunger. Considering how high prices now are in the vending machines, I settle for Certs. Bon appetit.

Naturally, getting out of the lot proves to be the fun experience I was hoping for. Armed only with a single quarter—which had been enough to get me out the lot for the last five years—I hear, “one dollar!”

“What? But I was only here for five minutes.” I say.

“Doesn't matter,” the smiling girl explains, with the glee that can come only from someone who knows they’re screwing you sideways. “It’s $1 for the first hour, even if you park here for two minutes.”

I tell her I didn’t have anything but my quarter on me, and she lets me go for that price. “That’s a very stupid policy, but thanks for understanding,” I say as I drive off.

Seeking relief from these headaches, I meet up with friends to shoot some pool. After much deliberation (considering such things as overcrowding and excessive smoke), we decide to shoot at a bowling alley. We meet up at a restaurant close to Avarice Alley. Even so, one of my friends decides to go to Lucrative Lanes.

“Why?” I ask. “Avarice Alley is right down the street.”

“I used to go there all the time,” she replies. “But now they charge you $10 just to go through the door.”

Reflecting on the extreme tackiness of a cover charge at a bowling alley (and one twice as high as a club), we get to Lucrative Lanes only to find it is the same way there. They call it a “$10 spectator’s fee.” Granted, I’m not one to criticize the business practices of a popular entertainment venue, but that is an incredibly obnoxious and stupid idea. Being that we are not willing to be spectators for anything other than the other side of the entrance, we leave.

Is it the recession that’s turning every inexpensive thing into a trip to Disney World when we can least afford it? Is it a reactive measure because some delinquent once sneaked in two years ago? Or is it pure, unadulterated, 21st-century greed? One thing's for sure: we're paying for nothing.

Whatever it is, institutions seem to care less about losing customers than they do about wringing every last penny they can from the few who stick around. Maybe, if we’re lucky, the fee might actually go toward a tangible service. Think about that next time some politician talks about helping businesses; they seem to be helping themselves just fine.

At least football games are still free. For now.

McNabb’s Rush Attack

2003-10-14T23:00:00.000-07:00

Many intellectuals are fond of trashing sports, arguing that they distract people from the real world. I don’t understand this at all, because sports and politics are so similar. Both are about protecting your allies and fighting for justice.

I am fierce about loyalty when it comes to my teams. I liked Jake Delhomme as a Cajun and a Saint, but not as a Panther. I despise the Carolina Panthers—unless they’re playing the Atlanta Falcons, in which case Jake is my favorite player ever.

This also works in politics; right now, I am firmly behind Wesley Clark for the Democratic nomination. But if Howard Dean or John Kerry were eventually nominated, I’d vote for them in a heartbeat against Bush.

Such is the case with Donovan McNabb. Though he has the coolest name in the NFL, the Philadelphia Eagles quarterback has always seemed to me like just another opponent. That was before Rush Limbaugh went after him, calling McNabb the creation of a media desperate for a black quarterback to succeed. Rush should know; he uses the same tactic every time he overrates George W. Bush out of desperation for a Republican president to succeed.

For the record, this is exactly what Rush said on his segment of ESPN’s pregame show: “I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve.”

The world of sports criticism isn’t exactly the most civilized front. Any sports radio show will net at least a few yahoos whose comments make Limbaugh’s look downright polite. Still, national sports commentary is a very touchy field. It devoured its best ever, Howard Cosell, for calling a black wide receiver a “monkey” in 1983. Cosell, definitely not a racist, was known to use the word “monkey” as an affectionate term for his grandson. Regardless, he was shunned from the airwaves forever. This was also the case with Jimmy “The Greek” Snyder, whose comment that blacks had better athletic genes from their days in the jungle got him fired from CBS in 1988.

Rush should have known better to broach the race topic. But ESPN knew exactly what to expect from its controversial new analyst. In fact, critics of ESPN’s decision to hire him cited this as their number-one concern. Over the years, the broadcaster of disaster has talked endlessly about race on his radio show. And we’re not talking about the playoff race. To wit:

“Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?

“Blacks are 12 percent of America. Who the hell cares what they think?”

McNabb, too, is well aware of Limbaugh’s resonance with too many people. “I'm sure he's not the only one that feels that way,” he said. “But it's somewhat shocking to actually hear that on national TV. An apology would do no good because he obviously thought about it before he said it.” Dead on, Donovan.

Rush has refused to apologize, saying that his comment has caused furor only because everyone knows he is right. By logical extension, Limbaugh must want us to think he resigned from ESPN on principle. But it’s more likely that he resigned to cover his butt and to spend more quality time with his OxyContin.

Meanwhile, in New Orleans, Aaron Brooks is basking in all of the adulation he is getting from the media for being a black quarterback.

Caucasian Crossfire

2003-10-07T23:00:00.000-07:00

This school doesn’t represent white people enough. Hey, relax, I’m okay! Just trying to imagine why someone would ever have that thought.

Lisa McClelland, 15, wanted to start a Caucasian Club at Freedom High School in Oakley, Calif. Her motivation, as reported in the media, was to complete the diversity of the ethnic organizations at her school. Among these include the Black Student Union, Latinos Unidos and the ALOHA Club that, oddly enough, is for Asian-Americans. McClelland explained to the San Francisco Chronicle that racial divisions and prejudice “belong in the past.” She is also a member of the school’s Gay-Straight Alliance, which I guess leaves her little time for the Fellowship of Ironic Bigots.

McClelland rounded up 20 friends to join the upstart organization. She also presented principal Eric Valto with a 300-signature petition to form the club. Among the multitude of names were several signatures from non-Caucasians. How did she do that? I can only imagine how she pitched this to her nonwhite friends:

“Hi! My name is Lisa and I am, like, totally not racist. To prove that I love all people and hate discrimination, I want to start a club for white people. Everyone can join, of course, but we’re going to focus mainly on addressing the problems that white people have faced throughout the history of America. I mean, you blacks and you Latinos and you Asians all have your cute little clubs, and it’s about time us whites had something too! If you feel like I do and want to end discrimination against whites, please sign my petition! No? You have pride, you say? Okay, how’s about a nice fat $20? Still no?” If I were an up-and-coming politician, I’d keep McClelland on my short list for spin doctor. She apparently knows how to give a presentation.

Right or wrong, McClelland has clearly done her homework and appears to be a smart young woman. But doesn’t she realize that all-white clubs already exist? Many of these clubs have the word “golf” in front of them, for example. Other groups of Caucasian comrades, such as the KKK, the Council for Conservative Citizens and the Church of the Creator, claim the same kind of love for the white race that McClelland wishes to introduce into her high school. With the name “Caucasian Club,” she at least got the initials right.

You don’t have to be Danny Glover to realize that any organization that aims to protect the dynamics of the white race is, um, perhaps going to be a tad offensive in the eyes of other ethnic groups. To just about everyone who isn’t white (and to many who are), this Caucasian Club already exists; it’s called the United States of America. To be white is to be at the head of the mainstream cultural and economical wheels of the country. It’s the reason we don’t have a White History Month: because we have 11 of them!

Of course, white people do have problems. We can’t dance. We’re not cool. Vanilla Ice. That’s about it. You need a club to discuss that? The mistake here is to assume that white people have the same need for separate brotherhood that other groups have used to survive. We don’t; we separated ourselves hundreds of years ago when we subjugated everyone who looked different to colonialism, slave labor and/or genocide. The last thing the world needs now is for this racial schism to increase. If people want to discuss racial dynamics, they would be better served in a multicultural forum rather than some high school Ku Klux Key Club.

Adventures in Acceleration

2003-10-01T00:00:00.000-07:00

When I struggle to come up with a topic for this column each week, I usually look for the dumbest and/or most outrageous thing in the news that I can find. That usually takes anywhere from two to five seconds. This week, that dubious honor almost belonged to Bush’s new claim that he never said that Iraq had anything to do with the events of Sept. 11, 2001. While that whopper is too much even for Burger King, I managed to find something even more impossibly bizarre.

While it has received no attention in the media, the state of Louisiana has decided to throw out its driver education manual in favor of locally produced ones. Their reasoning is that each parish has its own unique driving conditions. As anyone who has driven through south Louisiana knows, that is just common sense. With that in mind, I have secured permission from the Department of Public Safety to reprint choice excerpts of the new Lafayette Parish Driver’s Manual. With these enlightening bits of information, the parish—and myself—both hope to publicize proper driving habits:

“Cell phone use: it is in every driver’s best interest to stay on a cell phone as often as possible when on the road. This way, when an accident inevitably happens, at least one of the conversational parties (depending on the injury) can gossip about the accident faster.

“Driving while intoxicated: acceptable between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. on Sunday through Friday and all day Saturday. If you are under 18 with a learner’s permit or intermediate license, you may drive intoxicated only with an adult 21 years or older in the front passenger seat.

“Four-way stops: what are those?

“Loud music: Lafayette Parish’s noise ordinance states specifically that ‘all music originating from cars must be played at a reasonable level, unless the music is by 50 Cent, who is the shizzle.’ The law does not apply to males between 16 and 21, who have no other way to prove their manhood.

“School busses: all school busses have indicator lights and miniature stop signs that swing out and flash during loading and unloading. While these signs clearly read “STOP” and emit powerful luminescent light, in no way do they mean you have to stop. This also applies to all regular stop signs.

“Tailgating: if you are in doubt as to whether you are acceptably following a vehicle, try the two-second test: pick an object parallel to the car in front of you and count off two seconds. If you get to the two-second mark before you reach the object with your own car, then you need to speed up, because there is still space between you and the car in front. If you can read the month off of the year sticker on the license plate in front of you, then you are tailgating properly.

“Turn signals: though factory-installed in all motor vehicles, use of blinking turn signals is illegal in Lafayette Parish. In no way should motorists feel compelled to give any signal whatsoever as to where he or she will suddenly move. It is safe automotive practice to swerve into the desired lane or intersection as quickly as possible.

“Work zone speed limits: being that road construction is a full-time hobby of the consolidated government, all drivers will from time to time see a reduced speed limit in work zones. This is a practical joke, of course. Drive faster than usual.”

I have to admit that I am impressed by how quickly and eagerly the motoring public has embraced the new rules.

Just Say No to Pots

2003-09-24T11:00:00.000-07:00

Well, I’ll be darned; it looks like John Ashcroft and his crew finally nabbed a bad guy. In their insatiable effort to weed out terror wherever it may or may not exist, the mighty law enforcement muscle of the United States has eliminated the nefarious pursuits of its number-one domestic terrorist: Chong!

Tommy Chong, the 65-year-old comic legend whose act with Cheech Marin centered on heavy marijuana use, was sentenced to nine months in prison for selling pot paraphernalia on the Internet. Chong’s sentence was handed down on Sept. 11, a date that perfectly illustrates our misplaced priorities.

Chong’s arrest is the latest for the Pittsburgh-based Operation Pipe Dreams, an investigative body with a name funnier than anything Cheech and Chong could ever dream up. The federal government has been down with OPD since 2000. In that time, the operation has rounded up 23 known weed fiends. Or as we call that here in Louisiana, English class.

Isn’t it comforting to know that, following years of round-the-clock investigation and tracking, the most advanced intelligence agency in the world took two years to discover that Chong is associated with marijuana? My guess is that a trip to the record store didn’t factor in this search. OPD could have just asked Cheech and saved all that money. Maybe they’re looking for him too. Weeding out criminals, indeed.

The Feds raided the headquarters of Chong’s thriving business, Nice Dreams Enterprises, in February. Three months later, the comedian (who has an otherwise spotless criminal record) pleaded guilty to selling bongs and other inanimate objects online. This case sets a dangerous precedent: while dealing marijuana has been a felony since the bad old days, the law now seems to state that the selling of pot-themed stuff is on the same level.

As soon as I heard the news, I immediately scoped out my house for any potential drug paraphernalia. I threw away all of my spoons, soda cans and Ziploc bags. I cleared my kitchen cabinet of pots and bowls too, just to be on the safe side. My stovetop? Gone; I might decide to light up a joint in the presence of fire. All faucets have been taken out too, lest I be tempted to pour myself some bong water. When I noticed the box of brownie mix in my pantry, I almost called the police on myself.

It’s bad enough that we have spent the last century wasting so many resources on combating a drug that kills fewer people than cigarettes, beer or cars. Injustices such as mandatory minimum sentences sometimes net casual pot users as much as 30 years in prison, often sharing cell space with violent offenders. And what do we have to show for all of this? The incredible ignorance and misinformation that clouds both sides of the debate and makes the drug tantalizing to young people in the first place. Even a five-year-old can see the irony of airing the “marijuana alters judgment” ads in between ads for Budweiser and Coors Light during the Super Bowl.

How did the Justice Department react to this misstep? By taking another one, of course. Now that law enforcement is stretching its rail-thin resources to combating the heinous bong menace, it looks like stoners will have to revert to making their own paraphernalia out of plastic soda bottles and foil. That might take them as long as two minutes. Thanks, guys; I will sleep better tonight. And by the way, I don’t touch the stuff. Never have.

Speech Therapy

2003-09-16T23:00:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7—Four months have passed; time for another insipid Bush speech:

“Good evening, my Americans. On Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaida—er, Iraq—attacked the civilized world. And we have done our best to ensure that Iraq no longer resembles anything close to civilization. We have accomplished this swiftly and with only the most humane method of brutal warfare.

“History has taken a different turn. Contrary to the obsolete warfare of our past, in which America fought only in justified acts of defense, we have taken the fight to the enemy. This way, even if they didn’t do anything to us, they become our enemy anyway and it all works out. By taking the fight to Iraq, for example, we have killed hundreds and ensured that no weapons of mass destruction ever materialized there.

“Thanks to our victories in the War on Terror, we have terrorists on the run. They now fight in the shadows, out of sight until the kill. Untold numbers of foreign terrorists have come into Iraq, ready to rape the country. What nerve! For this and other reasons, Iraq is now the central front in the War on Terror. They must be defeated. We don’t know if Iraq actually harbored terror, but oh well.

“We have three objectives in the Iraqi Theater, two of which I dare speak about; we must stop other terrorists and enlist multinational support. We have the mighty British and Polish forces serving beside us, but we’ve asked a third party to help us just in case. The UN has the opportunity and the responsibility to help us where they were smart enough to refuse us before. We need to create a multinational force in Iraq, and badly. We cannot let past differences interfere with my present duties.

“Our top priority is transferring sovereignty to Iraqi people. Opening countries up to freedom would be a grave setback for international terrorism. For this reason, we are taking our time with the transition to democracy. This will take a super-duper long time. Measures such as drafting a constitution and having free elections require a lot of research on my part.

“We arrived as liberators and we will leave as liberators. In the meantime, we have to get out of this ‘everyone hates us’ in-between phase. This will require new resources. I will soon submit a request to Congress for $87 billion to cover all of these things. With federal programs dying and so many people out of work, it’s not like they need the money.

“With these funds, we will restore basic services such as electricity and water and schools. In Iraq, I mean. Iraqis can rest assured that in just a few months they’ll have drinkable water again. Soon we’ll also have top-notch power grid set up there just like the one that services our heavily populated northeast. And when it comes to schools, no child will be left behind.

I offer this assurance to the more than 50 million liberated people in Afghanistan and Iraq: there will be no going back to the days of the dictator and fear. We must realize, too, that there will be no return to the days before 9/11. I will make sure that there is no feeling of false comfort, or real comfort, ever again.

Young soldiers of America, please know that your country supports you. You understand the great cause you are in. Well, I do anyway. Because the dangers have not passed, we accept the duties of your generation. May the God I believe in continue to bless me and bless America. Amen.

How to Date Like a Democrat

2003-09-09T23:00:00.000-07:00

What I’m about to say might shock you. Have a paramedic on hand. Here goes: I respect the Republican Party.

Yeah, it’s true that their conservative ideology scratches my back the wrong way; however, I give the Republicans credit for sticking to their guns. They know what they want and they get it any way they can. Meanwhile, the only beer available at the “party of the people,” the Democrats, is Bush Light.

In all fairness, a party like the Democrats is rarely, if ever, stable; too many diverse elements are in its tent. Look at the Southern Democrats as an example; this generally conservative batch goes back to the days when the Republican Party did not exist in the South. When the GOP did take hold, southerners were too busy sipping lemonade on their front porches to change affiliations. Decades later, the only difference between Democrat and Republican Southerners is about two miles per gallon.

Around the time I registered to vote, the Democrats began backstabbing Bill Clinton. I couldn’t fathom being in a party that was willing to castrate itself like it eventually did. Figuring that any party was capable of this, I became an independent.

But I like the Democratic Party. I like their colorful characters, such as James Carville, the Clintons and even Jesse Jackson. More than any third party, they have the clout, the resources and the potential to powerfully represent the common people. Yet they’re facing the most arrogant and shocking abuse of power in the history of history, and they’re letting it pass them by!

If one experience out of my life taught me anything, it’s that you have to seize the day. Once in high school, I was looking for a Homecoming date. I found myself talking to an attractive and popular girl in one of my classes, one I liked very much. We were sitting next to each other, and the conversation went like this:

ME: So, are you going to the homecoming dance?

HER: Maybe. I don’t have a date yet. (SLIDES HER HAND ON MINE) Do you?

ME: No, not right now. (PUTS HER ARM AROUND ME) But I’m still looking for one.

HER: (PLAYS FOOTSIE WITH ME) It’s hard to find a date, isn’t it? I can think of some people I wish would ask me. (LOOKS ME IN THE EYES WITH INTENSE PASSION)

ME: You are a fun, intelligent and beautiful woman. I have no doubt that somebody’s going to ask you to the dance. Don’t give up!

This missed opportunity came back to haunt me a few days after the dance. She and I got to talking about that Saturday night:

ME: So, did you have a good time at the dance?

HER: Oh, it was awful! I went with [name of good friend] and we barely spoke the whole night. I didn’t even kiss him! I think I would have had a much better time with someone else (LOOKS ME IN THE EYES). So, whom did you go with?

ME: I went stag. Couldn’t find a date.

Did I feel like a fool? Yes. My friends who witnessed these incidents were embarrassed for me too. When I see the Democratic Party shying away from confrontation with the GOP, I am every bit as embarrassed. That’s my message to the Democrats: take what is given to you and make the most of it. You never know when these opportunities will come back, if ever. No one ever gets what they want if they don’t try! It’s what’s expected of an opposition party.

Shop at W-Mart

2003-09-02T22:00:00.000-07:00

My favorite thing about presidential campaigns is glimpsing the trinkets that spew forth. Throughout our history, presidential stuff has often made all the difference. It’s no surprise, then, that the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign has set up shop at www.georgewbushstore.com. Log on and read on.

Like you might expect, patriotic stickers abound. They get more saccharine with every cycle. And are they fun to manipulate! In 1996, I took a “Dole-Kemp” bumper sticker and rearranged the letters to spell “Kold Pee.” That one was a huge hit even among my Dole-supporting friends. I’ve already digitally altered the “I stand with President Bush” sticker to read “I can’t stand President Bush.” Too easy! But I digress.

While inexpensive trinkets are to be expected in any presidential campaign, Bush 2004 goes far beyond the typical. Along with the usual assortment of mugs, mouse pads, coasters, stickers and more flag than even the Pacific Ocean could wave, the George W. Bush Store carries several lines of the highest-quality clothing ever borne of a political campaign. This is not the typical chintzy fare that you’ll be waxing your car with two years from now. They are built to last, presumably for the day when Ws will be required by law on all of our clothing.

Is the George W. Bush Store a new phenomenon? Not at all: I remember proudly wearing my Clinton-Gore shirt to school in seventh grade. It finally got eighth-grade girls to notice me, if only long enough for them to hurl some kind of insult my way. What makes the Bush stuff so interesting is that its wares directly reflect the tastes of the people the campaign is trying to attract. Bush, how can we love thee? Let us count the ways:

If you’re the standard campaigner type, you’ll want to visit the “Bush-Cheney 2004” line. Remember, the incumbents have only $200 million-plus at this point. So give until it hurts!

If you like to wear your Bush with style, hop on over to the “President Bush” collection. There you’ll find all of the ultra-preppy merchandise that’ll help you fit in at the next $2000-a-plate fundraising dinner.

Race fans can stop in at “Interstate W ’04” and check out the smokin’ campaign gear. True, the speedway-themed shirts evoke images closer to the fast-food place Checkers than NASCAR; but hey, life is a highway, right? Enjoy the scenery before it’s torn up for oil.

Creepy conformists can get their Orwellian outfits at the link “W: The President.” Every item in this section is jet black except for a huge “W” and “The President” written in small letters underneath. It’s reminiscent of the Malcolm X caps that were popular in the early ’90s, except that the “X” caps were pretty cool. Seeing a large group of people wearing “W” duds in one place, though, would have me ducking for cover behind the nearest bulletproof material.

If watching Bush pretend to be a cowboy has ignited your own yearning to pretend to be a cowboy, then you can “Go West!” Stetson hats, belt buckles and bandannas aplenty here; cattle and chaw not included.

“Kid Gear” ensures that no child is left behind. This section has bibs, pajamas and other baby things. Cute stuff until the kid vomits right on the logo. Who says children are too young to make political statements? And let’s not forget the minority vote! That “Viva Bush” T-shirt should just about do it.

To recap: the George W. Bush Store panders to rich preppies, racing fans, conformists, wannabe cowboys and impressionable children. Talk about wearing your political motivations on your sleeve.

Ah-nuld for Guvanah

2003-08-26T22:00:00.000-07:00

“Makes Louisiana look darn enlightening.” –Archie Manning, during a Saints game, on the California gubernatorial race

Writing about the ongoing California recall and election is, at this point, unbearable. I mean, what hasn’t already been said about it? From the honest political analyses down to the trite “Total Recall” puns, this story has already been played to death. But what else can be expected from the best political entertainment this country has had since Nixon? Check out this gubernatorial race! It comes at an odd time for Californians, thanks to the strictly non-partisan and entirely non-political effort to recall Gov. Gray Davis by deep-pocketed Republicans.

To be fair, it’s worth noting that a recall begun by a partisan hack with a hankering for the Sacramento seat (Darrell Issa) would have had the staying power of the movie “Gigli” if so many voters weren’t truly displeased with Davis. Some of this resentment reportedly stems from things other than the blame for the Enron power gouge that once left the state darker than the inside of George W. Bush’s head.

In short, the people of California have made it known that they want to seriously address the question of leadership. They want the governor to be a figure of stability, accountability and lots of other ’bilities. Someone they can trust with the workings of government that affect the course of everyday life.

Just who is the right person to fill these shoes? Why, Arnold Schwarzenegger, of course! Or perhaps Gary Coleman! Larry Flynt! Gallagher! The porn star who wants to tax breast implants! What, was Vanilla Ice busy?

Of all the candidates, Schwarzenegger has stood out as the frontrunner. No one seems the least bit frightened about this. It’s been said repeatedly throughout our nation’s history that the voters get the leaders they deserve; if this is the case with Ah-nuld, then we’re all due for some termination.

Arnold’s candidacy—and the recall as a whole—represents everything the United States holds dear in the political sphere; we want a macho actor who will stand before the cameras and utter catchphrases to answer pressing problems. We want our last action hero!

And just who is “we?” In the past, “we” might have referred to the majority or plurality of voters. But, just as in 2000, the Republicans have an agenda that is just too precious to waste time on getting consent. Issa and his crew have wrought a monster of a ticket with so many candidates that the winner may get in with only 10 percent of the vote. Ten percent! If half of all registered voters go to the polls (big if), that’s just five percent of all Californians choosing the next leader of the union’s most populous state. “We,” indeed.

Further showing this recall as a Republican power grab is the fact that Schwarzenegger is to the left of Davis on many of the few social issues he has bothered to discuss. But despite his liberal leanings, Arnie is still popular with Republicans because he meets party criteria: he’s a famous actor like Reagan and a vigilante type who equates might with right. As an added bonus, he is a product of 1940s Austria. Can’t get much better than that!

Orrin Hatch likes Arnie so much that the senator is pressing for new legislation allowing foreign-born U.S. citizens of 20 years to run for high public office. How enlightened! I’m betting on Osama bin Laden in 2024. This recall election will be the gift that keeps on giving.

Hey, you know what they say; desperate times call for desperate leadership.

Advice for Your First Time

2003-08-19T23:00:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the University of Louisiana, or as LSU forces us to call it, UL Lafayette. Usually I devote this space to constructively criticizing our leaders, satirizing the human condition or whatever. But this week is different. If you are adjusting to a university environment for the first time, clip this column and put it in your freshman folder. Take it from me, a sixth-year professional student: you’ll need it!

1) Find out what you have as a student. You have season tickets for football, health insurance and a health-club membership. Did you know that? A lot of people never do. You also bought a $25 parking space, even if you have no car, driver’s license or eyesight.

2) No one has to know about your nickname, “Dorkeaux,” from Gumbo High School. You are starting over where most people have yet to make their first impression of you. The college social life is much different than the campus where your 14 classmates made fun of you for 18 years. Don’t be afraid to be yourself; chances are, there is a club full of people just as strange as you are.

3) Remember that permanent record they kept of you? It’s gone! This is good news if you were a delinquent in high school. Bad news if you were Captain Campus. And to think I had perfect attendance all through high school for nothing!

4) Don’t buy any friends. If you can’t find at least one friend on a campus with 17,000 people, chances are that rushing will not help. If no one else on campus does it for you, talk to me; I’ll be your friend. And I won’t paddle you or cost you thousands of dollars.

5) Don’t be afraid to ask questions. Hundreds of faculty get paid just to answer questions. The least you can do is let them do their jobs. Everybody wins! Asking fellow students is also a great way to make friends, unless they’re annoyed.

6) Shop around for books. The University Bookstore typically has higher prices and lower buyback, but more efficient service, thorough selection and the proceeds go back into the school. Follett’s has fewer books and registers but it does have lower prices and a buyback guarantee. Textbook rentals are cheaper but suck if you need a workbook. Books can be bought online as well, if you know where to look. Tip: travel back in time and get a book scholarship of some kind so you don’t have to screw around with this.

7) Contrary to what they say in the ads, mail-order term papers fool no one. Professors are so surprisingly familiar with secondhand material that it’s almost scary. I think they write those mail-order papers themselves as a side job.

8) Internet access exists outside Dupre Library. Activate your account for free in Stephens Hall. You can also go to the Conference Center, Guillory Hall or the myriad smaller labs around campus. As it is now, people desperately needing to type and print out papers in the library have to stand in line while people who don’t even have backpacks are lazily scrolling Google. If the latter describes you, then my library goons or I will deal with you accordingly.

9) The Strip is heavily overrated. Also overrated: fast food, coffee, parking towers, buyback and Nick Bouterie. Underrated: the Aquatic Center, most UL sports and maintenance workers.

10) Olde Tyme Grocery, Papa John’s and McDonald’s take checks. This might save your life someday.

11) Go all the way. You too can someday be an aimless college graduate just like me!

You May Kiss the Groom

2003-07-23T16:04:00.000-07:00

The United States of America has always faced obstacles to its principle of equality for all. We were slow to grant rights to non-property-owning males. It took even longer for us to recognize blacks, women and other minorities as human beings. The gay community? We’re working on that too.

In Lawrence et al. v. Texas, the Supreme Court overturned the Texas anti-sodomy statute that had been used to arrest two men caught in the heat of the—well, you know. With this decision, the Court has paved the road to granting gays the equal rights they deserve. Finally, our legal system is beginning to acknowledge real life! It’s about time. Welcome to the nineties, Court.

My stance on this issue has no basis in self-interest. I am a guy who is obsessed with neither men nor marriage. On my things-to-do list, wedded bliss ranks around number 5,104. But I do believe that any two people who muster a little mutual love in this world should have the right to commit to each other. Love is one thing upon which the world cannot overdose.

Critics say that uniting two same-sex partners ruins the sacrament of all things matrimony. Yeah, we really hold marriage on a pedestal in the United States, don’t we? We have TV shows like “Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire” and “Married by America,” for crying out loud. The Rev. Sun Myung Moon, lord master of the dying United Press International and self-proclaimed messiah, group marries thousands of strangers in some kind of McCeremony. In 1976, Janeane Swift married a 50-pound rock. More recently, in 1998, Janet Downes married herself by reciting vows into a mirror. Young people fantasize about getting a spouse as if it were an Olympic gold medal. Politicians talk up a storm about “helping and protecting families,” leading many to believe (correctly) that the needs of single people are not a priority.

Then there’s the marketing. Like everything else we consider holy, marriage is commercialized to death. Engagement rings! Bridal Shops! Magazines! Registries! Wedding planners! Lavish gowns! Some of the more elaborate ceremonies rival the Academy Awards in sheer spectacle.

Perhaps most ironically, this supposed divine coupling is subject to more government meddling than the economy itself. If marriage is strictly a commitment between a man, woman and God, then why do we require a state license, blood test, prenuptial agreements and the like? Doesn’t the meddling of a secular government violate the divine bonds of matrimony far more than the biology of the involved bodies? Very few people would make this claim. So much for the whole “sanctity of marriage” thing.

I suspect that the anti-gay contingent uses the defiling-of-marriage excuse only to cover its real fears. Apparently clarifying the position of the decision’s opponents, Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote and read a passionate dissenting brief that was longer than the actual decision. Scalia’s dissent was the usual puke about the “culture war” and how the Court opened the door to incest, bigamy and animal sex. Way to fall off that slippery slope, Scalia. Unfortunately for him, the ruling is not about what we would like to watch people do; it is about what consenting adults have to right to do with each other behind closed doors. You don’t have to like it.

Bottom line, the definition of marriage strictly as a holy union between a man and a woman is a spiritual concept. Spiritual concepts should be left up to individuals, not government. The Supreme Court’s new and broader recognition of partnerships goes a long way toward legitimizing all legal love.

The Rich Enjoy a Good Whine

2003-07-09T21:23:00.000-07:00

Raise your hand if you want to be rich! I’ll just keep on typing, thanks. Wanting a fat wallet is hard when it apparently costs so much in common sense.

A bill introduced into the State Senate by Rep. Jerry Luke LeBlanc invalidates tickets for any student who illegally parks at school facilities after hours. Why? Well, it seems nine students at St. Thomas More High School in Lafayette—one of them apparently LeBlanc’s own kid—didn’t want to pay well-deserved parking tickets. To be fair, I should note that Lafayette and Comeaux high schools also put in their two cents. That is two cents more than any of the STM students paid on their tickets. The bill passed, but the miserly nine will still have to pay their tickets like normal people.

The only thing more irritating than parking is people who complain about parking. Just for kicks, I checked out the STM parking lot for myself. It’s immaculate in its pavement, with nice yellow rich-people partitions and handicapped spots designated by glossy rich-people signs and blue rich-people lines. A rather massive pothole greets visitors at the turn, presumably so students can show off the suspension skillz of their bling-bling automobiles.

Expansive though the parking lot might be, even the farthest spaces are close enough to various destinations for an able-bodied rich kid to walk there in no time. Let me put it this way: STM does not need a shuttle bus. For this reason alone, this flap about the students’ constitutional right to park wherever pavement exists is moot.

But there are so many other reasons to never make exceptions. For one thing, handicapped people park in handicapped spaces because, well, they’re handicapped. This means they have some kind of hamper on their physical abilities—be it age, a medical problem or any combination thereof. This definition in no way includes broken nails, being compassion-challenged or driving anything built before 1998.

Elected representatives looking to cut costs for the most elite? Just where on earth did they get that idea?

Perhaps Blair Hornstine inspired them. Hornstine recently graduated from the posh Moorestown High School in New Jersey. Not satisfied with a stratospheric SAT score, an A++ average, an attractive resume and a slot at Harvard, she sued her school district. Why? Because she had to SHARE valedictorian honors with another student! Awww.

On top of everything else, she also wrote for the local newspaper. To save valuable time, she blatantly plagiarized Bill Clinton and others in her articles. In her defense, she said she didn’t know how to attribute them. “There was no place for footnotes or endnotes,” Newsweek quoted her as writing. Right. As a newspaper person myself, Blair, “I feel your pain.”*

I am by no means jealous; in fact, my high school didn’t even have a valedictorian. I wasn’t in the upper echelon anyway; I graduated 188th in my class (though I must stress that this was out of 421 graduates). My mentality has always been to try my best, but not at the expense of my sanity. Besides, I suck at tests. And Hornstine does suffer from a chronic fatigue disorder that forces her to do most of her education at home. So I guess I feel sorry for her. But I would say to Blair, your achievements should speak for themselves. You’ll be fine, as long as you don’t try to park at STM.

Let’s continue to give massive tax cuts to these people. It’s fun to see them spend it all on such ridiculous things.

*--Newspapers never use footnotes.

Journalistic Lie-Sins

2003-06-25T16:08:00.000-07:00

Every sentence in this week’s column is a flat-out lie.

The sky is green. Two plus two equals six. Nicotine is not addictive. Drinking and driving mix like a perfect martini. Women must weigh 76 pounds to be beautiful. People shouldn’t use curse words when “darn” and “heck” will do just fine. Only people over 21 years of age buy alcoholic beverages. When an ex-girlfriend says she still wants to be friends, you can look forward to many more good times together. Dancing comes naturally to white guys.

Seven dollars is not a lot to pay for a movie, considering that concessions are such a bargain. If a movie makes millions at the box office, it is a good movie. Right this minute, Internet file sharing is spelling the end of the music industry. P. Diddy is not the least bit pretentious. Gay unions cheapen marriage while TV shows such as “Married by America” glorify it. Britney Spears is a star solely because of her unmatched talent. Acting is a much tougher profession than construction or fire fighting. Eminem has nothing on Vanilla Ice. Nothing validates a classic song quite like a car commercial. Creed is a groundbreaking band.

Johnston Street is one beautiful thoroughfare. Who needs bottled water when you have the Vermilion River? The UL student union is the front for a lucrative prostitution racket. A five-story parking tower on the UL campus was the best idea SGA ever conceived. So was eliminating the need for parking permits at Cajun Field a year before construction even started on that tower. I, for one, can’t wait to park in style; I just received a pay raise from the Vermilion and am using it to purchase a brand new Escalade. Remember the cardinal rule of homework: plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery; professors know this and will grade you generously for it. Expect Follett’s and the University Bookstore to begin selling term papers along with books for the fall semester.

Public schools in the projects are a whole lot better now, thanks to mandatory uniforms. The world could use a few more people in three-piece suits. Carrying a Bible and wearing a judgmental sign while browbeating everyone within earshot is a one-way ticket to heaven. Minorities have it easy these days. Being a southerner is something to be envied and feared. Texans are entirely justified in their pervasive arrogance. The two worst scourges in the history of mankind are marijuana and immigrants. HMOs are the hottest innovation in health care since penicillin. Read my lips, no new taxes. Giving the poor tax relief will make them not want to work, whereas tax relief for the rich motivates them to work harder. George W. Bush, the rich scion of a former president, is a regular guy. Corporations want only what is best for America.

The White House went into war with Iraq with reluctance and a heavy heart. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Iraqis are enjoying the fruits of democracy and the thrill of choosing their leaders. American soldiers are in total control of Iraq and can venture anywhere without fear of rebellion. Since Sept.11, 2001, our ceaseless quest against terrorism has made the world infinitely safer. The United States, like the LAPD, is known and loved throughout the world for its uncanny knack for establishing peace and order. Fox News is fair and balanced. Increasing media monopolization will inevitably lead to the ultimate truth for the public. Of course, this column is only a farce; no one in Washington or in the media would dare lie this much.

Bush: Macho Cheese

2003-06-11T21:49:00.000-07:00

Does George W. Bush read my column? Judging by his obsession with strutting like a fighter pilot, he must have taken up my April 30 invitation to watch the movie "Independence Day." Like Bill Pullman, Bush stretches his acting ability to the limit playing a president who had flown in the military.

Indeed, Bush seems to be earning his props as commander-in-chief, rather than president, and appears content to follow in his father's combat-boot steps as the Warrior in the White House. And why shouldn't he? In terms of domestic issues—the existence of which he will occasionally acknowledge—Bush is washed out.

The economy has not only hit rock bottom, but has managed to drill itself into the second layer of that rock. His fiscal policies, consisting entirely of the words "tax" and "cut," promise to steep us in deep deficits for decades to come. Because of this recession, stores are cutting back their hours or disappearing altogether. Missouri officials are removing every third light bulb from government institutions. Some districts are even shutting down schools early. Socially, his worship of the religious right has most of the country screaming "oh my God!" at the childproofing of America.

Is it any wonder, then, that Bush has reverted to his Top Gun cowboy persona? Looking tough and swaggering, while having to say virtually nothing, is a perfect fit for the man. Unfortunately, it also seems like the perfect fit for today's pacified public. With such wonderful editorial headlines as "Bush earned right to strut" (Daily Advertiser, 5/12/03) and the relentless plastering of the Bush fighter-pilot pictures all over the media, this charade is likely to continue.

Any poseur walking on this campus right now can tell you that clothes don't make the fighter pilot; yet Bush's handlers and the American press (talk about redundant) want us to believe exactly that. If this were the case, then the people who wear the most expensive clothes would get all the attention. We would have relationships going to the highest bidders. Dating by dollars. Prostitution by Prada. Also, every person wearing a pro football jersey or a "porn star" tank top would get the startled glances of fellow students who would wonder why famous athletes and porn stars were gracing campus. If you're willing to believe that, then rest assured that you attend school with a bona fide Ghostbuster as well.

When I was nine I had a full-body Ghostbuster outfit. I still have it, but it fits kind of tight now. That suit sure was a mother! Back in the day I would put it on, sling on a backpack I had morphed into a proton pack, and I was ready to go. Of course, I knew better than to think I really could catch ghosts—but at least it was great fun pretending.

As far as I know, no one ever took a snapshot of me dressed in this getup—a strange fact, considering I had nine million pictures taken in every conceivably embarrassing situation as a kid. However, I never asked anyone to break out the camera when I played Ghostbuster; I dressed up just for fun. For Bush, however, the suit is all about the photo opportunity. And, no doubt, fulfilling the requirements he abandoned in 1972 when he went AWOL from flying obsolete planes over Texas and Alabama during Vietnam.

Believing that Bush is, or ever was, the definition of a macho fighter pilot requires the same stretch of imagination I had when I played Ghostbuster. Unfortunately for Commander Maverick, imagination is not the nation he is leading.

Why Dis the Chicks?

2003-05-07T12:20:00.000-07:00

Like you, I am grinding my teeth over finals. Anyway, tomorrow I turn 23 and am planning to celebrate by having both a research paper and a self-written play due. So I’ll leave you this semester with another dispatch from the Polite Press. Later for now.

Dixie Chicks’ apology reaches number one on country chart

NASHVILLE (PP)—Following a month of feverish anticipation, “Apology” by the Dixie Chicks debuted at number one Monday. The impressive debut knocked off Darryl Worley’s “America is the Bomb,” which had sat in the top spot for nine consecutive weeks.

“Hey, we know what our public wants,” Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines said of their latest smash. “After the mixed performance of our last work, ‘Ashamed,’ we realized that music is not about pushing the envelope. We hoped ‘Apology’ would soothe over some of the cheated feeling that a lot of our fans had.”

The Dixie Chicks, a staple of the country-pop scene for more than seven years, made headlines worldwide in March with the release of “Ashamed.” With lyrics that stated in part, “We’re ashamed that Bush is from Texas / We hope that soon he’ll be the ex-prez,” the single prompted an angry response from a considerable number of Americans. Nevertheless, “Ashamed” quickly barreled to the top of numerous charts, ahead of such hits as Toby Keith’s “Screw Foreigners” and “We are the Whole World” by USA for USA, a benefit group formed by Ted Nugent. Still, the Dixie Chicks quickly released “Apology” in an effort to win back alienated fans.

Despite the brisk sales incurred so far by “Apology,” however, some Dixie Chicks fans still remain unconvinced.

“I’m never listening to the Dixie Chicks again,” grumbled Earl Jones of Fayetteville, Ark. “They had such nerve to criticize our president in a time of war! And listen to this line from ‘Apology’: ‘We respect the commander-in-chief / Speaking ill of him is a sin / We’re turning over a new leaf / But’ll still say what we believe in.’ God help us. I mean, how can we tolerate such opinionated artists?”

Jones then excused himself to circulate Charlie Daniels’ letter to Hollywood via e-mail.

“I am fed up with the Chicks myself,” agreed Betty Sue Harrelson of Waco, Texas. “Just this morning I bought ‘Apology’ and ran over the sucker with my SUV right there in the mega-mall parking lot! I hope that every American buys ‘Apology’ and destroys it. That should hurt their record sales!”

“Elvis Presley never had such gall,” said Jonathan Talley of Jackson, Miss. “When they asked him about current events, he’d just respond, ‘Sir, I’m an entertainer.’ If only Natalie Maines would be so smart.”

Documents revealed in the 1980s show that Presley met up with then-president Richard Nixon in 1970; Nixon presented Presley—who offered his opinions on a variety of political issues—a drug enforcers’ badge at the rocker’s request.

At least one fan, however, has accepted the “Apology.”

“When the Chicks blasted Bush,” said Patty Gilliam of Macon, Ga., “I was as angry as any red-blooded American. I mean, it almost collapsed our whole war effort. But now that I know that Natalie and her crew weren’t serious about what they said, I can rest with security.”

Even George W. Bush, the target of the Dixie Chicks’ “Ashamed,” defended the music group’s freedom of speech. Asked whether he would ever invite the Chicks to dinner at the White House, Bush replied, “Well, um, the Dixie Chicks have a right to speak their minds. That’s, uh, what makes us great, what makes, you know, America great.”

Is Saddam in the House?

2003-04-30T12:27:00.000-07:00

The following is an open memo to George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and Tommy Franks.

Distinguished gentlemen:

I have been following the war on Iraq with as much precision as the media allows. Recent developments—namely, the capture of Baghdad—have prompted me to write this memo to you, the above-mentioned parties. Consider this a personal invitation for a screening of the popular science fiction classic “Independence Day” at my crib in Lafayette, Louisiana (for my address, please contact Homeland Security, if you haven’t already).

Why would I deign to think that you would accept my invitation? It has everything to do with the signs of our supposed “liberation” of Baghdad. Seeing the immense throng of Iraqi people tearing down the enormous statue of Saddam Hussein brought tears to my eyes. The seemingly slow-motion capsizing of the behemoth statue definitely marked a turning point in world history and will be retold for generations to come.

I won’t even go into the facts about the statue demolition, which took place in a plaza heavily fortified by U.S. tanks and populated mostly by the American press. I’ll forget that, in a city of nearly five million inhabitants, only an estimated 1,000 residents were present. I’ll even glance over that the American flag on Saddam’s head drew boos from the crowd; after all, it WAS promptly replaced with an Iraqi flag (albeit an outdated, pre-1991 version). And never mind that it was an American convoy who actually tore down the statue. None of this is truly relevant to my point.

The Polite Press has declared this an easy victory for the coalition forces, the advancement to Baghdad having taken only three weeks. So we’ve destroyed monuments and pictures of Saddam, as well as decimated all of his palaces. We also toppled Saddam—well, we got his statue anyway. That should count for something! But come on now, does this really mean that the Iraqis have been liberated?

This is where my invitation comes in. “Independence Day” involves an evil civilization of extra-terrestrials bent on destroying the Earth. In the United States, they systematically destroy the White House, Capitol Hill, major commerce centers, military bases and just about everything else anchored to the ground (including the STATUE OF LIBERTY!!!). What the aliens don’t count on, however, is our president escaping and rallying the people on to total victory. The lesson of the movie is that, though buildings fall and cities crumble, it takes more than that to keep a leader down. Quite the contrary—our great president (remember, this was 1996) jumps back and personally kicks butt.

You can RSVP me anytime at (337) 984…on second thought, forget about it. I’ll just make my point right here and save you some taxpayers’ funds for more ammo. We can dent up dictatorial sculptures and invade palaces all we want; like any pro sports owner can tell you, however, stadiums come and go. Until we make a point of apprehending this tyrant, we will never truly have victory and closure. The same goes for Osama bin Laden, wherever he is.

Maybe getting our dirty hands on Saddam never was the objective. Maybe it had been for the past nine months. Since then, however, the war has been about confiscation weapons of mass destruction, payback for civilian mistreatment and—as of 2:26 p.m. last Friday—liberating the Iraqi people. Any way we slice it, we will not have accomplished any of this until are able to tell Saddam face-to-face. If only he still controlled the oil—maybe that would motivate us.

Milk Carton Dictators

2003-04-15T22:00:00.000-07:00

Between the war on terror (remember that?) and the war on Iraq, U.S. officials have demonstrated one outstanding skill: they suck at locating leaders.

Remember in the days following Sept. 11, 2001, when George W. Bush vowed so valiantly to get Osama bin Laden “dead or alive?” Osama bin Laden, by the way, is the leader of the terrorist faction al-Qaida and the self-proclaimed mastermind behind the plane hijackings. That was just in case anyone forgot about him, being that Bush has not mentioned his name in public since July 2002.

The reason for bin Laden’s sudden disappearance from public commentary is simple: he changed his name to Saddam Hussein. At least that’s what Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the Crony Drilling Company would have us believe. Do we believe it? Apparently so. Various polls show as many as 71 percent of the public now think that Hussein was the mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001 atrocities. Must be some tasty propaganda out there.

What this looks like, in the eyes of those who still see reality, is an attempt to cover up the immense failure that the war on terror has been. Cowboy George still hasn’t found Indian Osama, so he’s—hey, what’s that over there? Look at the bad man in Iraq!

Few people doubted that, once in office, Bush would rile things up in Iraq. After all, he had family honor to avenge, oil to capture and Pat Robertson to please. When the Twin Towers fell, however, everything seemed to change; from then on, war on Iraq had to be postponed. This didn’t seem to disappoint the Pentagon, as they now had a new enemy and an actual excuse.

For a while, all seemed successful under the warm security of the Afghan blanket. But as the days grew longer and bin Laden wasn’t any more found, we became more and more frustrated; ousting the Taliban and installing Harmid Karzai as the interim puppet could only go so far. By mid-2002, word from the White House was that bin Laden was now irrelevant and—hey, what’s that over there? Look at the bad man in Iraq!

Much has been said about Bush’s war on Iraq mirroring his father’s Gulf War in 1991. Apparently that wasn’t enough for Captain History, because his conflict in Iraq now also resembles the events of just a year ago! Already, the White House has declared that catching Hussein is no longer the top priority. The announcement came just in time, too, because no one can find him! The new strategy seems to be to stick Hussein and bin Laden on a milk carton and hope for the best.

Will the search for Hussein prove as futile as the search for bin Laden? Definitely not! The difference lies in the intense personal issues Bush has with Hussein, combined with good old American resolve and—hey, what’s that over there? Look at the bad man in IRAN!

Or is it Syria? China? France? Not Saudi Arabia, Israel or North Korea, that’s for sure. Wherever Bush points our military next, we can bet that a new bogeyman will suddenly be responsible for the altered New York skyline (Presidents Mohammed Khatami of Iran and Bashar al-Assad of Syria are two possibilities for the opening). In the likely event of this happening—my money is on June or July—we may never again hear Hussein’s name.

Do NOT be fooled. There’s only so much terror and so many troops able to fight it. And only so many milk cartons to load with pictures of missing dictators.

A Peacenik’s Guide to War

2003-04-09T12:24:00.000-07:00

Exactly when did peace go out of style?

In these bizarre times, political debate is taking some crazy turns. With the biggest abuse of war power in history going on, who knew that the burden of philosophical proof would fall on the peace camp? At any rate, anti-war sentiment seems to have gone the way of, uh, love beads.

Between the current media propaganda and peer pressure, we anti-war people have our work cut out for us. At every turn, war supporters badger us, aiming to undermine our patriotism and our metaphorical manhood. For the world’s sake, however, we must be as ironclad in our beliefs as the fighters are in theirs. The best way to do this is to believe in ourselves!

Boiled down to their essences, the beliefs of both sides are more alike than different. We all want peace and democracy and all of that nifty stuff, don’t we? Who knows, you too could be a peacenik! See if these traits describe you:

1) You are a patriot. The war on Iraq refutes the principles upon which this country was built: freedom of speech and dissent, checks and balances, aggression only as a last resort and government by and for the people. It takes courage to exercise your rights and stand up to the intimidating power structure that would have you think otherwise. However, that kind of patriotism is better than a thousand flags.

2) You fully understand the value of fighting for your homeland. Consequently, you are not surprised that Iraqis feel the same way.

3) You care about the Iraqi people. You care so much about them, in fact, that you see the injustice and hypocrisy in killing them and forcing a puppet democracy upon the survivors. News flash: they already have that!

4) You want democracy to flourish around the world, but are convinced that it does not emanate from burning bomb fragments embedded in huts.

5) You support your troops. And what better way to support them than by wanting to get them out of harm’s way as quickly as possible?

6) You want the facts and real discussion about U.S. foreign policy, not just catchphrases. Press conferences, in your opinion, should echo Douglas MacArthur or Norman Schwarzkopf rather than Forrest Gump.

7) You favor logic and reason over passion. Contrary to what Fox News would have you believe, noise does not trump intellectualism; nevertheless, you recognize the value of a well-placed verbal jab. This gift of speech, not ideas, separates the Bill Clintons of the world from the Michael Dukakises. Recent history shows us which man better captivated American minds.

8) You are disgusted by perverted religious fundamentalism. Christianity, Islam and Judaism (among others) are, by nature, peaceful religions. No belief system is to be blamed for any of the warmongering around the world; the blame lies solely on those who shape parochial teachings to their own destructive benefit.

9) You question the motives of leaders who, having avoided service in the military, are only too eager to commit our sons and daughters to battle for profit.

10) You realize that being pro-peace is not just about carrying a sign. Sure, protesting is all good and necessary, but anti-war sentiment is hardly confined to the picket crowd. A lot of people who share the feelings of protesters are simply less outspoken; who knows, one could be sitting next to you right now!

There, was that so bad? More Americans are probably united under these 10 points than we even realize. We must never forget that peace is the true weapon of the strong.

This Little Skirmish Affair

2003-04-02T12:28:00.000-08:00

Coming up on “More Than Words”: the War on Iraq! Personally, I am outraged by the lack of adequate coverage on television, in newspapers and the Internet.

Seriously. CAN WE PLEASE HAVE A BREAK? I know that we are in the midst of manufacturing history, but why do we act like war is the only thing going on? All over television, the talking heads yammer on about the need to suspend the broadcasts of the Final Four and the Oscars. Network suits act as if we need to see death and devastation 24/7 to be American.

I can’t shake the feeling that the war’s massive presence in our information gullets is corporate America’s way to keep us paranoid and preoccupied. However, I am impressed that the networks are honest enough to offer glimpses at the devastation in Baghdad. Maybe if people see how much our actions in Iraq resemble al-Qaida’s actions on Sept. 11, they will stop and think twice. Here are highlights of some of the low points of this period in history.

1) This war is NOT about oil. Honestly, it’s not! It’s not like the media is repeatedly reminding us of this because they’re being defensive. It’s the absolute truth. Seriously! This war is not about oil! Not about oil!

2) You have to love the newest catchphrase, “Shock and Awe™!” Anyone who is at all shocked by military operations in Iraq under a Bush administration is too retarded to understand this concept in the first place. Does this mean we were “shocked and awed” by Sept. 11?

3) The Dixie Chicks were wrong to say they are ashamed that George W. Bush is a Texan. How dare they say something so appalling—Bush was born in Connecticut!

4) Come to think of it, ALL celebrities should keep their mouths shut about the war! This regulation, of course, does not apply to Charlton Heston, Charlie Daniels, Toby Keith, R. Lee Ermey or any other REAL American celebrity.

5) Michael Waters-Bey, who blasted Bush on live TV March 22 for killing his only son, should not be taken at face value. Bush didn’t kill Kendall directly. He only SENT him out to die!

6) Regardless of our stance on the war, we must support our troops all the way. Our brave young men and women did not choose to be in this battle, but now they are there. It is our solemn duty as Americans to pull for them to kill as many Iraqis as possible. It’s the patriotic thing to do!

7) We all must pray for our troops and tie yellow ribbons around trees. Nothing brings peace like religion and symbolic gestures.

Forgive me for being a bit cynical, but these times just beg for it. Of course, good things ARE going on in the world and I’d be dishonest if I ignored them. Let’s check the bowels of the press:

1) Elizabeth Smart returned safely home to her parents, after nine months missing, two weeks ago. Yes, this is good news. Abducted children do not make the news nearly enough (and then because they’re cute). I am grateful for her safe return, and only hope that her religious and protective parents raise her better than her religious and protective kidnappers.

2) The stock market rose at its highest pace in 20 years last week. If a bouncy ball hits the ground, it has no choice but to come back up!

3) Um…Maybe I’ll find something else next week.

My Conservative Awakening

2003-03-31T23:18:00.000-08:00

This "column" ran as part of the April Fool's edition of The Vermilion, aka "The Vermin." A girl I met told me she was so impressed by this column that she had taped it to her wall. She hadn't realized it was a joke.

Since June 2002, I have graced each issue of The Vermin with my opinions on issues of current interest. The topics I have weighed in on have varied from cockfighting and reality TV to the Pledge of Allegiance and Sept. 11. With the onset of the War on Iraq, I have come to the realization that we no longer live in the kind of world that I have advocated for so long. These days, you'd have to be an idiot to be a liberal! That's why, in the interest of fair and balanced reporting, I have decided to shed my left wing and join the forces of the right.

This does not mean that the search for a new conservative columnist has stopped. In fact, we have decided that the best way to counteract the liberal media is to showcase two conservative views in The Vermin's commentary section for a change.

What prompted my epiphany? A reader recently compared me to Scott Vige, who served as The Vermin's conservative columnist in 1999. For those of you who missed this glory period in our paper's history, Scott wrote four-part columns on the evils of Bill Clinton, Janet Reno and gay pride. He also complained about the NRA and how radically liberal they were. Since I write so much like Scott, I figured I might as well go all the way. And boy, do I have a lot to live up to!

No longer will I decry the corporate media for aiding our great President Bush in making a case for war. War is absolutely necessary! After all, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction that he has used on his own people. He was also solely responsible for Sept. 11. Anyone telling you any different is un-American!

It's only the truth from me from now on; conservatism is the way to go. God Bless George W. Bush and God Bless America!

Bush Tightens Bible Belt

2003-03-25T23:15:00.000-08:00

Last night, I watched one of my favorite movies, “Footloose.” The movie strikes a chord with me because it involves a big-city kid and his fight against a religiously uptight town that does not allow music or dancing.

I always enjoy seeing Kevin Bacon awaken the repressed people of Bomont, particularly John Lithgow’s fiery preacher. “Footloose” is a classic in every sense of the word (How’s that for an Andrew Hebert impersonation?).

The more I watch George W. Bush profess his divine mission of peace through war, the more I think that the United States will soon be like that uptight town in “Footloose.” Bush is a highly spiritual man; religious conservatives praise Bush for governing according to his born-again beliefs. For the rest of us, this prospect is somewhat disturbing.

Whatever his personal beliefs might be (and, for better or for worse, they do seem sincere), Bush gives off an air of arrogant public piety. In terms of expressing his faith, Bush is more like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell than he is like Jesus.

In his faith-based reality, life in America would turn into a huge revival tent where the person who declares this relationship with God the loudest wins. Guess they missed Matthew 6:5-6; but hey, the Bible is a big book.

Bush’s messianic complex has shone throughout his time in office. From the first moment, his support for John Ashcroft, school vouchers and “faith-based organizations” (read: sermons before sustenance) and his disdain for contraception and sex education showed that his word was bond with the word of God.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, however, Bush seems to feel outright invincible. Such an attitude is dangerous in public office. We need a president who does not see himself as infallible. Bush seems to sincerely feel that he can do no wrong. This divine delusion explains why he has undertaken unilateral war on Iraq at the expense of worldwide and domestic support.

The basic teachings of major religions (love your neighbor, don’t hurt / steal / lie / murder / rape / get mad, etc.) can be a wonderful thing when actually executed. Look at Martin Sheen, for example; a devout Catholic, he credits his moral views for his activism in politics and humanitarian efforts. Former President Jimmy Carter remains one of the most devoutly spiritual men ever to hold the office. Never forget that right-wing Christians do not have the lock on morality.

Religion is like milk; though hailed by billions as a source of health, alternatives exist for those who don’t like the taste. It does not take dogma to be a good person. Indeed, dogma has been the source of all of the most devastating wars throughout history.

This fact is something Bush should consider. He responded to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks by calling for a “crusade” against terrorism. That’s a strategy and a half: respond to religious fanatics who accuse you of being their enemy by declaring that you are their enemy in a religious war. Holy wars should have rendered extinct by intelligence and logic centuries ago. This must be the Second Coming.

In war, is God really on our side? A better question might be, why are we forcing God to take sides at all? In any case, it is undemocratic and sacrilegious to think that God selects presidents. On the other hand, the Christian Right can if we let them; they’ve already succeeded in marrying church and state at numerous levels. Being that the Christian Right tends to be overly prudish and censorious, they’re not exactly who I want governing my life. Church can be great, but it shouldn’t be a polling place.

Hawk Talk: Bush Meets the Press

2003-03-18T23:00:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON, March 6—I am here at the White House pressroom in feverish anticipation of tonight’s address by George W. Bush. Armed with the latest information on the war situation, Bush is expected to outline the latest status of the conflict in Iraq. The transcript follows:

“Good evening, you Americans. Tonight, I present to you the latest information on my war with Iraq. We have set a deadline of March 17 for Saddam Hussein to disarm his weapons of mass destruction. Still, Saddam has not even started disarming his weapons of mass destruction. We must do whatever it takes to defend freedom on our shores so that Saddam Hussein can never use his weapons of mass destruction on our people in another Sept. 11, 2001 incident. Weapons of mass destruction. Iraq. The events of Sept. 11, 2001. Nucular weapons. Saddam Hussein. Terra. Get it? Good. God Bless America! Amen. (Huge applause.)

“I will now offer the floor to reporters. Please identify yourself and your affiliated news agency. You, in front, with the big hair.”

“Deborah Graham, Polite Press. Mr. President, what will happen if Saddam Hussein disregards your deadline, or is otherwise unable to fully cooperate by the set date?”

“Well, Deborah, it’s a given that Saddam will never cooperate, so we haven’t even considered that course of action. No matter what, however, you can bet that he will pay for his failure to disarm his weapons of mass destruction. Next please, with the big flag pin.”

“Mr. President, I am Brit Hume with Fox News. Before I ask my question, I wanted to praise you for the speech you just gave. It was downright Churchillian. My question is this: is your similarity to Winston Churchill in any way related to your status as the greatest human being who ever lived?”

“Well, my being like Churchill has a lot to do with the evil that Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction rain upon us. Great question! Okay, I have time for just one more before I go to bed. You, the guy way in the back without sleeves….”

“Hi, I’m Ian McGibboney with the University of Louisiana at Lafayette Vermilion—”

“Oh…my boys at the Pentagon told me about you.”

“Tell them hi for me. Because rehashing all of the questionable actions of your presidency would take years, I have settled on one question: why is the disarmament deadline March 17? That’s unreasonably early, isn’t it? My article will not run until March 19, so what can I expect in the meantime?”

“Hey, it’s no problem! I can give you all of the information you need tonight. You see, we’ve made it clear throughout this whole crisis that nothing anyone says or does is going to get in the way of our goals. We’ve already made up our minds regarding Iraq. Because we have already decided the future, it’ll be available for you in the lobby tonight so your article won’t be too outdated by the time it makes print.”

“You write your own news ahead of time? Are you serious?”

“Of course! Ask most press outlets. They run it all the time!”

After the speech, Fox commentator Sean Hannity and Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Lieberman offered their reactions.

“President Bush really stuck it to those liberal wackos,” said Hannity. “He showed them why war is what God wants for our exalted nation!”

“I agree,” Lieberman droned, “President Bush had some new and enlightening points. He sounded downright Churchillian. We Democrats must support him all the way.”

Asked to comment, veteran presidential reporter Helen Thomas said simply, “Yikes.”

Petit Mort Pour la Guerre

2003-03-11T23:00:00.000-08:00

(Orgasm for War)
Imagine that the planet Earth was a high school campus and that each nation represented a typical type of personality. Most of us would have no trouble relating a lot of countries to the stereotypes of the jock, the nerd, the outcast, the popular, et cetera. The only problem with doing this is that none of these analogies actually work in a global village. One example, however, sticks out in its truthfulness—the personality of our own country regarding war on Iraq.

On a planetary high school campus, the United States of America would be the pretty-boy alpha male. He would drive his SUV five blocks to school and would strut on campus every morning clad in the latest designer threads. Wherever he walked, everyone would clear him a path, all the while fawning in admiration. Occasionally, a smaller kid would have the nerve to cross his path. When that happened, the big man would simply toss him aside. In the rare case that a smarter student attempted to alert the rest of the school population to the dark side of this guy, people would be either too blind or too afraid to agree.

Such is the current state of wartime politics in the United States: cocky strutting, a sense of invincibility and style over substance. Check the scoreboard: first we alienated much of the Muslim world, followed quickly by the pushing aside of our allies. Next came the drive toward extinction of all anti-war sentiment. Now it’s time to purge ourselves of French influence. Though it is just one of several prominent nations sharing the cautious anti-war line, France is being singled out in America as a target suitable for ridicule, disdain and erasure.

The actions of this anti-French movement range from absurd to downright frightening. First, the absurd: some diners in middle America have renamed french fries “freedom fries,” and will refuse orders to anyone that dare describe them as “French.” Presumably, these same diners will now offer “tax-cut toast” on their breakfast menu.

On the scarier side, nothing shows the downfall of the civility of many Americans more clearly than a recent incident on the UL Lafayette campus, in which someone verbally accosted an unsuspecting student who spoke with a French accent. In the mind of that American, the French student needed a little “education” on why America needs to be at war. This is something I might expect to happen to someone walking the streets of Baghdad waving an American flag and wearing a shirt with George W. Bush’s face on it. But this happened in the United States, to a Franco-American, in south Louisiana!

Those who jeer France’s stance on war with Iraq never let anyone forget the country’s historical (if highly inaccurate) tendency to surrender and shy away from battle. Oddly enough, these same history hawks never seem too interested in dredging up the Gulf War or Vietnam as warnings.

Americans who want war in Iraq have risen the conflict to the level of divine necessity; some might call it an insatiable lust. In this global high school, the popular kid wants war; if all of the smaller and smarter kids (such as France) give him grief for it, then screw them!

The idea that foreign individuals and native nations that think differently from Bush deserve this kind of treatment is ridiculous. Even less understandable, however, is why anyone would think that consuming anything with the word “french” in it somehow makes one less of an American. But given the current level of debate in the national media, should we expect anything different?

At War with the Warmongers

2003-02-26T12:32:00.000-08:00

“The people can always be brought to the bidding of our leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism…It works the same way in any country.” –Hermann Goering, Nazi official

With U.S. lust for war in Iraq getting hot and heavy, the Bush administration is calling for people to do their duty as patriotic Americans. So, on a recent excursion to the Recession Mart for plastic sheeting and duct tape, I decided that I too would become a hardcore patriot.

I figured that being a patriot would be noble and perhaps even fun. After all, it is a real privilege to actively participate in political discourse in one of the most open and diverse nations in the world. And boy, did I have some good ol’ dissent to contribute! I could hardly wait.

In undertaking this, however, I forgot to consider the mantra of the new age: “Everything Changed After 9/11™.” The meaning of patriotism had been forever altered. People were still exercising their First Amendment rights, of course—but mainly to put down those who use their First Amendment rights to question the actions of those who are sworn to defend First Amendment rights. These days, it seems, only those who support war are deemed worthy of free speech.

What blows my mind is the extreme passion with which people want to silence opposition to war. When millions of people around the world took to the streets in the largest one-day show of anti-war solidarity in history, the ever-vigilant media dutifully cropped their coverage to make it appear as if the only protesters present were Barbra Streisand and NAMBLA. War on Iraq is Must-See TV, and who are protesters to say the show sucks? Democracy is all about giving people what they want, and people just love to sit at home, eat chips and watch the war!

Free speech entitles any person to express his or her rationale for silencing anti-war activists. Free speech also entitles me to say what a crock of flaming hypocrisy that is. This country always needs a genuinely balanced dialogue; it especially needs one now amid the prospect of undertaking such a questionable military action.

Certainly someone must be allowed to cut through the pro-war rhetoric. What does violating the UN to attack a nation in violation of the UN accomplish, exactly? If there is good reason to fight, then why not uphold our Constitutional values and wait until the time is right? At least that way there isn’t a 100-percent chance of combat. Where is the link between Iraq and al-Qaida that has been so endlessly hyped? Are we allowed to ask these questions or are we subject to the whims of our leaders?

While we’re at it, can we please dispense with this Bush-equals-America-equals-God BS? Since when are the actions of the president so unquestionably accepted as gospel? Maybe it was a by-product of the Y2K glitch, because I never saw such admiration for Bill Clinton. On the other hand, I have seen this level of supposed “affection” for the likes of such divine leaders as Fidel Castro, Adolf Hitler and—all together now—Saddam Hussein!

Part of living free is being exposed to a variety of viewpoints and being able to ask questions. It is a core tenet of being patriotic. No one said that being an American patriot is a smooth ride; however, it is well worth the destination. This is one ride I may have to get off soon, though, because patriotism is apparently one un-American activity.

Orange is In for Spring

2003-02-18T23:00:00.000-08:00

“Government leaders said there was no need to cancel public events or alter work or travel plans. The State Department, however, issued a worldwide alert Thursday for Americans overseas…warning of the possibility of suicide bombings, kidnappings or assassinations.” –Actual AP copy, 2/6/03

Be scared, America! It’s an orange kind of day. Yes, orange is no longer the exclusive domain of Halloween. This is Terra America now, where being afraid knows no holiday.

John Ashcroft was on the idiot box last week, warning us about the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca and how al-Qaida might use that period to destroy American hotels, apartment buildings and businesses. Due to these reports, Homeland Security upgraded the United States’ terror status from Mello Yello to Minute Maid.

Don’t you just love the nifty new terror color-code system? I sure do. Before, I had to rely upon acting civilized and living with a generally tolerant attitude toward my fellow runners in the human race. Now I can throw that out the window on all but the lowest alert days. Phew! What a relief!

Even better is the unity that the setup has given all of us as a nation; this system leaves us with no doubt as to what threat level we currently occupy. Of course the terrorists know too, much like the pickup football games from my childhood when the quarterback had to yell to me mid-play, “Deep RIGHT! Go deep RIGHT!!” When that happened, no one was surprised to see the Junior Pituitary Freaks swarm my featherweight carcass. That’s the risk you take when you give away your position.

Likewise, the United States should not be surprised to see an attempted attack during a “low” day; of course, that’s assuming we ever even have a “low” day. With all of the intimidation power granted to Homeland Security by this system, what impetus do they have to ever reduce the warning? About as much impetus as a Lafayette Parish school principal has to say to students, “You know, uniforms don’t really solve anything. Wear what you want!” Sorry, that isn’t going to happen; it was our mistake affording them that power in the first place.

My issues with the terror alert system extend far beyond the political realm. For one thing, couldn’t they at least have chosen some colors that didn’t come straight out of Aunt Hazel’s candy dish? As it stands now, “severe” is red, “high” is orange, “elevated” is yellow, “guarded” is blue and “low” is green. “Severe” I understand; red is the international color for restraint. But come on now, orange? Orange isn’t a threat, it’s juice! And what color evokes happiness quite like yellow? Woe to future generations who will equate yellow with “elevated.” If the whole world weren’t cowering in fear from our cocky warmongering, they’d be laughing themselves sick. Who could blame them? This is one form of coloring that goes way outside the lines.

Taking the terror-alert system seriously requires a stretch of belief normally reserved for bad vampire movies; a truly credible contingency plan would not need such blatant marketing. It also wouldn’t involve crippling civilian freedom on a mere hunch.

The system is just one more grain of sugar in America’s gas tank. It exists mainly as a license for the Justice Dept. to threaten the public whenever it feels fit to do so. With the disturbingly skittish duo of John Ashcroft and Tom Ridge at the helm, that’s one license that will get a heck of a lot of exercise. These colors should have every freedom-loving citizen feeling blue. Or red, as the case may be.

Shuttle Down

2003-02-12T17:25:00.000-08:00

Call it the Day of Debris. On the morning of Feb. 1, some friends and I gathered with fellow thrill-seeking voyeurs to watch UL history crumble right before our dusty eyes. The sensory experience was certainly no disappointment: the early-morning chill, the camaraderie of the crowd, the abundance of cameras of all kinds, the doughnuts and the overall feeling that Lafayette had yet another reason to celebrate something.

Several violent pops grabbed our collective attention—along with, no doubt, the attention of most of St. John’s cemetery—and the old dorms went down in a fantastic heap of engineering. The ensuing applause struck me as a bit odd, like cheering the sermon at a funeral, but the sound of my own hands clapping drowned out that thought soon enough.

Afterward, my friend and I sat idling in the parking lot, watching as my hood gathered McCullough dust for almost 20 minutes. Long having memorized the license plate of the truck in front of us, I reflected upon an irony of humanity; in order to watch two seconds of destruction, people were willing to endure nearly half an hour of waiting.

Though the implosion was an unusual and memorable event, another incident of destruction would instantaneously knock it off the front page: the space shuttle Columbia’s tragic explosion during its attempted landing.

For the first time ever, a space shuttle had blown apart while returning to terra firma. Debris from the fatal cloud centered primarily on a strip of woodland in northeast Texas, although traces of the storied spacecraft were found as far east as central Louisiana.

Lost among the spacecraft were its seven crew members. A mix of veteran and rookie astronauts from across the globe, the latest Columbia crew was among the most diverse ever assembled for an American mission. Those who had spent the past few days literally reaching for the stars included Michael P. Anderson, David Brown, Laurel Clark, Rick Husband, William McCool, Kalpana Chawla and Ilan Ramon.

Chawla and Ramon had become the first space travelers from their native countries (India and Israel, respectively); Husband, Chawla and Anderson had prior space experience while Brown, Clark, McCool and Ramon were on their first trip. They, along with the rest of NASA, represent years of military and civilian toil necessary for such an undertaking.

The incident brought to life the inherent dangers of what has become routine protocol for NASA; while space shuttle technology has been vastly improved since its introduction in 1981, no advancement will ever buck the laws of physics. For this reason, the need for a well-trained and thorough safety team cannot be overstressed. Unfortunately, funding for such a team—and NASA as a whole—has dropped drastically and inexplicably over the past decade.

Like most meaningful (and maligned) programs, NASA serves a vital purpose; having long evolved from its origins as a Cold War tool, the space program serves as a reminder that hope will always exist even in the most troubling times. Beyond the philosophy of it, space travel has allowed unprecedented contact with world, via satellites, and has led to such innovations as the Hubble Space Telescope and an international space station. And, perhaps most importantly, Tang.

The terrifying instant of Columbia’s explosion has brought with it a long-term sinking of the American heart. But just as we are willing to invest a whole morning for two seconds of implosion, we will not let an instant of tragedy derail decades of progress. These brave astronauts died in the name of discovery, and they would most certainly want us to keep discovering into the future.

The State of the States

2003-02-04T23:13:00.000-08:00

Last Tuesday’s State of the Union address was more predictable than a Buccaneers-Bengals game, but here’s a transcript for the masochistic:

“Good evening, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, Pat Robertson, Charlton Heston and all you common Americans.

“As we assemble here tonight, the United States stands on a major threshold in its history. We step into 2003 facing tough economic times and the promise—er, prospect—of war in Iraq. But rest assured that this administration will address every domestic need by ensuring that all evildoers get smoked out. (Everyone stands in ovation.)

“On the home front, the United States has made tremendous progress in the past year. With the adoption of the new Office of Homeland Security, we will put to rest the failings of multiple large bureaucracies in the age of terror. This newer, streamlined bureaucracy will work far better in issuing new terror-alert colors each day. (Republicans stand in ovation.)

“We must be ever vigilant in our crusade to weed out terror wherever it may exist. In 2003, this administration will not stand for the belligerence exerted by nations who continually impede us in our goals. That’s why I call for all Americans to be on constant alert for activity from such rogue nations as China, France and Germany, the ‘Axis of Skepticism.’ (Republicans stand, applaud thunderously and whoop.)

“Of course, the big issue on everyone’s minds—and certainly mine—is the impending War on Iraq. As everyone now knows, Saddam Hussein is a vicious dictator who must be stopped from killing his people at all costs. The possibility of this man owning weapons of mass destruction is too serious to ignore. After all, this man tried to kill my dad! That is why this administration has continually rejected the UN weapons inspectors’ assertion that little has been found. The lack of significant discovery of weapons of mass destruction is only further proof that Iraq is lying to us. Maybe if they would just admit to their artillery, even if they don’t have it, we would not go to war there. But don’t bet on that. Their admission, I mean. (Republicans cheer vigorously; Donald Rumsfeld begins speaking in tongues.)

“I think the Iraqi people will welcome our initiative. I know that the freedom-seeking people of Iraq will eagerly embrace foreign soldiers going door to door, ransacking their homes looking for their leader. We will show Iraq just what American freedom is all about. (Republicans do jumping jacks; John Ashcroft cracks first-ever grin.)

“Yes, I am talking to you, Saddam Hussein. You are a vicious dictator with weapons of mass destruction! We will get you for violating the UN by violating the UN ourselves! I—we will go to war with you regardless of how many weapons you may have and have hidden, or may not have and didn’t hide, or may not have and hidden anyway! (Democrats thunderously applaud at this non-mangled sentence.) Iraq, Iraq, Iraq! (Note: for the sake of space and sanity, 25 minutes of this rant has been edited.)

“Some Americans are also hung up on education, health care and the environment. This year I will propose to Congress a $34-billion package to launch a PR campaign showing how much this administration cares about those things.

“My citizens, this will be the year where we do everything in our power to assure that Iraq never again falls to the tyranny that is an oppressively theocratic and nationalistic regime. With that in mind, God Bless America!” (Bush exits; Republicans sway cigarette lighters and shout, “Encore!”)

Upgrade to VoterFraud 3.0

2003-01-28T22:00:00.000-08:00

Once upon a time, no one could conceive the extent to which a presidential election could be thrown in disarray. If the campaign of 2000 proved anything, however, it was that even Don Corleone would blush at the extortion inherent in the Florida fiasco. Those who currently enjoy the spoils of such a spoiled recount have vowed to end the potential for such corruption; improved technology means much better ways of cheating. Goodbye, Chad and Madame Butterfly—say hello to VoterFraud 3.0!

Computer-assisted voting, already up and stumbling in several states and districts, is currently being touted as the wave of the American future. Two reasons voters in general like the new technology are 1) it is simple and straightforward and 2) Microsoft apparently has very little to do with it. But hold on one hot minute—it seems that the computer booths come packaged with more baggage than a Reagan family reunion.

For starters, computer voting booths do not leave a so-called “paper trail” by which election results can be verified. Not only does this not bode well in instances of electoral dispute, but it also renders the climax of Chris Farley’s classic political documentary “Black Sheep” unbearably obsolete. Further rubbing salt into democracy’s gaping wound is accompanying legislation in some areas that disallows independent viewing or investigation of the devices’ programming codes. But of course, Republican-worshipping tech firms such as Diebold have absolutely nothing to hide.

The computer vote tabulators, which become mandatory for all states for the 2008 election (gee, I wonder why), have already shown just how many upgrades they need. In the November mid-term elections, several candidates—all Republicans—won local races by garnering exactly 18,181 votes. In one memorable instance, a Texas election (declared by the computer to be a landslide for the Republican candidate) turned out upon further examination to be an easy win for the Democrat. The discrepancy was discovered when the computer’s given result did not jibe with either its own data or exit polling.

Tellingly, the exit poll pros at the Voter News Service were largely excluded from this past go-round, and will likely become less and less relevant. Given the sterling reputation and historical importance of the VNS, the Republican push for less exit polling is suspect. This can only be attributed to protecting the combination of bizarre mathematics and rigged machinery that always seems to favor the GOP.

Here in Louisiana, these little touch screens of wonder will replace the voting levers that have given the state one of the most reliable voting systems in the country (no, I am not making that up). With computers in every precinct, Louisiana will regain some of the corruptive edge that it has been lacking for quite a Long time.

A professor I once interviewed contended that voting should never be conducted online; even if the technology were foolproof, he said, voting over the Internet takes away the aspect of participating at a local polling place. To that I would add that, even at the polls, touching a screen does not exactly give one peace of mind regarding the validity of the vote. In happier times, it was hard enough feeling secure about using the self-checkout touch screen at Super Kmart. But just because the technology left you scratching your head over your Hot Pockets doesn’t mean it can’t be trusted with your vote. Tell yourself that over and over.

What can you do to ensure that your vote will count in the screen age? Simply ask for a paper ballot, to which the law entitles you. Save computer voting for those all-important instant polls.

I am an Idiot

2003-01-22T21:55:00.000-08:00

“We ought to build a museum of Modern Left-Wing Lunacy…where people can come to see great examples of contemporary liberal idiocy.” –Sean Hannity

How can anyone still be a liberal in 2003? You’d have to be such an idiot!

Such audacity they have in questioning the actions of our president, especially in a time of war! No great American war was ever won by criticizing our leadership. After all, recall what happened in Vietnam: protests galore occurred across America for years and the Viet Cong shanghaied our troops. Is this what we want to happen again?

Liberals are no better on issues regarding the home front. With the need for domestic security at an all-time high, what do these “Americans” get hung up over? Protecting civil liberties! That’s right, amigos, the left places a higher priority on preserving constitutional rights than it does on ensuring that real American citizens feel safe at all times from THOSE people.

Speaking of “protection,” the only time liberals ever seem to use that word is when they are referring to the condoms they distribute among our impressionable preschoolers. Thanks to them, you cannot set foot onto a school campus these days without bouncing off a mound of latex!

To the intelligent (definition: anyone who isn’t on the left), protection means carrying a loaded firearm or having one in reach at all times. If everyone walking the streets packed heat as the Constitution (and God) tells them they must, the fear factor alone would drop crime down to zero.

These same liberal idiots forced upon us eight nightmarish years of Bill Clinton. Thank God we had an opposition party to drudge up the truth about this filthy creature, who had the nerve to try drugs in the sixties and who admitted that he liked sex!

That period of pestilence is long over. Since 2001, the adults have been back in charge. Much like his father, George W. Bush has formulated a highly aggressive foreign policy designed to send the message that the United States is better than anyone else. And who can blame him?

Yes, the mighty United States has been reclaimed by its true owners, the conservative majority. Being that conservatives have the absolute lock on morality, they will steer this country back into the divine light shined on it from the heavens. Our leaders will not rest until all nations bent on questioning America’s status as supreme authority of the universe are annihilated. The American citizenry has shown that it will suspend concern about the economy if it means kicking around some foreign booty. You’d have to be an idiot liberal to disagree with any of this!

If all that makes me an idiot, then I’ll take immense pride in being one. The world is not black and white and liberals acknowledge that. Better for me to be an idiot than to pretend I know everything.

Thoughts on the New Year

I don’t make New Year’s resolutions—I’m perfect—but I feel amiss if I don’t make an annual list of optimistic hopes for the coming year. These four capture everything I could ask for out of 2003:

1) That those of us in the newspaper industry be really, really bored.

2) That George W. Bush gets a popularity rating somewhat consistent with his performance.

3) That the Saints ride a late-season surge into the Super Bowl.

4) That 2003 not resemble 2001 or 2002 in any way, shape, form or fashion.

Of the above predictions, I put my money on number three; that one seems to stand the best chance of actually happening.

Make Love, Not Headlines

2002-11-27T00:00:00.000-08:00

Politics and sex mix like hot chocolate powder and vinegar. Even so, you can bet the religious right will try to convince you that those ingredients taste great together. This is nothing new, but the potential for enforcing that mixture is now at a climax.

The consequences of this interference are reflected in the following letter that I discovered crumpled up under a bench. Knowing that all letters deserve an audience, I thought I’d give it some airtime. (Please note: this column is for mature readers! You kids can go play a violent video game or something.)

Dear Penthouse:

I have seen my fair share of college women, and consider myself a connoisseur of fresh young coeds; for sexiness both inside and out, it’s hard to beat my school, the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. However, there was that one time last spring break at Daytona Beach when one Florida hottie eclipsed even the most Ragin’ Cajun.

Her name was Jennifer, and she was a drop-dead brunette beauty of 19. She was a native of Tallahassee and a freshman at Florida International University. Our attraction was as instant as it was intense. Before the sun could completely sink behind the distant edge of the water, we were in her private enclave, ready to give new meaning to Florida’s political reputation as a “swing” state.

“Excuse me,” Jennifer spoke from her sultry lips, “let me slip into something more comfortable.”

Feverishly anticipating the upcoming moments, I needed a diversion to keep myself from going to Disney World too soon. I spied the latest Miami Herald on her nightstand; I figured the only way to buy a few minutes was to flip to the public notices page.

Even the mind-numbing list of names was not safe from Jennifer’s allure. Her name sat on the page, making the Times New Roman font more attractive than I ever thought possible. Underneath her name were all of her best attributes.

Jennifer finally emerged, a captivating vision in pure white satin. We embraced as she pulled her lips up to my ear and whispered seductively, “I see you saw that list. I guess I’d better come clean with you. I have a child I gave up for adoption.”

Before I could say anything, she continued: “The Florida Adoption Act, enacted in October 2001, applies to a mother who puts her child up for adoption when the father is in question. In a newspaper ad, I had to disclose my name, age, height, hair and eye color, race and weight; my child's name, date and place of birth; and, if it is the address that is unknown, the father's name.

“I also had to publish my sexual history, complete with dates of sexual encounters. The ad must run once a week for four weeks anywhere that the conception might have happened.”

In each other’s arms, we marveled at the extreme stupidity and sexism of such a regulation. Jennifer continued to enthrall me with her gifted tongue. “The only local guys willing to date me anymore are the kinds who enjoy such ads and stupid erotic stories. My family has disowned me and I can only hope that my reputation isn’t ruined forever.”

“I see,” I replied. “My state just got rid of a ridiculous sex-education program too, one which all but denied that people have sex drives at all. Sex these days is an issue used to demean women and to give the religious right a self-righteous feeling of superiority.”

“Yes,” she agreed. “If people were able to view sex as a very real and unavoidable part of life, we could have free and frank dialogue and remove the taboo factor.”

We spent the next several hours in the heat of passionate discussion.

What We Need is "D"-fense!

2002-11-20T16:08:00.001-08:00

America has had two weeks to reflect upon the results of the 2002 mid-term Congressional elections. However, more than 60 percent of voters never thought about it in the first place, so even fewer are clamoring to recall it now.

The most obvious question is: why did the Democrats get slaughtered? Whatever the answer, I’m pining more than ever for just a few years ago when things were more optimistic. How bad do things have to be for a college student to want to be underage again? Damn bad!

The economy sucks. Bankruptcies and layoffs are happening at the speed of light. The tax cut is an utter sham. American citizens are having their rights destroyed at an alarming rate. Huge corporations own most of the media. Deregulation of everything is imminent, assuring that our air is more unclear, our food more filthy and our products even more cheaply manufactured. Our leaders are pushing feverishly for a war that would make more sense as a duel between Bush and Hussein. The far right, increasingly in absolute power, has abandoned any pretense of tact and grace and is now gloating over its control of us. The state of the union: liquid.

How did the Republicans soar so high in this election? Terror, terror, terror. Apparently it reassures most folks to see George W. Bush, surrounded by flags, promising to fight “terra” and smite all evildoers. No one really can blame the public. It is tempting to do so, but the unabashedly toxic information the mainstream media releases nowadays is really to blame. I am reminded of this every time I hear someone say, “The news these days is biased and sensationalized. That’s why I like Fox News! They’re fair and balanced, you know.”

Issues have been successfully framed in comic-book-style simplicity, to the tune of countless votes. Good grief, people, comic books don’t even use that story frame anymore! That hasn’t stopped people from voting through the jingoistic eyes of Captain America. Patriotism is at an all-time high, eclipsing even World War II levels. Now that was a glorious time in history! Remember the unified populace, the God-sent leader, the flag-waving, the one-armed salutes and the book burnings? Whoops! Wrong side. Blind, fever-pitch patriotism helped the Republicans as much as it paralyzed the Democrats.

Overall, the Democrats’ 2002 campaign had about as much fight in it as Michael Dukakis going three rounds with the dad from “Cathy.” The Democrats—I say this as a concerned independent—have lost their edge. Now it seems they can’t even swipe a victory handed to them on a silver ballot.

The tenacious Ds are in the same hole the Republicans were in after 1996. The party has splintered and decentralized to the point where calling it a party is a bit of a stretch; Democratic Get-Together seems more appropriate. The Greens and others have split from the pack, leaving the mainstream full of the most complacent members and brownnosers. The party is in shambles, and the only way to save it—and the country—is for the Greens and the Democrats to unite.

I can already hear the outrage from the Greens; but we do not 30 or 40 years to form a new party. By then, right-wing domination may have rendered the notion of parties and elections moot. Instead, what the donkeys need are the ideas of the Greens, the establishment of the Democrats and passion of the Republicans.

The next two years might turn out better than expected for us. Unencumbered by the charade of fair play, the right will show its true colors; this will lead the 2004 Democratic Convention keynote address to state simply, “Look around!” Hopefully, by then the Democrats will have the steel to represent us.

Election Selection

2002-11-13T00:00:00.000-08:00

Voting rocks! I can’t say that enough. At the risk of sounding hyper-jingoistic, I believe that the ballot is the bedrock of our society. The choices we make in the voting booth have massive consequences for our future and determine where our nation will focus in the coming years. The decisions lie exclusively with We the People.

Hopefully, the above paragraph won’t be left on the ground for someone to step on, because then they’ll have to wipe that crap off their shoes. I’m surprised the right to vote hasn’t yet been completely eradicated.

Voting really does rock, but the 2000 presidential election proved that some votes are more equal than others. From the creators of that drama comes phase two of Operation: Enduring Freedom from Suffrage.

Rarely does a writer come up with the perfect balance of humor, horror and satire. To the collective relief of us scribes, however, our 43rd president is a pulsating satire factory. The next sentence may be the best nugget you will read all year.

On Oct. 29, George W. Bush signed the “Help America Vote Act.” Du-du-tisssss!

Bush--the first instance of the Supreme Court appointing a president (instead of vice-versa) and a man whose brother governs a state that profiles registered voters like the bouncer at a P. Diddy party held at Area 51--has signed a bill intended to make voting easier. The law did not affect this recent election. Turns out that reform wasn’t quite THAT important.

We’ve had our laugh; now it’s time to be scared.

After all, elections are to Bush what the Bill of Rights is to John Ashcroft. Bush’s backing of the bill should reassure the public every bit as much as his backing of corporate reform reassured Wall Street.

Here’s more: while states will be given a total of $3.9 billion to update voting systems, no federal oversight will determine what (or even if) the technology will improve. Wasn’t that the whole point of the legislation? Guess not.

The law advocates increased enforcement of voter-ID requirements by commissioners as well, which is worthy if not abused. Later, voting databases will be linked to driver’s license records. It’s the SGA “Everyone Drives” school of thought.

What I find most disturbing is the phase-in of “provisional ballots” by 2004. These are issued to those who are not on the voter rolls, enabling the person to vote. Now why would anyone want to enact such a thing, especially in time for 2004? Could it be…naaah! Well, this administration hasn’t yet cared about the due processes outlined in the Constitution; why would they start now?

If people don’t take the initiative to register before an election, then they should not vote. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for speedier registration—I remember not being able to vote a month after signing up because the registration process took too long—and the inclusion of as many voters as possible. But allowing provisional ballots opens up so much potential for corruption that even Katherine Harris has to blush.

If the Bush administration has one skill, it is its penchant for full-blown irony. And boy, are they consistent. They want to clean up corporate corruption, fight to defend freedom and advocate responsible voting practices. Imagine that.

I believe Wes Craven is looking into buying the screenplay of this story. That is, if the Onion doesn’t claim first rights.

Of course, real election reform truly is necessary, as the 2000 election proved. Ballot practices and voter rolls could both use some scrutiny. Much like Bush’s tax cuts and missile defense, however, the “Help America Vote Act” misses the target. The American people don’t need voting help; they just need assurance that their vote will be allowed, correct and will actually matter.

Channeling Reality

2002-11-06T00:00:00.000-08:00

“The human brain is more active sleeping than watching television.” –Pop-Up Video, a TV show

Join the More Than Words staff as we flash back to August 1999. That month was a period of change and upheaval in America, as I packed up and moved across town. My room in the new McGibboney Manor did not have a connection for cable television, so I gave up my cable box and took up other hobbies.

At the same time, a similar cultural shift was going on halfway across the land, in southern California, where I had trekked on vacation a few weeks before (coincidence or conspiracy?) Network executives, faced with an impending actors’ strike, looked for ways to avoid the death of prime-time television, which they apparently saw as a bad thing.

Someone hit upon the idea of creating shows with regular people rather than actors. Their hope was that these “reality shows” would resonate with regular folk, as the stars would be non-Hollywood types who could very well live next door. Hey, it worked for those kids on Barney.

Since then, Americans have been tuning in by the droves to such fare as “Survivor,” “Who Wants to be a Millionaire,” “Temptation Island,” “Who wants to Marry a Multimillionaire,” “The Osbournes,” “Elimidate,” “Big Brother,” “The Anna Nicole Show,” “Big Brother 2: Attack of the Clones” and “Who Wants to See the Woman who Married the Multimillionaire Divorce the Multimillionaire?”

Whew! Looks like I gave up the cable box just in time.

Of course, the concept of reality television is nowhere near new. Though many credit MTV for starting the trend in the early 1990s with “Road Rules” and “the Real World,” the ancestors of today’s shows actually surfaced in the 1950s. The notoriously fixed game shows of that decade showed real Americans losing real money at the hands of the rich and manipulative TV executives; with a shakier camera, those game shows could have been documentaries.

At worst, the majority of these reality shows are benign; there’s really no problem with watching them. I watch very microscopic amounts of TV these days for numerous reasons, but mainly because shows devoted to survival of the most rudely aggressive don’t turn me on.

Alas, I am in the minority. TV execs give what the public what it wants, since the shows are obviously hits. But let me explain something about pop culture: people will latch on to trends on the sole basis of their trendiness. “Eye piercing? I saw on MTV that it’s the new trend! I’m so there!” Multiply times millions and you have a made-to-order fad.

Even if this is the case, manufactured trends cannot endure without genuine public interest. All signs point to the ongoing demand for increasingly intrusive reality TV as the decade stumbles along; with that in mind, I propose some guaranteed hit series of my own:

“Big Brother’s Revenge,” in which we watch the Big Brother contestants watch themselves on Big Brother. We will thrill to their reactions when they see why the other contestants voted them out of the house, and witness the subsequent Jerry Springer-type brawls that take place. Wednesdays on CBS.

“Trading Chambers” has the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives redecorating each other’s venues. In the first episode, the representatives cover the Senate in mud while the senators splash blood all over the House. They then bicker at each other as usual. Saturdays on TLC-Span.

“Survivor” is an intimate look into the band behind such eighties classics as “Eye of the Tiger” and “The Search is Over.” Watch the band members squabble backstage at Grand Casino Coushatta! Witness them watch “Rocky III” for the 458th time!

Finally, “America’s Most Wanted” will abandon small-time crooks and track down corporate criminals. New episodes will appear hourly.

The Sniper: an American Idol

2002-10-30T00:00:00.000-08:00

Eight days ago, I forecasted some predictions about the notorious sniper with the intention of having it run today. When a manhunt like this evolves as fast as the bullets it tries to stop, however, the headlines change.

Authorities believe they have apprehended the man responsible for the shootings. Who is he? To quote my prediction from the aborted column:

“The sniper is, most likely, a red-blooded American citizen with a chip on his shoulder and a psychotic obsession with militant survivalism…he might personify the worst abuses of our most controversial right, but in his own mind he’s simply a proud citizen.”

As it turns out, the primary suspect is John Williams Muhammed, a native of Baton Rouge and Gulf War veteran! (Incidentally, he marks the second Gulf War veteran to wind up a domestic madman, the first being Timothy McVeigh.)

Why would anyone suppose in the Age of Terror and Evil that the latest heinous killer was an American citizen? The answer is quite simple.

America is in a wary period of suspicion. We have multiple issues on all fronts and are looking for ways to cope. Unfortunately, too many dwell on the negative and resort to violence and shooting in an attempt to ease the pain. More than anywhere else in the world, we in the United States have all the legal and literal ammo we need.

In retrospect, maybe we were exaggerating the threat. After all, aren’t guns the very backbone of our society, the whole reason that America exists at all? Why not applaud the sniper for using his sacred right to bear arms?

The Second Amendment is a seriously sore point with a lot of people. It is today’s equivalent of the “peculiar institution,” though I doubt another Civil War will result from it like it did from the first peculiar institution. It’s hard to fight the side with all the weaponry armed merely with a free press and some veggie burgers.

The right to bear arms is the only provision in the Bill of Rights that, when executed properly (no pun intended), results in loss of life. Even the most common and correct interpretation—that an armed citizenry is a populace free from government tyranny—is based on fear and threat of death.

Even so, don’t bet on the gun lobbies to reconsider their key issue positions because of this spree. They’ll probably decide that the solution is for everyone to carry EVEN MORE GUNS! I suppose the principle is that if you’re shot in the head at a gas station, your holstered companion will allow you to shoot back in the .000001 seconds you have left before fatally collapsing next to the overpriced pump.

But as they say, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” I’ll agree, as long as I can add “with guns” to that phrase. Firearms themselves aren’t the problem, as millions of Americans own and operate them legally; the danger today lies in our violence-worshipping subconscious.

This fact makes Muhammed’s rampage all the more puzzling. By all accounts, he was a quiet, relatively stable man growing up, though as an adult he faced two failed marriages, a truncated venture into karate instruction and a period of homelessness.

After leaving Louisiana, he found Islam and changed his last name from Williams to Muhammed. Because of this, the news networks hyperventilated over his alleged connections to terrorism (though I think anchors now do that even during cooking segments) and glossed over the fact that he fought for America in the Gulf War.

Kudos to law enforcement for realizing that not every crime that occurs here today originates from Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. Violence knows no political borders.

The Vermilion: 1904-2002?

2002-10-23T00:00:00.000-07:00

As a special Halloween gift, the SGA has something frightening cooked up for the Oct. 30-31 referendum. You’ve read so much about it in here lately, not because we like to talk about ourselves (except at the meetings), but because we want to live!

Here’s the deal: the Daily Advertiser wants to conquer campus. Presumably, those pilgrims have their sights set on new territory. Think of the Vermilion as the natives, and of this column as a smoke signal.

I read the Daily Advertiser with regularity. It has evolved over the years to cover this area in ways other dailies with larger circulation areas can’t quite accomplish. I will continue to read them, just as I have since before I could read.

However, if you are searching for the absolute worst deal of which you could possibly conceive (and who isn’t?), then get out of the used-car lot and pop by the newsstand.

The proposal is a full-fledged bad idea for students because you and I will pay more tuition to get less. It’s a bad idea for the school because it appears that they are willing to put money ahead of its own free press. It’s even bad for the Advertiser itself, for they would lose revenue to gain—by student population figures—a rather negligible expansion of readership.

Needless to say, our newspaper’s advertisers would break up with us too.

Beyond the statistics, though, lies the real and most important reason that the Advertiser should remain in the little orange box: a student newspaper simply is one of the best resources of any university.

Just as the broadcasting students have their television studio, theater students have their venue and the science and engineering departments have labs, students interested in writing have the Vermilion. Journalism and writing students can only learn so much in the classroom, and the Vermilion offers the crucial real-world simulator that they need to succeed.

The paper has gifts for you too; a view of campus that no one else can touch and—through letters, guest editorials and other means—a forum for anyone to be as much a part of our pages as our writers.

We do not go through the pains of composing this newspaper every week for the paycheck (that reminds me…got any spare change?) Our real payday comes every Wednesday when we pick up a fresh copy of our hard work.

The Vermilion boasts a diverse group of talented individuals from all walks of life. For campus coverage, you can’t beat my good friends Krista Hollier-Ditucci, Brittain Quibodeaux, Amanda Guidry, Joy Ashlyn Smith, Kemisha Ware, Shaun Hearen, Jennifer Reinert, Melanie DeHart, Meagan Crochet, fellow Mighty Lion alumnus John Raggio II and Dan “Pimp Daddy” Murphy.

They keep us up to speed on UL news, sports and entertainment and keep public debate alive and controversial, exactly the way it should be.

Rounding out our humble publication are the cartoonists--Burt D., Savann Mok and my good friend Robert “Robbo” Guillory—and the columnists: Eric LeBlanc, Heath Vercher, Andrew Hebert, Cheramie Richard and some stud whose name escapes me.

Sarah Weber, Casey Delatte and Whitney Griffin help make the paper look purty, while Betsy Slack, Rick Garneau and Kelly David create photographic gold. Angelique Guillory keeps our ads coming in.

We walk among you, share the same classes and ride the same transit buses; we know what you want and need to read, simply because we ARE you.

By all means purchase a Daily Advertiser, an Advocate or USA Today or pick up the Times or other free publications anytime. Or try the library and get your media fix from all over the world.

For UL students, however, the best value remains your free student newspaper, the Vermilion. A “no” vote on the proposal will keep it that way.

The Real Family Circus

2002-10-16T00:00:00.000-07:00

Hello again, friends and all my other readers! What did you do this past Saturday? Went out on a date, or maybe hung out with friends at the usual dive? Perhaps you preferred to stay home alone and hop around to Kris Kross’ “Jump, Jump.” Yes you do, admit it!

Well, you can keep those boring activities. I partied at the polls!

Yes, we local hicks just enjoyed another (albeit late) round of Louisiana elections™. Three recent events--the uncertainty of the 2000 presidential election, the delayed New York City mayoral election of 2001 and that prissy Hurricane Lili--led me to think that “election day” should be renamed “election delay.”

Even when elections do manage to be held, the lingering trend is for less than half of registered voters to even consider going to the polls. And that’s for presidential elections! The last time we had a local race, I swear I saw cobwebs on my voting lever; even the spider was long gone.

Maybe it’s the commercials that keep people away. Along with everything else an election cycle entails, it brings forth the usual cesspool of well-meaning, yet disturbingly similar, campaign advertisements.

For the past 20 years, political commercials have kept pace with the devolution of regular TV spots. Back then, most commercials were straightforward and informative, not to mention somewhat bland.

Narrator: “Mary Johnson, do you use the leading brand of floor wax?”

Mary: “No, I use Slip N Span! It’s not the leading brand!” Cue the jingle. And now back to the Dukes of Hazzard.

Now, however, thanks to such attention-deficit-distributing channels such as MTV, commercials tend to be very fast, saturated clips. Fortunately, political ads have not quite yet stooped to this level.

“Vote Cooksey for Senate. He’s extreeeeme! Wooooo! Put him in your head!” Cue Pantera.

Quickly following that ad would be the inevitable “Mary Landrieu. Get some!”

But I digress.

Until the early 1990s, campaign advertising and literature generally focused on the candidate’s name and a list of key issue stances. That was before the “re-elect Bush, please?” campaign of 1992 wheeled out the lovely phrase “family values.”

Positive sounding and completely indefinable, “family values” proved to be the perfect political buzzword. It set off a fad that still infects political spots today. Of course, the as-yet-unanswered question is, whose family are we talking about? The Partridge Family? The Manson Family? The Brady Bunch?!! But that’s just nitpicking, right?

“Family values” means that you can look forward to seeing the requisite picture of the candidate’s family in every single ad. Take notice, for this is a bold statement:

“Vote for me. I have a family! Look how they’re all together wearing nice clothes! And my kids are better than my opponent’s!”

Another disturbing tendency these days is to parade the word “conservative,” even if the candidate is so liberal he or she makes James Carville look like a Nazi. The only time you hear the word liberal is when it is used as the worst kind of insult …“his opponent is a LIBERAL!” Oh no, one escaped the concentration camp!

Using the above types of commercial conformity, just about anybody can look good for any position. Hmmm….

“Vote for Ian McGibboney! He’s the product of a family! With 22 years of experience in judging people, he sure knows how to wield his gavel! Ian upholds the exclusively CONSERVATIVE family values of justice, tolerance, apple pie and FAMILY VALUES!!

“His opponent’s family sucks! Just look at those wrinkles in her children’s shirts! Not only that, but her right-wing voting record betrays her LIBERAL beliefs! If you want God to bless America, vote for Ian McGibboney!”

This column paid for by the Committee to Re-Elect Ian McGibboney (CREIM).

Scratching the Blackboard

2002-10-09T12:00:00.000-07:00

I’m going to apologize upfront if this column isn’t on par with my back catalog. This was going to be a great column on education. According to, well, everyone, our school systems are in deeper doo-doo than the economy’s personal crapper. Surely, this would be one killer column, ending the hot debate on educational solutions once and for all.

Alas, I have too much homework.

Lately I’ve been up so many nights that even my dreams center around seductively beckoning beds wanting me to sleep with them. Oh, how I pine for the carefree days of this past summer! On second thought, I was enrolled this summer too, doing my internship. What was my point again?

I would have one, except that 20-page papers, communications group projects and legal briefs don’t leave me with much time to have a point. This week’s column is printed proof that balancing academics and work often means something has to suffer.

This balancing act is like an obstacle course: daunting, but easy if you know your way around. In any case, we’re on our own; none of us will get sympathy from our elders:

“Back in my day, what you call college was what we called eighth grade! And we were lucky to get to eighth grade without getting drafted or having to work 21 hours a day on the dirt farm. But we didn’t complain! We respected our elders and never spoke unless spoken to, which often meant we never talked for days! Kids today have no direction; you all suck. You’re destined for doom! And bread used to cost 35 cents a loaf!”

If education was so much harder back then, how come it seems so difficult now? What’s missing now, critics say, is emphasis on the “three Rs.” Even as a kid, though, I had to wonder why kids were taught those when ONLY ONE OF THEM ACTUALLY STARTED WITH AN R!! Maybe that’s where we went wrong!

Being a college student with a 12-year-old sister, I can vouch for the fact that college seniors and 7th-graders alike are still being taught much more than how to spell “’rithmetic.”

This point is driven home every time the little rascal barges into my quiet time (6:23:34 to 6:23:36 p.m. daily), asking me to check her math or French homework. Seventh-grade work was bad enough the first time! Mastering that stuff might explain why my sister is already smarter than I am. Not only that, but she still makes plenty of time for SpongeBob. What a genius, that girl.

Maybe if I had been lucky enough as a child to wear a preppy uniform, to concentrate solely on studying for the annual standardized test or to receive a voucher to STM or Teurlings, I wouldn’t be in this predicament. With uniforms in public schools having magically solved every conflict, though, hope lives on that Generation Z will fare better.

My friends from the aforementioned schools currently face the same issues as us public-school punks, so maybe the problem goes deeper than image. The problems run far beyond standardized-test scores and accountability.

Want to learn the true meaning of accountability? Visit the Vermilion office when I try to justify this piece of work to the editors. They’ll hold me accountable, and I’ll offer the defense that I had a major paper due in political science.

Likewise, when that political science paper returns to me with a grade resembling a deep musical note, I will simply tell the professor that I had to devote time to my column. Now THAT is textbook accountability!

The above example illustrates what I have learned most from 18-plus years of school; in addition to the lessons in managing time, money and social affairs, I have also learned how to be a con artist. If this column makes print, then I will have passed that subject.

You Golf, Girl!

2002-10-02T00:00:00.000-07:00

Sept. 21 was a magical night for the Ragin' Cajun football team; their 34-0 thrashing of Alabama-Birmingham has to be the best memory for UL Lafayette football since the Texas A&M upset in 1996. Considering that most of our current freshmen were still ripening for high school back then, getting back in the zone is long overdue.

The student section remained populated even through the torrential downpour that halted game play for 25 minutes. At times, our opponent seemed more like Rayne than Alabama-Birmingham (ooh, BAD joke!), but no amount of inclement weather could dampen the spirits of all the soaked fans who stuck around.

During the delay, I turned around and saw Cheramie headed my way, covered in a blue poncho (wuss). We had columns due in three days and we hadn't conceived a topic yet. Standing around watching the silly frat boys with colorful clothes on, we decided to write about golf.

Well, okay, not really--I know very little about golf beyond Tiger Woods. Even many non-fans of golf, however, know of Tiger’s recent stand on the question of gender discrimination. Basically, he took heat for participating in the 2002 Masters Tournament—held at a course whose rules state that the facility is strong enough for a man, not made for a woman.

Tiger, the very definition of ’00s golf, the classic success story, the kid who realized his lifelong dreams, the man who has an entire sport wrapped around his championship ring fingers, DEFENDED the policy of the Augusta National golf course, saying that, as a private organization, the club can have any policy it chooses.

Way to go there, Tiger. You're grrrrreat!

I do know, as has been opined before, that since Tiger Woods IS golf, all he had to do was say, “let the ladies tee off” and Augusta’s policy would have been dropped faster than a liberal on an oil rig. But that would probably upset Nike, so he just didn’t do it.

Historically, golf is ground zero for sexism. The very name of the sport itself derives from the acronym hung outside the stone gates of the first courses back in merry olde England; “G.O.L.F.—Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden.”

No institution, public or private, which practices this unjustified sexism should have the word “national” in its name; Augusta Irrational Golf Course makes more sense. One bright spot in this whole ordeal is the course’s decision to drop all of that advertising from the Masters. Haven’t we overdone this ad blitz already? But I’ll bet Mr. Nike-Cadillac wasn’t particularly thrilled.

Legally speaking, however, Tiger is right; Constitutional protection against discrimination extends only to government and public institutions. Private parties reserve the right to exclude whomever they choose. Hypothetically, this might open the door to the David Duke Finishing School or the Kaczynski-Koresh Top Gun Academy, but I’m not sure.

The golf issue is part of a larger picture (good thing too, since writing a whole column about golf is torturous), gender-based elitism. I am not so naïve as to believe that private gender discrimination will ever completely fade. However, women are just as capable as men in most "masculine" endeavors, just as men can do a lot of "feminine" things, such as cook, clean and think.

Of what exactly is the “male-only” crowd afraid? Do they fear that women may prove just as able, if not better, than their macho selves? Is it fear of breaking tradition? Or can it be the frightening prospect of turning the course greens into course pinks? Get a clue, gentlemen! Let them in!

Very few of the players on either team at our football game were women, but I doubt that was because the Athletic Complex went out of its way to bar those of the female inclination. More than likely, most women are smart enough to leave some things to the dogs, I mean guys.

War! What's it Good For?

2002-09-25T15:20:00.000-07:00

“Tell us commander, what do you think? / Cause we know you love all that power. / Is it on then, are we on the brink? / We wish you’d all throw in the towel.” –Men at Work, “It’s A Mistake”

Who knew that early 1990s nostalgia would surface so soon? It still seems like yesterday I was almost 11 years old, watching the Gulf War on television. Man, am I glad I kept my 8-but Nintendo, my “Too Legit to Quit” cassette, my “Cha-Ching!” Saints shirt and my slap bracelet all these years, because it’s 1991 all over again!

Now the same people who brought us the smash Gulf War miniseries are gearing up to bring us what promises to be a bigger, badder and even bloodier sequel. Gulf War 2: Back in the Habit—this time, it’s personal! Coming to a home theater of war near you.

The sequel brings back most of the major players from the first flick, including Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and lots of filthy chemicals. George W. Bush takes over the role made famous by his father, George H.W. Bush, bringing less depth to the part. Rumor has it that Saddam Hussein has a brief cameo role, but you really have to watch for it.

Seriously, WHAT ON MARS IS BUSH THINKING? We haven’t even finished digesting Osama bin Laden and already we’re shoving in Saddam Hussein? Biting off more than we can chew is a sure way to choke.

Bush is calling for war in Iraq, a major player in his “axis of idiocy,” yet virtually no one else is picking up the phone/ Too bad, because he could regale them with song: “War on Iraq is too legit, too legit to quit. Hey haaaa-eeey, hey haaaaaaay!! Too legit, too legit to quit!”

How serious of a threat is Iraq to the rest of the world? Bush chose to plead his case for war to the United Nations on Sept. 12, one day after the regurgitation of American war fever. Like any great comedian, Bush has a terrific sense of timing.

Still, the UN cannot see the virtue of ousting Saddam. But think of the benefits, guys: a pro-U.S. government in Iraq! No more weapons of mass destruction to U.S. weapons of mass destruction! Revenge! And, of course, the clincher: lots and lots of oil for the United States!

Guess the only way to strike back at a state for repeatedly violating the UN is to, uh, violate the UN.

Why don’t they just drop the whole Sept. 11 charade and admit they want revenge for 1991? Absolutely nothing ties Iraq to any terrorist front; in fact, the chances of secular Saddam hooking up with the zealots of al-Qaida are about the same as his joining forces with us. Oh, wait, he did!

Once upon a time, back in the glorious 1980s, the United States had two wonderful allies in those zany Saddam and Osama characters. Saddam fought evil religious bigots from Iran while Osama helped fight evil godless commies from the Soviet Union. Because they were aiding U.S. interests, we hooked them up with all of the arms and other goodies the Second Amendment would allow to help them in their quests.

Years later, to paraphrase the old Dentyne commercial, those two were so good they bit us back. Our leaders should consider this tidbit of trivia before deciding to topple the Iraqi government. After all, as the history teacher said to the class, “those who fail history are doomed to retake it.”

Today’s nation-building breeds tomorrow’s terrorist. If we are wise, maybe we can install a successor with an appropriately evil name so that in 2012 we can have our fancy Terrorist of the Decade and eat him too.

Cha-ching!

Rationalizing Racism

2002-09-18T14:30:00.000-07:00

Imagine a home security system that pledged to eradicate intruders. Instead of sounding an alarm, however, it carefully scanned the physical characteristics of the assailant and stored the description in a master database. While all of this is going on, the intruder gets the hell out with your Dodge. Rest assured, however, that if anyone fitting even a slight description of that person comes by in the future, even if it’s simply your paperboy with sunburn, that person would face a swift and violent death.

Guess what, consumers! We have such a product just for you—our justice system! Yes, the anti-terror government once again displayed its penchant for closing the cash register long after the money has been swiped. Critics call it “racial profiling”; proponents call it, well, “racial profiling.” Over the past year, racial profiling has been promoted from the politely ignored elephant in the room to headlining status at the circus.

The procedure goes something like this: 1) Watch helplessly as minority commits disgusting atrocity; 2) Build hatred by watching the clip again all day and night for weeks; 3) Publicly vow that this is the last time those people get to you; 4) Get re-elected for your “tough stance on crime.” Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Everybody seems to be all for racial profiling now that the term has been successfully transferred in connotation from black motorist to Arab terrorist. Even some progressives have joined the fray, calling for the suspension of someone’s legal rights only on the basis of their looks. Why? If the potential for terror truly exists at the airport, surely more pertinent warning signs will manifest than the suspect’s SPF requirement.

Advocates of the practice argue that other nation-states use it with much success. Gee Wally, but if rogue states—hell-bent on annihilating the country next door in the name of loving thy neighbor—are now our role models, then perhaps the United States is less civilized than we fantasize.

I don’t see the point of putting the 24/7 watch out on a whole ethnicity simply because of what one rogue group of fanatics did. Didn’t President Bush call for us not to do this very thing following the attacks?

The pages of American history are peppered with paranoid atrocities in the name of freedom. Consequently, our apology credit card is already over the limit, and we can’t stop charging! Maybe racial profiling would make more sense if it were fairly applied to all races. The whole question of fair use, however, is moot; the fatal flaw against racial profiling is its selectiveness. After all, as the great white prophet Eminem once said, “It feels so empty without me!”

If a rouge gang of Caucasians perpetrated some terror, would this system work? Hah! Case in point: after Timothy McVeigh’s cowardly “statement,” the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, did anyone even consider for a nanosecond interring whites? Of course not! Should it have been considered? No. And that right there should send a red flag regarding the efficacy of racial profiling.

This practice is not a crime-fighting tool; it is an excuse to exhibit everything that personifies the idea of the “ugly American” to the rest of the world. Terrorists don’t hate our freedom; they hate our arrogance. Why fuel their fire further?

Racial profiling is simply the latest in a string of excuses for locking up and withholding minorities. It is a complex network encompassing the media, the law and the human mind. Although it might hurt our primal will, we still must adhere to our sacred principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Today, One Year Later

2002-09-11T00:00:00.000-07:00

Today is the one-year anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center towers in Manhattan. Perhaps you heard something about it.

Everyone has a story of his or her own about that day. Mine involves sleeping late that morning, so it probably wouldn’t make good column fodder. Instead, since I feel the media has so frustratingly failed to do so, I want to examine the actions taken by our leaders and how this attack has affected our quality of life in the past year.

The events of Sept. 11 brought out the good, the bad and the ugly inherent in the world. The initial outpouring of grief and sympathy has, for some, been replaced by suspicion and “justification” of personal prejudices.

For this reason, a disturbingly high number of the populace is more than willing to give up the liberties that America stands in order to preserve American liberties. And they say irony is dead!

All I know is, people like Osama and John Ashcroft make this epic battle look like pro wrestling; which bad guy should I root for in this contrived storyline?

I feel shameful for saying that about my country, but in a lot of ways this attack has allowed our officials to turn the United States into a conformist metal detector. Turning the American flag into an omnipresent symbol of obedience has not helped to alleviate this perception. Merely waving a flag will not make you a patriot, and neither will affixing 20 flag stickers to your truck (like the one I recently saw in traffic).

Patriotism comes from a genuine and consistent passion for the principles that founded this country and undying adherence to those freedoms. Purchasing a flag or an SUV on September 12 did not count, in spite of what anyone may have told you.

For many, one essence of patriotism is enjoying the Super Bowl, where one of the few American-bred sports comes together with capitalism at its most flamboyant. This year’s crop of Super Bowl commercials showcased a very stern announcement, courtesy of the War on Terror; remember friends, when you buy drugs, you SUPPORT THE TERRORISTS! Spend your money on non-terrorist-abetting products such as gasoline instead.

As for the government’s handling of the crisis, I give them in A+—in failing spectacularly. This assault was the perfect opportunity to show the world how justice is done right—the American way!

Instead, our esteemed leaders went the medieval route, with daily doses of Constitution shredding. Evidently, the current strategy is to out-terrorize the terrorists, even if the alleged “terrorists” are American citizens whose only contact with a bomb was seeing the movie “Battlefield Earth.”

In this bizarre pinball game of a year, the U.S. government has careened out of control with power, with only the flippers of a concerned American public keeping them on the playing field. But like any pinball machine, the field is slanted, and the ball slips through the flippers once in a while. In other words, the government, much like a pinball, does what it wants if we let it. Tilt!

The positive stories of this past year, and there are multitudes of them, lie in the regular people of America: the firefighters, the police officers, the working class and everyone else involved in the collective caring of a nation. These selfless patriots became unified not through some abstract concept of “fighting terror” or revenge, but through bringing hope and comfort to the afflicted.

When people anywhere make references to the undying spirit of America, these are the people to whom they are referring. They deserve our eternal gratitude.

So where will we be as a nation one year from today? Hopefully the American people will continue to have their hearts in the right place and government belligerence won’t force us into yet another “where were you when you heard…” incident. Let’s hope we never have to remember where we were ever again.

Playing Patriot Games

2002-09-04T12:00:00.000-07:00

Now that the novelty of studying has worn off, it’s time for FOOTBALL!

If you’re a huge gridiron fan (or not), I highly recommend Saturday nights at Cajun Field this fall. Even if the season doesn’t work out, there are still the social prospects that come with 15,000-plus people sitting in a gigantic hole.

Sundays, of course, will mark the return of pro football and all of its mercenaries—between Jerry Jones and 3Com Park, experts predict that within five years the NFL will officially become more politicized than politics. Some would say the league is already there.

WASHINGTON (PP)—In an unprecedented joint announcement, President George W. Bush and National Football League Commissioner Paul Tagliabue declared Tuesday that, in an attempt to continue the American spirit prompted by the September 11 attacks, Super Bowl XXXVII will automatically include the defending champion New England Patriots.

“Football is the all-American pastime,” President Bush said, “and the Patriots are America’s team. Naturally, it seems only fair that we showcase the most American team in the most American game!”

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer then clarified that the Dallas Cowboys are “America’s Team,” and that baseball is the national pastime.

Bush rebutted by quipping, “I knew that! I owned a baseball team in Texas!”

Tagliabue then took to the podium, explaining the decision to alter the playoff process.

“With the tragic events of Sept. 11 still searing in our minds,” he said, “having the Patriots in the Super Bowl in 2001-02 was perfect for displaying American perserverance and capacity for entertainment. Having the Patriots in the big game once again would perpetuate national pride in our most unifying event.”

Tagliabue added that the Patriots’ NFC opponent would most likely also be picked for their representation of America. He said that the Washington Redskins would make the most obvious choice.

“The Redskins combine several aspects of Americana,” Tagliabue explained, “a proud tradition for kicking butt, Washington D.C. as a hub for strength, and blatant yet willfully overlooked racism and genocide.”

However, the NFL is also considering other American-tinged NFC teams to oppose the AFC Patriots.

The Cowboys, though eliminated from the 2001 playoffs last August, have been considered in light of their long-standing title as “America’s Team,” their archetypal mascot and their Texan status, all of which give them an undeserved amount of political clout with the White House.

Though Tagliabue expressed uncertainty about who would represent the NFC, he did declare that some potential teams have already been eliminated.

The Christian Coalition had planned to lobby for the New Orleans Saints, but that deal fell through during negotiations when Saints owner Tom Benson demanded that a separate stadium be built exclusively for the game and be torn down afterwards.

“We basically told them that hell would freeze over before we would consider agreeing to that,” said a Christian Coalition official.

One White House source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Bush was in negotiations to somehow fit the new AFC expansion Houston Texans into the game, possibly as officials.

“In any case,” the source added, “Bush is pushing for [Florida Secretary of State] Katherine Harris to call instant replay challenges.”

Bush said he hoped to book Lee Greenwood, composer of the 1984 hit “God Bless the U.S.A.,” for the halftime show. He also favored the participation of Stevie Wonder.

“I already made a colorful sign so that Stevie will see me in the crowd,” Bush said before being nudged from the podium by Fleischer.

Tagliabue argued for a repeat halftime performance from U2, one of rock music history’s most successful acts and huge ratings draw this past year.

“I just hope U2 doesn’t sing their anti-war songs,” Bush replied. “That wouldn’t be patriotic.”

Former ABC football commentator Howard Cosell could not be reached for comment. He was, however, reportedly spinning in his grave.

The Good, Bad and Beautiful

2002-08-28T00:00:00.000-07:00

I love UL Lafayette, which is why I am a perpetual student and plan never to leave. Whether it’s daily doses of communications and political science, doing last-minute assignments at Dupre Library, goofing off in Guillory Hall, dog paddling at the Aquatic Center, or working at the track and the Vermilion, I am always happy to be at my home away from home. (I’m actually from Lafayette, but that’s beside the point.)

In the interest of improving our lot, this list touches on a host of campus issues that will surprise no one. My guess is that Cheramie has the lock on security matters, so my list focuses on more benign topics, some of which might even have solutions! At least they prove that we all stand in the same long line at some point.

1) Campus parking: a microcosm of typical Louisiana driving.

Call me psycho, but I think UL Lafayette parking is perfect the way it is, especially when you consider the alternatives.

Seeing as how the university campus was built around small roads--originally designed for Fideaux to rest his carcass while Farmer Breaux received his eighth-grade learnin’ at SLII--an ugly, traffic-snarling, on-campus parking garage is probably not the answer.

Nor should we base permit priority on classification—this isn’t UL Lafayette High. Instead, test each applicant in parallel parking; if they can complete the maneuver in any passable way, offer to sell them a sticker. Not only would that reduce Cajun Field congestion by 75 percent, but might spell an end to cars on Hebrard Boulevard altogether.

Regardless of any changes, however, people will still find ways to park anywhere. So it looks like the Social Darwinist system we’ve got now will stick around.
Of course, bicycles are always a perfect alternative for those (three) days when it doesn’t rain.

2) ULLISIS: like trying to be the ninth caller in a radio contest.

What other online service has seven ways to say, “Sorry, we deliberately disconnected you?” I like to hit the “refresh” icon repeatedly to see which one will pop up next. ULLISIS has helped multitudes of students overcome their addiction to scheduling.

3) Classes at 8 a.m.: morning sickness of the worst kind!

Early-morning classes are like childbirth and getting dead drunk; you swear this is the last time ever! But the following semester, there they are again.

4) A vending machine’s attractiveness is inversely related to how well it works.

Much like the dating scene, anyone interested in a quick snack fix must wade through the sea of seductively adorned machines to find the rare non-pretentious vendor that actually works. If the vending-machine mafia in Guillory Hall has ever bled you dry, then you know what I’m talking about. It is better to gamble your dollar on an ugly machine, preferably one that looks unplugged, tucked away behind some staircase.

5) The change machine in Guillory Hall is a bigger clown than Ronald McDonald could ever hope to be.

One very picky eater, it is the only change machine I’ve ever seen that actually smirks at you; even its “out-of-order” light is out of order.

Okay, so the grass may sometimes seem greener on the other side, but look at it this way: grass isn’t supposed to be green in the fall. Ragin’ Cajuns do have a lot to be happy about!

1) Long lines allow you to meet that special someone.

Depending on the line, you may go through two or three relationships before you have a chance to write that large check.

2) There is no crime on campus.

This is evidenced by the recent lack of Crime Logs in the Vermilion.

3) The ever-popular Strip.

Perfect for those nights when you want to do something UNUSUAL.

4) The easy-to-read grade reports.

Okay, maybe not.