 |
| 2003 |
| Section E, Page 1 |
 |
| Misc. 1E |
 |
| Questions? Answers? Wanna write an article? Keep in mind - It's my site, and I pick and choose the opinions that make it here. E-mail me at: novellaidea@yahoo.com |
| Freedom Toast? |
| Novella Idea, 03-28-03 |
| It seems as though maturity has gone to les oiseaux (the birds). What began as a tiny lump in the brain of many Americans has grown to a malignant, neglected tumor that has spread throughout the body of our entire country. French bashing, the new American pasttime (since baseball has become "irrelevant"), began first with a few muttered comments, spread to American restaurants, and slid its way into our government. Freedom Fries served in the House cafeteria. Freedom Toast served on Air Force One. Will we next be selling Freedom doors, putting our hair up in Freedom twists, and exchanging Freedom kisses? On an AOL message board, one woman claimed that she had thrown away her "traitorous french cut green beans and fries" (they were probably freezer burned and she wanted to appear "patriotic"). Tator tot sales must be through the roof. The idiocy doesn't end there. As cnn.com states, "a Florida congresswoman has proposed that the government pay for families who might want to bring home from France the remains of Americans who fought and died in the world wars" (read it here). *Note* - the original second half of this article was lost Somehow, I doubt the French really care if we no longer call something French that wasn't French in the first place. U.S. Government: "HAHA, we're not gonna call these fried potatoes that have made us really fat 'French' anymore. So there! Neenerneenerneener!" The French Government: ".........." Whether or not fries should be served under one name or another should not be an issue. It alarms me that so much time has been spent on thumbing our noses at another country. What will we do when this is over? Will people even want to try to repair the damage? It is unfortunate that this childish argument has so much power. But symbols are powerful ways of communicating, and by "destroying" symbols of French and U.S. brother and sisterhood, we're slowly destroying the actual relationship. Do the French have to agree with us? Are you kidding? The idea that everybody on earth has to agree with us is both ridiculous and self-defeating. Total agreement is impossible. I find it alarming that while I, a twenty-year-old, understand this, our government does not. ~ |
| Support and Disagreement |
| Novella Idea, 04-03-03 |
| Shame on you, America. Shame on the pro-war "activists" who claim that all war protestors want U.S. soldiers to die in combat. Shame on the anti-war activists who claim it is impossible to support troops and still not support a war. Protestors: If you spit on a soldier, I hope something relatively painful happens to you. Supporting soldiers has nothing to do with politics. Whatever their reasons are for joining the military, these people are defending you and dying for you. They are having to kill for you. No matter what you think, soldiers do not enjoy killing. Admittedly, if someone shoots at them, most soldiers are, understandably, going to fire back. As if you wouldn't do the same. Who cares if you didn't want this war? The soldiers in Iraq and on their way to Iraq didn't want to leave their jobs, their newborn babies, their education. But they have to, because whatever their politics, their commander-in-chief has ordered them into danger. I don't care if you don't want people dying for you. I don't want people dying for me, either. But that doesn't mean I will insult soldiers that are carrying wounded Iraqi children, or mock rescued POWs. I tire of hearing that all soldiers should become "conscientious objectors." If they did that, who would defend us if violence came to our shores? Who would rescue invaded countries (Like Kuwait in the first Gulf War)? I am fully against this war. But the military as an entity is a necessary evil, and soldiers are real people, not atrocious, soulless murderers. Please forgive my lack of eloquence. I just had to say something. |
| Embedded |
| Novella Idea, 04-11-03 |
| Embedded will most definitely be included in lists of 2003's "pop" words and phrases. Everybody's got it stuck in their head, and people have been using it with an increased frequency - even in relation to things that have nothing to do with reporters or Gulf War II. Dictionary.com's first definition of "embedded" is as follows: "To fix firmly in a surrounding mass." It's third definition is "To cause to be an integral part of a surrounding whole." Integral is a key word here. I've heard many ultra-conservatives state that embedded reporters are "dangerous," "nonessential," "superfluous," "unneeded," and "unwanted." Some claim that these reporters will "give away" the location of our soldiers, thus threatening mission security. Others claim these reporters needlessly tie-up resources, endanger themselves, and slow the entire operation down. Extreme liberals scoff at the idea of embedded reporters. "Useless," they say. "Driven by the mega corporations. We'll never get real information - it's just another way to feed us MISinformation!!" I'm not going to claim that everything we hear and see on CNN is true. But I'm also not going to claim that it's all false, either. I don't have a gigantic satellite that allows me to pick up international television broadcasts, so I'm forced to depend mostly on networks like CNN. And what I've seen, despite the bias that will always be impossible to get rid of, has been informative (if taken with the much overused grain of salt). There's only so much "lying" an embedded reporter can do on-camera. Contrary to popular paranoid belief, it's actually quite difficult to organize tanks, bombs, death and destruction for each and every embedded reporter from all over the world. In fact, I'd have to call it impossible. It's equally impossible to completely repress coverage any mass slaughter or ethnic cleansing that could go on. It will get out. => |
| It seems to me that embedded reporters have done a pretty good job of not needlessly endangering themselves and the troops. They don't give away more than they're allowed, and they're careful when there's danger. And despite the fact that they can only say so much, what they do say is invaluable. How many of you distinctly remember our "little battle" in Afghanistan? How many people died? What was attacked, and when? Who's in charge now? I don't know all of the answers to these questions, and I'd have to say that it's because reporters were allowed to report almost nothing. I think that perhaps one reporter was allowed to embed for a brief time. Since the Vietnam War, the military and the press have been mud-slinging enemies, and because of this there may be things that we should know about that we never will. The soldiers (on camera, at least) are behaving. We've seen dead soldiers, and dead Iraqis. We were allowed to experience the anger and indignation resulting from the shelling of the Palestine Hotel, which killed three journalists. I think embedded reporters knew very well that they'd be in danger - after all, they prepared for months to go into a hostile situation. Dictionary.com's definition of integral is as follows: "Essential or necessary for completeness; constituent." Sure, the government and military will tell us later what happened. But without the "voice of the people" there to see it, we could miss a lot. We could miss the important things - and then end up uninformed if things go wrong. For more information on the importance of embedded reporters see this letter written by CNN Exectutives: "Let reporters cover war." ~ |