When Vice President Dick Cheney peppered his buddy Harry Whittington with birdshot last week, the news cycle surrounding the White House at the time wasn't flattering. In fact, it was the best thing that could have happened for the Bush administration. That's because the resulting media frenzy heaped upon Cheney's accident pushed far more damaging stories off the nation's collective radar.
For instance, an article written for the March/April edition of Foreign Affairs by former CIA National Intelligence Officer for the Middle East, Paul R. Pillar, states the White House disregarded real intelligence, politicized the intelligence gathering process, and used bogus raw intelligence in taking the nation to war in Iraq. This corroborates the infamous "Downing Street memo" that said the White House was "fixing" intelligence to fit its preexisting war agenda, which was in place prior to 9/11. In other words, the White House worked very hard to feed us bogus intelligence.
The shotgun blast heard throughout the news made people forget about other stories too. The investigation into the failed Hurricane Katrina relief response, particularly Department of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff's damning testimony, was important and has wide implications into how the United States can cope with future catastrophes. The U.S. detainees in Guantanamo Bay also reappeared with a United Nations report calling the treatment of the prisoners a human rights violation akin to torture. After three years in cells, none of the detainees have been charged.
Cheney made a horrible mistake that we are sure he regrets immensely. But the media has been so tied up in what it thinks is a juicy story that other stories that need real investigation have been glossed over. The only real response to the U.N. report is the White House claiming the report is baseless, and Chertoff's testimony was just as clueless as that of former FEMA Chief Michael Brown. Sure, it was newsworthy, but it is clear Cheney's accident was only an accident. Media should move on and get back to real business.
Affirmative shift
Affirmative action is still a necessary component to improving U.S. equality
Morgan Freeman recently declared Black History Month "ridiculous." Regulating black history to one month a year perpetuates racism, Freeman said, and "black history is American history."
Though Freeman may have a point, celebrating black history for only one month a year can't possibly do it justice. He is wrong. Black History Month is needed because it is a history of people overcoming adversity and reminds Americans that sometimes we are our own worst enemy. Racism is also still around, with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina highlighting the large proportion of the American poor that is black. It's the inequality found in every measurable standard of living that not only makes remembering black history important, but also shows affirmative action is still needed.
Similar to the reasoning that makes Black History Month vital, affirmative action is needed in a society where white men make up only 43 percent of the workforce, yet account for 95 percent of the upper management positions in Fortune 500 companies. The good old boys club is alive and well, and affirmative action looks to level the playing field.
If anything, affirmative action programs should be modified: while race should still play into the equation, economic situation should be more heavily considered. As of the 2004 U.S. census, blacks have the lowest median income of all races at $30,134, and Hispanics had the second lowest, with $34,241. In comparison, the median income for white households is $48,977. It's a simple fact that the average white family has more money - and therefore more opportunity - than most minority families. Without actively helping those who need it, the divide between haves and have-nots will only grow.
