“I am the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, and as such I am ultimately responsible for all breaches of this nation’s security. On Sept. 11, 2001, a hostile and clandestine terrorist force who had trained diligently for perhaps years, commandeered four commercial airliners and initiated a ruthless aerial attack on at least three of our national landmark institutions: the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and an intended third target that can be conjectured to be either the White House or the Capitol building (fortunately unsuccessfully). The attacks met with devastating results, and their aftermath has altered our way of life and the collective national psyche. No longer can we ignore the slightest of threats or assume that we are at all times safe.

Still, the questions that no doubt trouble the nation are based on what, if anything, could have prevented the attacks.

Members of the commission, by now you have before you information that suggests that there was advance warning of a terrorist attack and that the administration, of which I hold the highest of national security positions, acted lethargically. This is true. There are allegations that the two critical agencies, the FBI and the CIA, had advance and indicative intelligence information that suggested pending terrorist threats. This is also true. There is thought among many enlightened members of this commission that, had this information been properly handled and had not the virus of bureaucratic self-importance and governmental hubris afflicted us all at many levels, well, we would not be having these hearings. This, I’m afraid, is also true. In response, air, sea and ground forces of our military have all but eliminated those who conspired to undertake these cowardly deeds. I take some solace in those facts.

Still, I am the National Security Advisor, and all I can say that would be of any significance right now is that I am profoundly sorry and that I hope all of us in higher office never forget the following: ‘Evil triumphs when good men stand by and do nothing.’ Now, Senator, what is your first question?”

Octavio Ramos can be contacted at o.ramos@umiami.edu.

In November, Americans will make a choice that is fundamental to our system of government – voting for President. While most of the college age population will be doing something other than voting, either George W. Bush will continue into a second term, or the news media will be focusing on what the Kerry presidency is going to mean for America. I believe the proper choice is to re-elect President Bush. Here are a couple of reasons.

I believe the biggest issue that will preoccupy voters is the situation in Iraq. Going into Iraq was the right thing to do, and staying in Iraq is the right thing to do. The President correctly characterized our enemy and their brutality in his April 14 news conference: “None of these acts is the work of a religion; all are the work of a fanatical, political ideology. The servants of this ideology seek tyranny in the Middle East and beyond.” Like the tyrants of the past that threatened the security of the United States, the President has made it clear that we will confront this threat and that we will no longer be intimidated. Whether or not we ultimately find WMDs is no longer important. Saddam Hussein possessing the potential to build them was sufficient cause to take action, and the brutality of demagogues like Muqtada al-Sadr is sufficient cause to stay the course. America and its allies will be safer in the long run.

The other major issue in the mind of voters is the economy. Having inherited an economy in decline, President Bush’s economic policy shows he understands that the economy is driven by the consumer. In passing tax relief for all Americans, a much needed energy boost was given to the economy and to the personal budgets of millions of Americans. It took some time to feel it, but the economy stabilized, recession was minimized and last month 300,000 new jobs were created. According to the April 14 edition of the Financial Times, retail sales in the United States increased by 1.8 percent in March, “more than double the figure forecast by economists.” Additionally, FT reported, “businesses increased inventory levels in February at the fastest rate since mid-2000.” JP Morgan, one of the country’s leading investment banks, says that the U.S. economy is likely to increase at 5 percent in the first three months of the year. Consumers and businesses are feeling confident and that means a stronger economy for all of us.

I believe President Bush should be reelected because he represents not only progress in the right direction, but a presidency that is about substance. The voters want to vote “for” something, and Bush gives them something to vote for – character, integrity and vision for a stronger America. George W. Bush has set us on that path, and Americans need to reelect him so that “this great nation shall not perish from the earth.”

Scott Wacholtz can be contacted at s.wacholtz@umiami.edu.

I mean, come on. What else can you say about the guy? He drops F-bombs in Rolling Stone magazine, he snowboards, he chills with Teddy Kennedy and he wears leather and rides a sick Harley onto the set of The Tonight Show. He’s one sah-weet dude!

Well, other than the fact that most of that (he really does chill with my boy Teddy) is just a carefully organized strategy to make JFK – that’s what I like to call him – seem more hip than the 60-year-old Massachusetts Liberal he really is. And hey, I’m fine with that. If that’s all it takes to get the apathetic – and really, let’s face it, just pathetic – American voting public to go to the polls, so be it. The people who care will still get their Massachusetts Liberal, thank you very much.

For some reason, “liberal” has become a dirty word. You actually believe everyone deserves a fair shake?! Shame on you!

Lately, Kerry has been shuffling to the middle on issues like gay marriage and outsourcing (I hate to tell you, but almost everyone is in favor of somewhat free trade, ya silly nationalists). In all likeliness, he’ll probably shift a little back to the left if he’s elected. Hey, Dubya abandoned the center as soon as he took office, too, and he wasn’t even elected! But still, it’s encouraging that a lifelong liberal can make concessions to the center in order to be elected; it shows that he’s willing to compromise, something to which it seems the Bush Regime is less amenable.

A lot has been made of Bush’s National Guard service, and in response, the Republicans have attacked Kerry for his post-service anti-war activities.

At first glance, this seems like nothing more than a despicable display of smear politics. However, it’s not about whether Bush dodged the draft using political influence or whether Kerry associated with Communist sympathizers; it’s about who we can trust. Who is more apt to be a hands-on President?

Even if it turns out Bush fulfilled his National Guard service, it doesn’t matter. Clearly, he did not embrace a leadership position. He had no passion about the Vietnam War, regardless of where he was serving. It didn’t affect him. He was Senator George H.W. Bush’s son. He didn’t have to worry about a thing because he wasn’t a regular Texan, and he was damn proud of it.

Kerry, on the other hand, went to war. He saved lives. He was a commanding officer. When he got back, he made sure everyone knew what a terrible mistake the Vietnam War was. He was a passionate leader. And that’s exactly what we need in these trying times.

We don’t need a guy who hoodwinks the American public into confusing Saddam Hussein with Osama bin-Laden.

More is at stake in this election than whether you think a black kid stole your spot at Harvard or whether you’re hoping that someday you, too, can be part of the elite top one percent so you can get a tax cut that won’t even matter to you. We need our leader to be someone who is passionate, who knows how to compromise and, most importantly, whom we can trust. John Forbes Kerry is that man.

Patrick Gibbons can be contacted at p.gibbons@umiami.edu.

To the editor:

When I read “Lost in Translation” (The Hurricane’s editorial, April 6) and Nicholas G. Moses’ subsequent letter to the editor (The Hurricane, April 9), I realized that the definition of being American is distorted. Some believe that being American means having one language and one culture. To me, being American means having the freedom of integrating both my Filipino and Western ideals and having the right to be recognized and respected for all aspects of who I am. Moses seems to acknowledge the influence of other cultures in America, but he also says that minorities arrive in America and “still pledge [their] first loyalty to [their] countries of origin,” implying that this is a threat. Many people in this country speak perfect English but desire to speak the languages of their native countries in order to remain close to their roots. Contrary to what Moses believes, I don’t think that is something they do “because they can get away with it.” This desire to integrate their ethnic background with their American identities is their own interpretation of the American Dream. We shouldn’t see other cultures as being mere contributions to American culture; American culture is a collection of these other cultures.
Moses believes that immigrants ought to learn the language of a particular country “rather than make the country accommodate them by learning [the immigrant’s] native tongue.” However, many people in their countries are fluent in at least two or three languages. If anything, with America celebrating its status as a “melting pot” of different cultures, shouldn’t Americans reflect the same proficiency? I’m not suggesting that Americans be required to learn multiple languages, but, learning other languages should not be viewed negatively; it should be viewed as an opportunity to grow and become more global.
Moses believes that if people are going to live in America, they ought to learn English. This notion seems to arise from a belief that English is the native language in this country. But if we go from that, then we should speak the language of the Spanish conquistadors that arrived in this land long before other European settlers. In fact, what follows is that we actually ought to learn and speak the languages of Native Americans.

Sincerely,

Tiffany Biason

It’s starting.

With Presidential elections more than six months away, politics are beginning to invade UM and other college campuses around the nation.

Recently, Miami-Dade County Mayor and Democratic senatorial candidate Alex Penelas came to speak to students, as did Congressman (FL-20) and Democratic senatorial candidate Peter Deutsch. On Monday, Senator and expected Democratic nominee John Kerry (D-Mass.) kicked off his “Change Starts with U” college campus tour.

To paraphrase it in UM terms: the storm is here.

Politicians have realized that college students have the potential of being one of the most powerful voting groups in the country. As a whole, we remain a relatively untapped source of voters that politicians have not been able to reach, at least not yet. Campaigns like MTV’s “Choose or Lose 20 Million Loud,” “Rock the Vote” and UM’s own “Get Out the Vote” intend to grasp the attention of young voters, informing them and registering them to vote, regardless of party affiliations. MTV’s campaign, for example, aims to get 20 million young people to vote in order to be a deciding factor in the election.

In the past, many college students were uninterested and unaffected by main election issues: Social Security – we’ll have plenty of working years to save up for retirement!; Medicare – isn’t that something for old people?; taxes – what taxes? Mommy and Daddy pay for those.

It’s easy to take refuge in the minutiae of our daily lives (classes, meetings, TV shows) and believe that things are all right and problems are “elsewhere,” never close to home.

This time around, however, the campaign issues are nearer to our hearts: gay marriage, funding for college, people our age going to war… we’ve even taken some interest in Social Security, now that it appears we will have to deal with its burden.

Currently, some members of our age group seem to be fed up with party politics and the “politics game” and feel all politicians are conniving thieves and liars. Others find it annoying to change their registration to absentee voting. However, these excuses are not good enough.

You can whine and moan about the current government, past governments and future candidates, but if you didn’t vote – if you didn’t even attempt to make a difference – then you’re not entitled to complain.

Put yourself in the shoes of college students in other countries, where votes are lost to corruption and questionable political institutions, where presidential candidates have been in prison or where citizens don’t even have the right to vote. They would be thrilled to have the opportunity to participate in American elections, where institutions are trustworthy, votes count and all candidates are equally qualified to hold the office of President.

Unfortunately, UM students are often accused of being apathetic and apolitical. We would hate to believe that this is true. Hopefully it’s just that in an evenly split campus, politically-speaking – much like the country itself – students simply keep their opinions to themselves. Now, however, is the time to voice them.

If you want change, this is your chance to request it. If you’re happy with the way things are going, this is the moment to express it.

Put down the beer, stop IM-ing and get off your ass. Register to vote. Read the newspaper. Listen to press conferences. Look up the candidates’ web pages to get informed. Follow politics for the next few crucial months.

You have no excuse.