Arizona Daily Wildcat Online
Front Page
Arts & Entertainment
Police Beat
Photo Spreads
Special Sections
The Wildcat
Letter to the Editor
Wildcat staff
Job Openings
Advertising Info
Student Media
Arizona Student Media info
UATV - student TV
KAMP - student radio
The Desert Yearbook
Daily Wildcat staff alumni

A sorry state of (foreign) affairs

Sara Warzecka
By Sara Warzecka
Arizona Daily Wildcat
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Print this

I've come to a point where I'm so pissed off at the state of the government I can hardly speak without exploding. I don't know why it angers me so much since this is exactly what any sensible human being would expect from our capitalist democratic society. Let's review a few reasons politicians make me ashamed of the system. Try to keep the vomit down as we go.

The newest piece of controversy has me particularly huffy. The headline on read, "Bush: U.S probes possible Iran links to 9/11." Now wait a second, doesn't this sound awfully familiar? In fact, it sounds exactly like what the public was told about Iraq before Bush decided to send troops in for no justifiable reason. How about we see some evidence this time? If Bush wants to say the Tehran government is harboring al-Qaida fugitives and somehow managed to contribute to the attacks on Sept. 11, show the people some concrete facts and hard proof. No more playing around with people's emotions. No more using Sept. 11 for political manipulation. No proof, no troops.

Part of Bush's defense for this investigation, as cited by CNN, is the fact that "after all, it is a totalitarian society where free people are not allowed to exercise their rights as human beings." I'm glad our president has such a keen way of putting everything into perspective. And yet investigations thus far have yet to show any direct link between Iran and the events of Sept. 11. Go figure. If Iran had any part in funding the terrorist attacks, which it may very well have, it would be one of possibly dozens of countries or organizations monetarily involved. And chances are the government has known about it for a while.

Despite the fact that Michael Moore is often an overinflated bag of useless hot air, his movie is still correct in the fact that the Bush family has many meaningful business ties to the oil business in the Middle East. On that note, can anyone tell me why it is that Saudi Arabia is the only country that is always left alone? Oh yes! It has the world's largest supply of oil. Once again, everything in the world makes sense. Seems we're taking out the axis of evil one-by-one. Look out, North Korea!

And, just when I find myself missing Clinton deep in my Democratic heart, comes the news of more scandals from the former Clinton administration. The ex-president's national security advisor has managed to disappear documents from the National Archives involving information under review by the Sept. 11 commission. According to CNN, he says he "inadvertently" took classified papers. Aren't politicians supposed to be just a tiny bit smarter than "inadvertently?"

Next in the news, there is the threat of an amendment to the Constitution defining "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman. The danger of religious conservatives controlling other people's lives has subsided, but only for the moment. In a 48-to-50 vote, with senators voting against party politics on both sides, one must wonder how the vote would have gone if all senators were forced to participate. How would Kerry and Edwards have voted if they'd been forced to attend, since they were the only two who did not? Thank goodness they didn't have to; otherwise they would've had to choose between abandoning their ideals and offending the conservative public and swing voters. I don't know how politicians manage to make such tough decisions.

Even Republican Arizona senator John McCain voted against the measure, though his vote was not necessarily for the right reasons.

This amendment appears to be based on language alone. A marriage cannot be between any two people. It must be between a man and a woman only. Would anti-gay marriage activists be less offended if the word "union" was used instead? Would a gay union still uphold the sanctity of the word "marriage?" Can people stand to share such a precious word when it should not affect their lives or marriages in any way whatsoever?

Shoot me. Shoot me! Shoot me now!

Sara Warzecka hopes everyone visits and thinks it over. She can be reached at

Write a Letter to the Editor
Cambodia a tourist's nightmare
A silent epidemic
A sorry state of (foreign) affairs
Housing Guide
Restaurant and Bar guide
Search for:
advanced search Archives


Webmaster -
© Copyright 2004 - The Arizona Daily Wildcat - Arizona Student Media