 |
|
 |
| Slow Edition |
| 0 cents |
| The Great WMD-I Mean, Wild Goose Chase |
| Artists' Responsibility |
| Novella Idea 05-25-03 |
| A common question has been whether or not "celebrities," better known as artists, should test political and social waters by expressing their opinions. This shouldn’t even be a question. Throughout history, artists have been addressing human issues in their work, fulfilling their responsibility to society by attempting to teach and change that society. A few examples can be found in religious texts, abolitionist songs of the suffragists, national anthems of any country, and slam poets of this century. Simply turning on the radio or the television, logging onto the Internet, or looking through your local newspaper will tell you that somebody is shirking their responsibilities. While art that addresses relationships is relevant, art should not be themed so exclusively. Are artists failing us by neglecting to teach and change us? Or are we, the audience, failing the artists? One of my favorite examples is Sheryl Crow’s "Soak Up the Sun." Like "Every Day Is a Winding Road," and "All I Wanna Do," it rejoices in leisurely activities and an easygoing life. There’s nothing wrong with that. Art for entertainment is completely viable. The problem, however, is that most people will never hear her other songs, selections like "Redemption Day," which questions the things we hear and see every day. To read more, see www.slaughterhouse-six.com, Coming June 2003! |
| Are we gonna find Weapons of Mass Destruction? Of course. Do I have the audacity to suggest that even if they weren't there to begin with, we'll find them there to begin with? Heck yeah. Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. A terrible dictator who tortured and murdered a horrendous amount of people. He shouldn't be the leader of any country, let alone a country in the tumultuous middle east. The problem here isn't whether or not Saddam Hussein is one of the bad guys. It's whether or not our administration has been honest with us. As was learned from the Great Clinton Scandal, honesty is important to the American people. But has a new obsession with safety made honesty invalid? I hope not. Let me refresh your memory. Back before the war began, President Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz insisted that Hussein had WMDs and was going to use them - on us, or on the Israelis, or on his own people. => |
 |
| In this section: |
| Sure, freeing the Iraqi people was an issue, but without the possibility of WMDs, pre-war support would have been far less. It's only natural: the threat of WMDs activated Americans' (and Brits') collective fight-or-flight mechanism. And, as you'll hear from every "good ol' boy" in the States, Americans don't "fly" from their enemies. They blow them up. If the strongest argument for war was WMDs, then what do we do now that we aren't finding them? Did our government lie to us? I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me if Hussein -did- have WMDs. He's that bad of a man. Did our government exaggerate? Probably. Is that dishonoest? Definitely. If our administration felt that they had to exaggerate the situation to get approval for a war, what does it say about that war? What does it mean for the families of dead Iraqis and coalition forces? I'm not convinced that the world (or the middle east) is a better or safer place without Hussein in power. After all, we don't even know if he's alive. ~ |
| Also in this issue: |
| Novella Idea 06-12-03 |
| WMDs |
 |