Less than a week into the new quarter, and already I’ve been confronted with the stupidity of Lantern opinion columnists. The opinion page, always ideological, is really outdoing itself this quarter.
First, Daniel Heck blames the U.S. government for creating drought conditions in Afghanistan in his Jan. 9 column, “U.S. seeking justice creates unimaginable atrocities.”
I quote, “(Airdrops of aid have) done little to ameliorate the massive crisis our government’s actions have created.” Heck clearly claims a causal relationship between the American government and the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan.
Contrast this with an earlier quote from his article, in which he makes clear that a crisis existed before American intervention: “Before U.S. airstrikes stopped the flow of aid to Afghanistan, the country was under the threat of famine because of prolonged drought.”
How does Heck reconcile his placement of blame on the United States when he himself blames other factors elsewhere?
Then, Bob Paschen alludes to government impropriety in the Enron fiasco in his Jan. 7 column, “Enron, government caught in conflict of interest.”
Paschen rehashes the now-familiar story of how Enron contributed millions to political campaigns. As he notes, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Attorney General Ashcroft and many others were very close to Enron. However, he leaps to a conclusion that such familiarity must mean the government officials somehow assisted Enron.
May I remind Paschen that Enron, with or without government aid, went bankrupt. If Enron did have special access to the government, such access was apparently not enough, as it failed to prevent bankruptcy.
Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and Commerce Secretary Don Evans both acknowledged calls for help from Enron, and both deny acting on those calls.
Paschen asks the reader to assume impropriety occurred when no such evidence exists.
Furthermore, Paschen uses Aschroft’s recusal from the investigation as evidence of wrongdoing. I suggest Paschen familiarize himself with the process of recusal, as it is done to prevent a conflict of interest.
Later in his column, Paschen discloses his real agenda, revealing that his allegations about Enron were only a means to an ideological end.
Alas, logic is not the chosen weapon of the ideologue, and The Lantern’s opinion page this quarter further illustrates that point.
Kevin Beltsenior history
