Knocked sideways by public anger at the government's inept response to Hurricane Katrina, President Bush delivered a televised speech promising the moon to Gulf Coast residents left homeless and jobless by the storm. He added heartening words about the role of racism in the region's enduring poverty.
Backlit by temporary spotlights flown to New Orleans, Bush vowed to spare no expense in what he called 'one of the largest reconstruction efforts the world has ever seen.' He added that 'federal funds will cover the great majority of the costs of repairing public infrastructure in the disaster zone.' Costs are estimated at $200 billion, very roughly what the United States expects to spend in Iraq this year.
And here's the beauty part: In the short run, those billions will come mostly from the governments of China and Saudi Arabia in the form of Treasury Bond purchases. Eventually, of course, the debt must be repaid with interest, but not while Bush is president. Sweet.
Pressed by reporters for a ballpark estimate, the president shrugged. Rebuilding after Katrina, he said, would 'cost whatever it costs.' He vowed not to raise taxes. Unspecified and improbable spending cuts will supposedly make up the difference.
Since Bush took office in 2001, government spending has risen almost by a third, from $1.86 trillion to $2.48 trillion, Newsweek reports. He has never vetoed a spending bill. In recently signing a $286.4 billion, pork-laden transportation bill--$250 million to build a bridge from a town of 8,000 to an island of 50 in a powerful Alaska congressman's district, for example--Bush praised himself for doing it the 'fiscally responsible way.' Instead of raising taxes, he'd borrowed the money.
Bush 'conservatism,' see, is grasshopper conservatism. Party today, let the ants pay the caterer another day. Meanwhile, two little-known millionaire-only tax cuts enacted in 2001 will take effect next year. By removing ceilings on personal exemptions and itemized deductions, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculates they reduce income taxes for the top two-tenths of 1 percent of Americans $20,000 each. The five-year budget cost is $35 billion"

Sept. 29 (Bloomberg) -- Back in the days when President
George W. Bush preferred his endless summer at the ranch to
storm chasing, few mistakes stuck to him. He was like the guy
who drove through the car wash with his top down but never got
wet.
No weapons of mass destruction in a country we're stuck in?
Well, you must understand, he really thought they were there. At
this year's White House Correspondents' Association dinner, Bush
showed a video of himself pretending to look for the weapons
under his desk.
Oh what a difference a hurricane makes. Katrina exposed
something we couldn't know before: Bush's claim that he would
keep us safer than that wishy-washy senator from squishy
Massachusetts is false. Not only are we not safer than we were
before Bush took office, we're worse off.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as its Katrina
response made tragically clear, is a mess. The Department of
Homeland Security, which Bush built from scratch, is mainly
known for a color chart, wasteful spending, a mixed bag of
airport screeners and a new chief who didn't know the New
Orleans Superdome was filled with starving, homeless hurricane
victims."

State News
Fredrick Paul
Opinion Section

It's summer and I'm enjoying the heat as any person would. After looking in my closet, I decide to wear some jeans and one of my tank tops. It's nice out, so I walk to class instead of catching the bus.

As I look around, I forget I am on campus because I see a girl who has left half of her clothes at home. It is ridiculous that people think they can dress like they're going to the beach. If you are that hot then you need to go to the doctor and get checked out.

I know we don't have a dress code at MSU but, ladies, we should have enough respect for ourselves to know when something is a little too revealing - especially for class. Unless you are trying to convince your math teacher to give you a 4.0 for showing off your body.
I understand that sometimes you want to look your best because you might have your eye on someone or you want to be noticed. But, trust me, showing someone everything your mama gave you is not the way. Most of the attention will not be for your personality.
Anytime I am talking to one of my male friends they complain about how there are no dateable girls here because of the way they dress.

No guy wants his girl walking around like she's for sale. So, why try and start a relationship like that? When a girl walks around campus half-dressed she is crying for attention. However, a lot of that attention will end up being the wrong kind

Continued: http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=31950

January 2003 - We live in changing times. Significant political and economic developments and innovations in the field of communication technology towards the end of 20th century have left deep impact on many of our institutions. Globalization has given a new dimension to the capitalist economy, has altered the power and functions of the nation-state and created a global village. These events have provoked a polemical debate on democracy, the nation-state, citizenship and the role and function of media.

Within the above framework this article attempts to look at concepts such as citizenship, the role of communication in democracy, the need for democratization of media, changing priorities of the media and a new paradigm of a communication system to facilitate enlightened citizenship.

The concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology explains citizenship. "In political and legal theory, citizenship refers to the rights and duties of the member of a nation-state or city. In some historical contexts, a citizen was any member of a city; that is, an urban collectivity which was relatively immune from the demands of a monarch of state. In classical Greece, citizenship was limited to free men, who had a right to participate in political debate because they contributed, often through military service, to the direct support of the city-state. It is argued by historians that citizenship has thus expanded with democratization to include a wider definition of the citizen regardless of sex, age, or ethnicity. The concept was revived in the context of the modern state, notably during the French and American Revolutions, and gradually identified more with rights than obligations. In modern times citizenship refers conventionally to the various organizations which institutionalize these rights in the welfare state."

January 2003 - We live in changing times. Significant political and economic developments and innovations in the field of communication technology towards the end of 20th century have left deep impact on many of our institutions. Globalization has given a new dimension to the capitalist economy, has altered the power and functions of the nation-state and created a global village. These events have provoked a polemical debate on democracy, the nation-state, citizenship and the role and function of media.

Within the above framework this article attempts to look at concepts such as citizenship, the role of communication in democracy, the need for democratization of media, changing priorities of the media and a new paradigm of a communication system to facilitate enlightened citizenship.

The concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology explains citizenship. "In political and legal theory, citizenship refers to the rights and duties of the member of a nation-state or city. In some historical contexts, a citizen was any member of a city; that is, an urban collectivity which was relatively immune from the demands of a monarch of state. In classical Greece, citizenship was limited to free men, who had a right to participate in political debate because they contributed, often through military service, to the direct support of the city-state. It is argued by historians that citizenship has thus expanded with democratization to include a wider definition of the citizen regardless of sex, age, or ethnicity. The concept was revived in the context of the modern state, notably during the French and American Revolutions, and gradually identified more with rights than obligations. In modern times citizenship refers conventionally to the various organizations which institutionalize these rights in the welfare state."

January 2003 - We live in changing times. Significant political and economic developments and innovations in the field of communication technology towards the end of 20th century have left deep impact on many of our institutions. Globalization has given a new dimension to the capitalist economy, has altered the power and functions of the nation-state and created a global village. These events have provoked a polemical debate on democracy, the nation-state, citizenship and the role and function of media.

Within the above framework this article attempts to look at concepts such as citizenship, the role of communication in democracy, the need for democratization of media, changing priorities of the media and a new paradigm of a communication system to facilitate enlightened citizenship.

The concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology explains citizenship. "In political and legal theory, citizenship refers to the rights and duties of the member of a nation-state or city. In some historical contexts, a citizen was any member of a city; that is, an urban collectivity which was relatively immune from the demands of a monarch of state. In classical Greece, citizenship was limited to free men, who had a right to participate in political debate because they contributed, often through military service, to the direct support of the city-state. It is argued by historians that citizenship has thus expanded with democratization to include a wider definition of the citizen regardless of sex, age, or ethnicity. The concept was revived in the context of the modern state, notably during the French and American Revolutions, and gradually identified more with rights than obligations. In modern times citizenship refers conventionally to the various organizations which institutionalize these rights in the welfare state."

Molly Ivins: "AUSTIN, Texas — So here are all the liberals going into a giant snit just because President Bush appointed a veterinarian to head the women’s health section of the Food and Drug Administration. For Pete’s sake, you whiners, the only reason he chose the vet is because Michael Brown wasn’t available.
If you recall, Ol’ Heckuva-Job Brownie had to go home, walk his dog and then hug his wife after exhausting himself in his triumphal handling of Hurricane Katrina. Otherwise, he’d have been Bush’s first pick.
Now, even the veterinarian doesn’t get the job — just because those professional feminists raised such a stink. What’s wrong with a vet? They know a lot about birth and udders and stuff. If the mother is having trouble giving birth, you grab the baby by the legs and pull it out — it’s not brain surgery. Then you worm ’em, you tag ’em and you spray for fleas. Why the fuss?
The only reason Bush even needed a new head of the Office of Women’s Health is because the last one, Susan Wood, quit. She was upset because the political hacks who run the agency refused to allow over-the-counter sale of the emergency contraceptive pill Plan B.
True, that decision was made against the advice of the FDA’s own scientific advisory panel and will unquestionably result in more abortions and almost certainly damage to some women’s health. But why would anyone expect the Bush hacks to pay attention to scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and recommended by the professional staff? Just like the folks at FEMA, they got their jobs because they know how to set up photo-ops for Bush.
There’s a doctoral dissertation to be written about Bush appointees named during the administration’s frequent fits of Petulant Pique. These PP appointments are made in the immortal childhood spirit of “nanny-nanny boo-boo, I’ll show you.” Wood resigns in protest over the politicization of women’s health care? Ha! We’ll show her — we’ll put a vet in charge, instead.
The PP appointments are less for reasons of ideology or even rewarding the politically faithful than just in the old nyeh-nyeh spirit.
You could, for example, put any number of people at the Department of Labor who are wholly unsympathetic to the labor movement — Bush has installed shoals of them already. But there is a certain arch, flippant malice to making Edwin Foulke assistant secretary in charge of the health and safety of workers.
Republican appointees who oppose the agencies to which they are assigned are a dime a dozen, but Foulke is a partner from the most notorious union-busting law firm in the country. What he does for a living is destroy the only organizations that care about workers’ health and safety.
Here’s another PP pick: put a timber industry lobbyist in as head of the Forest Service. How about a mining industry lobbyist who believes public lands are unconstitutional in charge of the public lands? Nice shot. A utility lobbyist who represented the worst air polluters in the country as head of the clean air division at the EPA? A laff riot. As head of the Superfund, a woman whose last job was teaching corporate polluters how to evade Superfund regulations? Cute, cute, cute. A Monsanto lobbyist as No. 2 at the EPA."