- The Washington Times - Friday, December 27, 2002

I'm not reading about Time magazine's "persons" of the year. Nothing against chosen "persons" Cynthia Cooper, Sherron Watkins and Coleen Rowley "women who took huge risks to blow the whistle on what went wrong at Worldcom, Enron, and the FBI." And nothing against their having been cover-styled into promotional poses easily taken for running characters on "The Practice." The fact is, at this fraught and final hiccup of the year, retrospection is hard enough without trying to force the past 12 months through the narrow-gauge grinder by which Time has improbably designated 2002 "the year of the whistleblower."
That's not to say I wouldn't want to have seen the selection process where these gals were chosen. (And where Ms. Rowley's male counterpart, FBI agent Kenneth Williams, was eliminated, probably for excessive y-chromosomes.) After all, it's not every day you get to see grown editors render news judgments by crossing their eyes, holding their breath and balancing on one leg. Which has to be what it took for Time's honchos to convince themselves that 2002the year of the run-up to probable war, and a historic Republican electoral triumphwas not the year of George W. Bush and his consolidation of political power.
It's not worth wasting too many question marks over Time's choice. The journalistic cocktail of implicit feminism and explicit corporate greed, with an FBI agent for political cover, was obviously intoxicating. More pressing questions linger at year's end, ones without easy answersor answers at all. Worse still are the questions that aren't even being asked. What follows, in no particular order, are a few of my own.
1) Why is there still no Manhattan-Project-style effort underway to develop non-oil-based fuel sources? Personally, I have no problem with more, better, cleaner drilling for domestic oil, but that's not only a nonstarter, it remains a stop-gap strategy. We need something elseand not just windmills off Cape Cod, or solar panels amid the redwoods. What's required is a big fat brain trust. Successful or not, the project's a winner: Either it stanches the flow of money and power from the Western world to OPEC, reducing threats of global blackmail; or, at least, it shakes cartel confidence.
2) When was the concept of a Palestinian state transformed from the sparking third rail of politics into a seemingly non-negotiable plank of every political party? Could it have been when the Palestinian Authority dismantled the terrorist infrastructure? (Didn't happen.) Ended its official incitement to violence? (Didn't happen.) Elected new leaders not compromised by terror? (Didn't happen.) Built a democracy based on tolerance and liberty? (Hah.) All of the above are conditions set down by President Bush 26 weeks ago to warrant American support for a Palestinian state (see the Zionist Organization of America's weekly rundown of Palestinian Arab non-compliance at www.zoa.org). Why, despite the appalling breach, do we continue to talk of statehood in terms of ever-more-detailed "roadmaps" and timetables?
3) Why isn't the potentially revolutionary (counter-revolutionary?) student movement in Iran getting the attention it deserves? National security expert and author Michael Ledeen calls the growing Iranian student movement "the biggest story in the world." In their demands for a secular, democratic government, the students could very well be the key to change in the Middle East. Shockingly, their non-violent efforts to break the Islamofascist mullah-ocracywhich now include pro-Western statements against "the promoters of antisemitism and terrorism"are relegated to the odd article or wire-service brief. Meanwhile, US government broadcasts into Iran have been "upgraded" from once-substantive news programming to a vacuous pop music format. Go figure.
4) Is there a link between the administration's letdown of a decision to allow North Korean Scud missiles into the Persian Gulf region via Somalia and North Korea's most recent round of nuclear-based threats?
5) And when will the mainstream media decide to reveal Democratic Sen. Patty Murray's mindboggling remarks on Osama bin Laden's nation-building efforts? (Taliban Online, which, according to worldnetdaily.com, picked up the story, doesn't count.)
6) Finally, what of Jane Fonda and Sean Penn? As the celebri-mats hit the latest political hot spots, trailing strings of reporters, it might behoove us to decide which one better represents America. Is it 42-year-old Mr. Penn? In declaring Saddam Hussein in compliance of whatever, he warned: "It's very possible that we are facing the first century that will complete itself without mankindand that's not the future I want for my children."
Or is it Ms. Fonda? While touring Israel this week with playwright Eve "Vagina Monologues" Ensler, the 64-year-old actress-activist mentioned several earlier trips to the Holy Land, adding, "But I never thought I'd come here as a soldier in the Vagina Army."
The choice is clear: Some questions are best left unaswered.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide