What’s hot and what’s not in the world

When I sat down to think about what I wanted to write about for my editorial this week, I was overwhelmed with ideas. (This was lucky, as sometimes I have to struggle to come up with one.) I debated over which one I wanted to write about, struggling to find which event most deserved my attention. Gnashing my teeth in inner conflict, it finally dawned on me: Why don’t I cover them all?

Then as I was writing, I had yet other bright idea. Maybe it was the sleep deprivation talking or the old Top Ten writer in me coming to the surface, but I was inexplicably driven to make a list. Better yet: a what’s hot and what’s not list! So here it comes: my first ever What’s Hot and What’s Not List for World Events.



HOT - The British capture eight suspected terrorists

Wednesday, British police conducted raids on 12 locations, resulting in eight arrests of people suspected to have been planning to kidnap a British Muslim soldier, behead him, and post the video on the Internet. Wow. Not only do these potential kidnappers/murderers score low marks for originality, but evidently for secrecy as well.

While this would have been less of a catastrophe in terms of body counts than another subway bombing, I’m glad British authorities were able take solid preemptive action. Not only did they stop a brutal murder from happening, but they also proved that their counter-terrorism organization is effective and necessary. This is particularly important in light of the fact that the only publicity that U.S. anti-terrorism units can seem to get is when they tap your Uncle Oscar’s phone or find out that you’ve been reading the entire Dune series at the library.



NOT - Hugo Chavez



Initial approval from Venezuela’s Congress was given to what’s being called an “enabling act”, which would allow President Hugo Chavez to rule by decree for a period of 18 months.(By the way, “rule by decree” is just a fancy way of saying Hugo Chavez does whatever he wants with Venezuela for 18 months.)

Not only is Chavez a crazy, crazy man (he once wanted to send cheap heating oil to the poor of New England because he felt they had been left behind by President Bush), but he is also a very socialist man, which means that “enabling” him would spell the end for democracy and free market in Venezuela. The other historical fun fact about “enabling acts” is that while they are usually enacted with a time limit (18 months in this case), this limit tends to get fuzzy and fade away with age (for instance, the Reichstag passed one in 1933 and that ended as well as any enabling act could - in World War II).



HOT - “Bombers” agree to only talk about hair

The two men responsible for setting up the LED pictures of a cartoon character in Boston which prompted a bomb scare Wednesday are being charged with “placing a hoax device in a way that results in panic.”

It seems to me that Boston officials have just realized that they overreacted and are now trying to deflect that fact by throwing the spotlight on these two. Why can’t Boston’s politicians just admit that they screwed up? These devices were set up in nine other cities and none of them freaked out about it.

That point aside, what makes these two great is that during their press conference, they chose to only talk about 1970s hairstyles. Reporters asking them questions became noticeably more aggravated as the two deflected the reporters’ questions of “Why aren’t you taking us seriously?” by returning to their hair discussion, proving that not only are they capable of making the government and city of Boston look like idiots, but the media as well.



NOT - “Scooter” Libby is still in the news

The former Bush staffer currently on trial for obstructing the investigation of the Valerie Plame CIA leak case, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, was in the news again this week, as he got the opportunity to question some journalist or another about some issue important to his defense, or something to that effect. Who cares anymore? The guy got fired from his White House position, what more do you people want?

Sure, I guess if he broke the law, I want him to be convicted, but I don’t want to hear any more about it! Since several journalists involved with the leak are being called as witnesses, other journalists are up in arms about the case because it brings into question the concept of source confidentiality and journalistic integrity. I have a feeling that the only reason this is making news any more is because the media wants us to feel passionately about it too.

Sorry. We’re not.